Assembly - Regular Meeting

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

I will. Michael Bowles.

Here.

Stephanie Nowers. I'm here. Dee McKee. Yep. Maxwell Sumner.

Present.

Bill Gamble.

Here.

Dimitri Bonoff.

Here.

Ron Bernier.

Present.

Madam Mayor, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Is there anything that the members would like to pull from the consent agenda? Deputy Mayor.

Resolution 26-103.

Okay, thank you. AM 26-120. 120, okay. Anything else? Are there any changes to the agenda? Okay, hearing none, then the agenda is approved as presented as pulled. If you all stand, please. And Representative, no, not Representative, sorry, Assemblyperson Gamble, will you lead us in the pledge? Gamble?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

There are no meeting minutes that are being presented. The next item on our agenda is agency reports. Do we have a report from the cities? Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Assembly. This is Crystal Nygaard with the City of Wasilla, Deputy Administrator. Just bringing you up to date, last night, Resolution 2655 was passed. That is the city's participation in planning for the new regional dispatch facility and authorizing the mayor to sign the memorandum of understanding. We also passed Resolution 2646 that approved the priority transportation projects for nomination to the MVP 2027-2030 TIP. The city committed to providing the required non-federal matching funds for those projects. For all of you hunters out there, please note that there will be overnight closures at the Wasilla Municipal Airport this month, so before you utilize our airport, make sure you look at the current conditions. We just permitted a 22,000 square foot professional office building that's gonna go at Nelson and Lucille in the next, they'll do some site prep this fall and then build it next Next spring and we also approved a 12,000 square foot gas station and convenience store that will be on just this side of SBS on the parks highway. So wassail is open for business and we appreciate all the Opportunities to partner with the Matsu borough to make this the best place to live work and play I don't see anybody from Palmer or Houston

Okay, now let's see, do we have a report from school district? I don't see anybody. Report from the state? I don't see Todd. Committee reports? Do we have any reports from joint assembly in school? I don't think that you had a meeting, right? Okay. Assembly public relations reports? Okay. Mr. Brown, you have a report.

do matter mayor thank you um so i'm gonna invite uh mr ortiz uh up i think mr long as well and as they're moving forward i just have two quick updates and then they'll provide you an update on the peaceful place uh cleanup so i just wanted to give you two updates on port mckenzie uh last week we had members uh from one i believe it was from the transportation committee of the fairbanks chamber of commerce uh actually came down and visited the port so uh great dialogue uh and really trying to connect the dots for how port mckenzie supports exports bulk commodity exports from interior alaska and so we had a lot of great dialogue and questions i appreciate dave griffin putting that together and and having that group out so that was last week this today we had industry day for the first time out at the port probably somewhere between 70 and 80 folks It was packed and a little tough to manage, but that was a good problem to have. So a lot of industry folks, I think the farthest traveler was from Australia and then some folks from New York and other places in the lower 48 from various government agencies, private sector firms, local businesses here in Alaska, but a lot of great dialogue, connections, and crosstalk that occurred today, so pretty excited about what that looks like, and I think that'll become a regular recurring event, and I'm kind of excited to hear about some of the conversations that may occur outside of that from people just getting connected, like I was talking to one individual, and he's like, oh, I'm having dinner with such and such tonight, and I was like, oh, great. didn't know that like these are connections that will happen that that don't require us to do anything just because we brought people together on a single day to have those types of conversations so kudos to our port staff dave sandy greg karine brandy was out there helping like it was an all hands on deck i think george and i were running traffic control for a while which meant like putting out candlesticks and no we were not flagging or anything uh and but we did uh you know it's just like what it takes to get it done so i really appreciate the effort that went into that today and i think uh and really the folks that drove all the way around you know that came in from hank region i mean it's just not a short drive so i just want to give you those two updates with that said turn it over to jason and he's going to give you an update on the peaceful place cleanup in the big lake area

All right. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Assembly Members, Mr. Manager, Jason Ortiz, Deputy Director, Planning, Land Use. So this is just a quick update on Peaceful Place Project. This was not a intended cleanup project. This started where we, it started with a complaint, and it's been several years in the making. A lady out, her name's Helen, and she lives out in Peaceful Place, and She has been trying to sell her house and has not been able to sell her house because no real estate agent would put the listing on because they wouldn't not go past all the junk and blight that they had to get to to go to this property. Uh-oh, which one do I hit? The button, the big button. All right, so to give you guys context where this is, and I'm gonna tell you how this came about and how it's moved so fast. So what you're looking at on the picture on the left is the actual neighborhood. Those red dots represent code compliance cases, and on the right represents some of the blight that you would see. The challenges of this neighborhood was three of the parcels, the person passed away, and so squatters are just living on those properties. Three parcels on the north owned by the archdiocese were vacant, and then one particular property on the north just had some people on there, just lots of crime and lots of blight going on. So we convened a meeting. This was a unique one. I asked the manager's permission to do a different approach, communicated with Assemblymember Gamble, and what we did here is I drew a map kind of surrounding, just zooming out of that a bit, 120 residents. We sent a mailer to them and said, we'd like to meet with you. We'd like to meet with you right on that corner and bring a camp chair because we wanna talk about all the problems. And so we did a pre-meeting with the district attorney. So Ms. Trina Sears was very instrumental in showing up. We did a pre-meet with them, with the troopers as well. And basically we're like, hey, what can we do to solve some of these problems? We don't have policing powers. We don't have the health powers. How can we work together and solve some of these problems? So we held a meeting. We sent a mailer out. Everyone brought their camp chairs. We did a partial road closure. And the backdrop was all the squatters. We had 120 mailers that went out. 122 people, I think, showed up, plus not counting the ones that were streaming online. So it was super impactful. That is what happened on August 6. It was recorded, if anyone wants to hear it, it was very impactful. Those neighbors showed up and they wanted to see change and they wanted to know what we were going to do and how we were going to do it. Basically, what I told them there is like, change is going to happen, we need to work together as a community and we need everyone to step up and we need all eyes and ears. The troopers committed to putting a criminal suppression unit into that area. So like round the clock troopers, lots of people being arrested that needed to be arrested. And the district attorney, it was very impactful because rather than just explaining this over the phone or sending an email, they stood on the corner and they were able to make contact, see what they're looking at. So when they do see these arrests coming through from this neighborhood, they know exactly what's going on and the impact that it has on this community. So from here, I'd like to turn it over to Wade Longer, developed services manager, because really he's the one that lit a fire and got this going here. So I'd like to bring up Wade.

Thanks, Jason. Wade Long, Development Services Manager. As Jason said, this was impactful. So I attended this meeting also, like everybody else, and I was impacted. Like, what can I do? Which is really kind of a mantra I have. Like, what is the path to yes? What can we do? And so I knew that the criminal suppression unit was going to be in the area for a short period of time, like a month. And I knew that I had a very effective team in our CLEANS unit, which are my program coordinators here, Mandy, Amber, and Reese. I knew they were very, very effective. And so I wanted to take advantage of that time. So this was on, the timeline is kind of important, because this meeting happened on August 6th, and then I just, you know, I heard what they said, I talked to the people that were The neighbors that were there that were impacted by this have to live among that. And I came up with a multi-phase plan to do what I could do, which is why it says here, what can we do now? Well, we can do a right-of-way cleanup. If I was to go back here, just one slide, all that stuff there on the right picture, most of that is in the right-of-way. So you have the roadway, but then the right-of-way is like 60 feet wide, and all that stuff's in the right-of-way. And that is actually missing a lot of cars, cars and trucks and trailers. So I was like, well, I have a cleans budget and I have Matubro code. So thank you guys. And so I made it its fullest impact. So I told Assemblymember Gamble what our plan was. And then on, so on August 6th was this meeting. August 11th, I presented to the Big Lake Community Council and told them what my multi-phase plan was going to be. The first thing we're going to do is we're going to extract all the vehicles that were in the right-of-way And then the next thing we're going to do is on August 28th and 29th we were going to do ideally we could do a cleanup with big lake community volunteers and So it was a call to action for labor and equipment, whoever could help out. And the only reason I did this is because the troopers were going to be in the area. This was an adversarial cleanup. This wasn't like previous cleanups. So the only thing I could do was a right-of-way cleanup at the time because we did not have property owners that were interested in partnering with us. It was adversarial. Like Jason said, there was arrests that did occur. So on August 11th, I had that meeting. August 12th, I had planned a tow swarm with our co-compliance, Nick Uppas, had helped me coordinate along with the program coordinators for every tow truck in the valley to be present. And we extracted 50 vehicles and trailers and the like in about five hours, unheard of. And then actually somebody sped away that day and fled from the troopers, and they were able to get them. So I can't thank the troopers enough for being on call, on the ready, and very supportive of our entire operation. The next thing was going to be the cleanup, and that occurred on August 28th and 29th. We had about 18 volunteers from the Big Lake community, not counting a couple of companies had totally donated their equipment and time, which was black ice excavating and Alaska junk and trash cleanup. We filled up 11 dumpsters. I wanna keep in mind, just to kind of like give you this impact here, is that this was in a half mile of road. We pulled out 50 vehicles. off a half mile of road we pulled out 11 dumpsters of trash um to start with and just like pre but what was what was like previous cleanups was that eventually some property owners did come on board with us and sign some releases and so we were actually able to help out three property owners through the cleans program one of them was the catholic diocese of fairbanks actually we told them how much it would cost to clean up the property and so they said yeah we're going to go ahead and pay you reimburse you for that cleanup so we're looking for a check from them but that was a nice partnership all told this was about 50 tons 50 tons of trash and about 60 vehicles because we did pull vehicles off the properties I did want to thank especially the Alaska State Troopers, because even on that one day, this was very adversarial. People were not necessarily, they didn't necessarily want us there, and somebody got arrested right in front of us on the last day, on the 29th, and it was, or the 28th, and it was quite shocking, but we were able to get it done, so I applaud the bravery of my team and the volunteers. But Jody Rydell from the Big Lake Community Council and the Community Council was very supportive with this. They rallied people to give money donations, and there was a barbecue on the second day. Black ice excavating, Valley Trash junk and removal, they provided equipment. And third time, they did dump runs. Valley Trash did dump runs all the way to Central Landfill. DC-907 diesels, HDL painting and drywall, donated some money. DeBak Towing, Patriot Towing, Elite Towing, Alaska Car Crush and Big Lake Towing, they were all They all participated in the extraction of those vehicles. Alaska Waste, Frontier Waste, a new company in the Valley. I think we're the first ones to use one of their 40-yard dumpsters. They didn't finish painting it, but we got it dirty for them. A.K. Holloway, True North Recovery. These projects... they can't be successful unless there's an ultimate buy-in from all the resources we have in the community and the mobile crisis team was present to be available to anybody because there is active addiction with the squatter situations going on so we're very grateful that they donated their time and showed up adult and teen challenge as usual the catholic diocese and these neighbors that helen I don't really know how to pronounce her last name. We don't wanna insult her, but it's like the people, she's been very vocal at the Big Lake Community Council. She's been very, I think she has a position on the community council now, because that's like a community activist that has been very vocal about situations, just trying to sell her house and go move with her kid who had to move downstate. And look what she's gotten done. She just kept knocking on her doors. But Nori and Gary there, they filled up dumpsters and rallied some squatters to help clean up some stuff. So one of the final phases is that road through there also. It's not a borough-maintained road. But the reason why we did this is because it was so choked out from junk and trash and vehicles and this blight that people that were good neighbors couldn't even access their property. Couldn't even access their property. One of the greatest things was, as I was telling Reese here when I saw it, is like, do you see that car come down here using the peaceful place? That's the Deckmans. This is the first time they've been able to use their road. They've been using people's backyards. This is the first time they've been able to use the road to access their property, to come and go. So it's actually very moving. But the RSA contractor said that he's going to donate his time and money to fix that road So it's not a broad maintained road, but he's he said he's gonna fix that road So I gotta follow up with him because that's the final phase for this but senator Rauscher representative McCabe Commissioner McCabe They were out there senator Rauscher has been at every single one of our cleanups. So a huge shout out to him but And a borough administration manager has been at our cleanups too. And we really are grateful for your support through this. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them as best we can.

Assembly person McKee go ahead.

I have a question the Probably the pivotal thing in this was that the stuff was in the right of way, right? Is that a lot was that what allowed you to do what everything that you did? I'm sorry Probably the pivotal thing here was that this junk and trash was in the right of way And that's what allowed you to do what you did and I you know, I've seen there's a couple I can't remember the name but they come here and I just want to I wish you guys could do the same thing is there any way to modify that so that you could get something done for some of the other folks out there where it isn't right away?

Through the Mayor to Assemblymember McKee. Yes, the reason why it was successful is because it's right away. We were also very cognizant of throwing money at things that aren't going to be able to fix the problem. So that's why we partner with the troopers on this so that we can get people either that need to go to jail to jail for committing crimes or get them treatment because they need to fix the addiction problem. We're also working really, really, we had a lot of people that were interested just as investors. So my goal, long-term vision in a year, I wanna see six brand new houses built in that neighborhood, contributing to the tax roll for the borough, and a nice road. And I believe that just the cleanup, changing some things, helping with this, and making the neighborhood be responsible for their own neighborhood and helping with it is gonna help solve that. To answer your second part of your question about could it be replicated, I think this was a very unique call to action. And after we had this meeting and after people read about it and they saw the stream and the troopers put it out on their social media, I think others might want to do something similar, but it's definitely unique, but the nice thing I like about this is it's the community coming and stepping up and doing it, and they're doing the heavy lifting on stuff. We're doing the coordinating, so it's the community working.

Yeah, maybe the communities will say, geez, that really worked. What can we do to get this done? Because I'd be leading the charge on something like that if it were my place. Thanks.

Deputy Mayor?

Any idea what basically the bottom line, what kind of, if we want to do this again, what would it cost?

I don't think there's a set parameter of what it costs because everything's unique, right? But it depends on the area. Like, just since this time, I've had multiple people reach out. One person lives on Burma, and he's like, I own an excavation company. There's a problem in my neighborhood. Tell me what I can do. I'll use all my own equipment. So we're already trying to figure out how we partner and keep taxpayer dollars low but get bigger impacts and so I Couldn't give you an exact number But if you'd like to discuss it or see more of the stuff we're doing to be more than happy to meet with you Any any rough estimate I mean, I could tell you what this cost. This one was like 42. Yeah, it was 42,000. However, some of that money is going to be recoverable. And also, the things that we're actually taking that we know came from properties, we're tacking it on. They're going to end up being associated with being owed, sending a bill. We're sending bills to people. You owe the money to property owners that made part of this problem happen. We are very mindful of how we go into a project because we don't want to just go somewhere where we know it's going to recidivate and it's going to be right back at the same time because that's a waste of tax dollars. And so we're very, very mindful. This one moved really fast because the entire community showed up. And so the one thing I stress to them is we need them to call and report every instance of everything that's going on and so one one example that i gave them is when i drove there the first time for this meeting the road was four potholes like crazy and i had 128 whatever people there and i asked them how many people have reported the road nobody before that i checked problem reporter i checked all the lines not a single resident had to report at the roads And so I kind of told them, I was like, you guys have to accept responsibility and let us know, like hold us accountable so we can get the roads done. So we can, you need to let the troopers know when there's a crime. So it's also just bringing education and telling the public, call, call and call and call and don't stop calling. And they're rebuilding the road? So Wade was working on that. Representative McCabe made a call to the state to see if they would donate the gravel. And it sounds like that's working out to donate material. And the RSA contractor said he would donate his time to fix the road. So there's lots of stuff moving and not a cost to us as taxpayers.

And that'll come up to borough specs then? I'm sorry? Will it be borough specs then?

Borough specs, is that what you said? The road. Oh, I don't know about that one.

Through the mayor, Mr. Bernier. No, this isn't gonna be a design. This isn't gonna be to borough specs. This isn't gonna be to take the road within, yeah, make it better. And in the end, that may be good enough if, you know, I think the community's probably gonna work with the RSA board to see about potentially bringing it on to, under borough maintenance but you know they're still gonna have to be a conversation about whether we choose to do that knowing it's not up to specifications yeah but you know if the rsa has thoughts about that you know we'll see where the conversation goes right now it's really just get it to a point where it's passable year-round yeah thank you

Assemblyperson Gamble.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wanted to wait till last because I've got a lot to say on this. And Jason, you don't take nearly enough credit for what you did here. This was kind of like a pilot program where he was familiar with the property and what was going on out there when I came to him with the problem. uh helen brought to me and i mean she was in tears and just so angry over not being able to sell a property for several years because of what was going on out there and so jason had this idea of bringing the troopers the borough and the da you know together and having a plan to deal with everything that was going on out there it wasn't just you know the trash and junk vehicles and and Jason and Wade. I mean, I just commend you guys for what you did. I thank the troopers at the last meeting. I want to thank you here, you know, and staff. Mr. Manager, what a great, great team you have here and what they did out there is just phenomenal. So thank you very much. And I also want to thank Assemblymember Fonhoff because he took the time to go out there and look around and see what was going on also after dealing with the Willowa situation last year. And this is just a great example of how, you know, government and law enforcement and private, you know, partnerships can come together and solve a problem. And so thank you for everything you did. And you know, because I've contacted you since, and we've got more phone calls now because people have seen what happened out there now. Like Assemblymember McKee alluded to, you know, other people want to see it happening in other places in the borough. So thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Wait, you can leave the mic on. Thank you, sir.

Okay, do you have further reports, sir? Okay. Mr. Attorney, do you have a report? No. Madam Clerk, do you have a report?

The clerk's report is in your red folder with the upcoming meeting schedule and the election brochure, and I did send it out to the Assembly last Friday. Did the Assembly have any changes?

Okay.

Okay. Thank you, that's all I got.

Okay, thank you. The next item is citizens and other correspondence. Are there any comments from the assembly on the citizens and other correspondence? Okay, seeing and hearing none. Madam Clerk, will you please read the IMs into the record?

I am 26186 reporting from the conclusion of contract for bid number 2645B with Steppers Construction for a final contract amount of $265,297.61 for the design build of operation and maintenance covered storage. I am 26188. Reporting the conclusion of contract for bid 2688 B with Jim to Senate construction for a final contract amount of seven or eight thousand five hundred dollars for the 2025 Talkeetna dike and revetment repairs I am 26 191 informing the assembly of a 12 of 12 fiscal year 2027 winter trail care and grooming grant agreements that will be provided to the manager for signature Are there any comments on the IMS I

Okay, hearing none, then they are presented. The next item is audience participation. And we have a sign-up sheet. As is our policy, we will call on the people that have signed up first, and then we will open it up to anyone else that didn't sign up as well as we will go online. and you'll have three minutes and you can discuss anything, whether it's on the agenda or not, some item or information that you want to make the assembly aware of. Sebastian White.

good evening assembly mayor my name is sebastian white and i live in unincorporated palmer i'm here this evening to talk about the proposed land theft that's going to occur outside of houston and it's going to be quick just a quick question and answer I see Assemblymember McKee has left. So I'll start with you, Assemblymember Sumner. Are you currently under NDA with Terra Energy or AIBEA?

You can ask the question, but there will be no answers from the Assembly, so no give and take regarding questions.

Is there a way? I understand.

Okay.

Thank you. All right, well then I just wanted to finish with Addressing assemblymember Bowles. I Disagree with you on almost everything however ordinance 26-106 to ban ALP ours in Matanuska, Borough Full support love it. I hope if it passes that we can go on to maybe address like Kroger and other corporations to stop surveillance pricing and their use of flock commercial products.

Thank you. Thank you. Daniel Potter.

Good evening. Daniel Potter from District one. On April 7th, I was here, and I tried to use humor instead of anger about the almost two years that I've been coming here about road maintenance, and I said, you know, this contractor being responsible is one of the biggest lies since I never had sexual relations with that woman. The clerk, if you email that out, if you publish it publicly, please redact my email on there. There's the proof, because assembly members Bowles, which was my own, Nowers, Gamble, and the mayor made it pass. And I provide two reports to Public Works of this contractor's failing to meet the standards, included over 10 photographs of each time, first on August 21st and then on August 28th. Over 75 foot of potholes on the 21st and over 150 foot of potholes measured with yardsticks and with real tape. So I'm putting money where my mouth is. I'm bringing the proof that these contractors are not meeting the standards. But as the Animal Control Department recently showed, we cannot trust unelected public officials. because the public works department wants to blame the legal department for saying that our contracts are not enforceable, so they can't force our contractors to do it. Our purchasing officer says that even though it's in the statutes that he's supposed to you know determine the responsibility of the bidders he says well public works is just a yes or no and he blames public works and it's a point the fingers well the only one who that the public can actually hold accountable is the assembly we can't fire people who are not doing their job here. All we can do is vote in new assembly members. I want to say thank you to assembly members McKee, Fonov, and Bernier for listening, and I will just continue to document and create the evidence.

Thank you. Mike Alexander.

Mike Alexander, excuse me, Big Lake.

I kind of like this ordinance you got up on the land grab up by Houston, and that's great, but I wish you would look across the road there to sit in the gas field. There's 69 to 240 trillion cubic feet of methane gas there. Rather than build an 800-mile pipeline, to me, if there's any money in it, Exxon would have done it years ago. But that said, I talked to the guy from Denali Petroleum and Oil, or Petroleum and Gas. Anyway, they can deliver in 18 months, they can have a gas line out in two, NSTAR, For $158 million, not $70 billion, $158 million, they'll sell it at $12 a thousand, which is about $4 cheaper than the $16 a thousand that was guaranteed by Glen Fane to NSTAR. So I think for overall, that area that they wanted to give away someday might be viable as an industrial park, but right now it's not. But with that gas, it could be. And the whole public could be a lot better off for it. And the only other thing about it, you guys were really great. You got out and you paved Big Lake Road, which goes to my house, the Big Lake, the lodge road. It was really great, but the state left a pothole right in front of it. It's just kind of a little bad thing. It's not one of our bigger potholes. It's only this big. And we have 66 potholes between, and that's on the state, it's not y'all. But we have a total, I counted one day, we had 66 potholes in the library. Hollywood I was really impressed with that one of them was seven feet long it was kind of impressive I got my tape measure out but on this ordinance tonight I would like to see this at least y'all or they should have contacted you city of Houston somebody said hey we're gonna give away 20,000 acres here it would have been nice to know but they didn't so and like I said it's possible in the future if we get this gas field over there developed that that would be a An obstacle viable, but right now McKenzie's set up for it and I think that's where it ought to go and the thing is with the gas field at Susitna there the rivers are protected. The streams are protected with exclusionary zones There the rivers I think have a to half a mile each side So they're sitting in the middle of a wide a mile wide area that there is no drilling. There is no What's my word? Exploration, basically. And all the small streams have at least 500 feet on each side. So the water looks like it's pretty well protected as far as streams, fish, and that kind of thing. And it'd be really nice to see that developed, because I think overall that's going to do the borough a lot better than bringing a pipeline clear from the North Slope. And especially when they only have 35 trillion cubic feet up there they want to get rid of. If they want to do it, that's fine, but that should be on them. Thank you, thank you Karen Lewis Good evening, my name is Karen Lewis

I'm here responding to an article in the Mat-Su Sentinel.

And it was about these two librarians that are stepping back. Jerry Denkwalter says that it's a community. She was in Talkeetna, a place where everyone is safe and everyone is welcome when they come in. As you will see, The last page of what I gave you, it's called Fun Home, and it's It depicts oral sex from self-proclaimed lesbian terrorists who protested Christians. This stuff just shouldn't be. It was designed for children. They call young adults 12 to 15. I know they've moved a lot of them, about 100 books. They've moved them to adult, which is good, but nonetheless, it's still a Class C felony to have this garbage in there. If it gets in the hands of a child, it's a Class C felony. Maybe we need a lawsuit. I don't know what it takes to get that filth out of our libraries. But as adults, especially the Christian ones of us, we don't want to pay for this. We don't want to see our children have access to it. We need to get them out of there, and we certainly better not put them in our Palmer library. I know you don't have anything to do with that, but we better not have filth in our Palmer, New Palmer library. The other librarian said that community members with strong opinions about what materials should not be in the library lobbed personal attacks against her professionalism and even made indirect physical threats. She said one individual told her that she should be taken out and drowned She was referring to what Jesus said in Matthew 18, 6. Jesus said, "...whoever shall cause to stumble one of the little ones of these believing in me, it is better for that person that a heavy millstone should be hung around their neck and be sunk into the depth of the sea." And that's probably what she was referring to. But it probably should have been depicted that way in the article. Because I'm sure that nobody said, you know, you should be drawn. I think these librarians who think these books are okay for children shouldn't be librarians for children. You know, they're untrustworthy. That's untrustworthy to have someone who thinks that that type of material is good for our children. Our children need...

Thank you. Patty Fisher.

Hello, my name is Patty Fisher. I'm a resident of Meadow Lakes, and I am speaking tonight regarding Resolution 26-103, which is the proposed transfer of 20,000 acres to AIDEA, or as one... Speaker here earlier referred to it as the great land theft. This proposal was originally submitted by Mr. Bernier in favor as a statement that the borough should approve support this transfer. I'm very grateful that Mr. Bernier has now changed his Yes, that's the way it was on the original two weeks ago, asking the borough to support this transfer. It should be known that this land is adjacent to Willow, Big Lake, Houston, and Meadow Lakes. All of those community councils submitted resolutions to DNR opposing this transfer. If it were, Mr. Bernier had known that, I can't believe he would have ever made a statement suggesting that the borough support this transfer, so. Where we are tonight, I'm not sure since now the resolution 26-103 has been pulled from the consent agenda. This is prime recreation land and those communities have been very upset that it should be transferred to AIDEA for a bunch of reasons. One of them being that there was no revisionary clause and in the agreement that dnr put out so if we're talking about perhaps looking at making some changes and including development in point mac west susitna i would suggest that if you're doing this a revisionary clause should be included And if in any agreement with AIDEA should include a, should be clear as to what the purpose of the land is and let the public know in advance what this is so that they will and have a timetable for their comment and discussion on the use. Also, why is it not considered that this land should come to the borough? I think the borough has been interested in having state lands transferred to them for a number of years, so that should be another option. So what I'm saying is revisionary clause, clear purpose, public opportunity to comment, and perhaps a transfer to the borough. Thank you. Ardenda Ralph?

Hello, my name is Amanda Wraith. That's okay. And this is the first time that I've ever been here. So thank you, Madam Mayor and the assembly people. Thank you so much for letting us have a chance to come and talk. And it was awesome to see what happens when community buys in and people who live in an area are allowed to take part in what happens in their area. And I'm here for two reasons. One is that I want to urge you to support that resolution that you did pass last meeting, that Mr. Bernier, I know you were involved. I'm not sure exactly how you were involved, but you're my assembly person. I'm from Meadow Lakes. I appreciate that you, you sent a resolution opposing that land transfer. I'm not against resource development. I'm not against doing things with public property, but that is not the place. And that is not a well thought out, uh, situation. And I, I didn't know anything about ADA before and doing some research in this process. I have concerns. about the public and charitable transfer from DNR of that huge of a property with no plan, or no plan. I'm not sure what the plan really is, but it's such a huge property, there must be a plan. But please continue that opposition to that transfer. We do need to develop things, we do need to develop our resources, but we need to do it wisely. And the other thing I'm here to talk about is, Mr. Bowles, thank you for your resolution surveillance technology is dangerous and it's already in use. It's not Flock, but it's another brand and it's already here and it's gonna be very hard to keep privacy within our constitution. And I don't know how we're gonna do it, but I think the little steps from the communities is the first step. So thank you and I hope that you will all support that i just there's got to be limits on that and we have to we have to think about that now because it's going to be a problem in the future so at the very least oppose it in the borough and put limits on the license plate readers and in the future maybe the assembly could ask the state to make a statewide policy that protects privacy. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Jackie?

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Assembly. My name is Jackie Goforth. I hope you're all in receipt now of my opinion piece where I wrote to you that the Community Development Department appears to have usurped your authority and is now trying to stop my First Amendment rights to redress a grievance with the government. And this only works because when you change a policy and put a new one up, the last one disappears and goes poof into the ether, unless somebody actually saved it on their hard drive. The other reason it worked is because the LCAC page has been completely poofed into the ether unless somebody saved that to their hard drive. So whenever they change the policy, you can't know it unless you have the hard drive saved, which I do. So when you look at the first page I gave you, it shows you what the policy was before. It says, and I quote, THE LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER SHALL FORM A CHALLENGED MATERIALS REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THEY SHALL REVIEW THE CHALLENGE, THE OBJECTION. YOU DO SEE THAT, RIGHT? WELL, WHEN YOU GUYS FIRST DID THE ORDINANCE THAT FORMED THE LCAC 24039, ON NUMBER 4, PAGE 3, IT SAID, THE COMMITTEE SHALL PERFORM A REVIEW OF CHALLENGED LIBRARY MATERIALS. THEY SHALL PERFORM IT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THEY SHALL PERFORM IT. Well, a month later, the Community Development Policy came out and what did they say? The Library Citizens Committee will request a review if accepted for review, if accepted for a review. That doesn't say shall. So where does it go if they don't accept it? The one I sent you that's online right now under the agendas for August 12th says the same thing, only it says they will put it on a future agenda. They'll put it on an agenda. They'll send it to the ACLC chair and they'll put it on an agenda. Well, this is what happened to it on June 17th when no one was watching and the library board was on hiatus for summer. Now it says if you file a challenge, the chair may add it to a future agenda. Now how did it get combobulated to that when it was supposed to be you shall review it? The next line's even better. The library board may choose to review it. They may choose to review it. What happened to they will review it? They shall. What happened to that? Do you know that your parks and parks guy, he actually said, if you choose not to review it, it just dies on the vine. In other words, it goes what, into the ether for another three years? You've seen this book. I challenged it. I followed their procedures, but they keep changing the procedures without anyone's knowledge. And then they disappear into the ether if you're not keeping track. You have something called malicious compliance. It's pretending to follow it, but doing everything not to. And there's your proof. Thank you.

Steve Charles.

Good evening, Mayor, Assembly, and staff. I'm Steve Charles. I live in Willow. I would like to speak in opposition to the land conveyance to Ada. At a packed August meeting in the Willow Area Community Organization, resolution opposing land transfer of nearly 20,000 acres of DNR to Ada for an industrial park passed unanimously. Our community has vested interest in this beautiful area, having 24 sections of land within the land transfer area and has managed the popular hasler noise trail system as a long time willow resident involved in trails and recreation i would like to give you all a briefer on how the area has been used by the public and the reason the area should not be overrun with manufacturing hubs data centers energy and utility corridors and gravel pits as described in the preliminary decision For over 25 years, the Willow Trail Committee has invested six-figure dollars on the 52-mile multi-use Hasterton Roads trail system through construction, clearing, surveying, maintaining, and grooming the trails. The Mat-Su Borough itself, Mat-Su Borough, invested $250,000 in trail improvements through the recreational bond package in 2015 and made a tremendous difference on those trails. The area offers looping trails in the lower wetlands leading to sweeping views of the Mat-Su and the Kinnick Arm in the higher subalpine elevations. The area is rich in history with the historic RS-2477 documented easements, trails which the Houston Willow Creek Trail was the first freighted trail to the Hatcher Pass area 125 years ago. And that's all within our transferred area. The Hassler Norris Trails has a history of training with sprint and long distance dog mushers, including many Iditarod mushers, too many to name here. In recent years, the trails have enjoyed ever-increasing use by snow machine riders, bikers, and skiers. Our communities have benefited economically from the regular use of the area through increased spending on tourism, guide services, recreational supplies, fuel lodging, and related outdoor services. Our economy is centered on recreation and is what our communities identify with and we promote. It is what draws people to this area. Data centers, manufacturing hubs, gravel pits, not so much. The state of Alaska would be leveraging the unique strengths of each parcel of our state land to lock up the 20,000 acres of popular public land for private and congressional development would be a travesty. I would like to invite each of the assembly people this winter to get on a snow machine and visit our trails up there, and just to see then, see if you made the right decision of preserving or giving away those trails, if you made the right decision tonight. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Lindsey Korn?

Good evening, my name is Lindsey Cronin and I am here today in my personal capacity as a member of the Willow community to ask the Assembly to formally oppose the proposed transfer of nearly 20,000 acres of public land to Ada for a variety of reasons. First, there's no legally binding protection in this proposal for continued public access. I regularly use this land year round. I run on it in the summer, and when there's snow there, I ski, I ski, I snow machine. I regularly run into members of our community out there enjoying the beautiful public land and public access that we have. If that public access is not protected, it will be lost. Second, there is no plan that's been made publicly available as to what will actually happen to this land. Um, there's variety of potential proposals put in, uh, the proposals, what could happen to it, but there's not an actual development plan. So we really have no idea what could come of this land. Um, related to that is the state proposes to drop its reversionary interest, meaning that once ADA gets this land, it could do whatever it wants or nothing. and the state has no legally binding way to get that land back for the benefit of the public. And last but not least, what I handed to the clerk there is a copy of the Waco resolution that Steve Charles just mentioned. The Willow Area Community Organization unanimously passed that. The board and all members of the community that were present on August 5th at that meeting voted unanimously to pass that resolution, which formally opposes the proposed lands transfer. And I ask that the assembly take into account the community's opinion on this proposal and the benefit that the continued public domain of this land has to both Willow, all those who come to the Willow area, Meadow Lakes, and the surrounding areas. It is truly a treasure of our borough and would be quite disheartening to lose that. And for all these reasons, I ask that the assembly oppose this land transfer. Thank you.

Thank you. Louis Calendari? Louis?

Hi, Louie Calandri.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

Regarding the land transfer. Thank you for everybody. Assembly up there. Yeah, I am against it. And like others have said, let's protect the current and past public use of the land. We don't need any data centers. What would be next? Big billboards. You know, where are we going to go with this? People come to Alaska because it's pretty and the scenery and the wildlife. I'm looking for something here. I'm just going to hit play to give a sound for the background here of what we might hear. This is what a data center is going to sound like, maybe five, six miles away. That's not a pretty sound. We don't need this. Let's protect what we have, our environment, our path to public use. There's other places they can go, somewhere else, not in here in Alaska. Let's keep that out. We don't need this kind of a hum, noise, and no protection for the people of what they're going to do with it in the future. Yeah, just no. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Kind of a noise, sound movement.

Linda?

Hello, my name is Linda Spohn. First I want to thank you for the excellent Port McKenzie tour. There's a real positive vision there, a good plan laid out, and a prosperous future in the making. I would encourage the development and investment into the Port McKenzie infrastructure if you can do it without a lot of debt. Second, it is positively wonderful to see Edna sitting up there as our Mayor of the Mat-Su Borough. You gotta love her, folks. Now, in the Watchmen on September 11th, no less, Joel, on September 11th, no less, Joel Davidson, may God bless his heart, reported in two articles, quote, state invites drag queens to alert Alaska teachers about grooming tactics. Alaska Department of Education is organizing a conference that includes a featured talk by a man best known for his controversial drag queen performances in front of young children and throughout Alaska's gay bar scene, unquote. I guess they're having a hard time trying to find someone to talk to these teachers about teaching, reading, writing, and arithmetic, huh? I hope these people remember the terrorists who hated America so much they flew airplanes into the Twin World Trade Center towers in New York, killing 2,977 people. The second article by Joel Davidson, and I quote, Fairbanks looks to push radical LGBTQ agenda on students throughout October. The resolution emphasizes the school district intentionally strives to foster LBGTQ History Month celebrations by allowing students to acknowledge the history, culture, and contributions of LGBTQ individuals, role models, and historical events across the country and community." Who do these people work for? Certainly not the taxpayers of Alaska. And after listening to Jackie's testimony, who does the community development director work for in the borough here? Is no one else even a little outraged? What about the children and minors? What are we teaching our students? The Bible calls this perversion an abomination. I would like to honor, in conclusion, I would like to honor the late Charlie Kirk for his bravery backbone, for trying to reach the youth of our country, for his knowledge and wisdom, for his faith and conviction. His messages are still available. Jesus' message is still available also. He shed his blood for my sins. He died a cruel death in my place. and I accept his free gift of salvation and his shed blood on my behalf. He paid it all for me, and he did the same for you if you accept it. Glory, honor, and praise to his holy name, Jesus. Thank you. Andrea?

Andrea?

Good evening Madam Mayor and Assembly. I'm back to talk about the Talkeetna water tank. I'm Andrea Larson. I'm a Mat-Su business and property owner and have run a flight business as pilot and owner starting in Talkeetna with a hangar on the Anchorage Airport for over 25 years. I'm here to oppose the borough construction of a 375,000 gallon storage tank facility and upgrade on the DNR property in Talkeetna Townsite, which would eliminate the 1.4 acres of Front Street bare trail woods. To be clear, I'm not opposing the project. just the site selection i'm asking the assembly to consider the logical alternative to put the tank on the existing water site on c street where there is plenty of room and no known community opposition the railroad is in full support of this use on the existing property and we established that in a special meeting with the borough and the railroad representatives present There is a second potential alternative by the Talkeetna Fire Station also and it has not been considered yet and it is also owned by the borough. Formal opposition has been submitted to you by the Community Council and the Sewer and Water Board has submitted opposing resolutions and there are 300 petition signatures in opposition. After Dee and I conveyed this little wooded property a couple months ago to the borough, but it comes with provisos and requirements, they told us that it is the borough's responsibility to address the Talkeetna's concerns. During a recent one-on-one meeting with the public works director, after presenting all this information, he simply stated that they are moving ahead with the project, which was kind of a head-scratcher. Because, I mean, I think the community, so much opposition should have a say on what's moving forward. It appears the community is not being heard. I believe it's an irresponsible choice to unnecessarily level these woods only to discover that it's not suitable and then hand the gravel pad back to DNR while the town is left with the devastating results. more specifically it's not suitable because it's a small lot bordered by two private septic systems with barely enough clearance to address legal contamination issues the property has a deep floodway diversion channel in a hundred year flood zone it's a trail corridor with native historical significance connecting Talkeetna's east and west, used by locals and tourists year-round. I just think it's really an unnecessary choice, and I'm hoping that you will consider utilizing the existing site. Thank you for your time. Alan?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm Alan Larson, and I can just say she said a lot of what I was thinking about saying. The fact of the matter is I'm retired. I designed and built a bunch of houses in Alaska. I understand construction, and I understand the value of finances and things like that. About a year ago when we were told that the DNR was going to petition to transfer that property, we got involved in researching. Since then, I've been to all the water and sewer advisory board meetings in Talkeeton and learned a little bit more about wells. I talked to a half a dozen different well drawers that worked in the Talkeeton area. And Mr. Brown was gracious enough to talk to me for a little bit and listen to my concerns, and he put together a meeting with the public works director, and they listened to my babbling of all the different things that I think have not been considered or have been considered improperly about this site. I assure you that I could care, I'm not here because it's close to my property. I'm here because I'm a Talkeetna resident. We have three other properties in Talkeetna that are all benefited by this. As Andrea said, I think the current site has a lot of potential. I've been in Talkeetna for 40 years. I didn't even know the site was there north of town because it is out of sight and out of mind on our railroad property. The borough has mentioned multiple times and told the city that the railroad, or that they can't get the forgivable loan for $1.5 million from DEC because they don't own the property. I talked to DDC and I said, that's not true at all. All you have to do is get a lease agreement. the current lease was designed by the federal government in 1988 it expires in two years and all we have to do if we want to stay on that property is get a lease that extends past the useful life of the improvements maybe 30 years. Senator McCade was at a couple meetings that we were, discussed all this with, and he said that it would be very likely that the railroad, that the state of Alaska could work with the Alaska State Railroad to get the property transferred to the borough and the existing site. like they're doing in Whittier and Seward. I mean, it hasn't been on the books before, but now that the state took over, they're reevaluating things. And when I stopped in and talked to the state, they're more than welcome to talk about things, but they don't have a standard for transferring a land use facility to the borough because it hasn't been done, not because they don't want to do it. So again, my concern is that some, we did a study in 2024, DHL was an engineering firm, they studied five other sites up there. And we'll talk to you more next time. Thank you very much for your time.

Uh-huh. David, you said?

Thank you. My name is David Eastman. I'm a resident of Meadow Lakes. I live a walking distance from Little Sioux River, and I'm here to talk about the resolution from Assemblymember Veneer. But I have to say, I believe the resolution is woefully inadequate. i believe the assembly made a decision members a little while ago which was a mistake this resolution in one sense corrects that but but it doesn't go near far enough i mean i look at the resolution and i see the very substantial financial interests behind the proposed 20 000 acre transfer And I see our MATSU legislators lining up behind that. And I saw with the previous letter, our assembly lining up behind that as well. And while this resolution is an improvement over the letter, it does not stand against those interests for the public. It does not reflect really any of the concerns properly that I've heard from the public or even from members speaking tonight. If you were to more accurately represent the concerns that I'm hearing and that were mentioned here tonight, you would not just be opposed to the land transfer because of where it's located, but because of the process that's being pursued. We have an administration that's here for less than three more months, which is trying to push through on a fast track 20,000 acres of state land into Ada. 20 years ago, $44 million was invested by this borough and others to build a ferry. Why didn't that work out well? Why are we still paying that debt today? Because due diligence was not performed at the time. And we can see, looking at this proposal, that due diligence has not been performed. It's obvious. The details are not there. Critical questions that should have been asked and answered are not answered in the proposal. So moving it to Point McKenzie does not solve that problem. And that is under all of the concerns that I'm hearing. And so while it is in my backyard and I don't want it there, I don't want to appoint McKenzie either until there's a real plan in place so we don't waste another $44 million or another 20,000 acres. Thank you.

Mm-hmm. Okay, so that's everyone that signed up, but anyone as well? Yeah, come on, Travis. So if you haven't testified and would like to, just make your way to the front after Travis is done.

Hello, my name is Travis Friesen. I live in Palmer. I have some questions that I don't expect you to answer while I'm speaking, but about the industrial corridor. I've done some reading. You want data centers, manufacturing, logistics hubs. That's all good, but you can't get very much, as much vague as that. Manufacturing, I would like to know what kind of manufacturing. Logistics hubs, what kind of logistics are you talking about? The details isn't there, but what is there is a lot of people are opposed to those data centers. People don't know that those data centers They're probably big as 10 Costco buildings, and they employ about 10 people once they're complete. Sure, they make a lot of construction jobs, a lot of jobs constructing it, but once they're done, those jobs aren't coming back, and they're very underwhelming, 10 people for a whole data center. Not to mention about the water, it consumes so much water that the natural sources can't keep up, and a lot of states are dealing with dried up aquifers. And once all that water's up, the byproduct, you know, with all the minerals and deposits are dumped into the stream. So not only you're left with less water, you're also left with more polluted, more pollution in the process. So, yeah, so I think it's time to rethink about the data centers. I used to be all for the data centers, but they're they're not, I don't think they're a good thing. I like the manufacturing and I would like to know more about it and the logistics and all those industries but the data centers. So that's where I stand. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

good evening and actually I'm so I'm Rod Hanson but I'm actually here on behalf of John Miller he was sitting beside me and intended to testify but had to leave he wasn't feeling well tonight and what he asked me to do is simply bring your awareness to a road service area 25 resolution in support of the southern route I know there's a public hearing on that coming up But the RSA 25 board, he's a member of that board. endorsed a resolution supporting the southern route and so I just wanted to pass that on to the clerk for you guys and then secondly just as an individual I wanted to acknowledge the work the borough is doing along with fish and game and a number of other entities looking at protecting and helping salmon grow and expand in the Mat-Su borough I was able to as a relative of a property owner participated in a field visit the other day where they had installed a pike barrier to prevent pike from entering upstream in Cottonwood Creek and ultimately into Anderson Lake. You do have a couple public hearings tonight related to funding some fish passage type projects. these are all great works and it was really cool to see they had actually captured there was a salmon trying to get its way into anderson lake as we were there and there were buckets full of salmon young salmon that they were Helping get over the weir and up into the system. So if you look at the Cottonwood Creek drainage as a whole You know salmon are using that stream and I just really want to thank Everybody who's paying attention to that and taking steps to to keep it going I'll have further testimony tonight on a public ordinance, but here's what John Okay, thank you Anyone else

We do have four people online. Go ahead, the first person on the line, please.

Hi, this is Sean Arnold. I was calling to speak today on support of Ordinance 26106. The local government should respect the privacy of all citizens. We need to be avoiding costly network dependencies with outside surveillance corporations and uphold our right to the privacy of the people. As the people in Alaska voted for in 1972, ballot measure three in the 1972 election stated plainly the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. This measure was passed overwhelmingly and was written in as Article 1, Section 22 of our state constitution. I urge you to pass this ordinance to prohibit mass surveillance technology in our borough. I'd also like to bring a point on Resolution 26-103, the land transfer. This would be giving away 30 square miles of valuable public land at no cost For speculative development, it's bad policy, and especially when it strips away popular recreational land that local families rely on for hunting, fishing, snow machining, and trail access. Placing heavy industrial operations right next to residential neighborhoods threatens local wildlife, water sources, and energy grids. I urge you all to pass these resolutions and stop free land giveaway and protect public access to our lands. Thank you for your time.

Go ahead. Who's next on line?

Yeah, this is, hi, this is Steve Edwards, EDWARDS. I guess I'm calling in also on 26103. Because it's right in my backyard, and I use that area for snow machining quite a bit. And, you know, one of the reasons that many of us move to the valley is access to recreational land. And so it's very important to preserve that. I can ride right from my house to the mountain through that area. So I find myself in a little bit unusual position of strongly supporting the Ron Bernier's resolution 103 here I support that I appreciate that you've listened to the community and you're representing us in this and you know there's many people are okay with development but put it in the right place and so I'm not sure the port is the right place either, but I am sure that your point about not having it here is correct. So I appreciate you putting that forward. I think, you know, I don't support ADA in any fashion sense at all. And so I would prefer that if land is to be transferred, it be transferred to the borough and ADA, but not involved. They just have an awful record of failed projects. And I feel like this would be another one, even if it was at the port. The borough could probably do a much better job of developing that. So first of all, don't give it to ADA. And second of all, I support this resolution to... move it away from the recreational areas that people live in the valley specifically for. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, who's online?

Hello, my name is Liliana Bache. I live in Meadow Lakes, miles through the woods where Ada wants land in Houston. I'm here to tell you I don't approve of this land transfer. Alaskans want this land to stay right Being it the way it is, it should not be near communities at all. You've heard time after time that nobody wants them. Nobody wants data centers, industrial parks, or whatever other names you want to call them. Our government wants people to stay as busy as possible so that we cannot fight things like this. As a community, we have already came together and shown you the number of people who do not want this. suppress the community or actually listen to us somebody said earlier all we can do is vote you guys in but but we can do a lot more make your decisions wisely and constitutionally i'll say i'll say also to any community member who wants to know about the about Ada contacting assembly members, you have the right to request all the documents through Alaska's Public Records Act. You can get all those documents. So you should request those and also request all the FOIAs. You need to hold Alaska's government accountable. This is genuinely retarded. Please do not give the land to Ada. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Thank you. Next person on line, please.

Yes, hi, my name is Brittany Fentel and I am calling in regards to two things. The first one is the ADA land transfer. I am not in support of it at all. There's just too much unknowns from going to any of the ADA meetings or anything. All they say is, quote, we can't speak on what we plan to do in reference to the types of developments to take place. Quote, we don't have any plans for any infrastructure at this point. Now, they keep trying to backtrack, saying that there's not going to be any data centers, but it's literally stated seven times in their proposal for this industrial land park or giveaway or whatever you want to call it. Saying data center development designated sites for secure scalable data centers leveraging existing and planned utility corridors for robust electric, natural gas, and fiber connectivity. and more. You've heard from many community members. I'd actually say we're at 10 public comments right now against the land transfer to Ada. All sightings from everyone uses the public lands. People don't want it in their backyards because who wants to be next to an industrial park or a data center at this point? So, again, highly against it. I hope that that resolution, I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but doesn't get or gets passed saying that the Matt Subaru does not want the ADA land transfer. And then also the ordinance. Let's see, about the automated license plate reader systems and associated master surveillance technology. I also am against having Axon or Flock cameras or any type of brand camera or surveillance in the Mat-Su borough. I believe Anchorage should also follow suit, even though they spent so much more money for more mass surveillance. I don't feel like we should be like Anchorage at all. Again, most of us move out here to... get away from the city type structures. We want to be in nature. And bringing those two specific things to the Mat-Su Borough go against pretty much anything that most people come out here for. So that's really all I have to say. Thank you for your guys' time. Thank you.

Do we have anybody else, Caleb? Oh, three more. Okay. Go ahead.

Who's ever next on line, please? Hi, good morning or good afternoon, good evening. My name is Suzanne Hayes. The last name is spelled H-A-Y-E-S. And I also oppose Ada's proposed plan to take approximately 20,000 acres from within the borough for future industrial development. I believe that there has been little transparency in this land conveyance and it's a rush to dispose of valuable property. The Natsu Borough is the fastest growing area of the state. The park's highway is a major transportation route from south to interior. The portions of this area that could be built on are better left for residential, small business, and real public and charitable uses that occur with residential growth. The streams, lakes, wetlands should be protected as they are important salmon, trout, moose, bear, and bird habitat. This area falls within the watershed and Willow Creek. The fish populations of Willow and the Little Sioux depend on both main stem and tributary habitats for spawning and rearing of rainbow trout, coho, pink salmon, chum salmon, and king salmon. The selected area includes numerous tributary streams that rear salmon and trout, and it's bordered by Deception Creek. In turn, these populations contribute to recreational and commercial fisheries within Mat-Su Borough and Cook Inlet. So I agree with resolution 26-103, that this is a bad idea and it's in the wrong place. However, I do not know if encouraging Ada to select land in the West Susitna area is any better. Thank you.

The next person on line, please.

Yeah, this is Mike Blakeslee, B-L-A-K-E-S-L-E-E. from Willow, and I'd like to speak in opposition of the land transfer. In ADA's plan that they submitted to DNR, the first phase of their plan is to mine the gravel for large pads to support future buildings and ADA projects. This probably includes the West Susitna Road project. Since Ada says it has no data center customers now, it stands to reason we will be stuck with large gravel pits with no need for them to finish building them and no one to use them if they did. I'd like to make sure that everybody knows that this is going to be a gravel pit mining 19,000 acres. I'd also like to speak in opposition of... 26-089. I think that the borough assembly has passed resolution 24-056 expressing concerns regarding the Alaska Long Trail potential as a national historic trail. Now that's not going to happen in this administration, but that's not saying it can't happen in the next administration. Therefore, I'd like you to consider whether or not it would be a smart move to put a gateway on Matsubara property. Thank you.

Next person online, please.

Good evening. My name is Esther Huddleston. Under Ordinance 26-089 under unfinished business, I support Michael Bull's amendment to strike the language Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation. We do not need to give the federal government an opportunity to take more land away from Alaskans. Also, I have concerns in regards to 26-082, and my concern is about the user conflict study. Will it hold prejudice? In Safe Streets, ATVs were less than 1% of accidents. All board RSA passed a resolution for restrictions on ATVs, and they called ATVs dangerous in their resolution, which is an opinion. It's not facts. It's not based on statistics. In Safe Streets, there were more than 4,800 car accidents in the Mat-Su borough. We had more accidents and roundabouts, car accidents than we did ATV accidents. We had more bicycle accidents than ATV accidents. So this is going on a prejudice opinion, pushing this user conflict in regards to ATVs. And on Ordinance 26-106, I support Michael Bull's ordinance adopting MSB 2330 to prohibit acquisition, installation, and operation of automated licensed plate reader systems, and associated mass surveillance technology. From 1993 to 1996, Anchorage had a photo radar speed enforcement program. Anchorage did not want to tie up police resources, so they did hire a private contractor which had white Chevy Blazers with radars and mounted cameras, and tickets were mailed directly to the car owners. The legal challenges Anchorage versus Baxley 1997 argued that on certified police officers, only certified police officers who visually witness citations can hand out citations, not automated machines or uncertified third party. Certified third party contractors. Constitutional rights critics point out mailing tickets to car owners violated presumption of innocence. The burden of proof shifted to the driver to prove that they weren't behind the wheel. In 1997, Anchorage voters passed a ballot initiative to ban the use of photo radar and red light cameras. We do not need to repeat the past, so please vote yes on Ordinance 26-101. And thank you, and have a wonderful evening. Thank you.

Your line is muted. Your line is unmuted.

Do we have another person? Okay. Oh, wow. Okay. Go ahead. Who's ever next on line, please?

Hi. My name is Caroline. I live in Willow, and I've lived in Alaska my entire life. I'd like to voice my strong support of Ordinance 26106. As we've seen in communities in the lower 48, mass surveillance technology is fallible and makes frequent errors. There have been many cases of misidentification resulting in innocent civilians being subject to traffic stops, home visits from authorities, and in some cases even arrests before the error is verified. This is not how our justice system works. Here you are innocent until proven guilty, and that burden of proof lies with the prosecuting party. What we've seen with these misidentification cases is the burden of proof is then put on the innocent party. There have been many cases like this around the country. For the sake of time, I'm going to offer two. In Arkansas, a state with hundreds of axon and flock style surveillance cameras, a family was pulled over and detained at gunpoint under suspicion the vehicle was stolen. The couple, who were handcuffed at the scene, had their one-month-old child in the vehicle. This happened because the AI surveillance camera was mistaken by one letter. In Florida, a woman spent 13 days in jail. vehicular manslaughter. According to the arrest report, officers cited a flock camera capturing her plate in a tag nearby the scene on the same day. However, further analysis of her speed and direction of travel determined she could not have been present for the incident. The responsible individual was later arrested and charged and the innocent party was released and the wrongful charges dropped. However, she will never get those 13 days back. New technology is not always progress and use of this kind of surveillance technology in our community would simply build substantial distrust. Additionally, I'd like to make a comment on the ADA land grabs in my support of Resolution 26-103. ADA has a poor history of transparency and a strong history of making decisions against the public's interest. These decisions were not made in the interest of the residents that would be most impacted and was done without notification to the Houston City Council. Through public testimony and public comment, there have been an overwhelming amount of constituents with serious concerns about ADA and the land transfers. I do also agree with the previous commenter that moving the location to Point McKenzie does not really solve the issue at hand. Public land should stay in public hands for recreation and subsistence as it has. I urge the Assembly to formally oppose the land transfer. Thank you for your time.

Can we get a last name? I don't think she ever said her last name.

Caroline Arnold. Next person on the line, please.

Yes, my name is Samuel Schilling. I'm a resident of Caswell, the property up there. I'm also president of the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance. And I wish to testify on the second half, but it's moose season, and as most Alaskans, our schedule revolves around that. So two particular items that I wanted to cover in my testimony here is one, of course, is the transfer of land over to Ada. We've always had kind of some... positive impacts with ADA in the past. Along with that, ourselves and AOC and quite a few other organizations have supported some of their projects. However, this particular one, we have had concerns with because of the fact that they want to make it unrestricted. And we want to protect not just our 2477 trails or 17B easements, but the purpose behind it is to protect also the access and use of the land. And that doesn't mean just trails. That's how we use the land itself. And so with that, what we've seen that we worry on the side of caution when we want to transfer for one location that we don't approve of and transfer it over to another location because it might be a little bit more unpopulated in the area. But we still put, we hindered those restrictions onto the land. And that's what we urge that there might be possibly an amendment we would adopt into it that it's under conditions that we protect the use in the land. As a tradesman, I do support the development and construction of new projects in the state because it helps keep my paychecks coming in and my family fed. But as president of the AOAA, as I have an obligation to uphold to the protection of the use and access of the land. And that's why I have to step in and make sure that we inform or guarantee those protections of land if we're talking about future development. The other one is pertaining to the ordinance, which is 26089, which is also the funding for the Parks Creek Park Park River Campground and Playground. And there was a couple of concerns wrapped around it. One is that the borough passed resolution and not supporting the Alaska Long Trail Scenic Trail designation. With that, some of the things that people forgot in with that is that any kind of support to initiative that fuels the feasibility study of this National Scenic Trail. And that includes borough and government participation. That includes their support on developing and the funding that goes into it to show that they can establish a participating hand into it gives the feasibility study more grounds that it's possible. And with that, borough passing its resolution and then rejecting that National Scenic Trail kind of contradicts that. However, the other key point that I've noticed was talked in the last borough assembly meeting pertaining to this funding is one, we work a lot with grants and different government contracts. You don't lose a grant because you want to eliminate a part of the section of the grant that you don't want to necessarily use. So if we're talking about building a gateway trail, which I don't see how it could cost $100,000 for a gateway arc, But if we don't wanna use that money for that, you just have to give it back. You don't lose it. You just don't get to use it and you have to give it back. So you can approve it without approving the initial project for over the gateway trail and still get the funding for it. You just have to give that portion of it back to this, whatever you don't use. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Next person online, please.

Hello, my name is Rochelle Evergreen. Today I'm speaking about Resolution 26103. As a Matanuska Valley resident, I abhorrently reject the economic development of proposals by ADA in Alaska. The question I have for them as a company is with all this energy usage and all these different things that you're developing, who's going to benefit from this? The argument is that it is Alaskans, and it can easily be disproven just by a simple look at different factors that we've already seen from other companies, environmentally, economically, and through morality of consciousness. Historically, the companies that caused the majority of environmental distress are not the ones paying the consequences for their actions. Why then, in such a fragile environment as the Arctic, would we expect a company causing impacts to our environment to let it be their problem? If we are to build structures, there are several environmental factors that need to be considered, things such as infrastructure, wildlife, water, the temperature, energy, greenhouse emissions, and others, just to name a few. Seclusion is one of the many benefits statewide Because of the environment that we're living here in Alaska, we like to have our mountain views. We like to be able to roam around in our backyards and be able to go out into the wilderness. Why then would we place a large scale company in an area that we know is designated towards recreational use? It just doesn't make a lot of sense why we would want to give that land away to a company that historically hasn't been very transparent about what they're doing. We know that there are risks to innovation. We're told to accept these risks, for we will inherit the benefits later, yet there's never a later. We're told that the economic development is coming, yet poverty persists. We're told that this will create jobs, and yet they are all temporary and unsustainable. We've seen the injustices already plaguing communities and environments affected currently by companies who are building things such as data centers and over 4,000 cases throughout the US. And we've learned that the later that we're all promised just is never gonna arrive at this point. So we cannot wait around when future generations depend on our voices speaking out truth It's been decided that we're to write our own history because protecting the land, the water, and the air is activism, and it's our weapon against the terrorism of innovation. They will be recorded in history and remembered as such. Thank you for your time.

Caleb, do we have anybody else? No. So one last chance for anybody here this evening that has not had the opportunity to test. Yes, come on. Just state your name and then what you'd like to say to the assembly. Thank you.

My name is Austin Aho. I would like to speak on data centers. I'm simply an uninformed citizen. I don't know very much about data centers. But I would like to propose the idea that it's possible that data centers are being unfairly demonized. I think there are some data centers that don't use water at all for cooling. So that's an example of... how they can be not so harmful to the environment. Furthermore, I don't really think in Alaska with our population being so low and the quantity of land we have up here in Alaska, I don't think it's really a serious concern that we're going to like run out of water. And then there is, I understand there's a noise issue, but I don't really think these things produce even more noise necessarily than like a highway. I think that it's possible also, this is very new technology, it's possible that there are benefits to these data centers to local areas other than just the minuscule amount of jobs they provide. I'm not saying I know that at all, but it's possible. And then furthermore, Our president and his administration have claimed that these data centers will be very beneficial to our country. And so as patriots, I think that we should not be so hasty to be against them. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have another, do you have a person online? Go ahead, who's ever online please?

Mayor and members of the assembly, thank you. For the record, my name is Michelle Stevens, president of the Alaska Snow Machine Alliance. The Alaska Snow Machine Alliance represents snow machine clubs and motorized trail users throughout Alaska. We respectfully ask the assembly to amend ordinance 26-089 to remove the Alaska Long Trail Gateway while allowing the Matanuska River Park and campground improvements to move forward. The community development director states that installing this gateway does not create an easement, convey property rights, change borough management, or create a national scenic trail. We understand that. However, the question is not simply this gateway does not does legally today. The question is what the borough's official participation may mean five or 10 years from now if Congress considers designating the Alaska Long Trail as a National Scenic Trail. The effort to pursue federal National Scenic Trail designation remains active. If Congress eventually designates this route, the borough may still own and manage its land, but it will no longer be dealing with just borough management. The trail would enter a federal administrative system. With an administering secretary, a required comprehensive management plan selection of the trail right of way and federal responsibilities that do not exist on this borough land today. Section 7C of the National Trail Assistance Act states that motorized vehicle use by the general public along a national scenic trail shall be prohibited. Public subject to statutory exceptions including emergencies. Alaska Trails points to the Continental Divide Scenic Trail as proof that motorized can coexist with designations. But when Congress designated that trail in 1978, approximately 424 miles of the proposed route were existing primitive roads. And Congress specifically protected certain existing motorized uses. Since then, federal policy has directed new and relocated portions towards a non-motorized setting. That is the history Alaska needs to understand. If the borough accepts this funding and installs a braided, a branded Alaska Long Trail Gateway on borough land, official record of borough participation. It does not designate a National Scenic Trail or transfer ownership today, but it does turn a line on the map into built infrastructure with a local government partner. That documented record could become relevant to Congress later, considers the National Scenic Trail designation. So before you vote, you have to consider If a future Congress designates the Alaska Long Trail as a National Scenic Trail five or ten years from now, can anyone guarantee to this Assembly today what federal requirements, use restrictions, management conditions, or protections for motorized access will apply to the Gateway you are being asked to build today? Happy trails.

We have anybody else online, Caleb, no? So one last chance for anybody here that hasn't had an opportunity to address the assembly. Okay, with that, I'll close audience participation. We're gonna take a break till eight o'clock. I'm gonna go ahead and call the meeting back to order, please. And we'll now go into some public hearings. And we do have a sign-up sheet, but again, if you didn't sign up, we'll still allow you to testify. And even if you testified under the audience participation, you can testify in support or in opposition. IN THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUT IN THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, YOU CAN ONLY TESTIFY ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU CAN'T START TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER. MOVE THE CAPITAL. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT UP HERE. SO ANYWAY, MADAM CLERK.

Resolution 26094, resolution selecting the northern route one as the preferred route identified in the July 2026 route selection report for the Angstrom Road to Trunk Road corridor project. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star three.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and open public hearing and, oh, let's see, the first person was John Miller, but I think you gave his testimony, unless you wanna give it again, right? Well, we can't add on to it you can't add on to it Yeah, yeah, so and I gave the copies of the stuff to the clerk, right? Yeah Yeah, okay

Okay, good evening everybody. My name is Rod Hanson and I'm speaking on behalf of the North Lakes Community Council. Our council, the Fisher Community Council, Road Service Area 25 board which has accountability for the Engstrom area and your planning commission have all recommended through resolutions that have been submitted endorsing the southern route as the route for the minor collector Between angstrom and trunk our reasons remain clear First is public safety by removing with the southern route We could remove gravel trucks from Bogard and the Bogart angstrom intersection significantly improving public safety Traffic study also shows overall less traffic on angstrom when comparing the southern route against any other option Second reason is the financial impact the southern route is significantly less expensive Whereas northern route one could cost up to three and a half times as much We also value individual property rights northern route faces strong opposition from landowners and the southern route impacts only two or could impact only two property owners both of whom have expressed a willingness to provide right-of-way and the assembly approved bonding a two-and-a-half million dollars uh... as part of the tip twenty one package and it was actually for the southern route and public approved that in that package actual cost of obviously escalated the northern route one now ranges from twenty one to thirty one million dollars depending on which estimate you believe The Bogart-Angstrom intersection connects, actually if you look at the map, districts one, three, four, and six all come together right at that intersection. And certainly voters and residents in those districts expect timely and reasonable solutions. The southern route was identified in the 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan. It is included in the 2022 Official Streets and Highways Plan, and it aligns with the Bogard-Selden Corridor Access Management Plan, which you adopted in August of last year. Concerns regarding snow drifting, intersection safety related to the southern route can easily be addressed during final design. There are three other major collector projects that are moving forward to address connectivity, growth, and significant development in the Fish Hook Triangle. These are the North Engstrom connection from North Engstrom up to Texall, the connection of the two Texall roads together, There's now a borough priority project to extend Covington to from the north end of angstrom all the way straight up to Wasilla fish hook we recommend completing those projects before you consider another northern route connection Constructing northern route one primarily benefits the stone creek subdivision development allowing expansion there without upgrades And I just want to say both community councils, the RSA board, and the planning commission urge you to replace or modify the resolution you have in front of you and advance the southern route. Thank you.

Thank you. Louie?

Hello, Louie from Landry.

individual and president of Sherwood subdivision, which is right at Where the southern route is planned? Why have all of the traffic come through? From all the way Wolf Lake all the way down Engstrom to the less than half of a mile to exit out Let's go with the northern route. Yeah, it's more expensive today What will it be in another ten years when we try to do it, you know? Safety we got a few dump trucks. What about the emergency vehicles? You know, they're going a lot further distance up and down that wiggly road to get up to Wolf Lake Versus if there was a northern route, they'd be quicker and shorter faster Let's not do a band-aid fix right now because it's cheaper let's do the right thing for the people We need a major collector first Safety is an issue No to the southern route, thank you

Sharon Johnson.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly. My name is Sharon Johnson. November 2nd, 2021, the Mat-Su voters voted for 61,135,000 bond package, Proposition 1, the TIP 21. In that bond package was 2.5 million for the Engstrom to Trunk Connector, a southern connector now estimated at just over 9.1 million. Also in that package was the Texel Drive Extension upgrade and pathway for $6,325,000, now estimated at $14.2 million. In TIP 24, the Angstrom North to Texel Extension was approved by the voters at $6.1 million. It is now estimated about $7.2 million. Now the borough has prioritized another project in the near term, the extension of north covington street all the way from angstrom north to wasilla fishhook that project estimated at 11.3 million these three projects for the price of one proposed north connector with possible eminent domain issues i feel it's a bargain What we need is a cost-effective relief with the southern connector from Engstrom to Trunk. With the 2.5 million towards the 9.1 million already bonded, voted for by the voters, that reduces the cost to about 7 million. I am not an engineer, a road designer, but I am sure building the road bed by Central Gravel Products also reduces the cost significantly. Let's start relieving the traffic hazard on the Engstrom-Bogart intersection in the most cost-effective and timely manner possible. As I stated two weeks ago, how many of us had encountered that wonderful intersection without thanking our lucky stars that we did not get in an accident? i cannot speak about the experience coming off of angstrom i don't live there but there's a wonderful baker and i don't go and buy bread up there because i don't want to go through that intersection but watching the frustration of people trying to get out of that intercept onto trunk or bogart road i really feel that they would rather make a right-hand turn on to go south on trunk it would be a much more pleasant experience and the morning rush is going south not north on angstrom so the left hand turn would not be that great of a difficult thank you for your time let's work together to get relief for the bogart angstrom connector sooner than later spencer audie spencer

Good evening, Mayor, members of the Assembly. I wanted to support a southern route in opposition to a northern route. In addition to the southern route being the only route proposed to the voters and voted on, the northern route has just seemed to be forced from the end. It doesn't provide any benefits that I can see over the southern route. It's markedly more expensive, impacts many homeowners and homesteads that have no interest in having their properties split up. And furthermore, encroaches upon the approach and departure end of a previously functioning runway that are going to have some aviation impacts with this route departing to zero and coming into two to where we live and a bunch of other folks operate out of. really can't see any benefit to a northern route other than to improve access to a private development that's going in and it's never been approved by the voters i just wanted to voice my opinion appreciate it uh vanessa morgan

Good evening, Madam Mayor and all the assembly members. I'm Vanessa Morgan. I'm in support of the Southern Route instead of the Northern Route being built. We are, I'm sorry, this is coming off the top of the dome, so I don't have anything very eloquent or concise. So, we are in support of the Southern Route we would be really impacted by the northern route. The route would just plow through, you know, my chicken coop, established berries, and just all these beautiful things that we've had. And this land has been, it's been in our family for generations, and will continue, hopefully, being in our family for generations. I do have a 14-month-old son, and hopefully many more farmers. And it's our farmland. We. I'm sorry. We would just really appreciate the southern route being built. Like everyone else has said, it's expensive. There's so many natural habitats that would be affected by the northern route being built. Weird engineer problems that I don't really understand. Yeah, thank you for having me up here today. And yeah, have a wonderful evening.

Thank you. Greg, send this. Greg.

Hi, my name is Greg Sint. We request the assembly replace the draft resolution number 26094 with a resolution that selects the southern route for the ancient road trunk connector. We request our September 3rd letter, which Patty, my wife, just handed out to the clerk, and this testimony will be part of the record of this meeting. Approximately one and a half miles of the northern route cuts through property owned by my wife Patty, her family, This land was homesteaded by Patty's grandfather, Arthur Olson, in about 1915. We've cleared and installed about four and a half miles of fences and constructed two bridges on this property, some major improvements. Whether Route 1 will significantly impact the use of our land, it will divide the land into some nearly unusable portions. Since the proposed route will take our existing bridges, it will be very difficult to access part of our land because it's going to be very difficult to construct bridges across the very wide remaining Wasilla Creek floodplain. We discussed our opposition to the northern route concept with borough staff on several occasions since we first became aware of the borough's preliminary plans in July 2024 when we were asked to grant permission for access for conducting geotechnical and environmental investigations. There are multiple technical and practical considerations that favor the southern route over the northern route as detailed in our September 3rd letter, which you have a copy of. Public opinions were not accurately represented and considered in the route selection report and by a borough staff. The route selection report states there is, quote, overwhelmingly support for the north route, close quote, but it also states they received only 17 comments at the March 2025 public meeting. On the other hand, the North Lakes and Fish Hook Community Councils, which represent more than 15,000 residents, strongly support the south route. The route selection process did not consider the northern route impacts on property owners or neighbors along Heaton, who will probably receive no compensation for loss of their property value and degradation of their quality of life. The aesthetic impacts of the northern route were not considered. The southern route is adjacent to land that has been altered with gravel pit operation. Borough staff indicated, quote, agricultural land use and proximity impacts are legitimate considerations and would be evaluated in greater detail during preliminary design, close quote. We think the impacts on land use should be considered now as part of the route selection process. The traffic congestion and safety issues at Engstrom and Bogart are the most important public concerns, and the southern route addresses these concerns somewhat better than the northern route as supported by the data in the traffic analysis. The estimated cost for the southern route is at least $13 million less than the northern route. The route selection report did not consider the cost of right-of-way acquisition and failed to recognize the offer by the Southern Route landowners to provide right-of-way and assist with roadbed construction. Again, we are not interested in selling right-of-way. The Southern Route is a feasible and technically preferable alternative to Northern Route 1. The taking of our property for Northern Route 1 construction is not justified. Thank you.

Colleen Vega.

Good evening, my name is Colleen Vague, and first I want to commend the planning committee for their proactive approach in working towards a solution to the future traffic concerns at the textile interchange. I support their efforts and I encourage them to continue to have a forward-thinking trajectory. Having said that, I am here speaking in support of the substitute resolution 26094 in favor of the southern route. Some 33, 34-ish years ago, Colony Junior Senior High Complex was developed just west of the 49th Street. It had an impact on Bogard Road because more schools always bring more families, more homes, and more traffic. Then, a few years later, they built Larson Elementary and extended Bogard Road down Sheldon Road so that it would connect with the Wasilla Fishick Road. More schools, more traffic, more families. A few years after that, then, they had Colony Tech and Teeland Middle School built just off Bogard Road, where Sheldon was extended through there. Again, more schools, more families, more homes, more traffic on Bogard Road. After that, after the extension of Bogard Road down Sheldon, they decided to go the other direction and extend east of 49th Street so that Bogard Road would connect with West Arctic Street, thereby creating a bypass to avoid Palma-Wasilla Highway, creating more traffic in a bypass around the, I don't know, 45 stoplights on Palma-Wasilla Highway these days. After that, finally, Trunk Road, just most recently, taking the curves out, extended, commuting much more pleasant, going in a north and south direction to avoid Wasilla if you're coming back from work in Anchorage. Do you see the problem? We have extended and improved the west end of Bogard Road. We have extended and improved the east end of Bogard Road. We've extended and improved the north and south route to make Bogard a better bypass for all the traffic that we didn't like coming in from Palmer, from Anchorage, and out towards the Fishick Road. And yet, we have left the center, windy, dangerous part of that road untouched, except of course for paving here and there. We've asked the gravel pit operator to make accommodations, which he has done. He's made it as safe as possible for gravel pit, for gravel drivers, gravel truck drivers to go through there. But he's only allowed legally as a private citizen to do so much. He's also partnered, I heard that touted earlier tonight, partnered with the borough in order to supply base gravel at the tune of a couple hundred thousand dollars savings to the community. We also have a homeowner that has said, yep, you can drive through my property. I will donate it. I will give it. I will sell it. Whatever they've decided in their bargaining with the borough to do. And we're still discussing the northern route. Thank you.

That takes care of everybody that signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to testify that didn't, hasn't signed up? Now, it will, your testimony is restricted to resolution 20, what is it, 26-094. Go ahead, sir.

I'm Jade Laughlin, owner of Central Gravel Products. I'm in favor of all the routes, personally, but financially, the southern route doesn't make the most sense at this moment. And to correct rod there's three landowners that would be involved in that right away I only speaking for myself as one of them I would be willing to discuss a right away through there and also I being a gravel pit operation, help with doing some rough-in work for us to remove material before the right-of-way is purchased. But the design, the finish work, the ditching, the paving, that's all on you guys. I think this is a good way to It is a bit of a band the southern route in my opinion is a bit of a band-aid the Covington Engstrom textile connectors are going to be extremely valuable and I encourage you guys to get on those as quickly as possible and But the northern route I think is gonna really be a butt kicker for you guys and as you've seen with the Loman Olson families Comments, they don't want to cut up their property Neither does the Heaton's and they've had it for a hundred years and I think we need to really value that So thank you for your time Next person

My name is Simon Gilliland. I'm a resident of District 1 and RSA 16. I want to remind you guys that the Planning Commission voted unanimously in opposition to the resolution supporting the northern route that you have in front of you and unanimously in support of a southern route when the projects were presented to them August 3rd. I would also like to bring to the assembly's attention that the RSA 16 has really no roads in their region off of Engstrom Road that they maintain. The only connection to the project is that the terminus of the northern route would be within their RSA where it hits Trunk Road. Closest road to the northern route within RSA 16, they don't even maintain. Me and my neighbors maintain it. The roads that generate traffic that feed onto Engstrom are primarily within RSA 25, who wrote a letter to you guys in support of the southern route, which John Miller and Rod provided to you. This letter from RSA 16 is one that truly holds weight as it comes from the RSA that works and maintains the Engstrom corridor roadways Both North Lakes and fish community councils as you have heard have written letters in support of the southern route citing reasons such as lower cost and foremost of much likely Faster route to a decade at least old problem on Engstrom Road The Transportation Advisory Board did not hear from those who support the southern route prior to their letter of support for the northern route based on the draft route selection report by the borough's consultant the Public Works presented to them None of us were notified it was going to be presented to the Transportation Advisory Board, despite inquiries to Public Works in the couple weeks prior to the meeting about what the next step for the project was going to be. I might note that Alaska DOT weighing in this late September 2nd, which was after the packet was posted, seems to be at the request of Public Works, being that they were the custodians of the letter, as seen by the care of MSB Public Works at the top of their letter. I wonder just how much of the opposition to the northern route DOT was made aware of or was it a one-sided argument much like the Transportation Advisory Board heard during their meeting in February of this year when no opposing views were able to be aired because we were not aware. I provided written and verbal comments numerous times on this project and you have a letter and map with many items, facts, details, and analysis. From my perspective as an engineer, land surveyor, and construction project manager in the documents you received. I would ask that you prioritize, your priorities be to fund the tip routes that voters have approved and finish the Texnell and Engstrom connections that are within existing easements and currently being designed prior to considering another roughly $30 million road that's coming from the new MPO. And add to the borough's expenses, we want a less than $10 million road. Which is part of tip 21 would reduce the traffic at Inkstrom and Bogart at roundabout intersection the same amount.

Thank you Anyone else We have anybody okay go ahead who's ever online please Go ahead They hung up, okay. One last chance for anyone here. Okay, I'll close the public hearing in Assemblyperson Bowles. Oh, can I just hold it a minute, Assemblyperson Bowles? Go ahead, who's ever online? Thank you. Hello? Yes, go ahead.

okay sorry hi my name is brittany fantel i live on texel and this um resolution was actually new to me i was here for two other resolutions um but it i don't really support i mean i understand we need to build more roads but the last time we voted we all voted to approve uh the connection between Texel because honestly trying to go up and down Wasilla Fish Hook in the wintertime is super dangerous, whereas opposed to if we can connect it to go to Palmer Fish Hook, it's going to be a lot safer for a lot of the people that live in this area. and again we already voted on it and as another person mentioned like if we don't do it now it's going to cost even more money to do it in the long term and there's so much more development that's actually happening up here so the road is getting a bit busier and we just need to focus on doing all the roads that we've already approved of voting wise and that's all i have to say on that

One last chance, anyone present? Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing for good this time. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt Resolution 26-094 and I move to amend by a substitution resolution.

Okay.

And I'd like to speak to that if possible.

Mm-hmm.

So I believe everybody on the dais has been handed out the substitute resolution, which changes a resolution that approves the southern route. We've heard a lot of public testimony. I personally have attended all but one North Lakes Community Council meeting in the last year. I've spoken with members of the community in Fish Hook. I've spoken to members of Public Works. and i think it's important to have a wide understanding of this project before making a decision and there are multiple subject matter experts out there both that work for the borough that live in the area they do this for a living and um And it was voted on. It was voted to fund the southern route five years ago, and it still hasn't moved forward. And now it's $8 million more expensive. So we need to, I believe that we have a duty to move the southern route forward. That's what the residents and the borough voted on. I work for the residents of the borough, and I think that this is the most appropriate thing to do at this time. Now, at a later time, if the northern route is necessary, I won't be on the assembly anymore. You guys can work on that. But right now, I think we need to honor the 2021 vote, and we need to honor the communities that have put forth all of the resolutions, the RSAs that have put forth the resolution supporting this, and the planning commission that supports the southern route, and get this done.

Okay. So we are on the primary amendment, right? Or the substitute. The substitute. Assembly person Sumner, go ahead.

So tip 21 I believe was in 2021, so it was five years ago. And the voters approved 2.5 million to build the southern route. And man, it wouldn't have been great if we could have built that thing five years ago for 2.5 million. But we can't rewind the clock and go back to 2021 and build it for 2.5 million. And I don't think that the voters that told us to build this for 2.5 million gave us You know carte blanche to spend four times as much on the southern route you know also the the reality of the situation has changed when the Roundabouts going in, you know next year I think it's gonna drastically change the traffic pattern down there and alleviate a lot of the congestion So and I'm not saying that I think the northern routes great Whether we should spend 25 million on that what I am saying though is that? 10 million for the southern route doesn't seem like that great of a deal when a lot of the issues that we're dealing with on them are gonna be alleviated by the by the roundabout and also I mean if you've read all 203 pages of the of the I am which I did in the engineering report for the traffic analysis I Guess I should back up and say that I you know, I used to live on angstrom actually literally on angstrom 25 years ago and my shop is a couple blocks away from angstrom. I've built dozens of houses and in the Vail Estates and Stone Creek area and Goodwin Estates. So I know the area well. I guess I contributed to part of the congestion problem, but if I hadn't built those houses, someone else would have, right? And besides all the dense traffic count analysis about why the northern route's better than the southern route, I did a little mental exercise. I can't remember who suggested it or said, well, when would you use the southern route? And if I lived in one of the neighborhoods accessed off of Angstrom, I thought, well, when would I, instead of going to the roundabout to go to Wasilla or going to the roundabout to go to Palmer or going to the roundabout to go to Anchorage, when do I take a left turn to go on the southern route? Then, you know, go on to Trunk. You wouldn't go to Hatcher's Pass that way. You'd go up north to Texal. You wouldn't go to Wasilla that way. You'd go to the roundabout. You wouldn't go to Palmer that way because it'd be faster to go straight and then hit the roundabout. So who is going to use this southern route? I couldn't really come up with an answer of when someone would use the southern route, especially making a left turn across traffic to go onto the southern route. Now, there is a good argument for using the northern route, but that's not what we're talking about right now. We're talking about just should we spend the money on the southern route today? And I'm opposed to spending four times what the taxpayers approved on the southern route.

Okay, further discussion on the substitute? Assemblyperson Fauna, please.

Since this is a kind of completely changes the whole ordinance, can we, because it will be, everything's gonna be related to this amendment actually now, can we get a staff report? I have a couple questions for that. I'm asking if we could get Tom Adams for staff, please.

You want to go to staff?

Yeah, staff, yeah.

Okay. He's coming.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

So the amendment completely changes the, you know, our ordinance from one to another. I think Max brought up some of the points. One of the things I wanted to ask. Lonnie, do you have a way to display in IM? There is a similar map to this that has the routes, so we could display that, because I think that will help us look at it. It's loading right now. I don't have it. If somebody has it, they might have it. Page 9 would be OK, and that's in IM. Yeah, I think page nine, I think, would help out for us to see. And then kind of zoom in on the picture so that we could see it better. Okay. Question to Tom. On the roundabout, what is the update currently? Because that has a lot of relevance to which route is the roundabout of the Inkstrom and the Bogart. Do we have update on the timeframe on construction of that?

Through the Mayor, Assemblymember Vanov, Public Works Director Tom Adams. So, you know, Yes, I have an update. As recently as today, I spoke with the DOT regional pre-construction engineer and told me they fully anticipate putting that project out to bid by the end of December, but certainly by within the first quarter of 2027. So fully expect that project to be in construction in the 2027 time frame.

okay when they start construction on roundabout at what point in the construction i know the finalizing of the grass and everything like that takes at like a bottom of the season or sometimes even the following season when do you expect that if things go the way it should um for the actual roundabout to start

having a traffic going into a roundabout so that particular project the initial construction activity is gonna be rely heavily on a lot of utility relocations and so that I would anticipate the first You know six or eight weeks is going to be not seeing a lot of activity as far as constructing the roundabout But you'll you'll see that develop my expectation is sometime during the 2027 construction timeframe that roundabout will be functional and but it won't be until 2028 until it's actually reaching a substantial completion or nearing final completion towards the end of 2028.

Okay, Lonnie, sorry, it's page 17 that I was referring to. Okay, once the roundabout is completed, the need for the Southern If somebody's going to, was to go on a trunk road towards Palmer-Wasila Highway, I did the math. It's from where the southern route would start to the roundabout by the trunk, and Bogart is about 1.54 miles. Is that sounds about right? So I'm clear you're saying the distance that you're measuring is between trunk and where if Southern route and then to trunk and all the way to the around the bound that is on the trunk and the booger and because when you take that basically the the distance from the proposed southern route if you were to go to the distance to the trunk and Bogart roundabout through southern route or through the What currently traffic goes through with including the new new roundabout that will be built to me when I measured it out based on our thing it's through the roundabout that's going to be built going through that section all the way to the trunk roundabout is about 1.04 miles but going through southern route it's 1.54 miles basically one scroll it down just a little bit up so that we could see where the little more yeah okay i think a little more so we could see that road uh oh that doesn't Okay, are we on the page 17? I am on page 17.

Okay, well, the 17 shows.

Okay, that's fine. So I guess the distance by southern route, does that actually add the distance compared to going through what is currently the length of the actual road miles?

Man, I apologize, Mr. Fonoff, but here's what I think you're trying to suggest. You know, on Angstrom, The distance between Bogard and the proposed southern route is roughly 1 1⁄2 mile, whereas the northern route is about a mile and a half north of Bogard. Now, at their intersection jet trunk, if that's what you're talking about, The distance between the current roundabout at Trunk Bogard and go northwards to the roughly proposed intersection of the southern alignment with Trunk is just over half a mile, whereas the proposed intersection of the north Route 1 to Trunk Road is about 1.1 miles north of the Trunk Bogard intersection.

Okay.

Is that answering your question?

I'm gonna re-explain myself. So basically, if the southern route is built and the roundabout is in place, Why would somebody take an extra half a mile longer road to get to the trunk and Bogart roundabout versus going through the new roundabout? Because it is, based on the distance that I'm measuring, it's about half a mile longer compared to the way that currently traffic is driving right now. Basically, the road miles will extend by 1.54 miles. by having a southern route.

That sounds about accurate? Mr. Fonof, I think that's exactly what Mr. Sumner was saying. For anybody traveling south on Angstrom trying to get to Bogard, if the southern route were to be available to them and that was the only other alternative route to get to Trunk, by the time you get down to there, instead of stopping and trying to take a left-hand turn to compete with northbound traffic, it's very likely people would just continue to travel down to Bogard and use the new roundabout to make their maneuver to head east or west.

Okay. And the distance between the starting of the northern and southern route, based on this, is 1.2 miles, the one that goes right between the lakes. That sounds about right?

The northern route is, yes, roughly 1.5 miles north of Bogard.

Okay. Tell me about that section, because I drew it and I've seen that section to be pretty problematic, I guess. Is that a, was that part of the concern of having a northern route in order to avoid that 1.2 miles of what I would say not the best section of that road?

Well, I would say that, I mean, it's a benefit, you know, certainly that where Northern Route 1 takes off on the west end on Engstrom, that intersection would be converted to a T intersection, but the existing portions of Engstrom south of the North Route 1 all the way down to Bogard will remain in its current, you know, alignment. So it is, you know, it has a number of curves. It... You know kind of navigates its way between a couple of lakes And you know, it's narrow, you know, so So I guess what I'm trying to you know I think what you're asking is if the southern routes there there will still be a fairly deficient roadway for angstrom road Coming down to south, you know until you get to the south south route

Correct, but once people already passed that they have shorter ways to go through the new roundabout by half a mile So potentially, you know, so I guess that answers the question I'll probably follow up with something else if somebody else wants to ask Tom something also that answered my question Okay assembly person balls

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you, Tom. And so I appreciate you meeting with me about a month ago to discuss this. And there are some very positive things on the northern route. And I appreciated that meeting and having you explain all three routes, you and Cole. And I think that the northern route absolutely has some benefits. for me it comes down to not just this but a reality right so if this southern if this resolution passes and we support the southern route in reality how soon could work get started on that and how long would it take to finish that southern route

Mr. Bowles, it's a difficult question for me to answer because we still have a ten million dollar project. Yeah There's not a funding source currently for any of these alignments. That's that's something that will have to be addressed Once the corridor selected is there has there been any?

possible eminent domain land identified on the southern route That again is a difficult question to answer because we haven't entered into the right-of-way acquisition phase and

So we haven't addressed or engaged property owners directly because we just, you know, it'd be inappropriate to do that not knowing which corridor we're actually pursuing.

Okay, and so the reason I ask that is obviously we have landowners here that, and I've spoken to them, they've made it very clear that they will go to them in a domain. And so we're talking, even if this northern route gets approved, and even with its benefits, how long is that court process gonna take before that northern route, before we can even break dirt on that northern route versus going ahead and moving forward with the southern route that we the people voted on at 21 to support and the residents of the Mat-Su Borough support that will alleviate some traffic and lessen safety concerns. And yes, the roundabouts going in, that's great, but this will lessen some safety concerns as well. my understanding is Jade is willing to help with his property he's willing to help with some work that alleviates some costs versus the overall cost of the northern route being potentially three or four times more expensive and then the length of time that the borough will most definitely spend in court for eminent domain so that's that's where I'm stuck is is i think we should move on the southern route it makes sense it was approved it's supported by everybody but the one person i've spoken to in the community and that person has concerns with snowdrifts and that's been addressed so that doesn't mean i don't support the northern route in the future if those property owners reach out to the borough at a later time but um i think that the southern route has been supported has been um has been discussed to uh to death and i think we need to move on it that the people in the that live in this area the residents in this area have told us that that's what they want so i think that that's what we need to move on so mr bulls to answer your question quite honestly um

Once a decision by this body to pursue in it domain occurs we would work with the attorney's office to file a declaration of taking and to be candid with you the the actual court process to that enables the borough to actually Possess that right away is can be very short. It judges declares based on the declaration taking if he acknowledges the need that conveyance is made to the borough. The time to actually come up with a value can take quite a while. But while that negotiation is going on, the borough, given the court's decision, can be building a roadway. I guess what I'm trying to tell you is just because there is a property owner that is not a willing seller of property doesn't mean that process is going to take years as far as getting the authority to use that right away. I would just caution the fact that if there's been plenty of large, this is a significant project, and for all of our significant transportation projects, if we were to balk at advancing them based on suggestion of property owners unwilling seller we would never start significant transportation projects

Is it unwilling, or not unwilling, is it unreasonable to say, we've been talking about the southern route for five years, let's move forward on this, and let's not table the northern route, but let's move forward on this southern route, let's continue discussions on the northern route, let's continue discussions with property owners, let's look at the numbers, let's look at the Texile construction project coming up, and then at a future time, maybe pursue the northern route but i think at this time it seems reasonable to pursue the southern route right now um i think it's five years in the making and i i just overall think that that's the most appropriate thing for us to do just based off of all the information well if i might i mean i mean obviously we i think our public works position is fairly well documented in our decisional memorandum

You know, let's step back a little bit. Let's see where this project actually was instigated. In TIP 21, the project for a connection between Angstrom and Trunk did not start by Public Works as a project. It started by a nomination by one of the assembly members on the dais. So, you know, the value of $2.5 million was not vetted. It was produced in some manner by the body at the time. So I can't justify how $2.5 million was the right number. Obviously, we're seeing today it's not. I will also say yes to you. You heard earlier by Rod Hanson that the southern alignment was in the OSNHP. It is in the OSNHP, as is the northern route. The LRTP doesn't speak to any specific route. It talks about having secondary access between Engstrom and Trunk. That's purely what it is. So when I became public works director, and given my background, when this project was presented to me, I looked at it and saw, you know, deserve merit to expand the scope of the review of the area to get the best benefit uh for the secondary access and and here's where we are i i don't know who said it earlier i think miss colleen big said it um you know we're we're constantly looking in the rear view mirror about i wish we would have done i wish we would have done and when we decide to finally go do it's too late or it's very expensive especially when it comes to transportation projects So from public works perspective, we're not looking at just to build a road. We're looking at an opportunity to improve our transportation network to the maximum degree possible. And again, I think we're very clear that the northern route does that better than the south route. Yes, the south route's cheaper. It's half the length. But it's got terminal ends at Trunk Road and terminal end at Engstrom. It has no opportunity for expansion. We're sitting here right now talking about the fact that people that travel south on Engstrom are unlikely to actually use that route once the roundabout's in. Whereas the north route, again, it's our, over all the criteria that were evaluated, it has the best long-term benefit to improve our transportation network.

Okay, if I can interrupt, we do have some other assembly people that may have questions. Thank you, Tom.

I appreciate that.

Assembly in hours.

I didn't have questions for staff, so I'd like to have some comments, but I don't know if we're done with staff questions. I can wait until we, if there's other staff questions.

quick question you kind of touched it towards the end like you said by the time we get to it it's like we wish we could have done this 25 years to 35 years from now I guess what we don't want somebody else obviously will be sitting in this position they say why didn't they choose this app give the argument for and against it against your own maybe a proposition why people said yeah that should have been done versus that should have been done we're talking about a couple uh you know 20 to 30 years from now well we all know how fast that area is growing um you know the the i i would just point to five seven years ago

You know, I'm sure the folks that own the dairy farm didn't expect to have to, you know, sell their property, you know, because the type of business they were in, you know, and is no longer there. And now it's turned into a gravel pit, a much different use. You see the amount of residential development going on in that area, and who knows what the next 22, three decades does for those vacant lands around there. And what I would suggest to you is as those transportation corridors become developed without the benefit of preserving those corridors, then the cost of developing a transportation corridor certainly escalates. The southern right route, and Jade said it earlier, at some point it will have merit. When the gravel pit, and I think he's got a 30-year plan that that was what was identified in the CUP that was approved, ultimately there will be a repurposing of the land around the gravel pit. Perhaps it'll be residential development. At that moment, then perhaps the south route will have some benefit. But right now, having a road that basically runs north along a gravel pit without really any traffic generators. We're relying on the fact that everybody that's coming down Engstrom from the north sees value in taking a left-hand turn and going to Tronc. And I think we've kind of beat that one to death already. I've expressed this to some folks. In my opinion, if not the north route, then no route. because it's not like we have $10 million just to go spend on a project, but the expectation that we're gonna find $20 to $30 million for the next one, I mean, we should make a decision, but make the right decision. Just because something's cheaper doesn't make it better.

Last thing, how many years ago did the intersection became really problematic, Inkstrom and Bogart? Is it within the last 10 years, seven years? One more time, I'm sorry. When did the intersection of Bogart and Inkstrom became a really problematic? How many years ago? Because obviously it didn't occur overnight, but just to give us perspective, like five, 10 years back, it wasn't as big of a concern as it is now.

Well, you know DOT's been working on the plans to improve that intersection for about seven or eight years now So, you know, I think you know leading up to that. We already knew it was a safety concern So I can't answer that specifically, you know, probably in the past 10 12 15 years and you know, you can see what really is going on It's not really that angstrom is a problem. It's the growth of traffic on Bogart You know Bogart, you know, you'll see it in our own reports, you know in in our 2050 timeframe regardless of the alignment, that intersection is headed towards failure. And it's not because of decisions we're trying to make, it's because the Bogard corridor needs to be something greater than a two-lane facility. We're projecting that there's gonna be north of 24,000 vehicles in the 2050 timeframe. It was a topic of discussion today with DOT. At some point, there needs to be some plan to resolve the Bogard corridor. But meanwhile, projects like the ones we're doing, finding an east-west corridor that provides travelers an opportunity not to have to go to Bogard to make their movements, does have an impact. So that's why when you look at the northern alignment, there is an opportunity to remove traffic off of Bogard and have some small impact. But again, regardless of the south alignment, the north route one, south route, our traffic model suggests that the Bogard the roundabout fails in the 2050 time frame. Okay.

And lastly, there's a letter attached that maybe not many seen from DOT. Can you briefly say what that is and summarize the letter that was dated September 2nd from the DOT?

Yeah, I mean, there's a reference earlier. There's certainly, you know, We're partners with DOT where we're often collaborating with them about projects and how to improve our transportation network, you know, they have Facilities and quarters they have jurisdiction over and similarly we you know, we have our own, you know transportation corridors So yes, the deputy commissioner for DOT recently authored a letter that in support of the northern linemen, but it wasn't just recent and you go back and look at the route selection report, there's indications in there of statements by DOT in support of the north route. And effectively, it's because of the, you know, it goes back to the same thing. The distance between the Bogard corridor and the south route is insignificant. It really provides no benefit, whereas you provide more spacing, there's a greater benefit for the north route. WHILE THERE MIGHT BE A SUGGESTION THAT, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPED A LETTER FROM DOT, THAT'S JUST FALSE AND UNINFORMED.

OKAY, THANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR, YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS?

ON THE TEXOL EXTENSION AND THE INGSTRUM TO TEXOL EXTENSION, WHAT KIND OF TIME FRAME ARE WE LOOKING UP?

through the mayor some member bernier so we have entered into the right-of-way phase for that particular corridor the design is 75 complete we have about 60 different properties that are impacted to various degrees most many of them are sliver takes as far as uh you know easements or slope easements or something like that but If you recall, I came to this body in about January talking about our right-of-way process and about the fact that historically what has happened is we went out and paid for very expensive appraisals to value those small takes. And we were headed towards spending nearly a million dollars on professional services that included appraisals for property that was valued about a tenth of that. So we changed our process before we actually got there. We actually recently used our own right-of-way acquisition specialists, developed working with our finance department. You all recognize the conversation about assessed values versus market values. So developing just basically fair market value for those acquisitions, and now we have offers for each of those 60 parcels about ready to be released. So I don't... I don't know how successful we're going to be as far as negotiating. My guess is we'll have fairly good success for a good component of those. We're gonna have some additional conversations and probably back and forth offers between property owners in order to finalize that. And it's possible that we may come back to this body suggesting that we've made More than several attempts to successfully negotiate the acquisition are unable to do so, and then the discussion about eminent domain will be had.

If we kind of put south and north on hold and put our money towards these extensions, as far as rerouting traffic out onto Palmer and Wasilla and out that way, Do you think we can get more for our money that way?

I want to make sure I understood what you just said. If we don't choose to do either of these Angstrom trunk projects.

Yep. Put that money towards Texel?

Well, the Texel project's already been budgeted and approved through both the TIP 21 and the TIP 24 We came back and had to plus up on the money, so it's funded. So right now we have the funds dedicated to both acquire the right-of-way, our estimate of what the right-of-way acquisitions will cost, and for construction. So we're not seeking additional funds right now for the Texel project.

Assemblyperson McKee?

Yeah, I've been in this, living in Wasilla for going on 34 years, and I remember way, way back when, probably 20 years ago, and they had a lot of public meetings, and everybody said what they wanted and didn't want, and I think, I'm gonna make a statement that people are gonna throw rocks at me, I think at that time, they listened to what everybody said and now we have gridlock traffic in Wasilla. Used to be on a Friday afternoon, you just better take your lunch and a blankie maybe to get, because people were coming in from Big Lake, but it was only generally on a Friday afternoon. The rest of the time it was okay and then it just got worse and worse and worse to where now we're blocked in. I don't know where we would put, I don't know where we would put a road that would get us through Wasilla any quicker than we are now. So I listened to what everybody's saying The idea of eminent domain is painful to me as it is to everyone else. But I've heard the gentleman in the orange shirt say, at this time, saying that maybe the southern route is okay at this time. And Mike was saying, well, at this time. That's what we said 20 years ago, 25 years ago. At this time, we'll fix it now. And I think he also used the word band-aid. I think the southern route would be a Band-Aid, and I don't think it would get us what we need to get. Anybody who's been here any length of time looks at the gridlock that we have in traffic. Any time between, say, after 3 o'clock now, any time, any day, you just better be prepared to wait a long time or go earlier or later than you actually needed to do that. So painfully, I support the northern route. And that that's why well, I agree with everything that everybody said but in the final analysis It's what's better in the long run because we're totally screwed as far as what we did going right through a Silla Mr. P I appreciate because that's that's basically where Public Works is looking at this.

We're trying to find the best long-term benefit Not you know far objective would just build a road. I mean we I Certainly we could do that if that was the will of the body but you know From our perspective the south route does not prefer provide long-term benefit I didn't have questions for staff.

I just had some comments before we voted I

Somebody mentioned that this touches Districts 1, 3, 4, and 6, and it's kind of funny because a lot of District 2 also passes through this, and anybody in District 5 and District 7 is pretty aware of the Bogard-Inkstrom intersection, so it's infamous for not good reasons. And when I started on assembly in 2019, I put a lot of faith in what DOT said, oh, we're gonna have that project done in a year. And I used to believe that. Well, you know, DOT's been working on that Bogart-Inkstrom roundabout since I got elected in 2019. And they had 75% design in 2021. And we're looking at, what, 2028, 2027? Because, apparently, because of right of way. So when I think about, do I wanna look back from this night in eight years and have a project that because of right away, and I'm in agreement with Ms. McKee, about the worst thing you can do is tell somebody what to do with their land. I mean, that's what this assembly stands for. We don't tell people what to do with their land. And then it sticks in my craw to think about, well, but these guys whose grandfather homesteaded the land, we didn't tell you what to do with your land because we didn't tell anybody else what to do with their land. So, um, I want, could you bring up page 50 of that? I am 50 five zero. Um, that's, You know, I don't think anybody on this assembly got elected saying, yeah, I wanna tell somebody we're gonna force them to put a road across their land. And then, so what stood out, to me is a very small portion of their land. Is that what you just said? I don't, I don't. Very small print. Very small print, okay, thank you. So if you look at the impact on the intersection, so this graphic shows the, what sort of, intersection you're gonna have after he did nothing if you did the southern route if you did the northern route and the first line there shows the ink from Bogart intersection and if you look at no build well the intersection right now is EF and F isn't good let's put a is good If you do nothing, it's FF, depending on which direction you're going, FFCF. If you put the southern route, it's still FFCF. If you do the northern route, it's still FFCF. If you did the other two routes, it's the same. And if you go down the line, so, right, at the end of the day, we could do any of these things and we're still not solving the problem that's been created. You know, you go, well, is the solution something that you end up in, and this is 2050, you still have a horrible intersection that's slow, or do you start to look, maybe start to think about other ways to address the problems out here, and I've been, I've voiced for a long time about some of the things we could do to work with developers to think ahead and get ahead of some of these problems, because Bogart-Inkstrom is the problem now, but it used to be Palmer-Wasilla Highway, and then we built Bogart. So what's it gonna be after this if we don't start to think about some of the things? And I'll just mention a few of them. One is a sub-area solutions plan that looks at these heavy growth areas and tries to get ahead of them. One is a town site's idea that was introduced to me when I got an assembly, which was building the infrastructure in place to attract development, so you're planning ahead, but you're not doing it by forcing it. Developer impact fees, so developers would think about how much their traffic's impacting them. And in the platting process, right now, when we do a subdivision, we count the traffic as if it was gonna be all residential single-family homes. The person can turn around the next day and put multiplexes or commercial on it, and we never take another look at, oh, how is that traffic gonna impact? So that's all to just say that while we're talking about solving this problem and ending up, even if we do these things, with an intersection that still fails, I think it is poster child eye opener for this assembly to think about are there things that we could be doing that are known things and start trying to do some of those things because otherwise we're going to keep ending up with horrible traffic and really expensive roads and i just sort of can't stomach pushing through a northern route on pushing this sanctioning saying we're going to take your land because we can't think about any of these other things and then looking back in 10 years and we still don't have a connector over because right away takes so long to get that would be very for i mean then you would end up with whenever dot gets around to a roundabout we might be five years more down the line not have a roundabout there and not have a connector So I understand the issues with the southern route and it'd be ahead of its time. I just can't support the Northern Round without any sort of recognition from this body that maybe we should also be looking at how we avoid another situation like this. It just seems like these guys have to suffer the penalty on their land, and we take no responsibility. for doing something to avoid that situation we just say well you got to give it up so um i'll support the the southern route i can't support the northern route but i would continue to work with the property owners on it and see if we get there in the future with something that could work for them assembly person bowls thank you madam mayor um so you bring up a good point um

You've been here seven years and that projects not done that roundabout So I worked on a resolution to designate the old Glen a safety corridor all three community councils in that area South connect Butte and lazy Submitted their resolutions to me and asked me on their behalf to submit a resolution and this body passed that resolution unanimously and the author of that letter that was presented to us today, by the way, is the same person that came back and said that I'm not gonna designate the old Glenna Safety Corridor essentially because there haven't been enough fatalities. So in my opinion, safety isn't necessarily a priority for DOT, and I don't have faith that this roundabout's gonna make it in this year, next year, or five years from now. What I do know is that This southern route here was approved by voters, and I thought that vote was a bond to approve funding that route. And I know that I've heard many times from people that they vote on these bonds, these roads don't get built, and then that money gets shifted to another project. this is an opportunity to honor a vote that occurred in 2021 and put this road in that the people in this area that live here asked four or five years ago and yes inflation happens costs happen uh rises and costs happen so do we just say well yeah that was five years ago it cost more well yeah well we should have done it then when we voted on it and yes it does cost more at 10 10 million but that northern route is going to cost 30 or 40 million um so i don't know i just a we do not need to rely on alaska dot for anything as far as safety from my experience and b the voters asked us five years ago us being the assembly to move on the southern route it hasn't happened yet i think we have the responsibility to do that another thing to consider is and i'll say it we're an ag community if if we rip through that area up there we're destroying agricultural agricultural area and i'm just i'm not going to vote to support ripping through agricultural area up there on the northern route assembly max assembly person somewhere

Was gonna call the question Thanks, is there objection to calling the question?

If I can get the members to vote on the substitute resolution I Don't want either one of them Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Bernier, Bowles, and Nowers in support.

Okay.

Now we're on the main motion.

So now we're back on the main motion. Assemblyperson Bowles, I mean, Nowers. Go ahead.

just say i kind of like um mr bernie's idea of focusing on the the other connections and not and pushing on dot to get the roundabout in so i don't know how i would amend this but amend it to recommend uh fast tracking as much as possible texel covington and the angstrom connector up to texel okay um you had bowls first did you yeah i think that someone over an hour just made them So whereas on the end to not support either route Instead urge To support fast-tracking the other connections to include Covington hold on I'm writing Other routes right sort of so yeah to include covington texel connector texel and engstrom to texel so no build with priority on those

so that wasn't part of the language you did so are you wanting the no build part of the language of what you just said i'm sorry i need to make sure i get it right yeah recommending the no build option with the prior the rest of it stays the same with the priority on the those three connectors okay you got it assembly members madam mayor have a question for clarification about this amendment if i if i may

I guess I guess the question is for the manager or public works like if this passes tonight what happens without this amendment like I mean we have no funding so What's the action if this?

ordinance passes If I understand the amendment correctly basically there are proposing a no-build so effectively this kills project there would be no THERE WILL BE PUBLIC WORKS WILL QUIT WORKING ON THE PROJECT. SIMPLY, WE JUST WON'T DO ANY IMPROVEMENT THAT RECOGNIZES ANY CORRIDOR BETWEEN ENGSTROM AND TRUNK.

MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY FOLLOW UP. SO WHAT ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY PUBLIC WORKS IF THIS PASSED WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT? IF THE AMENDMENT WAS VOTED DOWN AND THEN WE VOTED FOR THE NORTHERN ROUTE, WHAT ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN WITHOUT FUNDING IDENTIFIED?

what we we have uh... i mean part of the two-and-a-half million is still available that will allow us to advance into preliminary design it's it's unlikely that there is sufficient funding to completely fund all the way through let's say seventy five percent design you know all the the field studies uh... and everything that would be required to get to the point where we would specifically identify our right-of-way impacts, and then typically the 75% design is where we start preparing our right-of-way documents.

Madam Mayor, one more. So what would happen to that remaining 2.5 from TIP 21 if this was a no-build vote?

That 2.5 would be distributed across other projects that are in the same TIP package.

So summarize the amendment so we know exactly Okay, thank you There's gonna be a whereas clause added at the end to fast-track other routes to include Covington Texel connector and inkstrom to trunk recommending No build to this project Meaning the northern route. Did I get that right? Okay

Can you read that Engstrom piece again? Did you say Engstrom to Trunk or Engstrom to Texal? Oh, Engstrom to Texal, sorry. Texal, there you go.

Engstrom to Texal, thank you. Can I just point out, Mayor, too, just to recognize the Covington project is actually a project as part of the MVP and it's legislation that's before your night that you haven't acted on yet. So for some reason that doesn't happen, that's not a project we would move forward on either.

Okay, so everybody understand now the...

okay the whereas clause reads to fast track other routes to include covington texel connector and texel to engstrom recommending no build to this project

I make a secondary amendment which is all that stuff except the last sentence because that last sentence technically kills the project so reread that recommending no build at the end my amendments to remove that portion of it And reread it as a read without that so that we understand what we're voting on a secondary amendment.

Whereas fast track other routes to include Covington, Texel Connector, and Texel Inkstrom. And that's how it would read if your amendment secondary passes.

Okay. Assemblyperson Bowles.

And thank you, Madam Mayor. So that secondary amendment essentially does nothing because it's already on the list. So the whole point of that amendment is moot now with that last part removed.

But I guess in regards to amendment, Ms. Nauers, this amendment literally just puts a stop on this. Then what's the point of doing this if we could just kill this altogether, then amending it, like saying all the case, why we support it, and at the end saying kill it? I just don't think that's a very clean message. If you want to kill it, let's vote this thing called down without amending it. I would draw my amendment. I recommend that we vote down the amendment, or you can withdraw the amendment, and then we can vote it up or down as it's written, because this confuses it.

Okay, so your assembly person found off his withdrawing. I do.

Is there objection to his withdrawal of the secondary amendment?

Can I ask a question?

I'm trying to so I'm trying to understand you know we are being asked to pick a southern or northern route and we don't have agreement on that so I don't know how to say prioritize those and not say something about a southern or northern route like are you suggesting is your intent that those would prioritize and what would happen with the southern northern route

Think the cleanest way to bring a separate resolution or separate ordinance instructing them to which from what I understand This is the coming in connection is completely Relevant is has to do with a separate a piece of legislation different project MPO or whatever that is So I'm just saying this is complicates this thing if we just don't support the no notes We should just be straight with voters vote it down if we support it up but putting that little amendment to make it feel good and given initially tom sort of like this is on but it's off i just don't think that's the right direction we want to send to our our tom's department

okay I would just say I think we need to give them clear direction so the clear direction is prioritize those others and that's I'd stick with my original proposal but killing the project I think there's an objection for him withdrawing right is that what you're we just haven't decided his withdrawal yet madam mayor but that's why I thought she had an objection because I asked if there was is there an objection for him withdrawing okay

all right so that assembly person sumner yeah i mean i agree with mr faunoff i think that um you know the best thing for these funds if we don't want to build either one is that they go back to the tip that was approved because the voters looked at that entire list and said we want to sell these bonds to pay for these projects our money doesn't go as far as it used to unfortunately we didn't get them all done but I think the voters still gave us a mandate to build the roads that we could with that TIP project. So for that reason, I would support just cleanly voting this thing down if that's the will of the body rather than amending it to say we wanna do these other projects.

Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. My understanding is the Texal, Portion is part of that same tip If I'm mistaken, please correct me, but I believe it's the part of the same one. So I support that language I would caution anybody from just relying on voting this down because we've I can't guarantee that that will happen, so I support this amendment. This would at least prioritize yet another route that can create more safety in that area, and that is the fastest growing area in the borough, that Fish Hook Triangle area. So I 100% support this, and I'll vote yes on it.

Okay, so we're ready to vote. Our assembly person, McKee.

Yeah, I just think that if, assembly member now, I appreciate the thought, but it just completely changes the whole game. It's like we're not even talking. Those, our big deal is safety and like on Engstrom and Bogart and all that kind of thing. Now we're saying, well, throughout the other, the northern south routes, northern southern routes, we won't even talk about Engstrom and Bogart, but we're going to do Covington and so forth. That's what that feels like to me, so I can't support it.

assembly for some hours i would just say if you look at inkstrom this all connects so texal is a connection covington is connection so it's it's all you know that's our road systems all put together so it does work on inkstrom in certain ways so it's not it's not completely it's it's a addressing some of the problem might not be the way everybody wants to do it but it's the way i'd like to do it until we you know i think i've already stayed my piece on some of that other stuff i don't like to take people's land deputy mayor

The way I looked at it is if Texol went through and connected and stuff, you wouldn't have to go down Engstrom. You could be just going out Texol. Alleviate a lot of the southern and northern route.

Okay. Are we ready to vote now? Okay.

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

Okay. Yes, Assemblyperson Fanoff.

Okay, question to Tom. On the pages in our IM from page, I would say, 173 to 108, it has the public comments received. There is, I glanced through them, there's seven for the Saturday night, 22 for noon rounds, and six that have no preference. For the record, to transparency to our audience, has these comments been, someone been removed to manipulate those numbers?

No.

So the answer is no.

We have been very transparent with all the information we've collected through the public process. We provided the clerk every letter that we received that was submitted to us, and we've reported the results of all the surveys that have been done, the public comments received. There's a table in there that summarizes all the comments received and how each of those comments were adjudicated. So there's absolutely no manipulation of information to try to gain a result.

So those numbers are like the number of comments we received in preference and or no preference is what we've gotten. We didn't filter to make this report look better or worse.

We filtered the information we had. Our first open house for this project was probably one of the most well-attended open houses we have ever had.

Mr. Sumner asked you a question earlier. If this is to be voted, as it's written, when is the next step if something will be in front of assembly, obviously before the shovel hits the, I guess, the ground, would there be still more voting that needs to be done by public or by assembly before this would contract? Where are the next steps so we understand if we vote this down or we move this forward, what the consequences is?

Well, Mr. Fonda, so, I mean, if the decision by the body was no bill, there would be no point in coming back to this body because we would just quit working on this project. If, on the other hand, one of the routes, any route, were decided by this body for us to advance, We could bring back milestone deliverables, whether it be a 35% design, a 65% design, absolutely before we move forward to right-of-way acquisition. As you recall, I came here, like I said, in January and spoke about the right-of-way acquisition process. Any decision about funding, any decision about using eminent domain, all has to come through those bodies. So there are several opportunities for us to advance a route and start firming up information and then bring that back to this body for additional conversation, if that's what the, if that's what's asked of us.

So this is not a marriage certificate. Is this like courting or dating or where are we at bypassing this? Because I want to know because if there is preference to just vote it down and years later say like, oh, we should have made that step or how does this keep alive? And next, if we do vote this up to support it, when do we expect to hear a next, I guess, proposal or idea or next move from your department?

Well, if you do the no-build, we're getting a divorce, right? We're not even married yet. I'm just saying that the next process is we would negotiate a change order with our consultant to advance the project. Their scope of work allows us to go deeper into design, but their current contract doesn't necessarily have that amount in there, so we would... Negotiate a contract that would come back for the before this assembly to see what the cost of moving forward would be once Preliminary engineering starts, you know, there's a number of field studies that have to happen and we would collect information We could certainly bring back the results of that information to this body You know, we could we could set out more detailed design work and whatever that looks like whether it's a 35, you know I'm using kind of percentages that kind of align with you know, our milestone deliverables. So 35%, 65%, we can bring that back. I mean, there's plenty of opportunity for this body to participate in, you know, either, you know, validating a decision they make or deciding they want to go an alternate decision. I guess I would just throw in, you know, if we decide not to do anything, second guessing the opportunity that is going to be lost because development will eventually creep in around this area.

Could be you could find yourself second guessing that at some point in the future whether you're on this body or not Okay, so two years from now when the roundabout in place we want to revisit this is two years significant enough time when it comes to Losing two years if we were to down say wait till we're roundabout gets billed to see how that helps or not Is two years significant time in this case?

You know, while I recognize the frustration, because we've dealt with the DOT, same thing, continuously getting answers, you know, and they've got a very regimented process because of the federal aid requirements. But I just want to make sure that this can act right. The roundabout project is a safety project. It is not a capacity-building project. It is not a resiliency-adding project. It is not adding a secondary access as mandated by, you know, one of the objectives and the purpose and need for the project. So while the roundabout has a benefit to the area It that's all it does is it makes those turning movements coming off of angstrom safer. So Just because the roundabouts there does not mean You know, the the transportation the network is improved. Okay. Thank you. I

any assembly person hours thank you and thanks tom i know we talked a lot about this and i really appreciate where you're coming from i'm kind of looking at this bigger picture of the valley like other other issues we have with the old glen etc that we're just allowing to be created and not solving um i the northern route a question so um we have a route that we picked without boots on the ground because the the landowners have not allowed us on their property because they don't want us to be there so if we move forward with the northern route how do you get at what point would you do you have to go to condemnation to get boots on the ground on their property to even know if you've got a feasible route that you've drawn on paper

Ms. Nauers, that's a great question. I mean, after our conversation, I had the same curiosity, because you're right, and, you know, the sense acknowledged it earlier, you know, when we start trying to first engage with them about rights of entry in order to, you know, start investigating, you know, potential corridors, you know, they denied that entry. So I don't know the answer to that, honestly. You know, ideally, we understand that the decision that this body has, and, you know, ideally, to gain right of entry. I don't know if Nick wants to weigh in on this conversation. I mean, I know there are You know, it's there's no rights of waiting that I mean where there is not a right away We would not be necessarily entitled to step onto private property without permission So I don't I don't have an answer for that Can we ask the attorney?

So, yeah, I was actually responding a little bit here with the finance director yeah if there's no landowner permission then you cannot get on to their land and just say well we're thinking of this as one of the alternative routes so we want to make sure that like you know there's not like buried garbage over here or this things are gonna be a sinkhole or right do preliminary geotech you simply can't if they won't let you one of the things I do want to make sure that everybody understands I know You mentioned you're gonna proceed forward to start initiating design. You cannot use bond funds just for design. You have to have a usable capital project when you're done. So any money you're using is area-wide money. It's not gonna be bond money. Not that it's illegal, but it's area-wide money only. It's not bond money. So I don't know how much design you get without going back to the voters for enough money for a usable capital project.

So what I'm, I guess my concern then is by the time we can get boots on the ground and maybe we discover, that might be, I don't know how long it's gonna take, four or five years before we can get boots on the ground on a piece of property to know whether we've even got a viable route. feel like we need to do something sooner than that. And so I get what people are saying about the northern route, but if we can't get it built, we can't even get in there to take a look, and we really don't, we want to avoid condemnation as much as possible. I just, like this does not seem like a great path to go down to try to solve our problem if we're going to be sitting here five years from now and realize at that point that, oh, there's a lot of wetland there, there's a cliff there, there's, oh, we might have to come diagonally across their property. It's the unknowns. It's the unknowns that make it really uncertain for finding a solution for that. So I would go back to the southern route, I guess.

We have great GIS information, great LIDAR information. I mean, it's very possible and not preferred. Very possible to come up with a decent design and right-of-way impacts using that information. It's possible, based on that information, bringing that back here without the advantage of rights of entry, that you might have to use the Power Venom domain in order to gain entry. I don't know that. I'm speculating. I'm just saying... You know, if we, again, I said it earlier, you know, if we don't evaluate the need to improve our transportation network across certain properties based on suggestions that they're not willing sellers, I mean, we wouldn't have Bogart. You know, the Bogart extension between, you know, Arctic and Trunk Road, same thing. You know, Bogart or the borough ended up using eminent domain for that purpose as well. because you had unwilling property owners. And don't get me wrong. I mean, it's not our preferred method. We would love to be able to evaluate, negotiate, and successfully acquire rights of way. But unfortunately, transportation projects of this significance ultimately have impacts, and sometimes those impacts have to be evaluated on the public good versus the singular property impact.

think where I'm sitting is I'd rather have a known something than a unknown maybe we're sitting here in eight years and we don't it just and and to not recognize some of the things we're not doing to try to avoid future situations like until we're willing to do something on our side I'm not willing to say take take land from those so I appreciate I really do and it's a it's a tricky problem to solve

You had max first, I'm sorry Question for Tom What's the design horizon because I I noticed that it was Somewhere in there. I read that it was a major collector But I thought that an average daily account for major collectors 3,000 cars a day. Is that or is the breakpoint between minor collector major collectors a thousand and

So, Mr. Sumner, I mean, yes, generally, I mean, there are ranges generally associated with functional classifications, but, you know, there are a number of different jurisdictions. I mean, ADT isn't the sole qualifier for functional classification. You know, if you start comparing our jurisdiction versus, like, an Anchorage and what they classify the ADT on a certain road for a certain classification, you know, they just have much higher volumes and therefore the, you know, it's about function. It's about, you know, taking a subdivision road and linking it to a collector that ultimately gets to an arterial. So we use those types of functions without necessarily having to define it by average daily traffic. Now, that being said, you know, you can, in our area, we can generally define, you know, local roadways as having a certain volume of traffic before we start, you know, moving on to a collector or requiring a different wider road or different type of road facility um so i i guess you know yes i mean in some manner you know three to ten thousand vehicles for a collector greater than ten thousand vehicles for an arterial um you know you can put those kind of ranges for adt

So the reason I was asking is there's a table, table five. In 2050, northern route number one would have a proposed ADT of 1307, which to me doesn't dictate that it needs to be a major collector. It would be a minor collector. So but in somewhere else in the proposal, it says we're planning on doing a major collector So is that like we were floating the idea of a major collector? and is there any significant savings between a minor collector and a major collector or Planning for the future.

Yeah there I mean major minor there certainly is the suggestion there's a difference but You know, it really comes down to what types of roads are tying into them and how you're distributing that traffic to their higher order types of facilities So, you know, it's not a clean answer. I mean, you know, the difference between ADT between a minor collector and a major collector is not well defined. But you might want to consider like, you know, taking a minor collector might funnel, you know, some of the subdivisions roads and then from a minor collector to a major collector. You know, it's just a hierarchy.

Assemblyperson Bowles, did you have a comment? No? Okay, then D, you have a comment, and then I'll come back to it.

Tom, do you have any idea how long, I'm going to talk about Seward Meridian, which by anybody's measure is a howling success. It took forever, and I'm sure there was a lot of angst and drama and all of the discussions that go into something like this, but I can't think of anybody that wouldn't think that this is an amazing road now. Do you know how long it took to get from where we are right now to where we can all now drive down that road?

It's been years. I mean, you understand that the one that just opened is phase two. You know, phase one started the Parks Highway, extended to Palm Wasso Highway. and then now Palma-Wasilla to Selden, basically. Keep in mind, those are borough roads. DOT completed those projects. They're borough, rights-of-way borough, they will be borough-maintained, but they're completed under a federal-funded program, CTP, Community Transportation Program. And so federal funds come in, DOT manages them, builds, designs, builds, constructs, and then hands it back over to the borough. I don't know if anybody, I've been in the Valley since 1982. I can reach back. I mean, it was started 15, 20 years ago.

Yeah. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, yeah, it took a long, long time, but it ended up being really, really good, and that's what I'm kind of evaluating between these two routes.

Yeah, I mean, I'm on my bat, and I mean, obviously, public works position is well stated, I think, and, you know, if not now, when? I mean, I'll just leave it at that.

Mr. Attorney, did you...

I was just going to let Assemblymember McKee know that the borough's agreement to maintain the Stuart Meridian extension was first inked in 2009.

Assemblyperson Fauna.

Yeah, I'll just say to this and I'll speak to people who are here. There's a time, as an Assemblyman, that you have a feel-good vote where you're pleasing the crowd, so to speak, and you support it, and they felt happy because they got somewhere. And there's a time sometimes that you make a tough decision, but it's the right decision because it looks more into the future and future generations. That's my rationale for supporting this legislation. I would want it still to keep on being alive and move forward because obviously, as we learned, there's going to be more steps that this will be in front of assembly again and in front of the voters, ultimately approve them. Finances so for that reason I think it's it's wise to not just kick the can down the road because those Problems and those developments are not going away and as a matter of fact, they're growing So I just don't want to be in 10 20 years from now Not being here on assembly saying that you know, I voted that down and that could have prevent a lot of problems So for that reason, I think I asked assembly to support this so that department can go forward move and propose or something and at that time you know ultimately i think voters will get to decide if they want to fund that project but that's ultimately where i think we should make the right decision here okay are we done

Okay, so the motion before you is to.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, you know, of course, the developers want to develop. That's what they do. But we have more to consider than just the developers wanting to develop. This is people's lives. This is their their home, this is their land. We have farmers here, we have people that have asked us not to support this that actually live on this land that's possibly gonna be taken from them through eminent domain if we pursue this. I think that that was I thought that was actually a great idea on the fly to shift our focus on textile that that actually that was a Great amendment and I think that that would have alleviated a lot of traffic and we could have pursued that but didn't happen I think that if you support this moving forward you are supporting the borough Using eminent domain it's gonna come to that So I would urge you no vote on this

Okay, are we ready then to vote? Everybody, I guess, Madam Clerk?

If I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the main motion.

The main motion is to adopt.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Fanoff, Sumner, and Gamble in support.

Okay. Move on, I guess. Oh, Deputy Mayor, will you move to extend the meeting, please?

I move to extend the meeting to 11 o'clock.

Assemblyperson McKee? I'm sorry, I got lost in there somewhere. Did we just vote that we're not gonna do either one? Yes. Ye gods, that is not what I wanted. I'm so sorry, I vote to reconsider. Point of order. He did.

We didn't ask if there was objection.

Point of order.

Did I ask for any objection to extending the meeting? No.

What did he say?

I move to extend the meeting to 11 o'clock.

Okay. I was going to ask her clarification and I thought I had it, but I didn't because that is not what I would have voted for.

Point of order.

Yeah, I would like to reconsider.

Okay, your point of order.

Yes, after that vote, Mr. Sumner leaned over and spoke to McKee about the vote and she was trying to change that now. We discussed it in length.

Oh, excuse me.

We discussed it in length.

I may say, she asked, if I can clarify, she asked what we just voted on. Exactly. And I was just clarifying for her what we voted on. I was not trying to persuade her vote if that was what you're inferring.

I don't roll that way.

Is Assemblymember McKay moving to reconsider, Madam Mayor? Pardon? Is she moving to reconsider?

That's what I was going to ask. And can the reconsideration be taken up tonight or no, it has to be the next meeting?

No, it can be taken up tonight.

Okay, so Assemblyperson McKee, it's my understanding you can vote for reconsideration and ask that it be taken up at this meeting tonight. Right now. Right now.

Yes, that's what I'd like to vote for reconsideration to take it up at this meeting right now.

Do I need to ask if there's any objection or that's just her right to reconsider, right?

No, it's a motion. Is there any objection to reconsideration?

Okay. Is there any objection to reconsideration? One person. Okay.

If I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the motion to reconsider.

This is just a reconsideration.

Madam Mayor, it passed with Assembly Members Bowles and Nowers opposed.

Okay. Alrighty, so now we have before us the motion. The main motion. The main motion. is to adopt the original two and a half, three hours ago resolution 26. Sorry guys, I just had to get a dig in there. We left this morning at eight o'clock to go to Point McKenzie. We've been there all day. So my temper's getting a little bit short here. 26-094.

Can I get the members to go ahead and vote on the main motion on the resolution please? Would you please read that so that I don't make a mistake? It's adopting resolution 26094.

So it's a yes vote if you are in favor of it and no if you're not. It's the original motion for the northern route.

If I vote yes, I'm voting for the northern route. Okay.

Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Bernier. Bowles and Nowers opposed. Okay.

Maybe we request a quick break.

If we're, don't get interrupted again, Madam Clerk.

Ordinance 26102, an ordinance reappropriating $35,812.84 from the vehicle replacement project to fiscal year 2027 area wide operating facility maintenance. With accompanying resolution 2688, a resolution amending the scope of work for fiscal year 2025 vehicle replacement project to fiscal year 2027 operating

Area-wide operating facility maintenance fund and if you're on the phone would like to speak to this press star 3 Okay, I'm gonna open the public hearing on ordinance 26 dash 102 and We don't have a sign-up sheet. Apparently anyone that would like to testify on this ordinance is Okay, seeing and do we have anybody online we do not okay, so I'm gonna close the public hearing deputy mayor I Moved to adopt ordinance 26-103 and resolution 20 6093.

Okay.

Thank you discussion by the Assembly Is there any objection to the adoption I Okay, I don't see any objection. So it becomes the legislation passes. Madam Clerk.

Ordinance 26103, an ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant of 45,000 from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service appropriating required match funding from the fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 area-wide budget appropriation and approving the time extension of the fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2024 area-wide budget appropriation for fish passage improvement match funds. With accompanying resolution 26093, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget and authorizing the manager

to enter into an agreement for anderson lake outlet fish passage culvert replacement if you're on the phone and would like to speak to this press star 3. okay i'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing we do not have a sign up sheet anybody that would like to testify can i have it on the screen please Is there anybody online? Okay. So I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor.

I move to adopt Ordinance 26-104. And 103 and 93, isn't it?

We're in 26-103 with resolution 26093. We already did that one.

I thought.

Is that what he read?

I move to adopt ordinance 26-103 and resolution 26-093. Okay.

Discussion by the assembly. Any objection by the assembly? Okay.

So the legislation passes. Madam Clerk. Ordinance 26104, an ordinance approving the time extension for four project accounts related to the Coal Creek at Sushanna Drive Fish Passage and the Cottonwood Creek at Fern Street Fish Passage projects. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star three.

I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing. We do not have a sign-up sheet. Anyone that'd like to testify on this ordinance? We have anybody online, sir? We do not? Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor.

I move to adopt Ordinance 26-104.

Okay, discussion by the Assembly. Any objection by the Assembly? Hearing none, then the legislation passes. Madam Clerk.

Ordinance 26105, an ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of $7,891,044 from the United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration for the Port McKenzie Barge Ramp Project with accompanying resolution 2695, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the Port McKenzie Barge Ramp Project. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star three.

I'm gonna open the public hearing. We do not have a sign-up sheet. Anyone that would like to testify for or against this ordinance and resolution? Do we have anybody on lines here? We do not. One last chance. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Assemblyperson Campbell.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-105 and accompanying Resolution 26-095. Okay.

Discussion by the Assembly. Objection by the Assembly.

Deputy Mayor, your light is on.

Thank you. No objection. Then the legislation passes. Madam Clerk.

Ordinance 26106, an ordinance adopting MSB 2330 to prohibit, excuse me, acquisition, installation, and operation of automated license plate reader systems and associated mass surveillance technology. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press start three.

Okay, I'll open the public hearing, and I do have a sign-up sheet. Amanda?

Thank you again.

I'll be very quick. I just urge you to please support this. This is important. Thank you.

David? Eastman?

Just wanted to read off some recent headlines. Father forced to move after cop used city flock cameras to stalk him 76 times over a woman. Five police officers in Albany arrested and fired after abusing flock surveillance cameras. In Georgia, 911 director arrested. From a U.S. News and World Report article, 19 police and sheriff's officers' employees arrested, fined, and are placed under investigation. I also want to point out that these arrests were arrests. It wasn't as though we have new technology and we don't have rules in place on how it's supposed to be used. We've had now over 100 felonies charged against members of law enforcement who knew that they were doing wrong when they committed those crimes. And the response from Flock, their chief communications officer was, it's not Flock's job to police the police. and then they went and made it exponentially more difficult for journalists like US News, which uncovered this, to be able to do it in the future by removing the data from their database that allowed those things to be exposed. There are some things that are just too tempting to put in a human being's possession. In Lord of the Rings, it was a ring. Today, it's the ability to survey people using flock and other cameras. i stand in support of the resolution and if i was to make any change to it a slight improvement i would say let's also add that no borough resources should be used ever to help anyone else use this type of technology against people that are either living or passing through our area thank you david you didn't say your name would you for me please thank you david eastman thank you okay thank you louis

No, we should not have it it's an overreach it's been misused by every other state that has it it's Something like this we should make it a statewide just keep it out No to it. Thank you.

Thank you Anyone that didn't sign up that would like to testify. Yes, sir. I

Hello again. Rod Hanson with North Lakes Community Council. I kind of feel that somehow we let down the communities that, at least I let down the communities I represent. Not once tonight during the debate on the southern route was there any discussion about the safety issue of gravel trucks exiting the gravel pit. For the next 30, I can testify on this, can I not?

You have to testify on the plot camera.

I am so sorry, I will come back later.

Okay, thank you. Anyone that would like to testify for or against Ordinance 26-105? Do we have anybody online? No, okay. So I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt ordinance 26-106 and I'd like to speak to it if possible.

Okay, go ahead.

So the Matanuska-Susitna borough should not acquire, install, operate, or spend public money on automated license plate reader, ALPR systems, such as flock cameras, that's a brand name. This ordinance would also prohibit borough employees from entering into or extending contracts or partnerships involving ALPR data collection. From an Alaskan perspective, this is not an argument against law enforcement or public safety. It is an argument for limited government, constitutional rights, and individual privacy. These cameras can provide law enforcement with useful information when investigating crimes, but the technology also raises a more fundamental concern. How much information should the government collect about people who are not suspected of doing anything wrong? An ALPR system can record license plates and associated location information as vehicles pass a camera. When that information is collected repeatedly, it can potentially create a detailed picture of where people travel and when. A person doesn't have to be arrested, investigated, or even suspected of a crime for their vehicle to become part of that data collection. That should concern every Alaskan. The principle of limited government means recognizing that just because government can collect information does not mean government should. The Fourth Amendment reflects long-standing American suspicion of unreasonable government intrusion while Alaska's constitutional protections likewise recognize the importance of privacy. There's another concern. Who ultimately gets access to that data? This ordinance specifically identifies potential sharing of surveillance information with third parties or federal entities as a structural risk. Once a database exists and the information begins moving between agencies or organizations, local citizens may have little practical control over where their information goes or how long it remains available. Technology also changes the scale of surveillance. A police officer following up on a specific lead is fundamentally different from a system capable of collecting information on thousands of vehicles automatically, day after day. One is a targeted investigation, the other can become mass collection. That distinction matters. Government officials today may have good intentions, But laws should not be written solely around the assumption that every future official will exercise power responsibly, as we see on a daily basis. Good government protects liberty by placing limits on power before that power is abused. Supporters of flaw cameras can legitimately argue that ALPR technology helps recover stolen vehicles and solve crimes. It has. however those benefits deserve consideration those benefits deserve consideration however public safety should not become a blank check for surveillance the alaskan answer should be to preserve both safe communities and free citizens and that's what i'm trying to do here i'm trying to get ahead of this alaskans should not have to choose between effective law enforcement and the expectation that their everyday movements will remain private If we can protect public safety without building a permanent infrastructure for tracking ordinary citizens, that is the more Alaskan path. Limited government means government having the tools it needs, but also knowing when it has gone too far. We are seeing these things happen. We are seeing these things happen in lower 48. We are watching Anchorage pursue these things. When I ran for office, I made it very clear that I was going to be a brick wall from any of this Anchorage stuff making its way out here, and this is what I'm doing. We live in a free society. We should not be tracked. We should not be recorded. If I step on somebody's private property and they've got a camera, that's my choice to make myself available to that property owner. That's very different than driving down the road, minding my own business, going to the grocery store or my daily activities. For those that don't know, the borough is pursuing policing powers. They're pursuing a PSA. It's coming. So this is me getting ahead of that before I leave this office. This is me trying to make sure that you, everybody out there listening, everybody sitting here, and every Alaskan in this borough is not surveilled without their knowing, without their intention, and against their constitutional rights to privacy. I hope every member of this assembly supports this. We have a duty to support this, and it is a constitutional right that we have to privacy. Thank you.

Assemblyperson Sumner.

Yeah, I like it. I was just going to say, maybe the borough attorney could assist me with this one, but I was considering an amendment to prohibit state and federal agencies from putting flock cameras in our right-of-way. Is that correct?

We do that so So it says no borough department division employee eight or agent I may acquire, lease, borrow, install, maintain, or operate any ALPR hardware, software, or data collection system on any borough-owned property or facility under any borough contract or agreement. Nobody can put anything into our right-of-way without a contract or agreement. And no borough employee can enter into that agreement to put it in our right-of-way. Well answered, thank you.

For the Deputy Mayor.

On the corner of Palmer was still in the parks highway a few weeks ago. They had some cameras set up for supposedly Pedestrians walking and Cars and stuff and there was another camera set up there by Lowe's on that intersection That's a state right away Is this an ordinance prohibit those type of cameras?

As a second-class borough, we cannot regulate the state's rights-of-way, and we cannot impose this kind of regulation on private entities either. We can only speak to our land, our facilities, our rights-of-way.

Thank you for clarifying.

Assemblyperson McKee and Owen now. I'm sorry, Stephanie. Go ahead, McKee.

Yeah. there is an upside to have the cameras because sometimes they catch people that do really bad things and i you know but i'll give you personal when i broke my leg they gave me fentanyl and i told them that i wouldn't do it but it was i had to do it because i was going to die from the pain so i guess what i'm saying is it's we don't we don't it does some fentanyl does some good but it does a lot more bad so i support this this

Assemblyperson Nowers. Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, I mean, it's so interesting, right? Ms. McKee's totally right. Like, you can catch some of the bad guys, but how much do you sacrifice? And I just recently, a few months ago, picked up 1984, right, in the beginning of that book, which was written in the 40s by a guy objecting to Stalinism, was the protagonist is making his way through the streets. He's always under observation. There's always a TV watching him. And he has one little corner where he's figured out he isn't being watched. You don't have to think hard about AI, facial recognition, and where you might go with that. There's a story in the New York Times called The New Moscow, a digital utopia doubling as a surveillance trap. It's about, in Russia, how they're using biometric data, so facial data, and in China as well, where you use that to pay your bus fare and everything else, so your face is now... your ticket to move around and they pair that with the cameras and they can track you so if you want to get out of the draft in Russia because you don't want to go fight in Ukraine you used to be able to just kind of flee to the country um it just to what one of the speakers said there's a lot of potential for abuse in it and so I think this is a good move right now and maybe in the future they'll come up with some way to limit it so it just catches the good guys and and doesn't just track everybody wholesale but um yeah I support this for the time being

Mr. Attorney?

So I do want to make sure that both assembly members who just commented are aware, this does not prohibit the borough from having security cameras on our buildings. What it prohibits is mass surveillance, tying in with the computer systems, constant tracking of individuals, but this still, you know, on some of our DES facilities, on this facility, you know, we have security cameras in certain places. and this does not prevent that.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

So when you talk about vandalism or something like that.

You think about the old convenience grocery store gas station. They used to have cameras on a 24-hour cycle. No problem with that. What we're talking about is something different where you can track somebody as they're moving around.

And this certainly prohibits that. I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware.

Okay, further discussion on Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with Assemblymember Bowles getting ahead of this. This summer, I did quite a bit of traveling down in lower 48, and I was just amazed at how many places I saw signs that said this highway under video surveillance, or when I was in Atlanta or Portland, you'd see signs that say video surveillance conducted here, and then you'd just see cameras all over the place, and I want to make sure that we don't ever get to that spot in this borough. Thank you.

With the discussion on the motion to adopt ordinance 26 dash 016. Is there any objection? Hearing no objection, then the ordinance becomes legislation. We have another now audience participation. I will open up, doesn't look like we have a sign-up sheet. If you testified under the first audience participation, you are not eligible under this one. But anybody that hasn't testified,

Again, my name is Simon Gilliland. As you are probably aware, I'm disappointed in the vote that you took about the North Road. This is not the last time you'll see me regarding this subject. I want you guys to take a real good look at the data that was provided for this report, as Assemblyman Nauers showed you. That roundabout, the northern route to southern route, it doesn't help the traffic. There's no difference between the traffic. The only advantage to that northern route is it feeds out of one subdivision. One subdivision would have a little better access when they continue development at some point, which we anticipate they will. It's owned by a developer. The landowners that are going to end up with a mile and a half of road through the middle of their homestead, 100-year-old homestead, no desire to develop. There's no inklings that I've heard from the other landowner that's adjacent, the Buffalo Ranch that he wants to develop. This is a road that helps One developer, I mean, the road, the traffic counts for that northern route. If you look at the base number of traffic going down Inkstone Road, it does not decrease by more than 50 or 70 cars with that northern route. It actually is shorter. The southern route decreases the traffic going out of that southern, out of the Vogue on Inkstone Roundabout by more traffic, by a higher number than the northern route does. I believe you guys have made a mistake this evening. Thank you.

Anyone else? We have anybody online, Caleb? Oh, okay.

Sorry, I'm late. madam mayor members of the assembly i'm lisa agnew and my partner is sam schilling who testified earlier and he's also the president of the alaska outdoor access alliance i'm speaking to ordinance 26-089 tonight i'm asking you to support assembly member bowell's amendment as modified in her secondary amendment strike the alaska long trail gateway sign and keep the matanuska river park campgrounds upgrade First, I want to remind you that the fight for the National Scenic Trail designation is not over. U.S. Code Title 16, Section 1244 , quotes the extent to which a state or political subdivision might reasonably be expected to participate. A sign on borough land maintained by borough dollars is evidence to support this when it goes to Congress for approval. And to remind you that the same US code that governs this designation also states motorized use is prohibited. Please do not give this trail ammo to get that designation. second four documents describe this project and none of them match the rasmussen website states 300 grand to upgrade a playground utilities and the matanuska river campground utilities at the campground and signage to designate the park as part of the alaska long trail However, the grant agreement in your informational memorandum in this packet states 300 grand to support the Mat-Su Park and Campground improvements, no playground, no sign, and it's not stated anywhere else in this agreement. The resolution that you'll vote on tonight breaks out 200 grand for electrical and water, and 100 grand for the long trail sign. The playground completely disappears. The borough's own website, mattriverparkcampgroundupgrades.com, lists upgrades for electrical, water, RV sites, bathroom, or ADA bathrooms, utility connections, tree removal, and once again, no long trail sign in the plans. The resolution in front of you funds no playground, and this needs some sorting out so it's transparent to our constituents. Also, I would rather see you spend 100 grand on a playground improvement for our kids rather than a sign that doesn't appear to have been part of the original planning. The grant agreement's not at risk. It never mentions a sign in the actual grant agreement that's attached to your memorandum. Striking it takes nothing out of what the foundation funds. And the agreement also says that any remaining funds at the end of the term are simply returned to the foundation. That's the whole consequence to the whole thing. You just return what's left over. As stated earlier tonight, I also have some concerns about ethics. Alaska Trails is the organization that advocates for the National Scenic Trail's designation along this trail. According to their own website, the director who brought this appropriation also served as their founding executive director and recently headlined one of their fundraisers that benefits their mission. My concern is, has this disclosure been made to this body? This body can keep every dollar for this park upgrade and build a playground and leave the assembly's position on the National Scenic Trail designation exactly where you voted to put it back in 2024 in opposing it. Thank you very much for your time.

Anyone else that would like to testify?

Rod Hanson with North Lakes my apologies earlier for getting the agenda out of order as I was saying I Didn't hear any discussion tonight during your debate about the fundamental issue we were concerned about and that is the safety issues of around that Angstrom Bogard intersection and the stretch of Bogard. You talked a lot about the roundabout, but you didn't talk anything about the dump trucks that have to use that roundabout now for the next 30 years. If the southern route was constructed, those dump trucks would go on and off the southern route and not go through that roundabout. Every dump truck for the next 30 years now is gonna exit that pit, drive through that roundabout, regardless of whether they're headed towards Wasilla or Palmer. So I guess my request is that you take a look at some of what Simon just said in the data, page 23 of the traffic analysis report. There's a table that shows the well there's a sentence below the table that describes it very well says traffic volumes on angstrom road and bogart road are most significantly decreased by the selection of the southern route if you're trying to affect safety in that area the southern route does so the northern route does not There's a table on page 25 that describes the southern route as the number one option when it comes to link level of service and delay, although that's not a great outcome. And Engstrom traffic volume reduction, number one. So I would request, I'm not quite sure how logistically you would do it, but if there's a way to reconsider the resolution that failed supporting the southern route, for those who voted on that, I would just ask that you take a little time to look at the real issues we were trying to solve and see if you could bring that back up for another vote. Thank you.

Anyone else? Do we have anybody online, Caleb, no? Okay, I'm going to close audience participation. So we're at the consent agenda. We did, I believe, already pull two items. Is there any other? Assemblyperson Sumner.

I just wanted to check which ones got pulled.

Resolution 26-103 and AM 26-120 on page five. Thank you. Okay.

I'd like to pull resolution 26-082. Could you repeat that? 0-8-2 resolution, very top one.

Okay, any others? Okay.

All right. Madam Clerk, go ahead. AM 26118, authorizing the manager to sign a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities regarding the Jolly Creek Jane Improvement Project Phase 1, Hollywood Road, mile post 6.5 to 7.1. AM 26129, approval to extend the final completion date for contract 26123B with Meyer Excavation to June 30th, 2027 for the Nicholson Lake at Home Built Circle Fish Passage Project. AM 26-130, acceptance of late-filed and retroactive senior citizen and disabled veteran tax exemption applications for the period of July and August 2026. AM 26-131, award of bid number 27-5B to Drennan Construction and Consulting in the contract amount of $2,931,907.50 to construct the Port Barge Ramp. AM 26132, awarded proposal number 2710P to HDL Engineering Consultants for the contract amount of $259,760 to provide land acquisition services for the Hemmer Road Extension. AM 26133, awarded contract number 2743C to Kendrick Equipment in the contract amount of $172,688.61 to purchase a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine.

Deputy Mayor.

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

Is there any objections to what the clerk read? Assemblyperson Fonoff, you have your light on.

Oh, I was going to say, can we take another short break? I didn't hear what he said.

Okay. Well, let's finish. Let's finish with the consent agenda, please.

Any objections to what the clerk read?

Okay. Hearing no objection. And let's see. Deputy Mayor, you polled one of them, right? Did he poll both? No. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Resolution 2682, a resolution approving the borough's priority transportation projects for inclusion in the MVP 2027-2030 Transportation Improvements Program and committing to providing the requirement non-federal share for projects selected for federal funding, pulled by Assemblymember Faunhoff.

Okay.

I move resolution 26082.

You need to move it, right? You want to talk about it?

Yeah, I did. I moved to Resolution 26082. Concern was brought up, and as I glanced through it and talked to a couple of people, there is a valid argument that was brought that kind of makes, I guess ATVs, dirt bikes has a very, it condemns them and makes them look really bad. And so while this resolution doesn't say that, but when you connect dots, there is something in the user conflict study that's on page three on the resolution item, item 10, it's called user config study. So what I would like to do is make an amendment to just remove line 10 altogether. In the resolution, on page three, it starts with number six, goes all the way to 11. I'm just making an amendment to remove line 10, as it has language, according to what I understand, that kind of favors one set of transportation versus the other, and in Alaska, we are a little different than the rest of the states, so for that reason, I wanna remove line 10.

Go ahead, sir. Do we need?

I just wanted to make sure it wasn't an MVP document.

It's striking the word user conflict study that's in the resolution, just so everybody out in the audience, because there's talk going on up here that's not on the mic.

That is correct, yes.

Okay, further discussion then, Assemblyperson Boll?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So it's nine intents, a local road speed management plan and user conflict study, and I'm not understanding why the intent is, what the intent is and the purpose of removing this.

Do we have some Assemblyperson Summits?

I understand the intent. I can explain what I think Mr. Fonov's intent is. A user conflict study is to look at the impacts between pedestrians and ATVs and other modes of transportation. And Mr. Fonov mentioned that someone During the eyes participation. I can't remember what what lady's name it was But she mentioned that is a potentially adversarial to ATVs So he would rather not fund this study because a lot of people use that mode of transportation in in Alaska in our area You know, so we're not adversarial to ATV use Thank You.

Mr. Sumner for explaining that also the local road speed management plan is I don't think he said that, I think he just said remove line 10. I thought it was nine and 10. No, just 10. Just 10, okay.

So is there objection to the motion? Yes, family, person, hours.

So can you point to the language in the user conflict study that you think prioritizes one over the other?

I don't have that in front of me, so I can't point to that.

Well, I think there's a real issue with user conflict sometimes. I know in Big Lake recently there was a TV that there was a fatality. I don't have any, you're not providing me any information to show me that this is an issue and it's being brought up at the last minute, which is not a way to help us make informed decisions with diligence. I don't know one way or the other. I know this has been vetted through a number of folks. So like the idea of in District 2, for example, we have roads where the kids are playing alongside them. And I'm thinking particularly of Roman. it's very straight and people are flying down that road and a woman had twins and they're three years old and she wants them to be safe i think that's a good thing for the borough to be looking at so absent like information showing me that this is bias the idea that we would look at um making sure that people can walk safely, bike safely, drive safely, ATV safely seems like a good idea. So if I had some information in front of me, I might feel different.

So if I may respond.

If I could at your pleasure madam mayor I get some assistance from staff to see what were the repercussions of Postponing this one meeting would be so we can collect more information

so through the mayor to the assembly this was already postponed a meeting and we are on a deadline to get an approved MTP or federal funding is at risk so I wouldn't suggest a postponement because we've already done that once I mean if you have specific questions for staff about the study we'll do our best to answer them

We had a couple presentation by them and there was a lot of the studies that's been done always favored the pedestrian bicycles and that sort of thing and they never took account for other ways of transportation specifically ATVs and things like that that is on part of Alaskan culture so to speak and And I never agreed to that. If you remember, this might have been a year ago. I always question that. They promoted one over the other. It seemed like a very report leaning certain way. And I think back in the day, even then, Esther and a couple other people spoke on that. So that's my reasons for that. Ms. Nauers, I didn't expect you to agree with that. So you don't have to make it long. You can just say, I don't support you in that. And that's fine. That wouldn't be the first time where we disagreed.

I don't like conflict either, so I'm going to support you, Dimitri.

Assemblyperson McKee.

Yeah, there must have been a good reason, though, for them putting that in there. I mean, obviously, this has got a lot of thought. Tom? Yeah. Yeah.

Well... I guess, yeah. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Alex Strawn, Planning Director for the Mat-Su Borough. So all the projects on this list, and really this is a small part of a much larger list, are pulled from existing plans, adopted plans. Excuse me, thank you. So all of these projects on this list are pulled from existing adopted plans. I believe this user conflict study was pulled from the recently adopted community safety action plan that was essentially a study to try to minimize the amount of accidents that we have in the borough. So I don't have all the details of what the recommendation was other than what is in this packet. There is a brief description of what's in there, but that's where this was pulled from.

I would just say from a way a body functions, I could support you if you put some information in front of me, but you have no information. You just pulled it and I ask you what in there does what you're saying and you don't provide it. I don't, I can't, that's not a way to make a decision. I don't have information in front of me that says this is a problem, so I'd move forward with it, and then if you wanna come back and put some information in front of me, but if I said to you, I'd like you to make a decision, I'm just gonna tell you, and I'm not gonna put any information in front of you, You're not gonna make decisions that way.

It's not a good way to make a decision if I may respond I I think if staff can't explain what it really is and there was a Why are we putting it and voting and supported if it's there? We should you know, there's other ones items on there that have specific names something that we could but this is kind of very vogue and And I'm just saying, based on previous interactions with that organization, I say there was a very disfavorable opinion towards any motorized vehicles that are off-road. And for that reason, you're more than welcome to vote it down. I'm just saying, but this is my reason, and that's where I'm at. It's Max and Campbell.

So Assemblyperson Sumner.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess a question for the clerk. How long will we have to amend something previously adopted if we pass this tonight with it included? Or would that postpone the legislation if we then amended something previously adopted?

Per Borough Code, you have 30 days from the date of adoption.

30 days? 30 days. But it would not postpone the other action if we were going to? No. Okay. Well, then, for that reason, Mr. Farno, I'm not going to support you in this, so we can pass it this way, and then if we come back with more information that would indicate that the user conflict study is adversarial to ADVs, then I would support you at that time.

Assemblyperson Gamble? Assemblymember Sumner just asked exactly what I was going to.

Assemblyperson Bowles?

Thank you similar remarks but now I'm also I just want to point out that resolution 2617 from our Planning Commission is in here with a unanimous support of the same language I just I'm not sure where this is coming from a user conflict study I mean I I get the idea that something like this can lead to government overreach and telling us that we can't drive our side-by-sides on the road right and but I'm also in favor of public safety. And so I have no problem with smart people looking at a road and saying, you might not wanna let people ride dirt bikes on that walking trail over there. You might wanna have them over across the road on that side. So for that reason, and I see the unanimous support from the Planning Commission, I'm gonna go ahead and not support this.

Deputy Mayor.

I call the question.

Okay.

Is there objection to calling the question?

No objection, so we need to proceed to vote now. If I can get the members to vote on the primary amendment. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Fonof and Bernier in support.

Okay. So now we have the main motion before you. Further discussion on the main motion? Any objection to the main motion? You do?

Okay, so we do have objection. Oh, okay. If I can get the members to vote on the main motion.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Faunhofer opposed. Okay. Resolution 26 103 a resolution opposing the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority's application for land in the Houston area and supporting consideration of the Point McKenzie and West Susitna as more appropriate locations for the proposed activities and it was pulled by Assemblymember Bernier I move resolution 26-103 Would you like to talk to speak to it?

Yeah, you know we I had the manager write a letter and And the reason I had him write a letter was back in August, they were having a Zoom meeting between DNR and ADA. And so I seen the announcement and there was a phone number on there for DNR. And I called him up to see if we could attend the meeting in person. And he says, no, it's just a Zoom meeting. His name was Dan Jenkins. He said at that time there was, 2,000 people, letters written. And I told them, you know, that's my district. We don't want it. We really think, or I personally think, that we should be developing our port, our industrial area over there, West of Sitton Access, that area. And he asked me if I wrote a letter to that extent, and I said, well, I plan to. And then I came back to Mike, and I asked him to write a letter in support of that. And we did, and it came out, and the next thing I know in Facebook world, we're trying to give away 20,000 acres in Houston, which that's not my intention, and this resolution is to make that perfectly clear that we want... We support ADA and DNR, but over there at Point Mack, West of Sit and Access, and one thing I wanted, I'm gonna put Mike on the spot, but as far as getting state land into private hands. Now, if the borough wants to get property, we have to go through, I'm gonna let Mike explain. He's a lot better at this than I am.

so through the mayor to the assembly the borough is already engaging with dnr under the charitable and public use program and making applications but they have to be for charitable and public use now if we if we want to pursue land transfers through like the municipal entitlement program municipal entitlement land program or we wanna get additional land transfers that we could then just sell off into the private sector's hands, that's not gonna qualify under charitable and public use, right? So we've been moving through the charitable and public use program. These additional land transfers, that could occur outside of that program, like, we need a vehicle for that. That's what the legislative priority the assembly's been working on does, is like, hey, we wanna identify some other lands, but we're not necessarily gonna assume that it's, or make the case that it's going to be for public purpose, right? It could be, hey, we're gonna sell it off, and we're gonna let it move into the private sector and let them move forward with whatever that development might look like. So there's a distinction We've already been moving for land transfers. We've already been moving on the municipal entitlement land that we've been granted many, many years ago. The challenges there are A lot of that land is in remote areas and the surveying requirements to actually take patent for that are expensive and onerous. And so we've also been trying to change the regulations around the surveying requirements to lessen that with limited success. And so, yes, there is a program for us to take transfer, but it's typically for charitable public use.

And working with Ada, that's actually a way to get state land into private hands. Is that correct?

I don't recall if this application was done under charitable and public use or not. I don't think so. But typically, if we want to get land outside of that program or outside of what we've already been granted in the municipal entitlement land program, we would need some legislative support. And that's what we've been working towards recently with the idea of, hey, if we could get these lands over to the borough, then the borough could dispose of those lands and put them into private sector's hands. If that helps explain that.

Thank you, Mike. Further discussion on Resolution 26-103. So a question.

At the last meeting, we passed a letter commenting on the land transfer that we wanted to get in before the deadline. We asked the manager to write a letter. I asked for reconsideration. So I am assuming, but I hadn't asked before the meeting, that letter never got sent because of the reconsideration.

Through the Mayor to Ms. Nauers, that's correct. Your reconsideration came pretty early on that Wednesday, so no action was taken and nothing's been transmitted to DNR.

Okay, and I appreciate that, and I'm glad this is coming back to the body. I did ask for reconsideration because of public process. You proposed something that had not been noticed and then took it up in the part of the agenda before people could even comment, and I think that was an error, and that's why I asked for,

reconsideration on it.

I also just know this land transfer is of great interest to people in the borough, including the folks who came tonight. And one of the things that was mentioned was diligence. And we've had some good ADA projects, but we've also had something more classic for boondoggles, and everyone knows them. And where you get there is you don't do diligence and you attack people who ask questions. If you have a good project, you should be able to answer them. So while I support this, I do think there are a lot of questions that need to be asked. I believe that the borough should be consulted. I mean, there's some red flags about this whole thing. And so moving forward with Ada, I think this body should request that we be consulted if we're talking about a large land transfer in the borough that affects residents out here. And I think we should ask for more details than we're gonna do a development but we have no information if we're gonna try to support we need to be able to ask those questions and get some answers to make the best decision for the community so i'm glad this came back we had a chance to to do this and appreciate it deputy mayor their uh commenting period ended last night so i don't know if the letter resolution is going to do much good anyways now

So through the mayor to Mr. Bernier, that's correct. I have spoken to the director of mining, land and water a couple of times since our last meeting, our last regular meeting, not the school. And so the intent would be if this passes tonight whenever the mayor signs it probably Thursday is our typical cycle Well, we would move a letter to DNR this weekend and they understand this is before you tonight For all I know they might be watching So they're aware of that. I'm I I think they would take the comment or the resolution into consideration

I would like to say out of 2,500 letters written, I received one phone call. And I had a conversation with him up in Caswell, Ned Sparks, and expressed exactly what the letter and this resolution, let's industrialize and build Point Mack and West Sioux.

Assembly person Mickey is so so really this doesn't do anything except that we're we're not getting sending it into Houston But we're also not it just says supporting consideration. That's pretty Pretty, you know, what is the word amorphous nebulous, whatever the word is? So we're really not doing anything except we are accomplishing not doing the 20,000 in Houston. Is that right? Okay anti-climatic

Okay, further discussion? Any objection to passing the resolution?

I don't hear any objection, so the legislation passes. Madam Clerk. AM 26120, authorization to provide the Butte Community Council 15,000 from Assembly Reserve for the restoration of the Butte Community sign. It's pulled by Assemblymember McKee.

Okay, Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. Yes, I move.

I move AM 26-120 and would like to speak to it.

Yes, go ahead.

A couple weeks ago when this first came on the agenda, I... George and I drove out to the Butte to see this sign, and we went from one end to the other, both of us looking on our side of the road, and we went out clear up to the tail race, and we came back, and we're now looking on the other side of the road. We switched. We never saw a sign. That was my first thing. I don't know where it is. And the second thing, as I was looking at, we as an assembly have like, what is it, $20,000 to appropriate?

Is that what our thing is each year where we... Through the mayor to assembly member McKee, yes, and assembly reserve, there's 20,000.

Okay, so we've already used $5,000 for the Christmas dinner for the folks. Correct. So that takes a whole balance of this thing and puts it up for a sign. I was hoping that the reason it was pulled by Mr. Bowles was that maybe he didn't think it was a good idea, but I see it's back here again. I don't know what historical, cultural, or community service it actually, for $15,000, how it actually, any of those three names apply to it. I kind of was thinking, like what the... people were doing when they were talking about the community getting together. Jason Ortiz, when he was first on here, the huge thing was the community organization in there, and I thought that was great. So I don't know why, for a lot less than $15,000, if the people in the Butte really want that sign, and I don't know that the rest of the borough wants to pay for it, but maybe the plumbers, welders, electricians, carpenters could get together and make a sign and make it a good deal. That's community involvement, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything. So that's where I stand. I don't see the need for it.

Assembly person assembly I don't disagree.

I think that I did ask about this and is Sometimes the assembly does give grants to the community community councils that usually happens at the Budget cycle time. So I think this is a little out of cycle and that's why I would oppose it because you know, I Yeah, I mean, this isn't a commute, you know, area wide purpose and we're spending area wide funds on it. The time to negotiate what funds are coming to your specific community versus their specific community and how the pot of taxpayer money is spent is better reserved for the budget cycle, I would say. I mean, I would have, of course, as you guys know, during the budget cycle, I'm pretty opposed to spending any extra money. So I think you know how I'd fall on that one when this comes up anyway. But yeah, I'd be opposed to it right now.

um assembly person bowls thank you madam mayor so yes so this sign um it's one of the signs that were put up around the borough back in the 80s there's one in willow um it's uh if you um If you would have stopped at the fire station, you would have seen it. It's pretty dilapidated, needs a lot of work, and it's gonna take some recovery. And so, you know, you did a similar representative, excuse me, Assemblywoman McKee, you did a similar resolution. to draw $5,000 from this reserve to fund a community event out in Wasilla where, you know, volunteers could have volunteered to cook and those sorts of things. So I agree, volunteers from the community, sure, they can. However, you know, things cost money. And, you know, we in the Butte pay our taxes too. And this money's gonna get spent. It's gonna get spent on something. And Assemblymember Gamble actually has, he's asked that, we possibly move to postpone this. He's got a project, and I think we might discuss splitting this to fund a project in the Big Lake area, so I'm actually going to move to postpone this to the next assembly meeting, but I want to talk a little bit more. This is very important to the Butte community. you look if I asked definitely stop by the fire station it's it's on wood beams it's a sign it says butte has maps it shows where different you know things are in the butte area And it was the name of the representative that funded this when he was in office, and I can't remember his name. It's 11 o'clock at night, and I apologize. This was something that he did. This is a representative that represented this area 40, 50 years ago. And so the effort here is to preserve something that he did for the Mat-Su Borough. It's one of six signs. So it is important. Yeah, I don't know if we'll need the 15,000. We actually have a contractor that's gonna also provide us with a proposed budget. I think it'll come in under that and I think it would be great to go ahead and split off some of this funding for Assemblyman Gamble as well. So I'd be more than happy to postpone this. I do think that it is a good use of our assembly reserve because if it's not used here, it's gonna be used somewhere else and why not fix this sign? Why not brighten up the butte a little bit? So with that, I move to postpone this resolution until the next assembly meeting.

Which is October 6th, Madam Mayor.

okay so there's a motion on the floor to postpone so the discussion will be on the postponement from the person hours that's something i've been aware of since i got on the assembly the assembly reserve is 25 000 it does not have to be spent it's not a piggy bank that we get to just spend like it can just sit there and be saved for the taxpayers just something that's in the budget you could zero it out in the in the budget process I know this is on postponement. I will support postponement, and I don't wanna sound hard-hearted, and I'm a broken record. If we're gonna be asked to give money for a project, and I should've asked for the friendship dinner too, Give us some information. Show us what, does the community have a budget for it? Have they done anything to raise money for it? Have they tried their community council before they came to the taxpayer dollar? Just the due diligence that I know we would all agree that you would do. So that's what I would ask if any of us come forward with projects that you put information in front of us. So happy to postpone it and hope that I can support this if you bring the information to me.

Assembly person Mickey. Yeah, I don't conflate feeding four to five thousand people who are maybe homeless Maybe poor maybe broke don't have Christmas with putting up a sign. So to me to postpone it just says We're throwing it away because we haven't you just talk about the post phone Oh, I don't see any reason to postpone it That would be ours, but that'll be our third time talking. Well, it's been on the agenda now for three times It will be three times so I don't support moving it.

Okay deputy mayor Call the question. Is there objection to calling the question? I don't see any objection, Madam Clerk. Objection to the amendment? Yes, we have an objection.

If I can get the members to vote on postponing until October 6th. Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Fanoff, Sumner, and McKee opposed.

Okay.

Ordinance 2689 an ordinance accepting and appropriating 300,000 from the Rasmussen Foundation for the Manuska River Park and campground upgrades in the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation and the company resolution 2672 a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the three for 300,000 grant from the Rasmussen Foundation for Manuska River Park and campground upgrades in the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation

okay so there is a motion to approve and then there is a pending amendment on the floor and that the opinion amendment was to remove the portion regarding or i'll let you read what you have okay the pending amendment that the that

The assembly, that's the first thing that the assembly votes on or it comes up is I move to, Assemblymember Bowles moved to strike the language and campground upgrades and the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation from section two of the ordinance entitled from the resolution.

Okay, so that's the amendment that's on the floor now. So the discussion will be on the amendment. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I move to strike and campground upgrades. So I propose a secondary amendment. I move to strike and campground upgrades from the primary amendment. The intent was only to delete the language regarding the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation, not delete the campground upgrades from the legislation. So that's what I was trying to achieve. I fully agree with the people we've heard speak. It's been made very clear that we oppose this Alaska Long Trail. It's a federal project. It's the federal government coming down and telling us what we should do at the local level it's infringement they they have in some areas tried to remove motorized access it is not something i think we need to support it went away with the last federal administration and i think that this is maybe a great opportunity to fund these upgrades, but money isn't everything. If we lose this grant because we don't move on this Alaska Long Trail thing, then I'm okay with that. You know, there have been plenty of times recent history when lots of grant money was offered for people to do things that they may would not have done like you know getting a shot where maybe they would have thought otherwise so I think that if we can maintain this grant without pursuing the Alaska Long Trail federal overreach that's great if not then I'm okay with us losing this grant

Deputy Mayor, will you move for an extension of the meeting?

I move to extend the meeting or the assembly meeting until 1121.

is there objection to extending to 1121 i don't see any objection thank you okay so is there objection to the amendment yeah assembly person sorry oh not to the secondary amendment no oh okay assembly person gamble

I just want to be clear here. I don't think we oppose the Alaska Long Trail. What we oppose is to the Alaska Long Trail being designated as a National Scenic Trail, which brings all kinds of other federal regulations. Um along with it and so when I received this, uh email I asked the attorney and the manager earlier today about usc 60 or national trail system act 16 usc 1241-1251 Which establishes? national scenic trail system and then under section 7c codified at u.s at 16 usc 1246c about prohibiting motorized vehicles unless there's an emergency or something like this and would that allow the federal government in any way shape or form if we designated or put that sign on there would Could they do anything to restrict the borough's use of land, motorized vehicles crossing borough land? And they can't. And correct me if I'm wrong, Nick.

So the way the federal government would be able to tell you what to do on a trail on borough-owned land, right, so we're talking about trails on borough-owned lands, for trails on private lands or state land, they would work with them, is if the federal government gave us money and then attached strings to it. So if the federal government came and said, oh, we're gonna give you a couple million dollars to help maintain the trail every year, but we want you to manage it as part of the historical trail, then the assembly would have to decide. The federal government does not have the power to just show up to a local government and say, oh, by the way, we're taking over your trail. We own the land, it's our land. It's not the federal government's land. And so we can call it hoogly boogly boo if we want. And it doesn't matter what the federal government says. Oh, you said long trail? We say long trail, you have to do this and this and this and this. And we say, no we don't. Not unless you give us money or buy it from us.

So if there's borough land and then there's state land and federal land in between, they can do whatever they want on theirs, but they can't do anything to ours as long as we don't take their money specifically to do something to our trail, the long trail with the strings attached. And so the fear tactic that was kind of thrown out there was, Oh my god, what if we get a Democratic senator during this election and we get a Democrat governor during this election and in 2028 we get a Democrat president of the United States then they're gonna take all of our land and you know turn it into a scenic trail and Restrict vehicles from going across and it's just just not true. So I We can't take the whole $300,000 and put a sign up that says Alaska Long Trail because that's not what we really oppose We oppose the National Scenic Trail designation.

Thank you Yeah, thanks, thanks for that mr. Gamble cuz that adds some clarity to it, you know, I mean it's You know, mr. Bowles's concerns are very prudent But I think that in this case we could we could probably put the sign up and still be safe Okay

Yeah, through the mayor I wanted to confirm like what mr Gamble said is correct about where the body has been on the Alaska long trail It's you adopted in a resolution. So Opposing national scenic trail designation, but not opposing the Alaska long trail. That's why it was included So I just want to explain for the record like for people that are listening. Why do we include that? It's typically not a great ask when you go to a grant tour and say hey you want to pay for our deferred maintenance and So we try to find ways to make the grant more competitive. That's what this is. By the way, that was direction you all gave us to go find grant funding. That's what we're doing here. And to be clear for the record, I think, because the last meeting we talked about this, I was given direction to go back to the granting organization and ask if we wanted to remove this component Would you be okay with that? And they basically said, the grant's written the way it's grant written, because that's what we applied for, and that's what they approved. And so this idea that you can just amend this and then they're gonna give us $200,000 is probably not gonna happen, right? And I also wanna be mindful, like we're trying to preserve our relationship with a long-term Alaskan philanthropic organization that does a lot of really good things in Alaska. So I don't wanna burn any bridges over a sign, to be perfectly honest. So, but what is worth?

I can I can understand all of those comments and So if there's so can we move forward on this amendment and leave that language off the sign Alaska Long Trail language off the sign

so through the mayor to the assembly I don't believe so we went back to the granting organization after the postponement asked that question and they said we're gonna stick to what you because we applied for it in all fairness right like this is not them dictating to us this we were trying to find ways to make this grant more competitive these are not just free-for-alls hey the boroughs gonna get X amount of dollars we got to find out how to how to do that and that's what miss Morrissey's been doing And we followed the guidance given to us by the assembly as adopted in an assembly resolution regarding the Alaska long-term. That's what this was. There's nothing nefarious or going on here. And we thought, hey, this is a good way. And I think that made a difference. And they actually sent a staff member who we met with on site. and then she actually came back out and spent time at the park uh as a as a rent renter i don't know what's the right term but um and spent time at the park and realized man this is a gym you guys got a good thing going on here right and so then they got behind us with the 300 000. so i think you can make the amendment but i'm just going to be honest i don't think you're going to see a grant agreement get signed by me that's going to look like what you amended to because they're giving us their money it's not up to us And in all fairness, we applied for the grant with that scope defined. That's what their board approved, in all fairness. So I want to be clear. It's not the foundation dictating terms to us. That's not what's happening here.

Okay. All righty.

For the Assemblyperson McKee. I just wanted to thank the three gentlemen that spoke, Mike and Bill and Nick, because that really clarified it for us. Because I was a little worried about that, but got it.

Okay, so there's amendment on the floor. Is there objection to the amendment? There is, okay, yeah. Turn your mic on, please, so it's on the record.

I have a question for the attorney, Madam Mayor.

Okay, sure.

So if we move on this and it's approved, sounds like I'm the lone man out. But 10 years from now, this signs up, says Alaska Long Trail. Does that open the door for federal overreach to come in and say, well, you've already designated this area here, and so we're just going to tie into it?

Again, if the borough owns land, and like any other landowner, the federal government can't just show up and say, oh, we're gonna tell you what we're gonna do on your land. They don't get to do that. The way the federal government does these programs is they give you, they show up with a bunch of money in their hand and they go, you want this money? Well, this is what you gotta do to get it, right? This is why the drinking age is 21 in all the states. Clearly, all the states have the power to set the drinking age at what they want to. They all take federal highway dollars, and to get federal highway dollars, you have to set your drinking age to 21. That's why it's 21 throughout the United States. So they've had strings to their money. So no, I mean, that's a long answer, but the answer is no. The federal government can't just generally show up and say, oh, I'm going to tell you that on this piece of land, this is how you're going to manage it.

and so i just want to mention this on the record i know it's not published online um we did an artist rendering of what the sign is going to look like it's in your red folder and you can share that with whomever like again it's not a final design but we were trying to show you like to put into context what we're talking about here and like where that alaskan long trail fits in there you really have to look pretty close because it's pretty small in the bottom center left and it's kind of circled like that's what we're talking about so it's it's going to be a matanuska river campground park sign right that the last one it what it was intended to do is i because i want people to understand this like what it was intended to do was incentivize people who love to go to something take a selfie and show some accomplishment, some achievement. No, it's at the bottom left of the center. Yeah, right there. That's what we have in mind. Again, we haven't, because we haven't accepted any money, so we had to talk to an artist and say, hey, can you give us a quick rendering? This is what we're looking for it to be like.

Thank You madam mayor okay so that's I just want to get very clear on the record my concern is federal overreach my concern is the federal government being able to come in at a later time and tell us what we can and can't do on borough land knowing that they legally cannot at a future time tie this into this scenic trail I'm comfortable with that and I would like to pull my amendments

Okay, is there objection to Assemblyperson Bowles pulling their amendment?

Primary, secondary, and primary, Madam Mayor. He said amendments. We're gonna do both of them? Yeah.

Okay, for both amendments. Is there any objection to him pulling this? So then, I don't see any objection, Madam Clerk. So then we are back to the main motion as presented. is there uh... objection to the main motion the twenty six zero eight nine in the resolution twenty six dash zero seven two any objection see any objection man so uh... legislation has passed there are no vetoes you know give them for a minute Okay, are you ready to go?

Yep, introduction for public hearing on October 6th is Ordinance 26-108 with accompanying resolution 26098, Ordinance 26-109, and Ordinance 26-110 with accompanying resolution 26-102.

Okay, Deputy Mayor.

I move to introduce the legislation as read into the record by the clerk and set the public hearing for October 6th, 2026.

Discussion by the Assembly. Is there any objection by the Assembly? Okay, hearing none and the legislation has been introduced. Deputy Mayor, vacancy report.

I move to confirm the Mayor's recommendations as follows. Enhance 911 Advisory Board, Jacob Blessett.

Okay, discussion by the Assembly. Any objection by the Assembly? is seen and hearing none, then the vacancy report has been approved. There is no new business, there are no referrals, but we do have a reconsideration. And the assembly person now orders, do you have a motion to reconsider? No, this is a moot point now. I don't think there's any reason to do it. Okay. So hearing there is no motion to reconsider, is there any objection to no motion to reassemble the person board?

I have a question. So if we don't reconsider this, this letter moves forward, is that correct?

Madam Clerk?

Through the mayor to assembly member Bowles, I would have to venture a guess and the manager can correct me if I'm wrong. I think the letter has turned into a resolution.

Okay, so no action on this means this dies.

Because I do believe the manager is going to say the letter is the resolution.

My intent is to send them the resolution. Because that's adopted by the body and signed by the mayor and the clerk. That holds more weight than the manager signing a letter, in my opinion. Because it shows the movement of the body.

Okay, because we did pass this. So that's my concern. And I think that maybe we should just go ahead and postpone this indefinitely and call it good.

Okay, so that to postpone something indefinitely you have to have an emotion on the floor So you'd have to reconsider it and then have the main motion on the floor Assemblyperson gamble or we could just vote not to reconsider or that You'd still have to move to reconsider. You'd still vote no. If you vote no to reconsider, then it's still the issue that you're concerned about that the motion passed. We can do it that way too.

In the interest of expediency, I will move to reconsider.

Okay, so there is a motion on the floor to reconsider. Discussion? Objection? Okay, we do have an objection.

If I can get the members to vote on reconsidering. Pass with Assemblymember Fonoff and Bernier opposed. Now we're on the main motion, Madam Mayor.