Assembly - Regular Meeting

oh there she is we're good okay good i'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order it is 6 p.m this is a regular assembly meeting for tuesday september 1st 2026. madam clerk will you please call the roll i will michael bowles here stephanie nowers here d mckee yep maxwell sumner

President and accountant for.

Bill Campbell.

Here.

Dimitri Bonoff.

Here.

Ron Bernier.

Present. I'm ready.

Madam Mayor, you have a quorum. Okay. Is there anything any members would like to pull from the consent agenda? Anything that anybody wants to pull from the consent agenda? Assemblyperson Bowles and then Gamble thank you madam mayor I move to remove am 26-120 from the agenda to come back on the September 15 agenda I'm sorry what was that date that it's returning it was to remove am 26 120

that's on page six of the agenda to be taken off this agenda but come back on September 15th.

Any other items? Oh yes, Assemblyperson Campbell.

I didn't know we could do that, but I'd like to do the same thing. I'd like to pull rs2 6-0 8 2 and Bring it back on the 15th of September Was there objection and on the am 26 120 Okay, assembly person gamble, can you restate please I Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to pull Resolution 26-082 and revisit it at the September 15th meeting.

Any objections from the new assembly? Did everybody hear Assemblyperson Gamble's request? Don't hear any objection, ma'am. Anybody else? Assemblyperson McKee? Turn your mics on, please.

Which one is it about the... Oh, there it is. And it's not on the consent agenda, so no, never mind. Sorry about that. I'm done.

Is there anything any other If I could pull sorry ordinance 26-0 9 9 and resolution 26-0 8 0 from the agenda Is there objection by the Assembly can repeat the number please I 26-099 under public hearings.

Any objection?

Do you have an objection, sir, or a new item? I wanted to know the reason why it's pulled and maybe.

Okay.

Assemblyperson Mauer? was a discussion with academy charter about it and it was agreed to the money should go back to academy maybe i'll phone a friend to the manager if he can explain the the money routing through the mayor it was originally intended to allow us to move the project forward with design elements by front loading the funding while we sold bonds it's no longer needed and so

We had a conversation with the Academy administration, the school district, and don't see a need to move this legislation forward. Oh, yeah, thank you.

Is there any further objection, or is your objection removed?

It wasn't an objection, it was just a question, but I'm satisfied with that answer.

Any other items? Yes, Assemblyperson Sumner.

AM 26-123 in the consent agenda.

you moving to pull it off the agenda or off the consent agenda just pull off the consent agenda okay or separate it and you said one two three or one two two i'm sorry one two three thank you and the objection no it's he's just pulling it off the consent agenda madam mayor okay assembly person mckee uh under action memorandums am 26-119 And you are also just pulling it off the consent agenda, correct? Yeah, just the consent agenda.

Okay, any other items from any of the assembly people?

Assemblyperson McKee, do you have another or turn off your mic? Nick, please.

Assemblyperson McKee, are you looking for another one or no? Okay. All right. Anything else regarding changes in the agenda? Okay. Hearing none, then the agenda has been approved, is presented, and changed. We do have a proclamation. I'm not sure. Kid? Kennedy, are you here for the proclamation? We have a proclamation for calling September as pain awareness month. And we did have a request. But she is not here this evening. So I reached out to her and I haven't heard from her. So I'll wait and see, since it's for the whole month, I'll wait and see maybe if she will come to another meeting where we can present it to her specifically. Okay. So then the next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. Assemblyperson Fama, will you lead us in the pledge, please?

I'll be glad to. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

The next item on our agenda is minutes of preceding meetings. We have the regular meeting minutes from the 21st of July, the regular meeting minutes from the 4th of August. Are there any changes to these minutes as presented by the assembly? Okay, hearing and seeing none and the minutes have been approved as presented. The next is agency reports. Do we have a report from the city? Good evening, Mayor and Assembly.

Crystal Nygaard, Deputy Administrator with the City of Wasilla. I thought we'd just give you a quick update what we're doing. I'm sure it's no surprise. We are open to business, and there's a lot of business moving in over there, a lot of construction happening. We did receive notification from FAA to extend our runway to 5,100 feet, so that's moving along quite nice. We're in the middle of a $12 million expansion for Taxiway K. That's about 26 acres for our economic development. We've got another three million dollars in an appropriation that's coming from DC that's specific to the extension of the runway and we are procuring property that will make that take it out to 6,000 feet. Our runways are open again but we are doing some construction out there so expect one probably one week of closure this month. We still do not support a sales tax of any kind. We did pass legislation in support of the projects that were on the MPO list and that passed the last time we had our council meeting. There's quite a bit of paving going on in Wasilla right now and that will continue probably till the middle of this month. And the road closure on Herman is for the extension of the water lines that are going up there by Sun Mountain. So we appreciate all you guys coming to visit our city and we'll try to do more updates more frequently. Thank you.

I don't see anybody from Palmer or Houston. Okay. I have a report from the school board, or school district. A week from tonight in the assembly chambers here, there will be a joint meeting with the school board and the assembly, and it's at six o'clock. Of course, it's a public meeting, so that's a week from tonight. There has been, oh, state of Alaska, I don't see Todd. Okay. We have several people from the state of Alaska. I don't know if they want to give a report or not. I don't see anybody rushing to the mic, so thank you. I understand there was a meeting of the joint assembly and school board. There were two assembly people there. Would either one of them like to say anything?

I must say I've been gone for about four or five days and I was waiting to get that packet from the charts and things. So Steph, you got it?

A lot of the discussion was about where enrollment sits for the year. And so as of, I think August 24th, they said they were about 500 kids under projection. but they'd already come up by about 200 i believe so they expect to to get closer to what they projected and we'll just have to kind of wait and see where those are and then there was some discussion about where the students are going you know correspondence um the sort of brick and mortar neighborhood school whatever you want to call it and then kids outside the district and i think there was discussion about access for the different schools american charter and academy charter and then some discussion of ranking out of u.s news and world report that the schools did fairly well in so there was discussion of that but i think we'll especially be getting into those at the meeting you mentioned next week for discussion okay

Are there any public relations reports? Anyway, I think probably all of you know, as well as the public, today was of our new landfill site. And from the conversations, it sounds like there may be some bugs that are going, challenges out there. So we'll see how it goes in the next couple of days. And then I think you probably all saw that NOVA's refining equipment is on its way from Seattle They did tell us just a few minutes before the meeting that instead of the barge arriving on the seventh, it's gonna arrive on the sixth. And so it's pretty amazing. It's getting so excited out there. So anybody else have any other public relations reports? Okay, Mr. Brown, your report, sir.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do have a few updates tonight, so bear with me. I'll try to move quickly. So if I'm moving too fast, slow me down if you have a question. So real quick, I wanted to start with the Barks Committee, which is to review kennel standards. That first meeting is now, or will be scheduled, and it's coming up September 17th. So just to let the Assembly and the public know that that is moving forward. The other thing I wanted to just kind of highlight, and I really just wanted to take a second to give a couple of our first responders by name recognition. I don't do this very often, but when they volunteer, to go support a fire in another community. I think that's admirable for sure. And so I just want to mention some folks that were part of that task force that went up to support the Muckluck fire in the Toke area. So Kirk Gibbs, Mike McCabe, Phillip Goss, Louis Cates, Dylan Miller, Haley Mitchell, Brent Wood, and Jake Boothby. And I remember, I'll just share this quick story. I remember getting an update. I got a text message from Ken Barkley one Saturday. i remember sitting there reading it and you kind of like you know you know they go you don't necessarily know what they were doing but they were put on a detail to basically protect homes and without going into detail they were the task force leader was giving details some of the details around what they were doing to protect this private residence and so you know i'm sitting in the comfort of my home reading about this update right and i just remember it just struck me like these guys are out there doing that kind of work to protect people's homes. Like, it is remarkable. And they don't just do it for our community every day, day in, day out. They're willing to go north and do it for someone else. And so I just wanted to pause for a moment and just say, wanted to recognize these folks by name and really just say thanks for all they do here in our community and elsewhere. Like, just really struck me that night to read through it and was like, it makes a difference. It really makes a difference. And so I just wanted to take a minute and appreciate them. So now I'll move in. Got the presentation up, so we'll rock and roll. Like I said, I'm gonna keep moving. So if you recall back in, and I'll just advance forward here a little bit. If you recall, we had a public safety meeting back in August of last year. It's been about a year. And so I wanted to provide an update on a couple of tasks that I was given by the assembly to research this idea of potentially developing a regional dispatch facility or an E911 facility and a facility to support the Alaska state trooper operations in the valley. I wrote a needs statement up there to just kind of like talk a little bit about what are the benefits of having a facility like this. And of course, some of that coordination, we've got Austin Daniels, Major Gorn, and Captain Chan in the back that agreed to join this evening. And we've been coordinating together on this idea over the past year. But I would just say it with this. There is currently no permanent Alaska State Trooper hub in the Mat-Su, which for the second largest municipality in the state of Alaska, some folks ought to find that kind of astonishing. They are currently distributed across six leased facilities that were not designed to support law enforcement functions. So if somebody's like, why would the borough have this conversation? That's the answer. And so this idea is to leverage an existing plan to develop a new fire station at the corner of Tate and Bogart. And so that plan has been in the works for Central Matsu Fire Department for a number of years. The idea of consolidating Station 5-2 with Station 6-5 into a facility that provides a better location, better access, and sleeping quarters so that we can improve staffing in the facility to reduce response times. That's what we're trying to do. So along with that, we had this conversation around, you know, if you're gonna go in and do that, there is an economy of scale to construction and leveraging one project to benefit another. The current, so this idea of kind of co-locating to create this operational platform, and I'll start just with a quick overview of the regional dispatch. The idea is, you know, right now, MACOM, which is the city of Wasilla, supports the borough's call-taking and dispatching functions for E911, and we do that through a contract. And they're in a facility. It sort of works. Like, I'm not going to set up here and be critical of it. But what we're looking at is what does the future look like how do we get into a facility that has a little bit more capacity than the existing facility and is also a little more modernized than the facility they're in i'll say this the facility they're in was a facility that public safety has already left and moved to a new facility and dispatchers and call takers are still in that facility so that tells me something right there and down the road when you look at this they're performing the dispatch functions for us the regional dispatch functions are a borough responsibility because we are the regional government right it's not necessarily the cities i i think we enjoy our contractual relationship with the city and they're doing great workforce i don't have any challenge or concern with that what i am looking at is how do we posture ourselves with term in terms of infrastructure to be ready for the future and that's what this proposal is about so right now i just thought it would be that bottom left bullet talking about the number of e911 calls and annual calls overall that we receive annually like i think those numbers would probably some of you would be like wow i had no idea we were moving 100 000 calls a year but that's the volume of the work that they're doing so what I want to be clear is because there's been some I think probably some concern out there maybe by some this is not the borough proposing to assume day-to-day operations or staffing for these facilities this is the borough stepping in and trying to leverage another project to build for the future right and provide that facility because it supports regional needs not just city operations so the idea here is having a purpose-built facility for regional dispatch operations roughly five million dollars it would be a general estimate and some of that will have to be ferreted out during design and it would be done as an annex to station 5-2 so we would leverage the footprint of the fire station to build the dispatch facility because there's cost savings in that And I'm looking out to Crystal when I make the statement. I believe the City Council will be considering signing on to a memorandum of agreement with the borough on September 14th at the City Council meeting. And so we're not moving forward with this in earnest until we have an agreement with Wasilla that this is something that they are interested in as well. And the administration over there has agreed to bring this to the City Council for their consideration. So this gives you your heads up that that's coming. As far as the trooper facility goes, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a 16,000 square foot facility, roughly $8 million, and Cole's probably back there shaking in his boots because he probably would like to see that estimate be a little bit higher. That puts us in the ballpark. We'll see if we're able to get there and what that looks like exactly. But the idea is that basically we would have a 20 year initial lease and the borough's role would be to develop the project. I think we're in a better position to do that than the state of Alaska is for many reasons and I won't sit up here and get into the goings on in Juneau that probably wouldn't make that something easy for the state to accomplish. But I think the borough could step in and The key here is we would build it, lease it, and there's a term sheet that's included with the legislation online for the public to view that talks about what those general terms are. The idea is to treat it like an investment. And so when Cheyenne and I talked about this, You know, we were like, this isn't your average mortgage or a loan necessarily. Like, if we can realize the same rate of return as we would on a 20-year investment that we program now, then that seems like a reasonable thing. So when we ran the numbers and looked at it, We're in the ballpark of what the troopers are paying annually for six leased facilities. And the idea is we can make this investment, get the rate of return, get paid back, and still own a facility when it's all said and done instead of paying somebody else for facilities that weren't built for law enforcement and there's no end in sight for payment. And so we're somewhere, I think, roughly around half a million dollars a year that's just going out the door into these six leased facilities with no end in sight so this is i would argue for those that maybe in juneau question what the borough's doing to kind of stand up on its own and support public safety i would say this is an example of how we could stand in and do something that fits within what a second class borough has the authorities to do and supports public safety for our region now having said all that I will end with this so the resolution basically says it doesn't basically it says it directs me to go complete a proposal for assembly consideration for a facility because I don't want to spend time and effort getting hopes up that we're going to do this if the assembly is not in and now having said that there would still be three assembly approvals forthcoming even assuming that you approve this resolution tonight. We will need to go out and negotiate a lease agreement with the state of Alaska, because obviously we're not gonna commit to spending any money to build anything unless we know we have a 20 year lease agreement. So that's condition number one. So we need to go do that work, but I need to make sure I have the authority to go do that work and I'm not out of line with what you all expect of me. Secondly, this is probably even the harder one than negotiating a lease with the state of Alaska is that I gotta we gotta find the funding in the FY28 budget and I will tell you that is going to be hard to do but if we can do it if we can get there then that money would be available we would do this without taking on any debt and we would do this with a rate of return over 20 years that is a reasonable investment uh... and so that's those are the next two steps is get the agreement in place between now and uh... spring budget cycle go through the street spring budget cycle see if that appropriations in there and if it works for both the five million dollars for regional dispatch in the eight million dollars for state trooper facility and then at that point the assembly would still have to prove the contracts for design and construction of the facility so by no means does this resolution put us on a path that can't be halted or stopped uh... it just gives me the go ahead to go out, have these conversations and see if we can reach an agreement with the state of Alaska, come up with a reasonable budget proposal in the spring to then bring those things back to you for your consideration. So that's resolution 26089. I don't have anything further unless there are any questions of me.

Deputy Mayor, go ahead.

So are we talking a total of 24,000 square foot facility?

yeah great question through the mayor so what it would be is the annex to station 5-2 would be the regional dispatch so they would still be two separate standalone facilities so we would build the regional dispatch facility as an annex to the existing fire station the state trooper facility would be next door to on the same parcel or on the same property but its own separate standalone facility and there's a reason for that because the way the term sheet was developed it is possible for the state of Alaska to own that building when it's all said and done if they want, right? Because it's DPS. So the idea is to create that pathway for the state should they choose to own the facility. And so therefore, we wanted to have them as two separate facilities, but on the same property. Okay, thank you.

Any other, yes, Assemblyperson Gamble and then Fauna.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mike, so I take it that the Central Matsu Fire Service, Fire Service Area Board, and DPS is all on board with this?

So, through the Mayor, I haven't specifically asked for a resolution of support from the FSA. The FSA will only be obligated to pay for things that are related to fire service, right? These other appropriations, if you will, would be area-wide appropriations.

question on you said the funding and getting through the state and if the state is not are we able to there's other paths to getting the funding or where state would be actually funding the project where that's the money how does that works I guess yeah thanks for the question through the mayor to mr. Fanoff the funding is actually borough funding I think the the state if they could get the funding would build this facility for themselves I don't think there's a lot of support in Juneau

at the legislature, in the legislature, I'll be specific, to support a state trooper facility in the Mat-Su. I'll be honest with you, based on intent language I've seen in the past, their preference would be Mat-Su just takes over law enforcement and they draw down a trooper presence. I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been said publicly already. So therefore, I don't think there's a lot of support for the state providing funding to build the facility. So what we're stepping in and saying is if we can come up with that funding and do it through a lease agreement, we can get paid back over time as an investment or in generally the same rate of return as of an investment, but have a hard piece of infrastructure that supports public safety in the Mat-Su. Because I don't think Juneau will support that. We could certainly put it in our legislative priorities and ask for a capital appropriation. I just think based on what we've seen from the legislature in the recent past, I wouldn't expect a lot of support for that.

Any further question? Assemblyperson Nowers?

Thank you. First of all, I love having the troopers in Palmer, so that makes me partial against this a little bit, but a new building would be nice. I know how old that building is. I wondered if the trooper representative might be able to speak to something I think the public might be interested in, which is if you have six facilities, your troopers are kind of spread out. If you consolidate to one, How does that affect those areas that might have had troopers placed throughout the borough? How does that align with where your increasing call volume is going? Are a lot of your calls going up? Can it goose bay? north of Meadowlake, so you've got faster response times. But I just wonder on consolidating facilities, I can see advantages of it, but I could also see disadvantages if you don't have stage troopers in different places around the borough and we're such a big borough. And tell me you don't wanna leave Palmer.

could turn the mic on too and then you can just leave it on thank you good evening assembly

To answer your question, yes, we are spread out over several, not several, about six different locations. And they don't all house traditional blue shirt response type troopers. They're specialty units with drug units and specialty units within investigations. Modern troopers don't. operate out of we don't have to go back to post all the time now to write reports right policing has advanced and evolved and the ability to have communication with all the parts and pieces that you need under one roof is a financially responsible b improves communication And C brings us to the current age of policing. Troopers spend a lot of time in vehicles. Their offices are now their vehicles. So to think that someone needs to, there needs to be a whole bunch of satellite offices, I think is largely outdated and extremely inefficient. Did I answer your question?

yeah and then the other part yes it does the other thing i was just kind of curious about is where you're seeing the call volumes i think we've had kind of reports in the past and i think the public is kind of would be interested in that like um you know generally the the bulk of your calls are they one direction or other from this facility uh if we if we're able to build it

I don't have a map with me, but I'm pretty confident in saying that I'm the past commander in B Detachment, and Captain Chan is the current, and if we had to put a dot on a map on where to put a trooper post, it's within about a half a mile of where this is proposed. It's pretty center.

Thank you. Even though I'd hate to lose you in Palmer, I'd love to see you have a new facility, so. Understood. Yeah, appreciate that. And then I just had one question. maybe both of you could answer but Bogart is already a bad traffic zone so in planning this out can we make sure or is it already part of the plans to talk about maybe having a stoplight there at because Tate's already dangerous intercept you got a curve I'm just thinking about emergency traffic going out is that already part of the eight million five million plan would that be a state portion Is it already part of the planning? Can we make that part of the discussions to have that kind of figured out before we build the facility and how we're going to pay for it?

Go ahead, sir.

So through the mayor, I believe that segment of Bogart is state. I'm looking at Cole for confirmation, I got that. So as part of any design process, we have to do a traffic impact analysis and we have to submit for essentially a driveway permit to DOT. That's what we go through with schools and anything else that we do. It's hard to know exactly what might be required. I can't imagine that what we're talking about there in my non-engineer brain would warrant a traffic signal, but that analysis would have to be done in advance. The challenge is we're not there yet, because I'm just trying to make sure we have your buy-in before we start talking about spending money on a design or anything like that. So we certainly would have to look at that. I don't know that you would see traffic generation on a large scale based on the size of these two facilities, but certainly access would be a consideration.

Just any feedback on that in terms of access in and out and things that are important for the troopers for that?

Yeah, I agree some type of impact would need to be looked at for traffic flow, et cetera. I mean, right now we are in the middle of a city and we've been making that work for 40 years. So I have to believe we can make Bogard Road work as well.

Assembly person Bowe?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I'm just thinking about this. I know it's different than the Alaska Crime Lab in Anchorage. But my understanding is when the Alaska Crime Lab was built or refurbished in 2012, it greatly increased communication, accessibility, and efficiency for police, APD, troopers. And if that's the case, is this comparable, this thought this build um is is that being considered you know what anchorage did and and the process they did as far as leasing that space to the state and coming to an agreement that way because that could be a great partnership and i think that it would be beneficial

So, as Austin comes forward. I'm gonna pass this to DC McDaniels. Yeah, that's fair. You know, through the merit of Mr. Bowles, as I delay for a moment as they come forward, I definitely wanna defer to the troopers in terms of how they deploy themselves operationally, right? But what we're talking about here is how do we make sure they have the infrastructure to do what they wanna do here in the Valley? And when I look at like Tudor Road and the DPS's facility, and I see the growth of the Mat-Su, like at some point, we've had this discussion for years, around the appropriate movement of state agencies to within the borough. I mean, we had this debate for years about DOT and all the engineers living in the building down by the airport and going, they live out here, why don't our traffic engineers and design engineers and construction managers live in, why don't they work in the Mat-Su where they live, right? i think this is to some degree on par with that you know and back in the day when the state was still growing and and doing things and the oil revenue was flowing like i don't think it was that hard for some of those things to be built out in other municipalities we're not enjoying the same conditions that they did yet we continue to grow and we're not necessarily seeing some of that move from anchorage for example to the mat-su and they're Our specialty capabilities that they have that just as an administrator, I look at and go, shouldn't some of that be deployed out here? I mean, I can't make that call. But if they have the infrastructure, I think it postures for that type of the evolution of that over time as the needs of all.

So I'm in agreement. I think co-location is a good thing. I mean, you and I were both in the Army, so I think we think alike there, and very supportive troopers, and so I see this as a good thing. I'm just thinking about the crime lab, and I remember it was funded by the state, but it was leased land from Anchorage as an agreement. And I don't know if that's an avenue or not. I would love to see this happen because we do need a larger trooper presence. That's one of the concerns out in District 1 is sometimes people call for a trooper and they either can't get there because there's a priority somewhere else or they might take an hour or two down Kinnick River Road or up in Sutton, Chickaloon. So I think co-location is a great thing.

Yeah, thank you. For the record, Austin McDaniel. I'm the deputy commissioner for the Alaska Department of Public Safety. So I wasn't directly involved in the negotiations that occurred for the state crime lab, which I know is on city land. It's leased back to the state. I think it's also important to note that the Anchorage Police Department's forensics capabilities are also housed in that same facility. So there's some... synergy there between those two groups. What I would say is right now out here in the Mat-Su borough, we have three patrol squad rooms spread across the borough. We have three investigative squad rooms across the borough. We have evidence between four or five different facilities. All of that is a challenge in and of itself. And on top of that, our current office in Palmer, we got our walking papers there. And as Mr. Brown pointed out, we're not seeing additional funding from the legislature for our presence out here. So we're at the point now between the growing costs for everything that we do all over the state, not just here, growing dispatch contract costs, growing lease costs for all of these facilities of having to start making difficult decisions of do we need to start pulling personnel services line to pay for these services that we have to have to have a presence in an area? of looking at the other large second-class boroughs we also have presence in, thinking the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, we have consolidated facilities in both of those areas, which has the wildlife troopers Major crime investigations, state trooper operations, command staff are all co-located to ensure that we're making the best use of our resources. Right now having multiple squad rooms and multiple facilities because we just can't find a facility to lease that exists to do that today. is definitely not a good use of our resources, which, you know, is all of our resources. And we're getting to the point now where we're not sure, you know, we don't have a lot of good backup options for a new Palmer post after we're moved out of the building that we're currently in in a few years. I hope that answers your questions. I can get more specifics on that agreement we had at the time for you, Assemblyman.

Okay. Deputy Mayor.

I just wanted to thank you for your guys' service. You got support from District 7. Go blue.

Anything else, sir?

think that's all for this report if I could leave you with one like sound bite about this like when I think about this this is a way to because you kind of listen to them talk about how they manage the resources and the distribution across these facilities with a lease right we just went through we've been going through this with charter schools and trying to figure out how to get them into permanent facilities this helps to create an anchor for the Alaska State Troopers in the Mat-Su That's what this is about. So I think that's it. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining. And then I'm gonna invite Cole Branham up for the next update, Mayor, if that's okay?

Okay, sure.

And then just for the record, that resolution's on the consent agenda, right, tonight. So again, there'll be at least three or more approvals moving forward. Sure, we can pause. So Cole will tee up.

All right. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the Assembly. My name is Cole Branham. I'm the Project Management Division Manager. And I'm going to give you guys an update on the Inkstrom Road to Trunk Road corridor project, specifically talking about the final route selection report. Tonight's presentation is about selecting a preferred corridor. It's not approval of final design or construction. Additional engineering, environmental review, right of way, coordination with Alaska Department of Transportation and other permitting agencies. and funding decisions will still be required. Resolution 26-094 is included in your guys' agenda this evening for introductions, and the intention is to have a public hearing set for September 15th. We're doing that so that we can present this information to you tonight, give you some time to digest the information that's included in that packet. There's quite a bit of information there between the route selection report, some of the resolutions that were provided, as well as the public works decisional document. I'll begin by quickly introducing the project team. So HDL Engineering assisted the borough with the technical analysis, route evaluation, and public involvement on this project. So the goals for this presentation is we'll review the project history, scope of the project, purpose and need, route development, some of the evaluation criteria we discussed, public input we've received, present the recommendation for Northern Route 1, and then discuss the recommendations, benefits, and impacts. So this is going to be a brief overview. You know, like I said, there's a lot of information in the packet if you want to find more information about this. And real quick, before I advance, this slide here shows the Fish Hook Triangle. So this is the area we're talking about. It's bound by Wasilla and Palmer Fish Hook, Bogard Road, and Trunk. And really, we're talking about the southeast corner of this quadrant where Engstrom Road ties in. So this slide shows a purpose and need. So continued significant growth has increased traffic demands in the Fish Hook Triangle. Limited road connections concentrate traffic at Engstrom Road and Bogard Road. This project is intended to provide an alternate connection to Trunk Road. The goal is to improve safety, connectivity, emergency access, and long-term network capacity. We're all aware that there's a roundabout project the state's working on at the Engstrom-Bogard-Green Forest intersection. That project is intended to address safety. but it does not create another route into or out of the area in the Fish Hook Triangle. so this project's been recognized by long-range transportation plans including the 2035 plan and then the official streets and highways plan that identify a need for a major collector connection between inkstrom road and trunk road voters approved the project through tip 21 in november of 2021 the southern route was shown during the tip 21 as conceptual but at that point in time there was no engineering analysis completed The borough evaluated multiple routes to determine a project that meets the purpose of need and collector function. So a little bit of the history of the project. For Cottison's engineering began with the southern route and early analysis identified northern route one. Public input led to the development of four additional build alternatives. Open house feedback generally favored northern routes and prioritized access and connectivity. The final evaluation will balance the public input, traffic, cost, environmental, right of way, and engineering considerations. The route selection document compares all the routes using consistent planning criteria. No route performs best in every single category. The recommended route is based on the overall benefit or balance of benefits and impacts. Selecting a route allows for detailed study and design refinement to focus on a single corridor. So the four build routes that we looked at are the southern route, which is the red dashed line towards the bottom of the map. That route is approximately one mile long and connects Ingstrom Road to Trunk Road through North Old Homestead Road. It is the shortest route, but it's located close to Bogard Road and functions more like a minor collector. Northern Route 1 is approximately two miles long, connects to Trunk Road southwest of Heaton Road at a proposed official streets and highways intersection, and it's the purple line shown on the map here. northern route two follows a very similar path to northern route one but it extends a little bit further to the east and connects in at the existing heaton road intersection and then stone creek to aspen ridge is the longest route and it heads north to polymer fishhook and it's about 2.5 miles long so southern route and northern route one were the original routes that were evaluated in the reconnaissance engineering study northern route two and stone creek to aspen ridge route were public input. So when we had the open house and some of those activities, we received input from folks and that's how those alternatives ended up in this analysis. And then of course we also had a no-build alternative, which doesn't meet the purpose of any of the project, but was utilized as a baseline comparison for these routes. So each route was evaluated using the same selection criteria. Routes were evaluated for connectivity, mobility, environmental, community impacts. Engineering factors included constructability, right of way, utilities, maintenance, and cost. No single evaluation criteria determined the recommendation. So the categories that most tie into the purpose and need are connectivity and mobility. So the preferred route should encourage traffic to trunk road and provide useful alternative access. It should function as a true major collector with the planned road network by providing benefit to the broader area and efficiently moving traffic to their destination. The northern route serves more of the area by providing better separation from Bogard Road, as we'll see in a slide here in a little bit. The southern route offers relief but has less value as an independent collector. The traffic study also looked at the intersection relief and traffic volumes on the roads. So without improvement, Inkstrom Road is projected to experience severe congestion by 2050. DOT's roundabout analysis of the Bogard-Inkstrom-Green Forest intersection showed that the intersection flows efficiently through 2033, which was the design year, providing meaningful benefit to drivers. during that period, but by 2050, which is the year that we looked out to in our traffic study, projected growth is expected to significantly degrade intersection performance, likely requiring additional improvements beyond, regardless of the connector route that we build. Neither route resolves the projected 2050 level of service concerns, as much of this is contributed by the traffic on Bogard Road and the growth that's expected on that corridor, which is why we need an alternate route. Because of this, intersection performance is not a distinguishing factor in this evaluation. The model shows that the northern route attracts nearly double the amount of traffic because it serves a broader area, functions more like a major collector, and captures more future growth, providing long-term benefits. um so more traffic on a corridor is a positive outcome because it means it's redistributing traffic across the network the broader network benefits also include emergency access so many neighborhoods rely on inkstrom road as their primary collector access crashes construction natural disaster and other emergencies are concerned with limited alternative routes the northern route provides better network network redundancy due to its spacing This improves alternate access for residents, emergency responders, maintenance vehicles, school buses. This also ties in with the way that the borough classifies a major collector. So major collector connects neighborhood roads and local roads to higher capacity roadways. It balances movement with controlled access and appropriate intersection spacing. Spacing between roads of similar or higher classification matter when considering usage for drivers. The recommended minimum spacing for major collector and higher roadways is one mile. For roadway width, speed, whether we're gonna include a pathway or not, right-of-way considerations, those will all be determined during design when we get further into the development of this project. So applying those principles helps us determine where a major collector makes sense. So this figure here shows a heat map of existing neighborhoods and areas of future growth. So you can see the colored areas where we have development and then the areas where there's potential for growth in the future. So major collectors should serve current and future development. Inkstrom Road functions as a major collector, but traffic is concentrated onto that single road. So an alternate route is needed to distribute the traffic. In our traffic analysis, we considered the fact that Inkstrom North to Texal would be constructed, as well as the east and west legs of Texal be connected. So that was considered during our evaluation. Roadway spacing influences the distribution and network efficiency of traffic. This figure shows that the northern routes provide greater separation from Bogard Road. Northern Route 1 is about a mile to a mile and a half, depending on where you're at, which creates a balanced grid network. So if you look at this figure, so we've got Bogard Road at the bottom, and that's an arterial road, purple. And then the next major collector we have is Texile Drive. So if you look at the spacing there to line somewhere in the middle, creating a grid network, that's where the northern routes tie in to the network pretty well and then as development continues you start filling in those gaps with minor collectors and that is one of the reasons why we believe the southern route could make a good minor collector in the future as development supports it another consideration that i wanted to point out is that the northern routes eliminate one of the sharp corners on inks from road and could be encouraged could encourage traffic coming from the Wolf Lake Aspen Ridge Stone Creek area to go out to trunk road. If you kept that movement out to trunk road is the through movement and then teed up that southern leg of inks from road into that intersection. The southern alignment to the south would create a left turn movement, which is a potential conflict for traffic, having to cross across a lane to get over to that alignment. And then the northern route has potential for future expansion, extension off of either leg. Not necessarily part of this project, but just something to consider when you were talking about a major collector. The transportation benefits of these routes needs to be weighed against the environmental impacts. Um, so these were evaluated at a preliminary planning level. Um, the Southern route has fewer wetland and stream impacts while the Northern routes have more crossing impacts. And on this figure here, we show, uh, the wetlands, which are the green shaded areas, um, and then the streams that are blue. Um, and then that orange hash line is the floodplain. Um, all build routes will require environmental permitting. Detailed field work and analysis permitting will take place once we have a selected route and get into the design phase of things. Public input and community impacts were also evaluated as part of this. Public involvement included meetings, written comments, a website, and a survey. Feedback generally favored a connection to Trunk Road and prioritized access and connectivity. Of the distinct individuals we received comments from, the northern route was favored. However, there is a group of people that strongly support the southern route. Those supporters generally emphasize lower cost and fewer impacts. Public input informed recommendation and was considered alongside the technical analysis. So the engineering constructability, this is kind of the nuts and bolts of things, and it ultimately equates to cost. So we took a look at the design, right of way, construction, and utility impacts for each of these alternatives. The southern route is the lowest cost option, primarily due to length. Northern route one is the next lowest cost. The higher costs are driven by route length, water crossings, and right of way needs. These are planning level estimates and will change as information is developed and we get into design. And cost was weighed against each of the other categories in the evaluation and the long term benefit of each project. So all that information is consolidated into this selection criteria, which this is a snip out of the report itself. So the evaluation compares route performance for all alternatives. No build, the no build option performs very poorly when you look at the categories that are associated with the purpose and need of the project. But obviously it performs well when you talk about environmental impacts or cost. the southern route performs best for cost length and lower environmental impacts the northern route performs best for connectivity resilience collector spacing planning goals and projected use northern route 1 provides similar transportation benefits to northern route 2 but northern route 2 has a little bit higher cost and more property impacts the overall evaluation supports northern route 1 Based on that combined analysis, the final route selection report concluded, oops, wrong button there. Northern Route 1 is recommended as the preferred major collector connection. It provides the best overall balance of the evaluation criteria. The recommendation is to advance the corridor into preliminary design, not final design or construction approval. Future design will refine the typical section, alignment, impacts, cost, and funding needs. Design and construction funding has not yet been identified and construction schedule has not been established because of that. Based on all these factors, staff recommends Northern Route 1 as a preferred corridor for further development And real quick, before I open it up for questions, so our project website is at the bottom of this slide, the QR code if you want to sign it or take a picture of that, at inkstrom.trunkcorridor.com. And we have the route selection report, the reconnaissance engineering study, traffic study, environmental, open house documentation, as well as some other updates available on there. So if we continue to move this project forward, we'll advance the public involvement efforts on this. This presentation is really a brief overview. There's a lot of information packed in these reports. We recognize the sensitivity of getting this link right. So if you're interested, please reach out and we can discuss if you have questions between now and September 15th.

Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Cole, for the presentation. One thing that, so I've listened to fellow residents on both sides, you know, some want north, some want south. One thing that hasn't been mentioned, and we met and we talked about this in good detail, is apparently there's an issue with snowdrifts on Angstrom that some residents brought up. I guess once it gets windy and the snow starts drifting, it actually creates a pretty, hazardous area along angstrom where the southern route would go which is Concerning to some residents that if we choose the southern route that could also increase the possibility of residents being Pushed into this area where these large snowdrifts happen. I don't know. I haven't seen them That's just what I'm being told you do you know about that and can you discuss that?

Yes, so I'm familiar with some of the snow drifting that we've had on angstrom road it has been a problem in the past and With the gravel pit operations, they've created some berms, at least along Inkstrom Road, that has helped relieve some of that. I think there's still potential for some concerns around, I believe it's Cornelius Lake there. As to how the southern route would be impacted, it does cross a fairly open area, so there's potential for that. But that would be something that we'd look into in further detail when we got into the design, try and mitigate that.

Assemblyperson Sumner, did you have a question?

No, I mean, I think my question would be to answer the further analysis of the report.

Assemblyperson Fauna.

You briefly touched on the public comments, and basically there is, like you said, a group of individuals, including, I believe, the North Lake Community Council. They were really promoting the southern route, but obviously when you reach out, you reach out for comments beyond just community council. Could you say the strong, I guess, argument for and against the southern route besides the cost? Obviously that's...

because of the distance you said but what else other reasons that there were strong proponents towards the southern route yeah i can speak to that so some of the major things outside of cost time perceived time to implement a lot of that's going to be tied to the funding and when that becomes available and then what that funding source is whether it's local dollars or federal dollars really changes the timeline of that project so At this point, it's hard to say whether the timeline would be quicker or not. Another concern that's raised is the truck traffic from the central gravel pit locations. raised as a concern that the southern route could solve for this project we are looking at the larger regional benefits of this we do recognize there could be some benefits for travel gravel truck operations there but we believe that the northern route provides greater regional benefit and that's one of the reasons why we're supporting that but those are probably the two main reasons it's time to implementation and concerns around truck traffic outside of cost

Yeah, well, as far as traffic for the trucks, that's probably gonna operate for a while, but at the same time, something can change in the ground that could shut down. So to build a road that is strictly on that, that's, I think, not the strongest arguments. The timeframe, if it wasn't a funding issue and the projects were to move forward, is there a big length of time of completion, the two, three-year project, one versus the other, or is it like one's two years and the other one's five years, and if you construct that, what would you say just on preliminary?

Yeah, so preliminary, a lot of that depends on, one, the fund source, like I said. If it's federal funding, there's a lot more steps and hoops you gotta jump through. That extends out the time of the project. And then the other driver of time is gonna be right-of-way acquisition. There's a very formal process that we have to follow and steps that we have to go through in that. I would say three years would be the absolute quickest. We'd be looking at probably a three- to five-year timeline.

construction regardless of which option is that correct or one is significant at this point yes that's what i'd say yeah okay thank you any further questions yes not then thank you sir do you have some more no okay mr attorney do you have a report

madam clerk the clerk's report is in your red folder with the upcoming meeting schedule election dates um and quasi judicial report and also attached is the joint assembly school board agenda for next tuesday okay the next item on our agenda is citizens and other correspondence are there any comments on these citizens or other correspondence

I thought you were gonna do it later. Oh, all right. Okay, all right. My apologies. Deputy Mayor had something he wanted to bring up at the end of the manager's report, and I skipped over it. My apologies, sir. Go ahead.

I move the assembly to direct the borough manager to prepare and submit comments to Alaska Department of Natural Resources and a letter to Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority regarding the pending lands transfer application in the Houston area. The comments should express the borough's support for continued economic development, industrial growth, transportation investment, and job creation opportunities within the borough. Highlight the Point McKenzie and the West of Sydney areas as locations with significant potential for future economic development, industrial activity, and infrastructure expansion. Recommend that DNR and ADA consider opportunities to accommodate future industrial transportation, logistics, energy, and resource development activities through the use of existing state-owned lands in other areas of the borough, including Point McKenzie and West Susitna area. Please make a copy of the letters available to the public when submitted. The rationale, the intent of this motion is not to oppose development in Houston, but rather to encourage DNR and ADA to evaluate how the state land assets can best support long term economic development across the borough. The Assembly supports responsible development and believes a location such as Point McKenzie and the West of Sitna area should continue to be considered for future industrial and economic development opportunities.

Discussion on the motion? Assemblyperson Gamble?

Thank you Madam Mayor and thank you Ron for bringing this forward and I don't necessarily disagree with the resolution but I wish that it would be on the agenda ahead of time so that the public has an opportunity to come and talk to us about it before we direct the manager Um to do anything with that and you brought up another important point. I was at a port commission meeting this afternoon And I just want to make sure I mean the port is just now really starting to take off and we have some exciting projects that are coming up And I I can't go into detail right now about it Um, but I want to make sure that we don't do something that's going to compete with the port and that may um take away from Opportunities that we have to develop the port right now and so, um i'd like your resolution but can we get it on the agenda and have a public hearing so we can get some input from the public before we direct the manager to do something with it and make sure that we're not doing something that's going to harm what we're trying to do out at the port thank you we are limited on time as far as our

window of commenting for this land transfer and that's why i brought this up the way i did i actually called last thursday when they had the zoom to see if they were going to have a meeting in person and i explained to the gentleman at dnr Dan Jenkins that I think that the the borough's best interest would be out towards Point McKenzie in that area. And you know, that's where we're trying to develop our industrial area. And I think it would be a good idea to look at that area. And I think any industrial area coming to that area would do nothing but support the port, honestly.

Okay, Assemblyperson Gamble, do you have a follow-up?

Yeah, I don't think it would, I don't think they're in any hurry, and I don't think it would be harmful to ask them to extend their public comment period so that we have a little bit more time to have our own public comment period here in the Assembly before we direct the manager. Thank you.

Assemblyperson Nowitz?

i get what you're saying that september 14th is the deadline for public comment but um i think dnr and ada would always take comment from the borough i'm not sure we're in the same category so like don't you don't you think that if we sent them a letter on the 15th or the 16th they would consider that it's not like it goes into the public comment file it's the borough the entity that owns the land out here just don't you think they would you would listen to that so even if we we got it in after the other public comment period

Well, as far as I know, last Thursday, at that time, there was like 2,500 comments, mostly opposing it. And I figured this was a good avenue for them to maybe look at Point McKenzie and the West Sitton area and actually maybe focus on that, and that would be doing the borough a favor in the long run.

Assemblyperson Farmer?

So Deputy Mayor, is that your understanding that public have spoken and this is, you would like Assembly to also put an opinion. So we didn't eliminate the public from speaking. They could have spoke directly, correct? And we're just taking this position and we just need to decide among us if we support this or not. I think what you wrote there is alliance with what we want to see and I'll support you on that.

Okay. Assemblyperson Norris, go ahead.

I just feel like this is an issue that is of importance to a lot of people in the valley, and it's important to the borough. Yeah, I have my own questions about transferring 20,000 acres to Ada versus giving it to the borough, and still having the development on it. And I know the borough was never asked for their opinion, so I've been, you know, It's been sitting there waiting for an opinion from the borough But we represent I don't feel like it. I guess I agree with assembly member gamble. It feels like We could let this go to the 15th and give the community opportunity to come to the borough with their specific input and still move forward with this on the 15th and the State would support us and listen to us on that. I

Okay, so I think there's objection then to the motion, right? Is there? Do I have any objection to the motion? Go ahead, sir.

I'd like to offer a secondary amendment. I'd like to put Assemblymember Bernier's resolution on the September 15th agenda for a public hearing.

Go ahead.

If I could, Assemblymember Gamble, this is not a resolution. This is a motion to direct the manager.

Okay, gotcha. Okay, I'd like to put the issue on the September, delay it till September 15th and have public hearing on the letter directing the manager.

Assemblyperson Fauna.

Do we ever have a public hearing for the direction to the mayor clerk? because I don't remember we ever did that. We just set upon ourselves.

Through the mayor to assembly member Fonoff, we do have audience participation.

Yeah, but not separate public hearing, correct?

Generally, no. That takes introduction and public hearing. Okay, thank you. It takes two meetings.

Yeah, so there won't be time for a formal public hearing, but during the audience participation, people can still participate today, even if they choose to, right? Okay.

So now the discussion is on the motion to postpone until September 15th. Okay. Is there objection to the, okay, there is objection. So Madam Clerk.

If I can get the members to vote on postponement. Madam Mayor, it is failed with Assemblymember Gamble and Nowers in support. Okay.

So now we're back to the main motion. Is there objection to the main motion?

We do have objection. If I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the main motion. Assemblymember McKee, you're voting on the main motion. Your mic is not on, Assemblymember McKee.

I'm sorry. Hold on just a second, where was I with that? Would you restate the main motion?

Basically, we're asking Mike to write a letter. Got it.

Do you want me to read it into the record?

No, no, no, got it.

Madam Mayor, it has passed with Assemblymember Gamble opposed.

Okay.

All righty, so we are back to where I referred you to before, citizens and other correspondence. Are there any comments from the assembly on the citizens and other correspondence? Yes, Assemblyperson Fano.

Not related to, I guess somewhat related I was expecting, seeing the troopers here, that we'll get time to ask them questions before they leave. Is that something you'd allow for us, maybe after we conclude this chapter, to see if we could have a discussion with them? If not, that's okay too, but I don't think all of us got the questions in because it was kind of related to the postal issue. Other discussion outside just would be the last of them. So I think with them being here, I would appreciate if we had an opportunity to discuss and not wait till they leave. That would be my request. I thought that under manager's report there would be time for that, but I guess it was issue-specific related, and once we already went to the following thing, we didn't get that, so I don't know if we have an option to return to that. That was my only question. I would make a request to make the changes to amendment, but assuming maybe the manager can put his two cents in where we could fit that in in the near future on this agenda.

Madam Mayor.

I don't think I, Assemblyperson Sumner.

Could I, I would like to move to amend the agenda to add a question and answer period with the troopers that are here. I believe that's what he's trying to do.

Well, I mean, when after the manager is generally done with his report, it's been pretty common for assembly people to give the manager direction and then for the assembly to either concur or not to concur. So I believe that's what happened. But fall off you, assembly person fall off, you don't believe that's what happened.

Yes, please help to understand the audit. I'm not, what we discussed was specifically the building and proposal of that, and when I seen 2% I thought we will get a chance to ask them questions that are related to just their staffing and that kind of stuff, and I would like to have an opportunity to do that if possible.

And you didn't want to do that before you voted on the motion?

No, no. Motion still stands as it sits. This is not related to motion at all.

We're going to... Point of order. Is my motion being recognized or not?

She's trying to understand what Assemblymember Fonoff is asking.

I'm not understanding what he's asking.

Okay, I want to have a question and answer for assembly to be able to ask troopers questions, if I may. That's my request.

About what, the motion or just general information?

No, just general questions that we have, because we have last seen them a while, several months back.

They were up here and you didn't ask your question?

I did not because at that time the discussion was specifically by Ms. Nauers called them to upfront without us consenting to that, but I figured that was specifically for the building related. And that's still, I'm not trying to change any of that. I'm just saying other questions that are not related to building is what I would have liked to ask them questions. But at that time, the discussion was strictly about the building.

Well, it's not something that's, there's a decision this evening, right? So Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was just gonna make a point of order that we've already set the agenda, that period has already passed, and we've moved on. Okay.

There is a motion on the floor, Madam Mayor.

The motion on the floor is Assemblymember Sumner to amend the agenda to add discussion with the troopers.

Any discussion? Regarding the motion, is there objection to the motion?

Yes. I just want to point out this takes five votes to pass.

Okay.

If I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote. Madam Mayor, it has one, two, three, four, five. It is passed with Assemblymember Bowles and now is opposed. Okay.

So assembly person Sumner, when did you want to place that on the agenda?

I think it's right now madam mayor Right now was my intent.

Yes Okay I'd like to ask a question, please

We already voted on it, right? We can ask them to come forward now? Yes, please.

I'll ask them if they desire to come forth. You can't demand somebody in the audience to come forth, Assemblyperson Fauna.

Well, I'm asking if they'd be willing to answer some of the basic questions we had, please.

Good evening. I'm Captain Chen. I'm the current commander for B Detachment. I understand that you have a question.

Last time when you were here, one of the things, the vacancies, was the big discussion that we had and there was a lot of students that were going through academy, not quite enough to fill it. I just wanted to ask where we are currently in the Mat-Su Borough for the staffing and when is, how many vacancies we have and what's the trajectory, which way are we going with that on field positions?

So I can start out with the report we just got this morning for September, and this will be statewide, and then I'll let Captain Chan talk a little bit specifically to B Detachment Patrol. So statewide, there are 61 trooper vacancies out of 410 budgeted positions. We have 15 people currently going through the academy down in Sitka. which once they complete the academy, they'll be transferred to either the Mat-Su Valley, Sultana, or Fairbanks. And that'll be right around the Thanksgiving timeframe is when they'll complete the academy and begin field training. And then Captain Chan, can you speak a little bit to your patrol vacancies?

Yes, currently for B Detachment, we have eight vacancies. However, given that we have a larger group of recruits going through the academy, we're going to be receiving at least seven of those recruits that are going to be trained here in the Mat-Su Valley. So potentially, the seven recruits who is going to be filling the eight vacancies up until the time where they graduate from the program during the FTEP program and then potentially start bidding out in the two-year point.

are after completing academy are they're still required to have some uh service uh in remote areas and things like that or is that those rules have been changed and they are different they can go ahead and start right away getting their work hours here

Yeah, thanks for that. In the most recent collective bargaining agreement we had with the Public Safety Employees Association, we did make some pretty substantial changes to required moves and how that process works. We still do have a responsibility to serve areas outside of our core three training posts that we have. However, we're no longer going to be forcing people to make physical moves to these locations. couple different options for folks that don't want to make the full move including working on a two on two off thing so they could still reside in the training post area and then work two weeks on in the area where we need them to be working in and then go back to their families continue to kind of reside here we also have another model where we're gonna have kind of a cadre of troopers and Fairbanks and in Anchorage that respond out to different rural areas for as needed things. It is still the expectation that once you kind of receive training in these more urban areas that you do take those training and skills out to the more remote areas of the state, which is essentially for us anywhere outside of the Mat-Su Valley, Fairbanks North Star Borough, and Kenai Peninsula Borough, kind of Soldotna posts. um we bring folks to train in these areas because of the higher call volume they get a much greater exposure to much more complicated calls versus sending them directly to a post that might have fewer calls but they're far more complicated to deal with does that answer your question

Yeah, is there a lot that are coming close to retirement that are also gonna create a lot of additional vacancies? Because it sounds like a seven out of eight might be filled here soon, but there's a lot of retirement coming up in the near future.

You know, with the, with tier four and the 401k style system that exists now, we're seeing fewer and fewer of our employees statewide that are kind of in that pension bubble. A lot of our command staff is in that pension bubble where they could retire should they choose between, you know, years 20 and 30 is what we're seeing. but a lot of our troopers, sergeants, and even now a good chunk of our lieutenants are all in that defined contribution plan. So it's a lot harder to gauge retirements because the scheme is different for a tier four versus a tier one through three employee. Okay, thank you.

Assemblyperson Bowles. No, okay. Assemblyperson Gamble.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. just want to thank you guys for the work that you did out in big lake and that you're still doing over the last four weeks and especially last week during the cleanup and peaceful place and lazy lakes what you've done out there is just remarkable and it's a credit to your force out there working with the public working with the borough mr manager And all your folks out there too, you did a fantastic job. I've got nothing but praise for you and the feedback that I've gotten from the people in Big Lake is they're just excited about what you guys did out there. So thank you very much. One issue that I did want to raise with you that we're seeing out there are these kids on these motorcycles that are riding on the rear tire going down the middle of Big Lake Road and Beaver Lake Road. almost causing major accidents. I'm surprised that none of them have gotten really seriously hurt yet. And it's not just the motorcycles, it's the four-wheelers too. And they've moved off the bike trails now and they're on the main roads. And I don't know if you've received a lot of complaints about that and what you think you might be able to do to stop that.

We did receive some complaints about that, especially just last week. I had actually talked to a few of my sergeants to ensure that we get some trooper presence out there in the Big Lake area. Whenever call volumes allow us to do so, we understand that it is an ongoing problem and it's just going to continue. And, you know, now that you brought it up, it's not just really isolated to the Mat-Su area. It's really a statewide problem. challenge right now because you have a lot more of those electric bikes that people are riding on, the bicycle paths and stuff like that. So we are trying to address this statewide, and we'll definitely make sure that we have a presence out in the Big Lake area to do some of these enforcements.

Thank you. Thank you for everything that you do. Thank you for your service.

Assemblyperson Sumner?

Oh, thank you very much for indulging the additional questions. I appreciate it. I don't think it was anyone's intent to beckon you up here, but thanks for the impromptu question and answers.

Do you have age parameters for the academy? Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen, very much for flowing with unusual requests, which I'm sure you get many of them all the time. Thank you.

No problem. Thank you.

okay so i don't know if i ever did fully get any comments on citizens and other correspondence i tried i think this is the third time but let me make sure assembly person mckee yeah i'm not sure whether this is the appropriate place for it but uh can you can i address uh some correspondence from a member of the borough as far as the animal control not in specifics but just to can i assembly comments at the end all right i'll do that thanks

All righty, so there are no informational memorandums, and so we are now at public audience participation. We do have a sign-up sheet, so we will call the names of those people, and then we'll open it up to anybody that's here as well as online. Jackie, you're first.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Assembly. My name is Jackie Goforth. The packet I'm giving you tonight, the opening page are pictures that I took before I went to the Community Development Department because I do not trust the Community Development Department and neither should you. And the reason I state that is please turn the page to the first thing in your packet. These are legal documents, I want you to look at them, please. When you first set up the LCAC, it was set up that when a book was challenged, it would be put in a queue, and then the LCAC would choose which one to pull out of the queue to read. Okay, well, in August 12th of 2025, that changed. without anyone knowing. And what it says now is the community development department will notify the LCAC chair and they'll add the item to the next agenda. Next, if it's accepted, the item goes into the review queue. That's not how you wrote it. This is the small step to get to the next one, by the way. That is a subversion, and this is why I say you have a malicious compliance problem going on. The next thing that happened was this policy got changed again three months ago while the board, the library board, was on summer vacation. And look what it says now, are you ready? The community development department will notify the library board chair, the chair may, add the book to the agenda, add a future agenda. The next one's even worse. The library board may choose to review the material and provide an advisory note, and this was used at the last library board meeting for the parks, recreation, and libraries man to say that if they didn't pick this review up, it would die on the vine. Was that the intent of your LCAC was to just let this go away if they decide not to review it? So who on earth would have the authority to change this policy? I think you need to look no further than the signature on the bottom of that page. Next you will see that you have the library board person telling the library board that a challenger has to talk to a librarian first. No, it's not in the agenda. How does he not know what the new policy says? And I tried. Next, of course, is what I'm telling you when I told you that the Friends, the Friends are a activist arm of the Socialist Democrat Party, and they are requiring that we provide the staff taxpayers staff support to push this agenda in every library and room to put all of their data. But the real reason I'm here is the red tab. Last time we had a library board meeting, you had a board member speak about how it is a hostile environment and they are being assaulted online. And it is from the Talkeetna. Now the Friends group is now going to send out a message to all of their Syncfans to show up at that Talkeetna meeting next Tuesday at 1 o'clock in order to verbally harass and harangue and rebuke your library board members again. And that is very, that is a hostile environment that is being created. Please, please, if you can be at the Talkeetna Library Board meeting next week at one o'clock to see how this works and to see what I'm talking about. I would appreciate it because this is what's called malicious compliance in order to make it so your LCAC challenge thing, the public will not have any say whatsoever.

Okay, Jackie.

Thank you. Rod?

Good evening, everybody. Rod Hanson with the North Lakes Community Council. So in a couple weeks, you will decide on the route for this new connection between Inkstrom and Trunk. And Public Works, as you heard, is recommending Northern Route 1 as a major collector. The borough zone North Lakes Community Council official Community Council Road service area 25 board and the Planning Commission respectfully disagree with that recommendation from Public Works We are all strongly recommending that you choose the southern route as a minor collector as presented to the voters in the tip 21 bond package In the packet for your September 15th meeting we will provide suggested language for an assembly resolution that supports the southern route and we're hoping that one of one or more of you would You know sponsor that as an alternative so that your debate next week or in two weeks can kind of consider both both options North Lakes and Fish Hook Community Council submitted a really detailed resolution to the Planning Commission recommending the southern route and laying out our reasons why. Please look at it, it's in your packets, and take the time to review it. It outlines the history and why we think the best decision right now is the southern route. Our highest priority is community safety. The section of Bogard between Trunk and Engstrom and the Engstrom intersection experience the highest traffic volume in our community. DOT improvements on Bogard and a new roundabout does not reduce this traffic. The route selection report looked at traffic forecast for 2050 and the analysis actually shows less traffic on Engstrom if the southern route is built versus the northern route. Without the southern route and with central gravel starting their 30-year operation. We must also accommodate all the gravel trucks and The southern route provides an alternative connection to Dengstrom and improves safety by removing those trucks from the equation. The northern route does not. We're also concerned about the financial impact to borough taxpayers. The borough cost estimate for the southern route as you saw is 9.1 million compared to 21.6 for the northern route and the state DOT actually estimates northern route one at over 30 million. That's anywhere from two and a half to three and a half times the cost if you choose the northern route. As community councils, we also stand for rights of private property owners. The northern route cuts through areas of undeveloped homestead and ag property. These property owners have strongly objected to providing right-of-way, and they will fight hard to keep their family properties whole. To be clear, we are advocating on behalf of our community, not on behalf of the gravel pit operator. they are willing to provide right away they're willing to contribute their time their labor their gravel to help bring down the cost on the southern route speed up the process and address safety concerns on bogart and angstrom the community needs Community needs must always take precedence over a particular business or a developer. When you make a decision on which route to pursue, please consider our priorities, transportation safety, financial stewardship of our tax dollars, and respect for private property owner rights. A northern route may make sense in the future, but the right decision at this time is a southern route. Thank you.

Okay, Tom?

Thank you.

My name is Tom Robertson. And I'm really glad to hear the public support for our public safety. I thought that was really impressive tonight. I guess they're all gone now. But anyways, and by definition of public safety, they make the public safe. And it's our obligation to help them so they can do their job and continue making the public safe as possible. And one aspect that I keep coming back for, I would like to have the fire station at number 31 that's being built right now at Marsh Road. I'm asking for the governor, a letter to the governor to support asking for a driveway to come from the new fire station to the highway, the Glen Highway at mile 49 there. right across from the Palmer Pentecostal Church, a driveway into the new fire station on alternate for a safety issue. Right now, currently the plans are for everything to come off Marsh Road, which has a lot of problems there being a blind intersection on a blind hill. There's a lot of accidents right there. Fire departments need alternate route. Wherever they go, they always have to have an alternative back up to whatever they're doing. And this extra driveway will help them prevent accidents and speed up their response time. So I strongly ask that. I presented a letter of support to the mayor, and I would like that to be signed and passed on to the governor so we can help the public safety do their job and help make the public as safe as possible. Any questions? Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Well, I ought to stand up here for cat dance for my three minutes is up or something. Thank you.

Sharon Johnson.

good evening mayor and assembly members my name is sharon johnson and i live off bogart road i'm a frequent traveler through the bogart angstrom intersection and how many of us tonight were fortunate enough to make it here through that intersection without a heart-stopping experience how many on the assembly and here in the audience have had those last second smashing on the brakes, somebody pulling out in front of you. How many have come so close? Particularly in the morning between 7 and 8 a.m., the bus drivers who get that experience with a busload of students. I am here in support of the Southern Connector from Engstrom to Trunk. Central gravel products have given their support. Residents and daily drivers support something to relieve this intersection. Well, I look at a connector that is potentially three times more at the price tag and landowners who are vehemently opposed to selling their land for a northern route. The roundabout at Bogart Engstrom is still not heading into construction due to land acquisition. Another season away? I believe working together, the borough could make the southern connector happen sooner than later as opposed to the northern route. Let's all work together to make something happen and relieve the Bogart-Engstrom intersection hazardous experience a thing of the past. Thank you.

Mm-hmm. Now that's everybody that signed up, but it's open to anybody that would like to address the assembly on any subject, whether it's on the agenda or not. Come on, representative.

Hi, Jesse Sumner. I came to talk about AM 26-125. I think I talked to you guys before about building your empire down at the landfill. And I know this is kind of late. I got no beef with this contractor, but almost $5.5 million to build another palace on garbage. We are over-complicating things down there. The new tipping floor scale setup is a disaster. It really is very simple. You dig holes. You put garbage in them. You cover them up. Maybe someday down the road, you put a baseball field on top of it. But we are wasting huge amounts of money down here. You should not approve this. You should not be building any more palaces on garbage. But also, since I'm here, I'll address, we went to the ballot for the bond proposal with that southern route, and I think it would be kind of disingenuous to switch that now. So thank you.

Bye. Thank you. Next person, please.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and borough assembly members. My name is Carly Schreck and I'm a resident and homeowner in the Crimson View neighborhood and a former Valley based reporter. I'm no longer a reporter, which means I'm not here to ask you questions. Instead, I'm here as a constituent to ask for your support. The Heavenly Meadows Crimson View project was undertaken by the borough. We understood that roads need to be maintained and we understood that public infrastructure projects come with some disruption. What we did not anticipate was that in the midst of that disruption, the borough would come back to the homeowner and ask that we sign an agreement protecting you from liability before you will finish the work. I think that deserves a little bit of scrutiny. The work at issue occurred within the road right-of-way and easement, so I would like the borough to clearly explain to the public what the legal basis for asking individual homeowners to assume liability for work the borough is conducting in an area where the borough already has the right to perform work. And if the easement is held by a utility provider, why is the homeowner being asked to assume risk associated with an easement in which the homeowner does not hold utility interest? The homeowner should not become the easiest party to hand the liability to simply because we're the people living next to the project. Now let's talk about the damage that has already occurred. Our trees are being lost because of root damage associated with this construction. Trees that we were told last fall would not be affected. I understand that a tree growing near the right-of-way doesn't mean the borough has no authority to work there, but authority to perform a project is not the same thing as an obligation to disregard the consequences of that project. So I'm asking the borough for three things. First, do not require individual homeowners to sign away their liability as a condition of completing the project. Resolve the appropriate liability and access issues with the parties who hold the relevant interests in the easement. Second, conduct an assessment of trees damaged by the construction using a tract certified arborist. And third, establish a one for one replacement for trees removed as a direct result of the project. If the borough removes a tree, the borough should plant a tree. And for the mature trees that cannot reasonably be replaced with an equivalent tree, there should be a meaningful mitigation plan for this kind of work moving forward so another neighborhood doesn't have to go through what we currently are. Because here's the larger issue. The borough has the power to undertake projects like this. Homeowners do not have the power to tell the borough, do not come into our neighborhood. So when the government exercises that authority, there is an obligation to exercise it responsibly. Did not ask for this project We didn't choose the disruption or the damage and we certainly shouldn't be asked to accept additional Liability for the privilege of having the borough finish what the borough started I'm not asking the borough to undo this project. I'm asking the borough to own the consequences of it. Thank you for your time I genuinely appreciate your service Anyone else?

Okay. All righty. Go ahead. Who's first on line, please?

Hello. My name is Greg Sint, S-I-N-D-T. I'm here to talk about the route selection for the Inkstrom to Trunk Connector. About one and a half miles of this route passes through land that is owned by my wife's family. We are the most impacted property owner on this project. I encourage you to please read the letter that we'll be submitting as part of your packet for the next meeting. It'll include our comments, our opinions, and also some, I think, good technical information on this decision. We support the south route, and we are not willing to sell right of way for the northern route. Thanks in advance for your attention to this.

Hello. Good evening, Mayor DeVere's and assembly members. My name is Michelle Stevens, Vice President of the Alaska Outdoor Council. And I'm speaking today on behalf of our more than 4,000 members. The Alaska Outdoor Council respectfully asked the assembly not to recommend the proposed conveyance of nearly 20,000 acres of state land to ADA. Alaska law gives us very good reason to be cautious before giving up this much public land. Article 8, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution says state lands and resources are to be made available for maximum use consistent with the public interest. Article 8, Section 2 goes even further. It requires the state's natural resources, including its lands and water, to be managed for the maximum benefit of its people. The legislature specifically addressed the value of keeping the state land in public ownership. Alaska Statute 3804015 is titled Public Interest in Retaining State Land and Public Ownership. The state statute recognizes the importance of retaining state lands for the beneficial use, including... Hunting and fishing, hiking, snow machining, skiing, and other activities that can generally be made available to more people when the lands remain in public ownership. This describes exactly why these lands are precious to Alaskans and the AOC members. This area includes established trails and access routes used for recreation, hunting, fishing, snow machining, and access to the lands beyond them. Some of these trails are recognized and supported by the Mat-Su Borough. The public has spoken. More than 2,000 letters of opposition have been submitted to the state concerning this conveyance. AOC is not opposed to reasonable economic development. We are saying this is the wrong place and nearly 20,000 acres is the wrong scale. If ADA has actual need for state land, consider smaller conveyance or as needed basis. with enforceable stipulations protections for public access and a clear plan of operation. The conveyance should also include a reversion clause rather than waiving the important protection. Once these precious lands leave state ownership, we give up protections that exist today for the benefits of all people. I'd also like to comment on ordinance 26098 from the Alaska Snow Machine Alliance. We totally support the Lake Louise transfer building to Lake Louise. And on another note, for the Petersville Community Non-Cassette, I do search and rescue in the area. We work with the state troopers, and we are definitely supportive of 26-136 for the Alaska state troopers. And one last thing I would like to say, keep our precious lands in state hands. Thank you. Happy trails.

Okay, the next person online, please.

Hello? Yes, go ahead.

You can hear me?

Yeah.

Yeah, my name is Patricia Fisher. Hello?

Yeah, somebody in there hasn't, just a minute, Patty. Somebody...

Patty, can you turn off your TV or your radio or your computer? We hear that just as much as we hear you.

Okay, I've turned off my, I think it's my speaker that you guys are on.

Yeah, you have to turn that off or you'll get feedback. Yes, it is. Thank you.

Okay. All right. I am speaking in opposition to Mr. Bernier's proposed motion requesting the manager to support the transfer of 20,000 acres in the Houston area to AIDEA. Proposing this motion at this time is a violation of public process, in my opinion. The motion has not been adequately given notice and should not be discussed at this time. During the last few months, there has been obviously a huge outcry against this land transfer to ADA and the establishment of data centers. Mr. Bernier's motion has not been brought forward in adequate time to be on the posted agenda. It is an insult, slap, in the face of the residents of the Mat-Su, since they are not to be allowed to be heard on this motion. Unfortunately, this practice seems to be routine with this assembly. And I point out the repeated motion to put a gun range on Zero Lake, much to the opposition of residents, and repeated motions to push motions on gravel through in opposition to public and community councils. So being limited on time, as Mr. Bernier stated earlier, is no excuse for ramming this motion down the residents' throats. This late proposal is a case of very poor planning. If it were critical, then it should have been proposed much earlier. This has been going on for at least two months. You assembly members are representatives of the residents, not here to impose your own will. I respectfully request that you propose this postpone this motion to a later date to allow residents to be aware of the opportunity to comment. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Who's next on the line, please, Caleb?

Hi, this is Steve Edwards.

So I am adding my opposition to the land transfer recommendation by the borough. The borough is represent the people and there's been quite a few people showed their opposition to this transfer. And so I would hope that the borough's position will be either neutral or just stay out of it.

But to support it in the face of all this opposition seems counterproductive as representatives.

I personally wouldn't mind some development areas up there, but they need to be transferred from the state to the borough, and the borough manage them using a public process. Ada has an absolute abysmal record and should not have anything to do with land transfers, especially around population centers.

I'm opposed to the land transfer to ADA.

And if you want to support development in the area, that might be something we could talk about. But once it goes into ADA's hands, it's a private ownership. And you can build anything you want with no public process, with the exception of the four things that require conditional permits, towers, gravel pits, race tracks. I believe there's one more, junkyards.

With the exception of those things, once it's in Ada's hands, they can do anything with absolutely no public notice at all. So let's keep it away from Ada.

Talk about maybe getting some of it for the borough and be much more careful about this process we're going through. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else? Okay. Go ahead. Who's ever next on line?

Good evening, Master Assembly. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Perfect. My name is Karen Ingram and I'm a nurse that works in your school district. I want to spend just a couple minutes talking about something that should be at the center of every of our conversations. We have about our schools, student health and safety. When we hear a school nurse, we often think about the health office, a student with a stomach ache or a scraped knee or needing medication, but school nurse is so much more than a person sitting in the health office. The nurse is part of that school safety infrastructure, working alongside health aides and school staff to make sure students' health needs are identified, managed, and responded to appropriately. We manage students with diabetes, seizures, asthma, severe allergies, and other complex medical needs. We develop health plans, administer medications, respond to emergencies, train staff, train health aides, monitor emergency equipment, manage exposures, support educational needs, and prepare schools to respond when something goes wrong. And here is the safety issue I want you to consider. When nursing capacity is reduced, the workload doesn't disappear. And the risk doesn't disappear. It moves. It can move to the health aides. It can move to the teachers. It can move to the administrators. And it can move to unlicensed staff. But we have to be honest about the difference between these roles. A teacher is an educator. A health aide has a different role. A school nurse brings clinical training, assessment, delegation, and health system oversight. And in our district, CPR certification is not a mandatory requirement for every school employee. And that matters when we are discussing who will be expected to respond during a medical emergency inside our schools. We cannot simply assume that because an adult is present in the classroom that a person is prepared to manage that medical emergency. So the question becomes, who is actually trained and prepared to respond? Who responds when a student has a seizure? who recognizes a diabetic student's condition is changing, and who ensures emergency medications are current and available, who trains and supports those health aides and other staff, who determines what can safely be delegated and provides clinical oversight from delegation, and who is accountable for making those systems work. And when we reduce the nursing capacity, we need to know exactly where those responsibilities are going to go. So my call to action is simple. I ask the Matthew Assembly to support an independent school by school health safety workload assessment for nursing capacity before nursing capacity is reduced. That assessment should include nurses, health aides, teachers, administrators, and students that they serve. It should identify the student medical. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next person on line, please.

Good evening. This is Esther Huddleston. By not having the letter to DNR on AIDEA on the agenda breaks the trust from the public. By following state of Alaska laws on the public process is the only way the government keeps the trust with the public. I'm speaking out in opposition to 20,000 acres of state of Alaska land in Houston, Alaska being transferred to the Alaska Industrial Development Export Authority. State of Alaska land belongs to all Alaskans. The proposed land has been used for generations for hunting, access to remote areas, and for recreation. The communities surrounding the state land are in opposition, and it's important for our representative, Ron Bernier, to support his district's concerns to data center being built and the loss of losing land, which has been historically important to the community. Data centers use a lot of water and electricity. We as a community already struggle for access to electricity and water. Many people in our community have wood stoves, generators, and have to haul water to their homes. Will this data center cause local businesses and people who do have electricity competing for the use of these resources by having a data center out to our community? Or the increase of cost for electricity. The land transfer will seize the quality of life in our community by taking away our recreational opportunities. We as a community say no to this land transfer and we hope that You respect the needs and wants for the quality of life for our community by saying no, and shame on you for violating the public process and not having this on the agenda because there's a lot of people that are in opposition and aren't having an opportunity to speak out against that letter. That breaks the public trust between the public and the government, and shame on you for that. Thank you.

Okay, we have another person online. Go ahead, the next person online, please.

Yes, my name is Sherry Rusher. I'm a resident of Meadow Lakes. I want to speak out against any letter from the borough to DNR unless it's against transfer of the land. Mr. Bonnear, you represent my area, Willow, Houston, You have residents that follow you from Big Lake. All those communities have sent letters asking that that land not be transferred for all the reasons the previous people have testified. These are residents of the borough. They're also residents of the community that you're supposed to represent, and you're not doing that. Thank you. That's it. Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else online? No, okay. One last chance then for those here that would like to address the assembly on any issue. Okay. And still nobody online? Okay, I'm gonna go close audience participation and then we've had a request for a break, so we'll come back at 8.15. The next item on our agenda is our public hearings, and Madam Clerk, would you please read the legislation into the record?

Ordinance 2696, an ordinance accepting and appropriating 2025 late August storm disaster relief funds and the amount of $665,000 from the Alaska State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to fund 445 Project 55023 with accompanying resolution 26078, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the revetment and dike repairs as a result of the 2025 Late August storm, fund 445, project number 55023. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star three.

open the public hearing. We do not have a sign-up sheet. The testimony at this time is restricted to ordinance 26-096 and resolution 26-078. Is there anyone that would like to come forth and either then testify in either that ordinance or resolution? I move to adopt ordinance 26-096 and resolution 26-078 Is there any objection by the assembly Okay, hearing none, then the legislation passes. Madam Clerk.

Ordinance 26098, an ordinance approving a less than fair market value sale of the borough-owned Matthews Public Safety Building, Station 15, in the Lake Louise area for $13,176 to the Louise-Susitna-Tayon Community Association for a public purpose. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press start 3.

Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing, and we do have a sign-up sheet, so I will call those people first. So the public hearing is open for Ordinance 26-098. And Harry Huff? Hold. Is that supposed to be a heart? Hold. Hold. Okay. Sorry, sir.

Mr. Holt, when you approach the mic, could you go ahead and just turn it on, and then you can just leave it on. Thank you, sir.

Okay. My name is Harry Holt, and I've been a longtime property owner up at Lake Louise area, and I've been a longtime president and member of the board of the Lake Louise Snow Machine Club. I'm here to urge you to approve the ordinance 26098, the sale of the Matthews Public Safety Building in the Lake Louise area and to the Louise Susetna Tyone Community Association for the public purpose. This transfer keeps an important community asset in the local hands. The LSTCA will partner with the Lake Louise Snow Machine Club uh to ensure the building continues to serve the public together we will use it to support all of our trail maintenance uh inter emergency access community coordination and other practical needs for our community area approving the sale is a practical responsible It keeps the building available for continued public benefit rather than asking or risking it falling into disuse or private hands. The LSTCA and the Lake Louise Snow Machine Club are ready to steward it for the people of Lake Louise, Susitna, and Tyone area. I respectfully ask you to vote yes on this ordinance on 26-098. Thank you for your time and service.

Thank you. Peter?

Madam Mayor, assembly members, I'm Peter Provasco. I currently serve as the president for the Lake Louise Snow Machine Club, and I'm also a member of the community association. I would like the borough to recognize that they've already made a great investment in this area when they first constructed this building. Unfortunately, in the construction afterwards, some mistakes were made which resulted in the current condition of the building. However, it's not lost. The Snow Machine Association along with the community formed a committee and on the committee we have some very talented, they do it for a living, very large contractors and the building is salvageable. And with that in mind, we would be able to take this building and maintain it for public benefit. Our club, we groom and maintain for transportation safety over 300 miles of trail. then on top of that you have the community association which definitely wants to look at where we once were where we had safety ambulance that type of stuff but we need this type of building and we need the support of the borough i think working together we can bring this building back the borough can make that commitment that they once had to that community area and we can move forward so i 26098, I ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Michael Anderson.

Assembly members and Madam Mayor, my name is Michael Anderson. I am the vice president of the Lake Louise Snow Machine Club, been a property owner there for about 40 years. When this original building was built, like Pete said, mistakes were made. It was condemned after five years. It's been sitting condemned for years. about eight years, if I remember correctly. So sitting there, rotting, a bunch of us got together with Eileen Probasko, grabbing the ball and running with it, and we've come up with a plan to fix this problem. Building to where we can start using it not only for the Snow Machine Club, but all of our safety equipment for the fire department We lost our ambulance because we didn't have a place to put the building Ambulance in anymore. Hopefully we'll get that back We still got a lot of work ahead of us, but you know, I'm hoping you guys will vote yes on this proposal That's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you Eileen

Okay, good evening, assembly members, Madam Mayor, Mr. Manager, Mr. Attorney, Madam Clerk, and my friend Brenda Jo. I'm Eileen Probasco, District 1 resident and homeowner, and Tyone Lake cabin owner and recreationalist in this area. I've been Alaskan since 1981 and have enjoyed outdoors my entire life. I'm a retired Alaska public employee with 34 years of service in my last 19 years here at the Mount Seaborough. speaking on behalf of myself as well as the LSTCA and the LLSMC on this ordinance. And because of my familiarity with these types of requests and the rural processes, I volunteered to handle this acquisition request for the community and they were glad to turn it over to me. So, briefly on the LSTCA, they provide, they are the group that's recognized by the PERO to provide direct input in citizen participation in government and local affairs. The LSTCA assists with coordinating EMS services, although it does not directly oversee them. They help provide storage of equipment for EMS services as well as coordinate brush removal and signage in the channel between Lake Louise and Lake Susitna, mostly outside of the winter season. They also facilitate a contract for summer and winter snow plowing and road grading from a local resident contractor. The community has also staged a number of stocked fire boxes around the lakes for use in case of emergencies, and there's a location map for all of those. I'm going to talk briefly about the census information, because some of you might think if you looked at the census data that we only have 36, 38, 40 people there. Well, that varies depending on the years, of course, but that number of housing units up there, according to the borough records, I got this just the other day, is 538. So we have a lot of folks up there that don't live there full time. That area is packed almost every weekend, winter and summer with all the cool stuff going on. So the events are held year round at the lake and at any given event, there's estimated to be up to 300 people from newborn to age 80s enjoying the lakes in the surrounding area. Non-cabin owners come from Glen Ellen, Eureka, Fairbanks, Valdez to join these activities. And some of the fun things that go on at Lake Louise are, well, first in the winter, we are a major stop for the Copper Basin 300. So we have a lot of mushers up in the area. We have a Sweetheart Fun Run, the Wolf Pack fundraiser weekend, Wolf Pack Spring Run, an antique snow machine event, and curling, ice hockey, or ice golf, or ice hockey, Yeah, ice golf or other spring event. We have cardboard boat races. We have an annual North Beach picnic and extravaganza, Halloween party, Thanksgiving potluck, and a great New Year's Eve party. So it's busy year-round, and we really need this. I guess I'll sum it up really quickly we do have another member that was supposed to be here tonight to help testify his name is James Hastings and he runs and manages and administers the Alaska Healing Hearts the island of hope and healing and he was hoping to be here tonight to testify but he was he had something come up so James did submit a letter of support and I'll hand that to the clerk for the record and We appreciate your service to us and for this opportunity for our community, we will take good care of it, thank you.

You can leave it online.

Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this ordinance? Do we have any, well we have, okay, go ahead, whosoever online, please.

Hi, my name is Michelle Stevens, and I am president of the Alaska Snow Machine Alliance, which supports all the snow machine clubs in the state of Alaska. We highly support this project in Lake Louise, Ordinance 26095. Lake Louise supports so many trails, over 300 miles of trails that Lake Louise Snow Machine Club supports. grooms for the community in the wintertime. And this project will help so much with winter trail grooming the community and everything. Storing equipment. This is, you know, huge to keep the equipment dry and covered so that they can do maintenance on their equipment to keep the trails groomed. They are so involved. They are top-notch. This snow machine club is paramount to the community in Lake Belize. And I, again, would like to say that the Alaska Snow Machine Alliance and Petersville Community Nonprofit highly support this project and thank you for your time.

Thank you. And one last chance, anyone present want to testify? Okay, I'll close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor?

I move to adopt ordinance 26-098. I'd like to speak to it momentarily.

Sure, go ahead, sir.

So this safety building was built by a grant, I believe is what I was told, and you had a certain amount of time to get it built and stuff, and it was kind of a rushed deal. When I went out there, it kind of looks like maybe 15 feet of fill or something, and then some... Permafrost involved as well, and nice building, sturdy building. Collins Construction built it, but the floor dropped out. Some places said 29 inches, and I know when I walked through there, the middle of the building was like, 15, 16 inches higher than the perimeter. But the building was sound from what I could see. I mean, it wasn't all cracked up on the drywall and stuff. But at one point, they condemned the building, and then they were trying to work out ways to get the building demolished. There was some talk about maybe letting people tear it down for their lumber costs and stuff, but then the borough would still have to remove the concrete and clean up. This is just a way that is a usable building if you have a little bit of ingenuity and it relieves the borough of any Any financial costs and stuff like that as far as getting rid of the building, it's a win-win for them. And out there, they don't get a lot of service from the borough. And anything that they can get, I sure appreciate if they can get it.

Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Ron, for bringing this forward. I fully support this. I'd like to amend this ordinance and resolution. Friendly ordinance or friendly amendment. I think that this is so important that we need to change the number to one for $1. They have all already paid their area-wide taxes. They're gonna be utilizing this facility to serve the community. This isn't for personal use. This is for service to the community. I think that that money, that $13,175 can be put towards better use than having to put it towards this. So I think that the borough should transfer this for $1 and then allow them the opportunity to utilize that funding to serve that community.

Okay, this is a primary amendment then to change from Removed the thirteen thousand one hundred seventy six dollars in place of that put one dollar assembly person gamble

thank you madam mayor yeah and i wholeheartedly support the amendment this building has been a disaster for the borough since my time in emergency services to the point where it was going to be cost prohibitive i don't even know if they knew how they could even get it engineered to fix the floor in it back when i was with emergency services and so they finally just condemned it And they lost their ambulance in Lake Louise. So now if they need emergency services, I believe it has to come out of Glen Allen or out of Sutton if they need medical assistance up there. And like Assemblymember Bowles and Assemblymember Bernier have said, this is a great project. It's a community coming together to build something that's going to serve the entire community. And I think this is a great project. And we should give them the building for $1. Thank you.

I just like maybe staff to come forward because anybody listening this a public might not understand how we like how was the 13,000 calculated what's I mean I've seen a fair number of the less than fair market value sales go I've never reduced it to one dollar not that I don't necessarily support that but um as the proboscis know the pro has to keep kind of a straight keel with everybody and how they treat them so can you speak to how the 13 000 was arrived at and sort of the process for less than fair market value and what changing it to one dollar any implication of that

Okay, with the assembly's understanding and permission, I will acknowledge staff, so go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Assemblymembers. For the record, Jillian Morrissey, Community Development Director. And to answer Assemblymember Naur's question, the price that you see as part of this legislation is, the price reflects the subdivision costs, period. Excuse me, what was the last part that you just said? The price of $13,176. Just a minute.

Assembly person, will you put your mic on please so it's on the record? Thank you. Now go ahead and ask your question.

I didn't hear the very last part. You said that that price is reflective of?

The price reflects the subdivision costs.

Oh, okay.

Thanks. Yes. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be sure it was on the record. Deputy Mayor.

This originally was, I believe, a 17-acre parcel and now it's subdivided down to five, I believe.

Okay, Assemblyperson McKee, did you still have a comment?

Yeah, so this is five acres, and so that five acres is worth 13,000, whatever it is. I guess I would ask you, we're giving it to less than fair market value. What is fair market value for this thing?

Through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, I don't have that number right in front of me, but what I can tell you is this was about a 16-acre parcel, and it's now subdivided where five acres is going to the LSTCA and the Lake Louise Snow Machine Club, and then about 12 acres are set aside for the borough. But I can get those numbers for you about what the values are.

Assembly members, Sumner was just showing me something here, and I had already read that, and it tells me what the whole thing was worth, but I still don't know what the, I guess because I can't do the math in my head, I still don't know what that whole five acre piece plus the land is actually worth. Because we're giving it for less, and that's 13. What would it be if we weren't doing it for less? You know what I'm saying? through the mayor to assembly member key i'm sorry i don't understand the question because what it says in the the it's talking about 17 000 acres and it was like 545 000 blah blah blah now it's now it's down to like five acres and the building and it's and we're saying okay it's less than fair market value my question is what is fair market value for this if we were selling it not to these folks with somebody else what would it be

Through the mayor to assembly member McKee. I do have those numbers. They're back at the table and I could get those for you in a minute, but I don't have them in front of me currently. Could you get them?

Assembly person hours.

So if I understand it correctly, we're selling them to for the 13,000 that it cost us to do the subdivision of the property. So we're selling it to them at just the cost. No value of the property, just the cost of what it costs the borough taxpayer to subdivide it. yeah correct okay so if we give it at one dollar the borough taxpayer is basically paying the cost of the subdividing because i'll come out of the general budget

through the mayor to assembly member nowers the 13 176 takes care of the sub the cost for the subdivision yeah and i could give you a breakdown of what those costs are again i just have that back at the table and i could the surveying costs and other things in order to do the subdivision work okay

I don't need a breakdown. I understand it. I understand the $13,000. It's just that nobody asked for it to be for $1, and, I mean, you could consider it just a contribution to the project for putting a floor back into line, I suppose, but it helps me to know that that is an actual cost incurred by the borough.

Assemblyman Mercer-Semner, go ahead, sir.

Yeah, I think I remember hearing about this as it was going along, and... And, you know, the Lake Louise Snow Machine Club, you know, knew that they were going to incur these costs for the subdivision. I think the more appropriate way to do it would be, you know, perhaps working a grant in, you know, a $13,000 grant in the budget process next year, but except, you know, moving this along as it was originally drafted, as it was originally intended.

Assembly person Bowles, and then Dee.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the taxpayers are actually sitting right out there. They've already paid their taxes. They've paid the $13,000 that's already been paid. And they're doing this community a huge service by taking this on. I think that this is the least that we on the assembly can do for them, considering what they're taking on with this project, for one. And then once this project is complete, what they're going to be able to do as far as providing I mean, services, heat for homes, grooming trails, just the area out there. I'm sure everybody's been out there. It's massive, and the Snow Machine Club does outstanding work, and this is a very minute amount, and that 13 grand, give or take, can go back into that community. They've already paid these area-wide taxes. It can go back into that community and be used to serve that community.

okay i think dean hasn't spoken and i'll come back go ahead i don't ever like voting on something if i really don't have all of the numbers and what if this is worth 150 000 and we're getting doing it for like 13 000 whatever it is if i'm a taxpayer out there property tax property owner and i'm paying taxes i'm saying We're gonna give away something that's $150,000 for $13,000 and I can't even pay my stinking property taxes And it's this is this is to benefit people in a certain I get it You guys are great whoever you guys that are doing this. This is the best presentation I have ever heard so I'll probably go ahead and vote for it anyway, but but I want to know what we're getting you understand I'm saying Transparency says I can't just say oh, yeah, let's just do this Okay Did you get some figures, okay

Thank you, Madam Mayor. To Assemblymember McKee, back to your original question. The 2026 building appraised value was $459,100. The 2026 building appraised value was $459,100. The land value at 16 acres was $86,200. If you take the 3,650 per acre times five acres for the LSTCA parcel equals $18,366 plus building equals the total value of $477,466.80. For this piece today. The building is condemned, correct?

Assemblyman Mercer, is D finished?

Yeah, so are we really giving $13,000 away? This thing that's supposed to be like, what did you, that final figure you ended up with, for $13,000, even if it's a condemned building? It must be worth something if you can fix it. That probably wasn't a very clear question, but what are we actually, giving them for that money for how much money was here we're giving for 13 000 that final figure up here that's the one i want they said this five acres and this building is actually worth blah blah blah and we're selling it for 13 000. that's that's my question or my that's what i want to know

Through the Mayor to Assemblymember McKee, I'm sorry, I may not understand your question, but what I did want to provide was the breakdown of the subdivision costs, just to go back to that so you understand what the costs are. The surveyors over $12,000. There's also platting fees occurred, $81, another $300 fee, and then the recording fee for the $13,176.08. And that's the less than fair market value that a little over five acres is being offered to the LSTCA.

Okay, I think maybe if I put this really, if you were selling this to me for fair market value, what would you charge me? That's basically. I'm gonna decline to answer that question.

Go ahead, sir.

Through the mayor to Ms. McKee. Why can't I get this? The building is condemned. The borough cannot, like we can't take the risk of like actually using it without fixing it first. And so yeah, you can have an assessed value and appraised value, but the reality is operationally it's of no value to us i get that right and so that's the issue and and like mr bernier mentioned we can go in there and try to fix it or we can try to demolish and remove it which is going to cost us probably more than thirteen thousand one hundred and seventy five dollars

Okay, I got it. So I think the selling point to me is these folks sitting out here saying all the wonderful things that they're going to do with it. This is, as I said, the best presentation I've heard. I always go towards something, what would it cost me at fair market value? But I understand. I just wanted the numbers out there, and I'm okay with that.

and through the mayor quickly i mean the value of subdividing is when we hand this to them they're going to take complete ownership and liability for it right so we want to subdivide keep the land that's ours for public purpose this will still serve public purpose but it's going to be under their name and they essentially the borough is going to wash our hands of it okay so win lose or draw they yeah i got it and they're willing to take it on

Assemblyperson Sumner.

Yeah, I was just gonna say that I think the $13,176 is the best offer we've gotten. I think that the $1 would be the best offer we've gotten. If you look at the pictures, yeah. I think that assessments hasn't caught up with the condemnation department. I think that that assessment may have reflected what it would have been in a building that was actually usable. So, I mean, this might actually be fair value of $13,000. I mean, well, the land itself is worth a little bit more, but there's a liability that's taken off of it.

And the only reason that I even question this is when we've had so much consternation with the public about taxes and we need to stop spending their money and all of that, I need them to know. That's why this discussion was important to me, because maybe it is important to some folks out there. Now it's like, why not?

With that, Madam Mayor, I call for the question.

We have other people that need to talk.

I had more to add when I was cut off.

What?

I had more to say when Dee interrupted me, very politely.

No, no, no, not back and forth between the two, okay.

Madam Mayor, may I continue?

What?

May I continue?

Yes.

Okay.

Come through the chair, not, yeah, thank you.

uh... yeah we're going to say what after me allowing so i've been i've been spanked so i now spanking you too thank you madam mayor i don't disagree with anything that mr bowls was saying about this being you know these taxpayers have paid their their taxes and providing a very worthwhile service uh to the community uh i i just think that it's more appropriate that since there was a cost incurred for subdivision that we you know receive the expense for the subdivision here on the sale and then if we want to give them 13 175 i would 100 support a grant later on during the budget process or even at the next meeting

so i think we're just i call for the question we're deviating away from the amendment okay so uh first of all eileen is glad she's retired from the borough at this point but um breathe easy this is gonna happen i uh the 13 000 is just a cost the borough incurred so to make the subdivision possible and so i agree with assembly member sumner i just think for all future things like this sell it at the cost and then do a 13 000 contribution or whatever you know you could come back to us for more if um it's warranted so that's just where i am on it but it's going to happen one way or another i think the amendment is to change it to one dollar so i'm opposing that but will support the sale absolutely okay assembly person um bowls

Thank you, Madam Mayor. These good people already paid their taxes and with that, I call the question.

Okay, is there an objection? Question has been called. Okay, I don't see any objection to the question then.

If I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the primary amendment. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Gamble and Bowles in support.

Okay, Assemblyperson Fauna.

Question to staff, continue, please, if I may. When this whole thing started, that $13,000, that was something that was discussed and they agreed with that amount, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, so it's not surprise to them that they agreed, they're happy with that number and everything, correct?

Through the Mayor Tuas, Assemblymember Fonoff, I'm standing up here and speaking of this. This has been a long process for the Community Council of Land Management, also Department of Emergency Services. There has been years of conversations around this. There are no surprises tonight.

so to my understanding to miss mckee to just to kind of put you at ease uh we're not charging money we're just passing on the cost what it costs to separate this so i think that is a very um reasonable what the staff has prepared and i will support it as it is written okay are we ready to is there objection to the motion

came and I don't see any objection to the main motions from the legislation passes.

Ordinance 26-100, an ordinance reappropriating $122,895.23 from the Brett Rubber Floor Replacement Project to the Ice Arena and Pool Project Fund for the purchase of an ice resurfacing machine. With accompanying resolution 2681, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the purchase of an ice resurfacing machine. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star three.

Go ahead and open the public hearing for ordinance 26-100 and resolution 26-081. We do not have a sign-up sheet. Anyone that would like to testify on either this ordinance or resolution? Okay, do we have one person online? Go ahead, please. Did they hang up?

They put their hand down. They don't want to speak.

Oh. So we didn't lose them, but they just changed their mind. Okay. All right. One last chance for anyone here. Okay, I'm going to close a public hearing. And Deputy Mayor.

I move to adopt Ordinance 26-101 and Resolution 26-084.

That's the wrong ordinance.

Did we give the wrong one?

That was Assemblymember Sumner that was supposed to remove this last one, 26-100.

Oh, he's what?

i think they hand it to me because it's in my district but uh i moved to adopt ordinance 26-100 and resolution 26-081 you'd like to speak to it yeah i'd like to say one thing i i'm not sure if this is a zamboni or not that it was we're pretty spartan on the details on what it is that ice resurfacing machine is but i hope that Oh, there we go. And I hope, what I was gonna say is I hope this thing doesn't get put out to pasture, put at a government auction, because it's possible that it could be repurposed for one of our other, I think maybe we have some clarification from staff if Madam Mayor would allow it.

For the record, Jillian Morrissey, Community Development Director, through the Mayor to Assemblymember Sumner, none of our ice resurfacing machines go out to pasture. We have several other outdoor ice rinks that we also service now, including Talkeetna, Willow. We also have a rink in Sutton. And now we've acquired Glacier View Community Center, which also has an ice rink. in need of an ice resurfacing machine. Using the term ice resurfacing machine is just that I'm using, instead of saying Kleenex, I'm saying facial tissue. So Zamboni is who we typically use for our parts and for our machinery. It's just, it allows procurement the opportunity just to look at different alternatives.

Assemblymember Bowles? Oh, Gamble, then Gamble.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I was just trying to go back and look. The internet's kind of slow. Didn't we last meeting move money to the Brett rubber floor replacement project? And if we moved money to this project from a different project, why are we now again moving money from the project we moved money from to fund to now purchase a Zamboni?

Through the Merit to Assemblymember Bowles, we actually have, we were not moving it to the, we finished the flooring project. What we're doing is as projects are coming in and we have leftover funds, we've been coming in under budget, which is terrific. We've been moving those funds in order to be able to repurpose them, in order to be able to continue to have high quality operations. And this is the final moving of project funds in order to be able to purchase the Zamboni, which requires an additional about $65,000, $70,000.

Okay, so if I may, through the mayor, I think the confusion may be that was the Wasilla pool flooring, not the Brett. Thank you.

Yep, okay, yep.

Okay, Assemblyperson Campbell.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Jillian, I must have missed this. So this is adding to a project and you're gonna purchase a new Zamboni, is that correct?

Through the mayor to Assemblymember Gamble, that is correct. We are in the need of a new one at the Brett facility.

Gotcha.

Is there any objection to the motion? Seeing no objection and the legislation passes. Madam Clerk.

Ordinance 26-101, an ordinance accepting and appropriating $565,900 from the Talkeetna Airmen's Association with accompanying resolution 2684, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the Talkeetna Village Airstrip Reventment Reconstruction. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star three.

we do not have a sign-up sheet open public hearing anyone that would like to testify an ordinance twenty six dash one oh one or resolution twenty six dash zero eight four see anybody do we have anybody we do not have anybody online okay i'll close public hearing and deputy mayor now you can reread it

I move to adopt ordinance 26-101 and resolution 26-084. Okay. Discussion? Any objection?

Okay, hearing none, another legislation passes. Madam Clerk, do we have another one? Oh, it's the last one, okay. I'll order now to another audience participation. Doesn't look like we have a sign-up sheet. I'll go ahead and open audience participation, and if you didn't testify previously, you can testify under this audience participation.

We have anybody online, sir?

No? Alrighty, I'm gonna go ahead and close audience participation. And now we're to the consent agenda, Assemblyperson Sumner.

Yeah, I'd like to also pull AM 26-125. 125, is that right?

26-125, is that what you said, sir? Yep. Okay. Thank you. Is there any objection to him pulling 1.25 a.m. 26? Okay, don't see any objection. Madam Clerk?

Okay, Madam Clerk? Resolution 26087, a resolution to waive application and land use permit fees for Denali Nordic Ski Clubs, proposed four-mile trail expansion at Toquitna Lakes Park. Resolution 2689, a resolution directing the manager to develop a public safety facility proposal for Alaska State Trooper operations in the Manuska-Sitna borough, resolution 2690, a resolution amending the fee schedule for community development, resolution 2696, a resolution amending the scope of work and budget within the Midway road service area, excuse me, yeah, road service area, to reallocate funds from Stephen Drive improvements to Midway Streets improvement project, AM 26121, authorization to purchase a network switches from Worldwide Technology in the amount of $105,449.17. AM 26122, approval of change order number seven for contract 23T2PC with Dowell for the Edgerton Parks Road Mountain Trails Drive Upgrade Pathway Project to retroactively extend the completion date to September 30th, 2026. AM 26124, Approval of change order number four for contract 2555B with granite construction for the Midway Streets Road Improvement Project to add $11,494.08 and retroactively extend the final completion date to December 31st, 2026. AM 26126 awarded bid number 2725B to Old Day Construction Company in the amount of $227,773.20 for Talkeetna Transfer Station access improvements AM 26127, authorizing the manager's signature on the memorandum of agreement with the Alaska State Department of Natural Resources Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model results in a GIS-based analysis of soil distributions and liquefaction susceptibility for the borough. And AM 26128, approval of additional utility relocation costs of $81,945.42 to Enstar Natural Gas Company for Midway Road Service Area Streets Improvement Project.

Deputy Mayor.

I move to approve the consent agenda as read into the record by the clerk.

Is there any objection? Assemblyperson Sumner.

I just realized that, so I apologize, Madam Clerk, that... AM 26-128 is that third additional utility relocation cost for NSTAR that we had discussed in the last meeting that hadn't come before the assembly yet that would be grouped with the other two. So this is utilities that were already spent and they're over budget. So I would like to divide the question and handle that one separately.

Okay. Is there objections to Assemblyperson Sumner dividing the question? okay already do we take deputy mayor's motion first to pass the both of them are on the floor so the first segment would be he doesn't need to be moved again the first segment is everything but am 26 128 so nothing needs to be moved again okay so is there any objection to moving everything except for 126 128. Any objection to moving everything but 128? Assemblyperson Bolz?

Yes, Madam Mayor, sorry. I thought that we were also separating 26-125.

We haven't gotten there yet. This is everything but everything that got pulled. This was everything that was not pulled already. We haven't gotten there yet. Okay.

Yeah. So it's the previous things where we've had to, what, this is the fourth pull tonight, right?

You said move everything. Yeah. Okay.

Everything but, but, but, but, but. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I don't hear any objections into the motion, so all of the buts have been approved, okay.

Now the second segment, Madam Mayor, what's before the body right now is AM 26128. Okay.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to, is it possible to move this to after the unfinished business? Or along with the unfinished business, which is the other NSTAR utility relocation costs?

that allowable go ahead madam clerk madam mayor it is allowable there is four other things that i think that got pulled so i think the assembly member sumner's intent is to speak about all three of them at the same time okay is there any objection well just one suggestion i mean the the conversation we're going to have about this and the other two um

Well, Mr. Cooper's here right now. I guess we can do the other ones. I was just thinking we could take that up first and let him go home. But if we can't make a decision on the unfinished business until we get there. So anyway, sorry, retract all that and let's just continue.

I don't think there is any objection. Go ahead.

So now we are back to give me a second.

Okay.

AM 26119, award of bid number 2733C to Braun Northwest for the anticipated cost not to exceed $529,226 to remount and refurbish two ambulances. It was polled by Assemblymember McKee.

Okay.

Assemblyperson McKee, would you move, please, and then discuss? I move AM 26-119, and I have a couple questions about it.

Please talk.

And it would probably be for... I can't remember your last name.

Do you want Ken to come? Yes. Okay. If we can have staff, please.

I know that. Well, I knew the first name. I couldn't get the last one.

Ken Barkley, Director of Emergency Services. Good evening, Assembly and staff.

Just two questions, again, Mr. Barclay. How many bidders were there on this? And I read the part that said that these people have always done, they give you exactly what you need, and so I think I'll probably let that question go. I don't care how many bidders, if their performance has always satisfied you folks. What's the cost for a new ambulance? Is it like a half a million dollars to fix up two older ones?

Through the Mayor and Assemblymember McKee, as you are aware, prices have gone up tremendously for our fire apparatus, our ambulance, et cetera. There are fire departments and emergency services departments that are shutting down because their equipment is not adequate to be on the road. This program, I believe this is fifth or sixth year we've been doing it, and it has saved the borough hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if we were to buy a new one, I'm going to have to guess, but we're looking anywhere between $400,000, maybe a little less for a new ambulance. But it may not have the equipment that these have. It may not be four-wheel drive. So those are the cost savings. And sticking with these brands, we don't have to stock as many various parts, and we have tires for them, et cetera. So that's the huge savings for us.

As usual, you always make it an absolutely a go on this, so thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay, further discussion on 119?

Any objection?

Okay, then AM 26119 has been approved. Madam Clerk.

AM 26123 authorizing the manager to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for driveway access and construction of the left turn lane on Church Road for the American Charter Academy project, pulled by Assemblymember Sumner.

Okay. Would you move, please, sir?

I move AM 26-123. Do you want to talk to it? Yeah, I just had some questions for staff. Well, really just an explanation and an update on this.

Go ahead, sir.

cole branham project management division manager so yeah yeah so we are working through the permitting process with dot for this project and what we're currently looking to so the driveway permit itself is requiring left turn lane and we're currently working through an agreement with the dot to include it into their pavement preservation project for church road The estimate that was provided in this legislation was for a standalone project. It included a lot of costs for mobilization, surveying, erosion sediment control, and just the magnitude of the project. So if we're able to come to that agreement with DOT and execute that, that should bring costs down significantly. And in the meantime, we're also working on we haven't received it in writing yet but a conditional approval to get that driveway constructed this year and then incorporate the work for the left turn lane into next year's work when they're doing the pavement preservation project go ahead sir so i guess this is maybe a question for the manager but uh so hopefully the cost is lower but this cost would be incorporated into hopefully next year's budget through the through the mayor mr sumner um yeah we're gonna have to look at this

likely have to look at this as an out of cycle potentially. Cheyenne and I talked about a couple options for that. Right now we're waiting to see what the actual cost estimates will be. The cost estimates that were originally listed were extremely high. We escalated this all the way to the DOT commissioner. We had a detailed conversation and the numbers are, I mean I don't wanna stick to a hard number, but we're probably somewhere closer to like a quarter of a million dollars, maybe a little bit more, depending on if there's utility relocations required. but d.o.t has been very accommodating to build it into the project so that all the overhead costs of a project like mobilization traffic control are all paid for by the church road preservation project and d.o.t is not looking to saddle us with those costs so that should help out significantly and frankly a turn lane's probably a pretty good idea long term So I think we're probably in the ballpark of about a quarter of a million, and we will bring that forward once we know that with more detail. Right now, because they actually have a contractor under contract to do that work next summer. So they're getting hard numbers. It's not something we're going to have to go out and procure. It really has to do with just getting enough of a design done to make sure we've got the right of way and there's no utility relocations of significance that we'll have to own. Did I get close? And so I think there likely will be potentially some appropriation coming forward where we'll ask for some additional funding, but there's also some project funding that may be preserved to get at some of this. We just don't know those, until we have an estimate, we won't know those exact numbers. go ahead sir one more follow-up question is when's that school opening so through the mayor it's going to open in november time frame and that's the importance of the agreement is because that leads us to a conditional approval where we get the driveway access now even though we're not going to put the turn lane in right away and so that's the value of the agreement and the sensitivity is we need to be able to sign off on that so we can get the conditional approval to keep things on track so that the contractor has a permit to build the driveway

my memory is that the the schools are helping pay part of the cost of these projects so is it's this turn lane going to be included in the whatever the cost is is that is some of that going to be borne by American Charter potentially so

So through the Mayor to Ms. Nowers, keep in mind the projects are to build the school, right? Circulation, access, utilities, like it's an all-in proposition, right? This isn't a deed project agreement from the state where there were off-site activities limited. Like we don't have another pot of money to address these needs, okay? I would say generally no, because what was in the bond proposition for American was a certain number. We've already exceeded that number. If you recall, the assembly approved a $900,000 transfer from Birch Tree because we're no longer building a new Birch Tree school, and that got moved to this project account. So we're already using that money because that helped to address the water issue that we had right with the the treatment cistern and all that stuff so we've already we're already into that money that's the money we're talking about using so if somebody came back from the school community and said x amount of number was in the bond they fully realized that for schools we actually brought more money to the project to offset these unknowns such as a turn lane and a water issue and so you know as far as messaging to the schools they're getting more than really what was originally out there and available to them because there have been changes in other projects like birch tree where we're no longer constructing and that that's already being made available to the project so we can keep the schedule on track okay okay all righty further discussion on the motion is there any objection

to the motion. Then the legislation passes.

AM 26-125, award of bid number 27-1B, Dorian Construction, and the contract amount of $5,487,300. To construct a household hazardous waste facility, it was pulled by Assemblymember Sumner.

Okay, Assemblymember Sumner, go ahead.

am 26-125 no sorry i move am 26-125 you want to speak to it yeah um we had some public comments from a frequent flyer who i don't always agree with quite often he's very wrong but in in this in this case uh since we you know we had some growing pains with the opening of the uh the new turn uh the new way uh scale house of the dump 5.5 million is a lot of money uh for uh four walls and a roof to hold hazardous waste I've been to the dump and I've seen what they're working with right now and I don't deny that it's uh it's necessary but that seems like a lot of money and this didn't really stick out at me before tonight's meeting but then with the uh the issues with the dump I would I'd like to take a closer look at this so I would move to postpone this until I can collect some more information on this project assembly member Sumner we do have to have a date uh next to two meetings from now.

15 September, October six. Oh, I thought he said two weeks. Okay.

Okay.

Discussion on the motion to postpone assembly person.

I didn't see anybody jump out of their seat. So I'm just asking if we don't approve this till October, does that do anything to construction deadlines?

So currently where we're at, I don't believe it's going to have any major impact. It'd be preferable if we put it to the September 15th meeting, if I'm being honest, so we potentially have some opportunity to do work this year. But where we're at in the season, it's questionable how much the contractor is going to get done this year anyways. It's a design bid build, so this is a construction bid.

just make a secondary amendment to move it to September 15th give time to look at it I mean I would err on the side of not spending taxpayer money unnecessarily so if we don't get anything done this year then you know we have a continue using the status quo continue using the existing hazardous waste facility for a little bit longer which is I mean we're using it right now

hours I think that gives you two weeks to take a look at this so you can you know scan it and potentially keep a project moving instead of more delay so I stick to the September 15th and I have seen the current facility and that's woefully under under done but I have no problem with additional questions I just think September 15th if it gives you two weeks to take a look at it analyze it and then we could potentially get some work done if you know we don't change anything

Yeah, we're approaching the end of the construction season. It's questionable whether you can get any work done or not before the end of the construction season. And we just saw the repercussions of what happens when you rush a project and then it collapses 30 inches into the ground. So I'm going to stick with the October 6th.

Okay. So I think there must be an objection here, right? So we need to vote.

I can get the members to vote on the postponement to October 6th. No, no. Secondary, right? Oh, I didn't hear you say I move. I'm sorry. Okay, let me rewrite this and I'm going to reset it. Okay. Okay, now I'm ready. Sorry, guys. And people keep voting. Hold on. Let me get the vote out there first. The amendment is to September 15th, and I'm sorry if you've already voted, but if you can vote again. It failed with Assemblymember Nowers in support. And now we're back to 10-6, Madam Mayor. Okay.

Is there objection to the Assemblyperson Bowles?

I just would like to speak to this. I can fully support removing this project if there's appetite for that. I agree we have a hazmat building. So I'm gonna vote no to postponing this so that we can vote yes to suspend this project.

I think we need to keep this project moving forward. I mean to say something assemblymen summer said many times is we the time to object was when we put this out to to bid but I mean I The characterization that you just stick stuff in a landfill, you just cover it is what we used to do, right? And it's really expensive if you just do that, you don't do it wrong, you do it wrong. That's why landfills have liners now and why lithium batteries catch on fire. And if you put stuff in there, it gets down into your water. So I'm speaking to this. So whether or not the five point, I do not have any objection to scrutinizing a contract award. And if you find legitimate things that you think are out of whack, by all means bring those up. But to forego building a quality hazardous waste facility to deal with the material that comes in from the borough that could cost us a lot of money if there isn't a disposal place would not be prudent at all. So I'll continue to support putting this on for October 6th.

the discussion is on the postponement until october 6 right and there is objection is there objection there is okay i can get the members to vote madam mayor it has passed with assembly member bowls opposed okay now We have everything that we go back and get everything.

I think we've got everything, Madam Mayor, and we are moved on to unfinished business.

Okay. Okay, so we're at unfinished business, and clerk, would you read into the first item into the records?

AM 26106, approval of additional utility relocation costs of $220,624.38 to NSTAR Natural Gas for Crimson View and Heavenly Meadows Street, improvements in the South Colony Road service area.

Okay, the main motion is on the floor, so we'll continue to have discussion. Assemblyperson Nowers.

I know Mr. Cooper is here from NSTAR, and I would like to give him a chance to come up and speak to these projects and the cost issues that they've had, and also just allow for discussion about what we can do for future costs.

Okay, yes. Come forward, sir, please.

Andy's been waiting a long time, so sorry.

Good evening. It's been a long day. Been up since 5. My name is Steve Cooper. I'm the vice president of operations engineering for Enstar Natural Gas. Worked there for 37 years. Born and raised in the valley here. A little bit about myself. I started in the ditches, got myself an engineering school, and moved up through the company managing construction projects, estimating construction projects. So I know a lot about this type of work. When Instar installs facilities in the right-of-way, we have to get a permit from the borough or from any other agency that controls that right-of-way. You guys have codes that dictate that. So your 113020 says we can get a permit. 3080 states that the cost of relocation of utility located pursuant to a valid permit as required by the borough for a public purpose shall be borne by the borough okay so that your statute states that if we have a valid permit the cost to relocate us is borne by the borough We don't want to relocate our lines, honestly. We put our lines in the ground, and we want them to be there for the next 100 years, okay? That's what we want to do, but most of these lines that have been put in the ground were put back in the 80s and 90s. They're put down on roads that were not developed at the time. They're right-of-ways. They're public right-of-ways, but there's a cow trail in them, and we're installing our gas lines by the permit at the outer five-foot edge of the right-of-way four feet deep the borough puts out bids for construction to rebuild roads you guys are widening roads you're digging deep for ditches that impacts our facility and it has to be relocated at no fault of us it costs money to relocate utilities um got a whole thing here but i'm tired for the day um I wanna talk about cost estimates, because that's what's coming up with these jobs. NSTAR, the borough comes to NSTAR, and NSTAR looks at your plans, decides what we need to do to put our facilities relocate them in the right of way at the proper depth and whatever we're going to avoid, your storm drains or ditching. And we take our best guess. You're looking at a plan. You're going out in the field. You're looking at these projects. You're getting your best guess of how am I going to do this. I think it's going to take this much time. It's going to take this much materials. And we put that out as an estimate, as an estimate of what it's going to take. When you guys put a public project out to bid to build a road, you're getting a bid from a contractor to build that road. That contractor looks at that road, what's it gonna cost me to build it? What risk is involved that I build it? He adds risk to his estimates and he adds a profit margin. Instar has no profit margin in our estimate. We simply wanna be repaid for what it costs to relocate our facilities. That's it. Our estimates... A few of them on these projects didn't reflect the actual work that had to be done, honestly, at the end. At the end of the day, we look at these jobs and we're like, wow, this is a lot more work than what was estimated by our engineers. The wages weren't correct in the estimate also. When NSTAR has to work on a public project, we have to pay a Davis-Bacon wage, state law. The estimates reflected a union wage. Between union and Davis-Bacon, it's about $3 difference in wages. So that's one instance, and then it's a timeframe in those estimates were not adequate to what actually took place in the field. I listened to the last assembly meeting. There was talks about how our contractors are so expensive. If you look at our estimating process, which it's the same for Mat-Su Boroughs, the same for the DOT. We estimate based on how many hours it would take for our employees to do the job. So there's an hourly wage and then there's an overhead rate that goes with that number of hours. That overhead rate pays for procurement, accounting, pays for warehousing, pays for transportation vehicles, pays for our equipment, pays for our trucks, our tools, our generators. It's all inclusive in that overhead rate with our hourly rate. So if you put those together, Rough numbers, $270 an hour for NSTAR to show up with one person to do a job. Our contractor rates are different. I've been bidding contractors to do our work for the last 20 years. Contractors get paid by the piece of equipment. So if a contractor shows up with a piece of equipment, they have the equipment, they have a Davis-Bacon operator, and they have a fuel charge. all combined into one. If you look at a 320 excavator, that 320 excavator with all that is about $150 an hour. If you go rent an excavator that size personally, it's going to cost you $125 an hour, and you're going to have to fuel it, and then you're going to have to operate it, just to put numbers together. I've been doing this for a long time. Whether NSTAR does the work in-house or NSTAR does the work with contractors, contractors are generally a little cheaper to do the work than our in-house staff. And our in-house staff, has all kinds of other work that they have to do to maintain our facilities. They have to go respond to line breaks. So if they're on a borough project, relocating a gas line, and we have someone damage our lines, they're leaving that job to fix the line and coming back to redo your project, which could be on overtime or postponed however many days. If we look at the Crimson View, I can't remember which one that was. That was a subdivision. It's 1985 build for us. It's when we put the mains in. That's when the first houses went in that subdivision. It's right down the road here across from the fairgrounds. When that subdivision went in, it was probably gravel roads, not developed, new housing, no landscaping, no nothing. 41 years later, when we went to relocate this, which probably wasn't in the estimate, wasn't looked at properly, but every driveway's paved, the road's paved, there's existing utilities in there that we have to dig around. The borough's digging a three-foot ditch, which means if we're at 48, we have to go down seven feet. Digging around to the utilities, we can't dig within two feet of a locate mark. You have to use shovels, air knives, vacuum extractors to protect those facilities. We're the first ones on the job. in that subdivision. Homeowners are enjoying their day. We show up, we're ripping through their subdivision. We don't generally, on state jobs we would never do that. State job has a contractor goes in and blows out the asphalt, blows out the road, gets it all ready to go, we go in and relocate our facilities. And the borough project, we're there first, we're digging asphalt, we're digging culverts, we're digging in tight areas where the material has to go on the pavement We have to backfill off the pavement, which is another piece of equipment. And then we have stormwater pollution prevention measures where we have to keep that pavement clear and no dust, no dirt tracking anywhere. There's a lot of more added costs to doing work like that. That job, we estimated 12 days. It took 21 days. Mike Brown, Tom Adams was here last week, or last assembly meeting. They're not contesting the work that we did. We did the work. It cost more money than we thought it was gonna cost, based on an estimate. If we step back a few years, step back when I was an engineer, or even up to I think 2023, The contract paperwork that the borough signed to relocate facilities was our paperwork. And our paperwork is based on the DOT paperwork. It's a time materials contract, it's an estimated cost, and the costs are borne by the agency that is requiring us to relocate. This new paperwork that I'm aware of now, that the borough drafted, I think in 25, 24, has, and it's not something I signed, most of these relocation projects are below my level that need approval, now that I'm aware of them, but they have a, you know, not to exceed a 15% overage. That doesn't work for NSTAR. You know, cost causer is cost payer. That's a utility model. Just like we run main extensions to homes, we run service lines to homes, we do LIDs. The cost causer is the cost payer in the utility model. So anytime someone wants gas or needs relocation work done, they pay for that cost, because we don't make money on infrastructure. We make money transporting gas to customers. The Midway Estates, that's the one we just brought up here. That's an interesting one when I started asking questions. That's a 2023 project that NSTAR completed our relocation work. It went out to construction in 2025. We had to go relocate some of the stuff that we had already done because there were drainage changes on the project at construction. It also, because of that relocation, we had to do an extra horizontal directional drill bore on the project. So that added more cost to that project, exceeded the estimate. These are things that happen in the field. We're on the job site trying to figure out how to get things done. Costs escalate to get the job done. Because really, I don't have the ability to stop and say, well, I can't do this job anymore when I'm halfway done. I have to provide my customer service. I have to maintain service. The Helen Lane, it's another tight subdivision like Crimson View. Those homeowners, talking to my contractor, were very hostile. The clearing contractor came in for them and cleared that subdivision. And those homeowners didn't want that project done. We came in there, and they were very hostile to our contractors. It was tight. There was nowhere to put material. There was nowhere to store equipment overnight. We had to move and demove every day. It didn't take longer. It didn't take longer in days. It just took more hours during the day to get things done so we could be productive. Those are those three jobs that you have up here. I'm sorry our estimates weren't accurate to reflect the work that was actually done. We've done better. I don't know if any of you are business owners, but keeping people employed in this economy is hard. You know, our engineering department, I swear every three years I'm revolving door because An engineer comes to a gas company, gets gas experience, oil and gas experience, where are they going? North Slope, Hillcourt, Conoco. Someone's taking them up, so we're constantly in this redevelopment phase with engineers. I got a brand new engineering... manager brand new supervisor seasoned employees at nstar but they've moved up in the in the company i've got a good couple engineers i'm looking for another engineer after this so we've revamped all our estimates you guys seen that last time those the projects that haven't gone to construction we looked at every estimate made sure they were accurate made sure we're not going to go over those budgets The other thing that we've done at NSTAR because of this is I'm working on getting daily construction reports sent to our planner so that they can input that data into a spreadsheet and we know where we're at every day on a project so we can notify the borough if there's an issue. But like I said, if there's an issue and I have a three-day job and it turns into a four-day job, I've blown 15% but I can't stop. I have to get service to my customers. I have lots to talk about but it's late and I'll just open for questions if you have any.

so thank you for coming down i really appreciate it i mean it shows your concern for the the company and and respect for us so um i appreciate you especially since you got up at five in the morning so i'm impressed that you're still standing um I did pull this, you know, I understand the work being hard and all the things that go with it. The issue for the borough is being able to be responsible for cost to our taxpayers. And in this case, like the Crimson View project, this is not, you know, at the end of the day, an extra 200,000. That is coming from, so this was 164,000 and it ballooned an additional 220,000. That money is coming from France Road, which leads to a valley school where the guardrail is falling off the road and they desperately need a traffic signal. So the inability to contain costs has a real cost for the taxpayer out here, and that is, there's a long list of projects behind France Road that are all in need. So I'm looking at it really from the standpoint of what can we do better as a borough, and I gotta admit that when this, your example of we're on a three-day project in four days, that's one thing, but all the contracts we put out for road projects, they have a cost containment percentage that if you look like you're gonna go over that, you have a conversation with the borough, and sometimes it comes back to this body um so right now you know like i don't i don't um if we're not having any sort of responsibility for the utility to you know let us know let the borough know when something's going way over or looks off i don't know how we responsibly keep cost containment because we don't know what's happening and then you just hand us a bill and say we made an error, that's hard to deal with. So I'm looking for ways that if this 15%, if signing a contract that says we'll let you know when we're gonna go over 15% is a problem, like what cost, what do we have

at the end of the day right what you know from the from the hiring standpoint of doing these projects how can we how can we manage them like like i said we're we're implementing some more cost tracking so we can know where we're at with these projects before we go over budget and my person is on there

Yeah, I was just going to add that if you want to make sure that these costs balloon, then, you know, insist on stopping in the middle of the project to wait for a government body to make a decision on whether to continue proceeding with what you have to do and is required for the project.

Okay. Are there any discussion and questions? Yes. Uh-huh. Go ahead.

That makes sense to me, right? Yeah, having to wait a month, that doesn't make any sense. But as it exists, if nothing is signed, you just hit us with 200,000 extra and it was an error, like no contractor would be able, like if that happened to me personally, we'd be working out a deal. And so I'm left with the 15%, the notification doesn't work, but I don't hear anything different. And so that's when I look at, it comes like, You know is our structure the way we structure these contracts the way we structure these projects are we having the right incentives do we need to look at something else, where we we don't put utilities in the right of ways because they're so expensive, so we don't end up in this you know how how can we. What can we do to have some kind of assurance that we're.

to keep these projects within you know an amount that we know what we're going to pay and not just get a bill and we got to pay it at the end of the day yeah i'd like to address your right-of-way question there and we talked about this so instrumental gas is regulated by the federal government we're regulated regulated by pipeline hazardous material safety administration they dictate the maintenance and code requirements that we have to do our pipelines have to be leak surveyed every five years. We have to walk those lines and have access to them so that we can determine if there's leaks. Our transmission lines have to be done every year. So I got 1,200 miles of mains and transmission lines in the Mat-Su borough. So every five years, I'm on a rotating cycle so I can make that work, but we have to go through every line. NSTAR's already having, so many access problems on private property. Just trying to get to our meter set. We have customers pulling guns on us. We have customers threatening our employees. It's really hard to access people's properties and if you have an easement on someone's property, that doesn't mean they can't do anything there. They can put up a fence, they can do landscaping, they can plant trees, they can block our access and we have to get the cops there to get in. I can't have that to make my mandated federal code requirements that I have to do on maintenance. The other aspect of that is last year we had 199 damages throughout our system, underground damages. 71 of those were in the valley. 21% of those were homeowners on private property damaging our service lines. And the scary fact is that 47% of those didn't call for locates. They're just digging in their property, hitting our gas lines. It's a big problem. And if I have my main lines that are serving hundreds to thousands of customers in an easement behind a fence and they're not calling for locates, that's gonna cause a public safety hazard. So we locate in the right-of-way. We've always located in the right-of-way, and courts and laws allow us to do that with the permission of the agency that has the right-of-way giving us a permit. We spent, in the last five years, $136,000 on permits in the Mat-Su Borough to allow us to put our pipelines there.

i guess i just continue like these utility locations are just a huge portion of the road costs and road costs are driving this borough to an extreme amount of cost and the taxpayer is saying we don't want to pay any more property taxes and this and The road service area is the one that pays the road costs. So there's no other pot of money when these projects balloon over. And I just am not comfortable with something that is just an open-ended, like I don't feel like that open-ended in terms of whatever the cost will be, it will be, and we'll let you know at the end of the project. That doesn't feel like a comfortable position for the person overseeing the costs at the borough. I'm looking for something a little more, if the 15% doesn't work, that's fine. And I'm also looking for, is there something we can do better as a borough to make these projects, and maybe this is a discussion beyond at 9.40 at night, but to make these projects smoother so we don't have the kind of hiccups that lead to the cost overruns. Because at the end of the day, if that money's available, we can get to some of these road projects that desperately need to be done.

Yeah, I was just gonna say that Thanks for coming he made a detail explanation of what cost the cost of runs on each of these projects and Also said that they're gonna do better and the measures that he's gonna implement to do better. That's you know satisfied me I'd also like to you know, I point out that I don't think any of these guys have x-ray vision and these are 40 something year old lines that are buried in the ground and So I move dirt for a living. I don't think that you do, Ms. Mowers. But sometimes time and materials is the only way that you can do a job. And that's the case here. There is no profit. There is no fat built into these costs. So yeah, I think this satisfies any of my concerns. And I would call the question.

Assemblyperson D, do you have an objection to calling the question?

Yeah, because I just had a comment to make. Okay.

Can't do that. All right. Okay, then I object to calling the question. You can just object to that.

So if I can get the members to go ahead and vote on calling on the question. Assemblymember McKee? Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Sumner, Gamble, and Bowles in support.

Okay. So Assemblyperson McKee, now you can discuss.

I have to tell you, I've listened to a lot of technical presentations. Yours is the clearest I've heard in how long I've been on the Assembly. It absolutely answered every question that I have. I understand Ms. Nauer's concerns. we these things change order things drive us crazy because because we're does it's not like we just take it out of the pot in the burrow it's take it out of people's pockets out there but i really appreciate the way you presented that the other thing i really like is that you are willing to say yep we screwed up a little bit here on our estimates and we're you actually have a plan going forward to do better so as far as i'm concerned I'd give it a go. I think it's, yeah, what other choice do you or we have? Because that's how life is. It's just, it's uncertain. Stuff happens.

Okay, assembly person, fall off.

I'll ask a question. I guess when you do an estimate and then you realize that it took you a lot quicker than what you thought, how often, I don't know, do we still stick to the estimated price or do we actually get and do we have any historic data when how often you're under and how often you're off if you had to be transparent with us, I guess, because I guess we'd like to see it, how often it goes the other way.

Yeah, I don't have that information with me right now as far as which way it goes.

Yeah, I don't think our finance lady there. I just thought that would be good to know for a comparison because if, you know, a lot of times you guys estimate it and then we got a lower price, okay, good, but then when this thing happens, it's, I guess, more acceptable because then we understand there's not a pattern always having an estimate and then going up. Specifically to maximize that thing. So I guess that's that was just my I guess question.

Yeah We don't you don't pay based on estimate you pay an actual cost You know for the project

Yeah, I guess in construction, and I am a general contractor, you get an estimate, and I don't remember ever the last time somebody came and said, hey, it took me quicker. Here's $1,000 less than what I estimated. However, I oftentimes see, hey, it took it longer. Those unforeseen circumstances or things like that, and then you pay more. So I guess... That's just my experience with the estimates. So I'd hope that when you overestimated it, we also get, not a discount, but I guess the correct price that we should have been charged.

I guess at that point you know when you maybe I don't move dirt for a living but I deal with a lot of contractors and you have overages and you know it might go over 20 but this was I mean this was off by a factor of 130 and so if a contractor came to me like it would be nice for the sake of the the road service area that's affected by this extra 220 000 if n start since it was an estimating error and it wasn't it wasn't just a little estimate error it was a large one to um you know meet us somewhat of the way there and then um because it wasn't a small one and it's having a big impact on that rsa so it was an estimating error for us to do the job of what we thought it was going to take to do the job the job took longer our rate payers

are your taxpayers, but I have more ratepayers than you have taxpayers. I cannot, as a utility, absorb costs and charge them to all my ratepayers. because it's not fair.

And I do understand that, but on the same hand, to stand up for the road service area people who pay taxes that go towards that, they are being asked to absorb an extra $220,000 cost that they might have done something differently had they known. And you acknowledge that NSTAR made it not just a, like we didn't know it would be this much effort, but there was an estimating error on NSTAR's part, and we weren't able to adapt to it at all. So nice to have some kind of mutual consideration for that road service area because they can't go anywhere else.

So is there objection? Assemblyperson Gamble, go ahead.

Yeah, I gotta weigh in on this. So I'm really surprised that you didn't have in place before a program where when you're going over estimates that you're aware of it on a more frequent basis and that you would communicate that to the borough. Hey, we're not just gonna go 15% over, we're gonna go 50% or more. So what you're telling me now is that you have put that program in place now where you're going to start getting daily reports so that when you start going over that you're going to be in communication. Do you have a trigger now that when you hit a certain point you're going to let the borough know?

Yeah, we have triggers in place where our construction managers and our planning guy are working out Tracking costs number of days on the jobs and we're gonna be in more communication with public public works about okay My other question is When you're doing estimates, do you have a CAD program?

Do you have a program in place where you put the numbers in? whatever night I know it's there's Variables when you're doing this work But do you have a program that you put this in and it spits out a number? So you have a pretty close estimate

We have spreadsheets that have all of our rates in there for contractors and employees and that we've just revamped again. And you estimate the number of days and hours and manpower that goes to do the job, puts in an estimate, calculates the numbers, gets checked, and then gets sent out.

right so if i heard you correctly i think you said that you you estimated a job in 2023 but you didn't start it until 2025 do you ever go back and revisit your estimates so that you update them to make sure that that was that the 2023 job was midway we did the work in 2023 we had to go back in 2025 and redo the work because there was drainage changes on the project

there was a design change on the project that we had to go relocate some of the work we had already done and it necessitated an actual directional drill to install the line.

And what was the cause of the new drainage issues?

It was public works. Public works. Changed the design.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, is there objection to the motion? Adoption?

I'm just clarifying which, are we on all three or are we on one? 106, 26106. I will let this move forward. I would hope that in, I don't know what the mechanism for NSTAR, I'm looking for NSTAR to meet us part way on this. So I don't know if the correct thing to do is to postpone it to September 15th and give the parties some time to talk through that. as well as get just kind of a report on what that reporting is gonna look like to the borough for future projects, what that means, the changes that you're making to explain those. So I guess I would make a motion if I could on that particular one because it's such a large cost. I think it's 130% increase on that one if we could postpone that till September 15th.

Okay. Deputy Mayor, will you move for the extension?

I move to extend the meeting to 11 p.m. Okay.

Is there objection? Okay, thank you. All righty. So we have a motion to postpone then. Is there objection to that? Go ahead.

I am objecting to postponing this. I don't see what that's gonna accomplish. I am not opposed to a report. I'd like to know how we can improve the reporting procedures between utilities and the borough so that we don't get caught off guard like this again. But I don't think that postponing it is gonna accomplish anything.

So many person bowls So I'm having I'm Having a real hard time with this and I wasn't gonna say anything I was just gonna let slides but just so on the record 19 hours at 151 dollars and 33 cents an hour for a flagger

I think we're just on the motion to postpone, sir. Correct. So can you keep it to that, whether you want it to postpone or not, not on the basis of passing the whole AM?

So I would like a secondary amendment to postpone it definitely and then reconfigure this, I just can't understand how a project estimated at a certain amount and it comes back at three times the amount.

The clerk is telling me no secondary amendment. Is that what you were?

No, what I said, Madam Mayor, is postponing indefinitely is not an amendment to postpone to a time certain. It's a motion unto itself. So this is what's on the floor. You have to vote it down.

So I'm going to vote this down with the hopes that it gets voted down so that we can postpone this and definitely get a better report on this and more involvement with this because this is out of control.

Madam Clerk, I guess we need to vote.

I get the members to vote voting on postponing to 9-15. 9-15. Madam Mayor, it is spelled with Assemblymember Fanoff and Nowers in support.

It's a record day here. Okay, assembly person. Assembly person Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to postpone this indefinitely with the intent of reconfiguring these numbers, because it just absolutely doesn't make sense to me. With Kenworth, I mean, $259.44 an hour, $302.66 an hour, $782.66 a day may be okay. $288.62 an hour. And, I mean, these numbers, I understand Davis Bacon, but this... you know, when a project comes in at 200 and then they're asking for almost 300 more, that just doesn't make sense. I think that this needs to be reconfigured and really looked at and really broken down and explained to our borough manager exactly why it came in so high. The other ones, yep, that's fine, but this one in particular is just really, $389.69 an hour

that's just crazy to me so i moved to postpone indefinitely okay so is your objection to the amendment to postpone the deputy mayor okay so we have an objection i can get the members to vote on postponing this am indefinitely

Okay, Cori, postponing it, how is it coming back for us?

It will not come back if you postpone this one indefinitely. It would require new legislation.

Okay.

Assemblymember Bernier. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Bowles and Nowers in support.

I just think there should be some accommodation on this one because of the the cost overrun and so I would urge voting it down with some kind of compromise to come back to us on this otherwise I just feel like I just feel like the boroughs a bit of a blank check and I want to get this where we feel like we're in a comfortable spot like we have cost controls so I would urge you to vote it down with the idea of coming back and working with NSTAR.

So any other further discussion? Okay. So there is an objection to the main motion and to adopt.

I can get the members to vote on the main motion. Madam Mayor, it has failed. Will Assemblymember Sumner, McKee, and Bernier in support?

So now we move on to 116, right?

Now we are on to, you might want to tell Mr. Cooper he could probably sit down with you. Okay. So he doesn't have to stand there the whole time. Yeah, we're going to move on to the next item in business, sir. Thank you. AM 26116, approval of additional utility relocation costs of $44,207.49 to Instar Natural Gas for the Helen Lane Reconstruction Project in the Bogard Road Service Area.

Okay, there's a main motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion? Is there objection to the motion? I don't hear any objections, so then the legislation passes.

Now we are on AM 26128, approval of additional utility relocations costs. $81,945.42 to NSTAR Natural Gas Company for Midway Road Service Area Streets Improvement Project. The main motion is already on the floor. Okay.

Discussion on am 26 128 Person who has it pulled up?

What was the original estimate of that because obviously the one that we voted down was the original it's there's what was that I guess Original estimate was the percentage wise this one this the staff or some Stephanie you have What this one was?

Assemblyperson Sumner.

The original estimate was $276,131.40, and then it went up to, total bill would be $348,076.82. It's not 150-some percent they'll list on this one, okay. No, that's like a 30% or something. Assemblyperson Norris.

i think i heard on this project but it would be nice to have some confirmation from staff i think he was saying on this project there was a drainage issue and there was needed to be a redo so it had more of an explanation than the previous project

Colbert, I'm project management division manager.

I don't have the specific details on that, but what he was speaking about does ring a bell. I believe it was Vicki Way. We did have a little bit of an adjustment for the drainage along that corridor, so can't 100% confirm, but it does sound familiar, and I think he's correct.

Further discussion? Yes. Sure, absolutely. Thank you.

Thanks, Cole. So explain to me, because I'm not a contractor, I'm not a dirt guy. When you talked about the drainage had to be modified, and he spoke about it also, I mean, what does that mean to us that don't really understand it?

Yeah, so in that in that instance on Vicki Way, there was there's a lot of water that was coming in a subdivision. And so what we did is we channelized. So we did a special ditch that's deeper than a typical ditch to drain it out to Blue Lapine Road. I believe what it was to get it out to the broader drainage system. So by dropping that. ditch a little bit deeper it reduced the cover over the gas line So that would require them to lower it so that they have the adequate cover for their requirements Okay, so they did have to go in and they had to dig deeper and lay their line down deeper than yeah And I think what he was saying is they actually did directional bore right underneath the road to get it deeper.

Thank you For their discussion

uh-huh um mr bulls brought up the flaggers rate which i'm looking at which is uh pretty significant my question to you um flagger is a person but when they charge the the way you understand or industry standard if they're charging like over here 19 days for roller or so many hours for um excavator do they charge how much um If there's eight hours in the day, do they charge for eight hours a day, or do they actually, the way they calculate is out of that day, the excavator will use four hours, so it's four hour. Do you know the formula, how they charge and what the industry is normally like? Because I know not all equipment assignment talents are used at the same time when you're doing a job.

Yeah, so utilities are different than our general construction contracts. And so to be perfectly clear, we don't have the inspection staff to be out there monitoring and verifying the hours that they put in. But they are supposed to charge us the exact hours that they're out there. So if they have a flagger out there for four hours, our invoice should be for four hours. If we have a roller out there for eight hours, we should get that invoice for those hours, direct one-to-one. um to what they're billing i can't speak to you know we have the the established um prevailing davis bacon wages rates but then when it comes to their overhead you know that's we don't have control over that and you know it's up to them to establish what that is and apply it to the cost for those so so how much you know they're charging overhead on top of those

No, not necessarily overhead. My question is more of when they're 40 hour standard week of work. If they had a piece of equipment sitting there, out of the 40 hours, it was only used for actually 10 hours. Is it Normal for them to charge the 40 hours because it was they're available to them or only 10 hours that it was operating Because some that's that's where the numbers really could change, you know if you had a job and I know like on the small scale when we Operate we got two workers, but we got five pieces of equipment We can only operate two at the same time. So I guess, do you know in our world, do they charge per hour that is actually used or per hour that work out?

That it's on the site, essentially. I believe we're getting charged the hours that it's on the site. I mean, you would hope that, because they're not gonna be operating that equipment necessarily 100% of the time. I don't think they're breaking up the time that they're not in the piece of equipment and operating it within reason. But like I said, we aren't out there every day tracking the amount of workers that are out there and the pieces of equipment. We just don't have the staff to oversee it at that level. So we have to trust that they're invoicing us for the hours that they're using the equipment.

Yeah, I guess I missed opportunity to ask them that question But now that when I started looking at those numbers and that that was the thing and if just you know They got 10 people working with 20 pieces of equipment there. I'm just saying Only 10 pieces of equipment can use the same I guess that's just my logic common sense comes in and I wish I would ask them But it sounds like he wasn't too happy when I left so I didn't get chance to do that

Seven person bowls. Oh no, OK, sorry. Any other questions? OK, any objection to passing AM 26128. OK, we do have an injection.

I get the members to go ahead and vote. Assemblymember Bernier. It passed with Assemblymember Fanoff, and now is opposed.

So there are no vetoes, and then when the clerk is ready, she will read the introductions for the public hearing for the 15th.

Introduction for public hearing on September 15th, Resolution 26094, Ordinance 26102 with Resolution 26088, Ordinance 26103 with Resolution 26093, Ordinance 26104, Ordinance 26105 with Resolution 26095, and Ordinance 26106. Okay, Deputy Mayor.

I move to introduce the legislation as read into the record by the clerk and set the public hearings for September 15th, 2026.

Is there any objection? Hearing no objection, then the legislation has been introduced. Deputy Mayor, will you move the vacancy report, please?

I move to confirm the Mayor's recommendations as follows. Enhance 911 Advisory Board. Resonation of Melissa Sonnick. Platting Board. Resonation of Stephen Keevan.

Any discussion? Any objection? Hearing no objection, the vacancy report has been approved. There are no other new business. There are no referrals. There are no reconsiderations. So Assemblyperson Fauna, parting remarks.

My wife always asks me, how long this meeting gonna be today? And you look at the agenda, today's like medium, so maybe nine, eight, but we are where we at. Thank you for everyone who came up and spoke. I know none of you, almost none of you are here, but we do value your opinion, and I appreciate all of you working together. as much as sometimes we disagree, but today is another day. Me and Ms. Nallers made another history, so.

Parting remarks. Assemblyperson Gamble.

No, thank you.

Parting remarks. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I've been thinking this whole meeting. I appreciate Deputy Mayor's letter or direction to the manager, and I support natural resource development and economic growth, but I've been sitting here for the last four hours kind of thinking that we probably should have waited and allowed public comments on that. So I just want to make it clear that those that have concerns, you know, that's on my mind as well. I think that we probably should consider maybe thinking about that. And with that, it's a privilege to be in the seat. District 1, thank you for putting me here, and we'll see you next time.

madam clinton parting comments assembly person hours parting comments yeah a public process is just crucial and ignoring that puts us at peril so we have to tread very cautiously um and then i would just i hope everybody's gotten a chance to go to the fair before the first frost hits deputy mayor parting process parting comments yeah

The intention of this letter was not to convey property to Ada in the Houston-Willow area. It was to get them to look at Point McKenzie and West Sisseton area. And when I talked to DNR, I was trying to beat the clock, basically. that's that so anyone that was thinking that i was given the green light to give land in houston willow area to ada is not true thank you assembly person sumner party comments sir

I'd just like to say thanks to everyone for coming and participating in the meeting guess there's only folks that are whose job it is to be here left but everyone else that came and still be watching thanks for coming out and participating yeah I just wanted to just very briefly

There was a person who sent a letter, we all got a copy of it, about an incident with a cat that was apparently being mauled by a dog. And I talked to Mr. Hayes and that is being, I just want that person to know, if you're out there, It's being addressed. It's being discussed. It isn't ignored, and this doesn't just go in the round file. It's being addressed. I just think that's really important to let people know that they are heard when these things come in, especially something that caused, you know, the thing with the animals that would cause such a furore as well as it should have. So just wanted that person to know we're looking at you. Thanks.

Parting comments? Mr. Attorney? Okay.

all righty i don't have any parting comments either but deputy mayor i think you've got a motion i do i move to enter executive session for the matter of which is the immediate public knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the borough and matters which by law municipal charter or ordinance are required to be kept confidential and to discuss matters involving consideration of borough records that by law are not subject to public disclosure and discussion of matters subject to the attorney slash client privilege. In particular, to discuss Davidson Family Trust versus the Mat-Su Borough 3PA-26-02199CI. Those present during executive session will be the mayor, the assembly, the attorney, the manager, and the clerk.

Okay, discussion on going into executive session. Any objection? Okay, so we will leave for executive.

To exit executive session.

Discussion on the executive session.

Is there any objection? Hearing no objection, we have exited at 10.55. And if there's no objection, we will adjourn at 10.55.