City and Borough Assembly - Regular Meeting

Well, welcome everybody. Thank you for joining us on what is today the first day of summer, maybe. Hopefully summer is actually starting a bit late. I'm called to order the regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, July 14th, 2026. Please join me for a flag salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, The Assembly of the City and Borough of Sitka would like to respectfully acknowledge the traditional First People of Sheetka. With gratitude, we proceed on Tlingit Aani. Sarah, roll call, please.

Mayor Eisenbeiss?

Present.

Ms. Carlson? Here. Mr. Christensen?

Here.

Mr. Mosier?

Here.

And Mr. Selene? Here. And Ms. Riley is absent this evening.

Thank you. Any correspondence or agenda changes this evening? I see none. No ceremonial matters. That will bring us to our special reports. We have two scheduled special reports tonight, Public Works and Centennial Hall. By the order written on my sheet, we'll start with Mark, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly, Mark Civi, Public Works Director. So closing out the last quarter of FY26, we ended with a department budget spent down to 86% overall. We're currently still at 93% staffing, which seems to be the magic number because we've shifted some positions, but remain at 93%. Those empty positions are all currently within building maintenance, and we do have two scheduled personnel losses coming up. Our office coordinator will be retiring at the end of this month and our building maintenance supervisor has relocated his family to New York and will be joining them as well. So two more positions opening up for us. We have been able to fill all of our temp positions except for two. We have a mechanic temp and a second custodial temp right now, which are our only temp positions open at the time. For major projects, the only two we currently have in construction are still the airport and Lake Hirsch Monastery, Kincaid Road and Utility Improvement. For the airport, we're still looking at a substantial completion at the end of September. This fall, we did just receive another grant for that project for work that was completed prior to 2021. So we'll be working on processing that. That'll bring us up to, I believe, six grants and two OTAs for the TSA work as far as external funding sources coming to that. For Lake Harnish Monastery at Kincaid, there have been a few additional challenges, specifically with running into contaminated soil. The prediction from the cores that we had taken with it would be in the vicinity of the radio station along Lake Street, and they ran into it almost directly, and it's been running along the water trench for the water pipe. We've been mitigating that. We found ways to dispose of most of that material locally because the contaminant levels are low enough. So it's still on scope and schedule right now without awarding the alternate, which was going to be the Kincaid. So we're looking at only finishing the Lake Street portion this fall. Additional projects still currently in the design phase, we have the Wachusett strand replacement, which was the Peterson phase two, the effluent disinfection project, the seaplane base, the Granite Creek Bridge, phase two for Lake Hirsch Monastery, Kincaid, and Kirkman and Amak Sudof. We did have a water line break today on Kirkman. It has been repaired and is operating, but both those road and utility projects are showing that utilities are in a state where they do need to be repaired, so these projects are happening at the correct time. We did open the bids for the Safe Streets for All RFQ last week. We do have six proposals. They've gone through the administrative clearing with the finance department, so we'll get a team together hopefully the end of this week, next week, to select a proposal and move forward into negotiations for that contract. Mayor Mrakas, awarded, we also have a repainting hillside tank for the water department that has been awarded, we have a school district boiler maintenance overhaul for the oil fire boilers that are secondary to the electric boilers that has been awarded. Mayor Mrakas, And we should have contractors on site for the performing arts Center audio visual upgrades as well. Outside of those major projects, we also had one of our first public surplus auctions. We were able to sell quite a bit of equipment. The total proceeds from that came to around 137,000. There will be a portion of that that goes back to grant agencies that gave us grants on some of the equipment. So a large portion of that proceeds, almost, not quite half, may end up going back to the granting agencies. additionally we had our second household hazardous waste event and the spring cleanup during that event we had approximately a thousand participants we had over 900 000 pounds of scrap 148 vehicles and about 2 000 gallons of household hazardous waste that were collected and shipped off island Our water department's also been pretty busy. They're working on the final approval to operate for both the UV and membrane filtration plants from those projects that were about a decade ago. They fixed that Kirkman break today. Wastewater is still wrapping up the Thompson Harbor lift station project to close that out. Building maintenance has been busy with our school district maintenance. And we did get the chlorinator back online for the pool. So that is operating and it's calibrating right now. We're hoping by next week we have that running so that we no longer have to Hand mix any chemicals. There's a couple sensors. We've found that through putting the new chlorinator and they need to be replaced as well and Grounds has been planting, making our grounds look nice, keeping things trimmed, working on trail maintenance. And they've also done trips out to Goddard and Tom Young to redo the deck, do the annual maintenance out there and work on the tubs. Streets has been working on their potholes. They wrapped up a heavy snow removal season. We've got the sweeper out now, sweeping. They've been painting crosswalks, potholing, and we started painting some curbs as well this week, central garage. We brought in three new police department vehicles, so those are online now, as well as a new 12-yard dump truck, replacing the one that we basically had to sun down because it broke over this snow season. There also was some extensive maintenance for that, and we were able to shift over all of our vehicles onto our summer tires.

So just a few things. Just a few. Not much going on. Questions for Public Works?

Mark, could you explain a little bit on the mechanical temp and what you see is, what detail is gonna do for us?

The mechanical temp? No, the two temps that we have not been able to hire are a mechanic temp that was gonna be working in the garage and a second custodial, and we're backfilling that with one of the grounds custodial temps.

Thank you. Thank you, Mark, appreciate it. And that'll bring us to Centennial Hall and Tony. Although I heard a bannable comment earlier, so.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Assembly. My name is Tony, the building manager. And we're gonna go ahead and go through our quarterly report. As of right now, at the beginning of the season, well, we're kind of halfway through, we have hired five temp visitor desk attendants as well as four temp pedestrian safety attendants, so we are at full capacity right now. We have one full-time temp that we're working with right now. We're getting 40 hours at least from him through the summer, so we're gonna be looking at hiring another building attendant at the end of the summer. Tourism, it's been pretty busy the past few months. From the beginning of April through July, the totals show that we've hosted over 260,000 visitors, and we still have at least three months to go, four months to go. The month of June alone, we've had at least 146,000 come through here in Sitka. So we're definitely on track for a bigger season, I think, than we had last year. Staff here, what we've been doing is we've just been maintaining, the pace has been pretty fast during those days that we have at six or 7,000 people in town. So we maintain the building, we maintain the grounds, we make sure everything's running the way it's supposed to be. Event and meeting highlights. During this last quarter, Harrigan Centennial Hall has continued to serve as the hub here in Sitka, providing for citizens commissions and CBS staff. The big highlights that we've had in the last three months, we have had the Alaska State Volunteer Firefighters Banquet that came through, Northwest Managers' four-day conference. Sea Alaska Three Day Summit, Sustainable Southeast Partnership, Spruce Root, and that was an all-hands one. That was a big event. Then we have the music fest the whole month of June. Coming up, we have state elections. We have the NRA banquet. Municipal elections are coming up in September through October. And then we'll kick into the Alaska Day festivities starting about mid-October. We have a quick for Chuck Miller, and that's in late October. And then we go into the absentee voting for the general elections whale fest. And then at the, I just threw this last one in there because I'm kind of excited about it. We have the train set up for the end of the year in December. So that's coming around the corner as well. Some of the statistics for the building will go from the beginning of this year, January 1st to now. We've had at least 760 bookings across the auditorium and the meeting spaces. 121 nonprofit, 306 general public events, six commercial, 10 state, and 323 city of Sitka meetings. I added in this last piece just because I think that we kind of lose sight sometimes on what kind of building this is. We host a lot of nonprofit and general meetings here and different types of meetings, but we do still, during these last months, offer a lot of services to the community as well. We've had three weddings at least, one gender reveal. I believe it was a boy. Piano recital. We had an awards banquet for Montage High School. A chess tournament. And we've had, unfortunately, one too many celebration of lives here. We've had at least four birthday parties as well. For the Hurricane Centennial Hall budget, we ended the fiscal year at 94%. Throughout this last fiscal year, we've been trying to hire and keep full staff. We hadn't had a chance to do that throughout the year, so that's where some of the extra funds are going. We also have a maintenance contract with Dimensional Communications, and we do also work with our janitorial as well. Some of the future projects we have, continued auditorium lighting, we continue with that. We're gonna refinish the auditorium floor and stage, hopefully the stage this year as well. Yeah, that is all I have.

Questions for Tony, please.

Yeah, what percentage of the salaries for the visitor desk attendance and the pedestrian safety attendance comes from CPV funds?

What percent? Yeah. I am not sure on that one.

Is it less than half or more than half, I'm guessing?

Of how they get paid out?

Yes, so yeah, the CPV money from the big ships, does it go to help with those sales?

Yes, it goes to the attendants as well as the safety pedestrian attendants as well.

Okay, great, thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Tony, appreciate it.

Thank you.

Moving on in our special reports, is there anyone here for government to government, municipal boards, commissions, committees, any other municipal departments, school district? Thank you. That'll bring us two persons to be heard. This is public participation for any item off of tonight's agenda, not to exceed three minutes for any individual. All right, we'll move on to consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of item A, approve the minutes of the June 23rd assembly meeting, and item B, approve two new liquor license endorsements applications for JL Sitka Inc. DBA Coldwater Bar and Grill at 330 Seward Street.

Second. That's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda. Is there any public comment? Sarah?

All right, on the motion to approve the consent agenda, Mayor Eisenbeiss? Yes. Mr. Christensen?

Yes.

Mr. Moser? Yes. Mr. Saleen? Yes. And Ms. Carlson? Yes. Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. Item C, please.

I move to appoint Maria Capenzo-Crooks to a three-year term on the Library Commission and reappoint Scott Wagner to a two-year term on the Gary Paxson Industrial Park Board. Second.

That's been moved and seconded to appoint to the Library Commission and reappoint to the Gary Paxton Industrial Park. Is there any public comment? Assembly deliberation? Sarah?

All right, on the motion to appoint Ms. Crooks and reappoint Mr. Wagner, Mayor Eisenbeis?

Yes.

Ms. Carlson? Yes. Mr. Moser? Yes. Mr. Christensen? Yes. And Mr. Salim? Yes. The motion passes 5-0 on item C. Item D, please.

I move to approve Ordinance 2026-16 on Second and Final Reading, amending Title IV, Revenue and Finance, of the Secret General Code, by amending Chapter 4.25, Sales Tax, Section 4.25.330, Security Limitations, Sales of Security Deposits, and Auction Bonds.

Second. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 26-16. Is there any public comment? Assembly deliberation? Sarah?

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-16 on second and final reading, Ms. Carlson? Yes. Mr. Moser? Yes. Mayor Eisenbeis? Yes. Mr. Saleen? Yes. And Mr. Christensen? Yes. The motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. Item E, please.

I move to approve Ordinance 2026-17 on First Reading, Making Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2027, Additional Sector Recreation Foundation Support Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Second. John, I understand Kevin has an introduction to this item? Correct.

Evening Assembly, Mayor Eisenbeiss, Kev Knox, Parks and Recreation Manager. The item before you, as I mentioned, is a request for a supplemental appropriation for $20,000 from the general fund to support the Parks and Recreation master plan. That support would go through the Parks and Recreation budget and to the Sika Recreation Foundation. The foundation is working to complete that 20-year master plan, has engaged with a contractor after putting out an RFQ. and the RFQ was put out according to city procurement policies. That master plan will support long-term asset management and capital improvement prioritization, which the Assembly has previously noted is a prerequisite for launching major individual projects. Some of the development and the funding of this master plan aligns squarely with the goals and actions in the CBS strategic plan, in particular item four of plan and invest in sustainable infrastructure for future generations. Active community discussions have highlighted pressing infrastructure deficiencies lately that we plan to address specifically regarding athletic fields, dark park accessibility, and modernizing our other outdoor recreational facilities. Previous planning efforts, as noted in the memo, in 2019 work with the National Park Service for some technical support. Also in FY23, there was funding that was set aside to work on a master plan and asset planning process. Both of those efforts had stalled due to outside consulting support losing its ability to help with recreation committee's planning process, and then also our own internal municipal capacity constraints. I do want to note that the last time that we had a comprehensive recreation plan for the city was 1991, so this is far overdue. The city entered into the MOA with SRF in February, contributed 14,900 from the original appropriation from FY23 as seed funding. After that RFQ process, SRF selected Corvus Designs to lead the process and work with our public engagement and some of the planning and development of surveys, and then the final plan design. Corvus brings over 20 years of specialized Alaskan experience, having developed master plans for Ketchikan, Anchorage, Juneau, Kenai, and several other communities throughout Alaska. The team also includes a local, Monique Anderson of Anderson Land Planning is going to work with us. And then Trevor Sandy of PE with RNM Engineering down in Ketchikan. He'll help with some of the engineering and relevant costing of some of the assets. The project right now is scheduled to span from June, actually last month, it's already started, and we hope to have a finalized plan for you in January of 2027. Once we have all of that forward to, we'll be able to better plan for our future recreation infrastructure in Sitka. The design cost estimates range from $61,000 to just a little over $76,000. The $61,000 was the base plan. The $76,000 included some additional planning of additional assets as well as more robust public engagements. SRF right now has allocated just a little over 20,000 of its own funds, and that's in addition to the 14,900 that the Assembly has already provided them, and then they're working to raise an additional 27,000 in the coming months. So the request before you would bring the city's total of just a little under 35,000 for more than a 61,000 20-year plan. There's board members that are going to be here tonight that will speak to this item as well, and I'm also available for any questions you might have.

Thank you. If we have additional questions, we'll call you back up. Is there any public comment on Ordinance 26-17? In the microphone in front of you, there's a button on the very bottom. It'll turn red when it's on.

we grab that other there you go okay yep thanks everyone my first assembly meeting thanks really appreciate it um good evening my name is anna schumacher and i serve as a volunteer board member for the sika recreation foundation i came to position through my work in youth recreation and family services and because i strongly believe that community supported recreation is one of the many ways we can all arrive at a healthier future. So like Kevin stated, SRF is a volunteer-led organization working to advance CICA's parks and recreation infrastructure and services. I'm here tonight to urge you all to consider allocating a minimum of $20,000 in additional support to the Sika Recreation Foundation to complete a comprehensive 20-year Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Our team has already put the time into selecting a qualified Alaska-based firm to lead the planning process. We worked to secure necessary partnerships and additional financial backers. As you are all likely aware, the last master plan was completed in 1991, which, yes, is long before I was actually born. So I think it's high time that our community has an updated plan that captures our community needs appropriately. Without a comprehensive master plan, the city lacks a clear community-driven understanding of the priorities for parks and recreation. This planning effort will ensure that future investments are guided by broad public input and that limited public dollars are directed where they'll have the greatest long-term benefit. Because this plan would guide municipal decision-making and benefit the entire community, it is appropriate that the primary financial responsibility rests with the city. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request for additional 20,000 in support for the creation of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. I cede the remainder of my time.

Thank you.

Any other public comment on Ordinance 26-17? Back to the Assembly for deliberation. JJ?

I've got some questions for Kevin, if he doesn't mind coming back up. So remember, we talked about this, was it five months ago, six months ago, when we initially saw this MOU? And it had gone through the Parks and Rec Commission Committee at that time. Has it gone again through Parks and Rec Committee?

This particular request?

Yes.

No. No.

Okay.

They are engaged in, and they will be engaged in the master plan process, but this request came from SRF, and it hasn't gone through the committee. They're aware of it, but they haven't voted on it or anything.

Okay, because that was kind of trying to figure out why now. We're currently in the first meeting of the new fiscal year. This memo is dated the second day of the fiscal year, so a supplemental appropriation right off the bat Do you have any more information there on why the timing of this?

Part of it is because of the timing of the RFQ and the receipt of the estimate of how much the master plan costs from Corvus. We didn't have a set number and because we did it as an RFQ process, there wasn't a bid price set to it. Once Corvus was selected as the design firm, they came back with the cost estimate essentially two different scopes of work, hence the two different numbers that we have. So once SRF was aware of exactly how much they would need to raise, they've kind of embarked on that process at that point.

Okay. Yes, I don't remember it. Six months ago when we were first talking about this, it being a seed contribution from the assembly, from us, So I didn't expect to see six months later a new ask coming forward. So how come part of that RFQ process, one of the scopes wasn't based on money available at the time?

Generally when you put out an RFQ you don't attach a number to it and we weren't fully, I mean we didn't have a full number. SRF had gone out and had various different discussions with different firms just about generally how much based on the kinds of scope of work but you have to be careful with as you go out there and you have those discussions that you're not you know, bid shopping or something else like that. So you don't really know how much it's going to cost when you go through the RFQ process sometimes.

Was that shared with the assembly five, six months ago?

In that they were going to go through an RFQ process?

RFQ and that it was likely.

As opposed to an RP.

Likely to come back with an additional ask? Because I think I would have had a comment five, six months ago if.

if I knew we'd be here again today. The discussion, as I recall, with the assembly was that we had this broad range on what the cost could be. We weren't sure. The SRF decided to go with the RFQ process just because it offered some more flexibility around developing scope once the contractor was selected based on their qualifications. They were trying to provide some flexibility within that. I don't think they did come forward and say whether or not it would be an RFQ or an RFP. uh, when the initial ask was made. Uh, but in, in the discussions previously, I do recall that there were assembly members that were suggesting that, uh, additional funds could be made available based on, on product that might come forward or any additional requests could be made.

Okay. Yeah. Cause I recall that discussion being, Oh, for, almost $15,000 when I'm going to get this big product because we're teaming with this outside group and the value that they're bringing is figuring out all the rest of it. Seeing a difference now in six months, yeah, it just seems like we maybe were sold something that hasn't been delivered or there's always discovery process. So it's just tough to have the two times, the two asks and it not go through you know, the process of the committee, so it couldn't come back through a report structure to us to know that this was coming back in a short amount of time. I'm going to have to think through that a bit more. 61,000 or 76,000 is more. We just got a report for health care for 20,000, and that seems to be kind of our rate of what we approve at a time or what's asked of us at a time. do have a memory here of what it all takes to add it up. So thank you.

Kevin? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I should ask questions for Kevin while we have him in front of us.

No, this is just comments.

Okay. Kevin, I do have a couple things for you. So number one, as an employee of the municipality liaisoning to Sitka Recreation Foundation, do you believe that they are currently in compliance with the MOU?

Yes.

Okay, because when I read the MOU, the very first responsibility is that SRF will seek and secure funding necessary to fund the creation of the master plan. So that is not the municipality's goals right there. I will scroll down a little bit. and indicate that it does say in funding contingency that the CBS may contribute additional beyond the stated amount. But this MOA indicates that SRF is gonna do the heavy lifting on this. They do have fundraising methods. Apparently one of the fundraising methods is going to be asking the municipality for, right? And so Kevin, when I asked that question, it's because I wonder how solid this MOA is with them. And I wonder what direction this is heading with us, with the municipality working on one side and with this organization working on the other. Because if we're instantly scratching the first line of responsibility, what's next and what is this paper actually worth?

They are currently engaged in additional fundraising efforts. They've had requests out to local organizations and other funding agencies that haven't given specific dedicated funds yet, but are moving towards that at this point. the timeline on this project is relatively compressed in trying to get a final product in front of this body and in front of the public or the community by January 2027. So they're just moving quickly at this point. So this request has come forward. There's other requests out there that are are working their ways forward and trying to get additional funds. I think the foundation has been doing its earnest work in trying to bring forward those funds as quickly as they can to demonstrate that they're doing those first couple of lines within the MOA to show that they are you know, dedicated to this, but I think the fact that they've put up over 20,000 of their own unrestricted funds is a portion of that as well. So, I mean, that's 20,000 plus the 14, so they've got almost 35,000, actually probably a little over 35,000 already dedicated. That includes the 14 nine that you have already put forward.

Okay, and then, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard earlier that this project has already started?

Yes. So the contract's been signed. Some of the work has been started already, including some asset condition assessments that some of my staff have been doing, but then also some analysis of the data that we have to be able to provide the contractors so that they can start doing some of the report compiling.

Okay, and I hope that's scoped and scalable then because you don't have full funding right now. Yes, it is. and you signed a contract for services.

And bear in mind that the contract is signed between SRF and Corvus. It's not between the city and Corvus. So SRF has full responsibility there in working with Corvus. They have a split scope and a split payment system, so they don't have to come up with the full $61,000 plus upfront. They're paying in installments, and those pieces in the scope are also divided up.

Okay. That raises a couple other questions. Um, but I think Kevin has some points as well. Any other questions for Kevin while he's no, no, no, I'm good. Thank you. Um, thank you, Kevin. Oh, JJ.

Yeah. I was thinking through my notes, but, and I, so I appreciate you coming back to me. Um, you mentioned there's a engineer out of Ketchikan going to be doing some costing of assets. We have an asset manager within our municipality. Can you help me understand why we're paying for someone else to do that?

Because they have specific experience and knowledge around recreational and athletic facilities, and in particular within Alaska. And our asset manager is also not a P.E. Okay, the majority of the assets I'm thinking about are picnic tables and... No, no, we're talking bigger, larger complexes, and we're talking about the Kim Sham Complex or the Landry Field or lower molar playgrounds, things like that. So looking at them in larger pictures than just the individual small assets within.

Okay, this is becoming... different than I thought we were getting into six months ago. Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin. Appreciate you. And Kevin.

Thank you, Stephen, Mr. Mayor. Um, so, um, uh, after reading through this and then now, um, hearing these comments, um, I guess I'll share both sides of my opinion. I hear what you're saying, JJ. I hear what you're saying, Mr. Mayor. And I agree with that, a lot of it, like in form. Like it would have been ideal if they had given us a bigger number during budget time. But from my perspective, the way I see this is that they didn't quite know, so maybe they should ask for more, but they didn't quite know. And so I'm thrilled to support this because I feel like this is something where ideally it would have been better if it stuck strictly to the MOU. And I understand also it leaves a bad precedence if we just do MOUs and then don't follow them. So I totally 100% get that. And I don't want to start not abiding by things. But in this case, it was in the MOU to support. to be able to add a little more. The way I see this is that we're leveraging, we're giving this to a community partner, Sacred Recreation Foundation helped us buy an electric vehicle. And I just happen to know this because I'm on the Parks and Rec as a liaison and I've talked to some folks from that group before. They're just locals trying to say, raise money. It's hard sometimes. So in this case, I would encourage and respectfully request that we vote yes on this this time. And another thing I was thinking about is we had that vote at the ballot, I think it was last year, where we asked the voters if they wanted to change where the funding goes from the sick community hospital fund to the athletic fund, and it was passed by a pretty high margin. So in my mind, it shows that there's strong support for this kind of thing. And I do remember when we were talking about that at the table before we got it to the vote, that that was something we needed a master plan. So I 100% respect and get what you're saying. I just think in this situation, I would respectfully request that we pass this tonight. And if they come back for more, that's going to be a completely different story. Those are just my two cents.

Yeah, I think the questions about how they came up with the money and things are not really, in my mind, the question, because it's no surprise to me that they are having to struggle to raise money from donations. Anybody who's been around Ron Propp knows, anybody who listens to Raven Radio during their drive knows that. And it's no surprise that it's costing more than they really thought it was. I mean, almost everything we do these days is that way. I mean, reality hits, and that's what it's gonna cost. The real question is, do we wanna do this? I mean, do we want this plan to happen, and are we willing to spend some money to do it? I don't have a lot of heartburn about, well, we thought it was gonna cost less than you said you were gonna raise all this money, it's not easy raising money. Uh, and so, uh, like I said, my question is, is it worth us spending 20,000 on it? It is nice that we're not having to raise all the money and do that. That might, uh, but Kevin brings up a good point that there's a lot of interest in this. Um, not just from the people who emailed us who were involved with it, but generally people like to say, and we, You know, one of the underlying themes we've had in recent years is doing asset management, knowing our schedule on things, knowing what's coming down the pike, knowing, being able to at least somewhat determine how much money we need to raise for things. Because a lot of times you were like, we'd love to have a new ball field, but we just really don't know what that would involve. And so at least this way, if we have a plan like this, if they come up and say, some facility that they recommend and it's going to be millions of dollars, we can say, well, you know, we don't have that. Or maybe it's Comparatively inexpensive and we just don't know the answers to this and this is what we have to do so You know, this isn't personally my top of the list of stuff but it's a comparatively small amount of money to get a To at least be able to lay it out and know what we have to do so we don't get hopefully surprised as much by the pitching mound you know that we ran into a few months ago so um i i can i can uh support this because again it but i think the question everybody asks is do you want do we want to do it and the answer is no well no but if the answer is yes the other stuff is peripheral is to so

I guess my closing comments, I want to kind of wrap up some of what I said and what some other assembly members have said. And I think while it was not the way that Tor had intended to say it, it's how I want to say it as well. And his comment was, do we want to do it? That is a question to me, do we want to do this? Because at this point, originally we were talking about ownership of the project, right? And we were gonna have a little seed money in this and it was gonna be SRF's thing. At this point, this has become our project. And so now I'm wondering if we're adding complications into this that are not necessary, which is a discussion on its own because I think at this point we are veering from the spirit of the MOA. This is not what I saw happening. This is not what I had saw the future of it. And I appreciate the electric van being brought up and all the work that SRF did to bring us an electric van. But as precedent was set there, the fundraising efforts were substantially short and the municipality ended up having to kick in. So if we continue down this road, not only have we set precedent previously, but then we set it again. And I think that's potentially a dangerous road to head down. And it's a signal that if an organization comes forward with a small ask, gets approved, becomes committed, that we then have no choice but to finish off, right? And that's my concern with this. Does the municipality want to own the project at this point? Because I don't think any of us are debating the worthiness of it. It's the ownership of it. So I don't think that I'm going to vote in favor of this until that question for me is figured out. Because I think we have an MOU right now that works well. and with an extended timeline, SRF in all their good efforts should be able to continue their fundraising efforts, if not reduce the scale and scope from their contractors and still deliver us a good product. Kevin and then JJ.

So, Stephen, I completely get it. I understand. And that is a concern, even as you said it. You know, we start doing this and other organizations come in, ask for a little and then ask for more. I completely get that. But it's something that occurred to me when you were saying that do we own it or not. As far as I understand, they're still contributing quite a bit to the project and they're still going to be managing it, so to speak, with a little bit of help from the staff. maybe we could ask Kevin real quick to come up here and answer that question if he thinks that's changed or what have you. You know what I'm saying? In my mind, ownership would be we pay 90% of it or a bunch of it, and then we're having our staff do the project, so to speak, and things like that. As far as I understand, the only difference is just the 20,000. 20,000 is not a small thing. It is small compared to our overall budget, but it is taxpayers' money. So what do you think about that, getting Kevin up here to see?

If you'd like to, you're able to call him up to ask questions.

Hey, Kevin, can you come up, please?

Kevin, you heard what I was saying, so maybe if you could just talk about it.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's important to realize that when the city first tried to embark on this project back in fiscal 23, we weren't able to get it done due to capacity. We just didn't have the staff capacity to be able to get the documents out or engage in discussions with contractors or anything else like that. SRF was able to, you know, it's a little bit more nimble and was able to get out there. I think the The small amount of additional funding that would come from the city still has the potential of being less than half. If SRF is able to raise the additional funds and get to the mark that they would like to get to, the 61, that smaller scope is the minimum scope that they would like to get to. they're able to, they would definitely like to get to the larger scope. So the product that will be provided the community and back to the city would be quite substantial. And as Tor pointed out, you know, a very useful tool for, you know, Parks and Rec staff to grounds and facilities and future planning. And again, it's a 20-year product. I mean, our last one, in essence, went almost 35 years or a little over 35 years. So hopefully this one would go for the 20.

Thank you. Anything else for Kevin? I have a question. Okay, great.

Thank you. So what I'm noticing here through this conversation is that we're being asked tonight for this 20,000 because you want to deliver the product by January 2027. Is there flexibility in that timeline to give our partners more time for their fundraising?

The original scope that was brought forward by Corvus was actually a one year project that base level, or actually both scopes brought us into June of 27. SRF negotiated with Corvus to be able to extend. I think extending anything beyond June would be relatively problematic for that number. Those numbers would probably go up. But adding a few months, I'm not really sure. I mean, you'd have to ask SRF folks to better speak to that, what a couple, two, maybe three months would add to their fundraising efforts. I think the discussions it sounds like that they are having right now

will you know they'll get answers here in the next month okay because that seems like you know everything's you know scope schedule budget we were kind of somewhat told a budget with an undefined scope and an undefined schedule the other people chosen the scope and schedule but now we're at being asked to adjust the budget to meet a schedule that just doesn't seem necessary um so if there's anything I guess we have one person, Matt, but I don't wanna call you forward to ask about that. Yeah, I think it would be nice to have had a more robust conversation here to understand some of these details, but I appreciate your contribution to my question about timeline.

Thank you, Kim, appreciate it. Scotty?

Kevin, I was gonna ask you on the planning for assets and then the end product that you're building is gonna be a plan to build a new outdoor covered facility, is that correct?

Not necessarily. I mean, it'll depend on what the priorities are of the community because that's really what this ends up doing is it goes out and goes into the community through surveys and through public engagements to set prioritizations if, you know, people want, say, a new track, or if people really want new ball fields, or if the top priority is a brand new state-of-the-art dog park, or, you know, whatever it might be. Most of the focus will be on outdoor facilities. I'm sure there'll be other things that come up, too, that, you know, covered, or indoor types of facilities might be something that people wanna see. None of these are things that are within a plan that could come forward. None of them are like, you must do. They're all suggestions. They're all like, these are the desires and the wishes. And it'll also, we'll be looking at what we already have and how to maintain that best. And then asking the community, what do we not have that you would like to see in the future?

And if that's what you mean by robust, they're gonna have the community and query everybody and see.

Yeah, and that's where staff lack the capacity to be able to go out and do all of this planning and create the surveys and really get a really good, high quality product out of it. Something that the community can trust, something that this body can trust as being a robust, long-term vision.

Yes, because we need a professional engineer to tell us triangle sand is expensive. We learned that quite extensively during the last budget period. So I don't really see the need to have a professional engineer do estimates. I mean, I've done estimates that turned into contracts and it was just fine with that bid package. It's actually not a great business case to have your your licensed engineers. putting together your initial numbers. But if that's the deluxe package that we're interested in, sure, I would vote yes, but in six months when the other fundraising resources had been exhausted. This seems like a really artificially fast timeline for me, especially when I haven't seen any outreach, and outreach is usually at the beginning and then then you analyze, and then you do the numbers, and to do all of that before January is just, I've never seen a master plan or a facility assessment move that fast, and in my past professional career, I did those. I did a lot of facility assessments and stuff, and this is, my vote tonight has nothing to do with not supporting recreation and not supporting Um, our, our department, um, I'm just not, I'm really trying to get to yes, but I haven't seen, um, or heard or read any information tonight that, that can get me, um, through my logical decision making process, uh, to, to that place. So, um, really wished, um, we, we could get there, uh, but I will be voting no on this.

Tor?

Real quick, a little bit to reiterate. I was saying earlier, I don't have a lot of heartburn how we got here as far, I mean, you know, the old, things get messy. I mean, the old song about laws and sausage, right? To me, the real question is, do we wanna try and have this master plan? And is it worth this money for us? And like I said, if we don't think it's a good use of money, that's fine. But how we got here, I know other people have different priorities than me, and that's fine. But I'm not pounding on the desk or anything in here, but I think it's probably a good idea to have good information allow us to make decisions going down the line. And something like this could be useful for a really long time. I mean, it's the last one. Probably don't want to wait another 30 years, but 15? Yeah? You know, it'll be useful. And so, and definitely five or 10. So again, I think it's a worthwhile project. And to me, that's the deciding factor for me. And again, I may have different priorities than other people, but to me, that's the real factor. So I'm gonna vote for this now. But like I say, I understand different opinions on this.

Well, I still got one more, Your Honor, and that's like, you know, like for when they built the ball fields on top of the fly ash, you know, and then now we hear that that, you know, is so waterproof that it's making the whole ball field like really suck. And like if our guys can't figure it out, can, you know, the professionals that are planning assets, would they, you know, would it help make the existing ball field not, you know, because I'm having a hard time looking at it with everything we got coming down, running out of money and everything.

Yeah, I mean, I think that would be, if that's one of the community goals is to get better turf out there, then I think my assumption is that they would incorporate that into the plan. I mean, that's what we've been told anyways, that we'll take community feedback, but I just don't know if that's, through the process, what would come out of it.

Thank you, Stephen. Mr. Mayor, I don't think it's going to change anything, but just, you know, fingers crossed. Hail Mary here. So I get what you're saying. I completely do. In my mind, basically the sooner the better. And again, Kevin kind of referenced this. When we were having a discussion regarding to put on the ballot the vote to change the hospital fund to athletic recreation, whatever the title was. There was a lot of discussion there about creating something new versus something old. And there was, in my mind, an agreement within the community, a kind of informal agreement that we were going to do And I'm not trying to lock anything. I'm just saying that there was kind of an understanding that we do need and it's desirous to have a master plan for athletics and recreation because then we can start planning and for the future for some of these long term goals. I completely get where you're coming from and I don't think that. Anybody here doesn't support everybody supports this stuff. I believe I just feel like this in my mind. It's the sooner the better to get going with this and I Said I completely understand with your misgivings. I totally get it But my mind I don't think this is gonna hurt us. I think this is gonna be a good thing Anything further from the assembly

Sarah?

All right. On the motion to approve ordinance 2026-17 on first reading, Ms. Carlson?

No.

Mr. Saleen? No. Mr. Moser?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbeis?

No.

Mr. Christensen? Yes. Okay, so the vote is 3-2, and first reading in our charter for an ordinance. This will proceed to second reading at the next meeting. The only way it wouldn't have is if there was four votes to kill it, and there was not. So it'll proceed to second reading on the 11th.

Thank you, Sarah, for that informational piece as well, so that the Assembly's aware of our process forward. It is the top of the hour, so we'll go ahead and take a recess. Assembly, please be seated when you are ready to continue. The Assembly is seated, so we will jump back into our agenda this evening. That would bring us to item F.

I move to approve ordinance 2026-18 on first reading, authorizing the lease of Block 4, Lot 1 of the Gary Paxson Industrial Park to Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Inc. Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve ordinance 26-18. John, you have an introduction?

I do. Thank you, Mayor. Hold on tight, everybody. I don't have finance here to help me out. And I don't have Gary White here to help me out tonight either. Both of them are unable to be here. But I also wasn't at the initial meeting, which was in April, I believe, where NSERA was looking to renew two leases that they had, one for lot two and one for lot three that were both set to expire in May of 26. Over time, those lots have been combined into, I think it's called block four, lot one now for the hatchery subdivision. It's the same footprint as those other two. uh combined and uh at the time they had proposed what had gone to the board and been recommended for approval was i believe it was 800 per month payment with an initial 10-year term and four successive uh 10-year options I can't remember if it was tabled, but it was essentially sent back to administration with not a whole lot of guidance, but given that that happened, I sat down with Ensorah and with Gary White again to look at the terms since the impression was we should should modify and look at some better terms. So received a letter from NSERA and their counter proposal was to change the monthly rent from 800 up to 1,000. And then on the 10 year renewals, the cap on the allowable rent increase went from 10% to 20%. All the other terms remain the same. So this is gonna equal a $12,000 annual payment and a question for the assembly and I'll try to clear this up now or I can wait until we're in the deliberation phase. A lot of the discussion that happened in April was that these below market rate leases are generally a subsidization and is the GPIP fund healthy enough to provide that subsidy knowing that the general fund might have to cover that subsidy at some point. In some options here, it seems like I'm asking you to choose one of three things, and I'm not necessarily asking you to do that. What I'm asking you to deny is either approve the lease, deny the lease, or if you want to further modify it, just give me some direction on what those modifications would look like. But on the fiscal note piece of it, to account for that subsidy, the cleanest way to do it would be the lease revenue goes to the general fund, that $12,000 per year, and then the general fund would give that $12,000 back to the GPIP enterprise fund. So you can account for what should have come in, but what did come in, and GPIP is still earning what they had agreed to in the lease agreement. Hopefully that's clear as mud, but I'm happy to answer any other questions when we get to that point. So the lease is here for your consideration. And the appropriation that is along with it is assuming that the terms are acceptable. If we have to modify it, we would put a substitute ordinance in if we were given direction from the assembly to replace this one.

Thank you for that introduction. Is there any public comment on Ordinance 26-18?

All right, good evening, Mayor and Assembly. Scott Wagner, General Manager for NSWRA. So I think John did a good job of covering kinda how we got to where we are. I will note that it was not table of the assembly, it failed at the assembly, and there was no good, I would say, direction or consensus on how we should proceed. So I did reach out to John and Gary and asked to sit down and come up with some potential modifications for reconsideration of the assembly and I think that the two that were noted, one is the initial monthly rent payment and that is a 42% increase over what we're currently paying for the combined two leases on both lots. And then the 10-year renewal, raising that from a 10 to a 20%, both of those have the ability to, the concern is with the Enterprise Fund, and both of those actions will help to bring more revenue to the Enterprise Fund than we are currently paying. So that's kind of why this is before you. And like John mentioned, if none of these are acceptable or needs more work, it'd be great to get more consensus and direction on how to resolve those outstanding issues. Thank you.

Good evening, Assembly, Mayor. My name's Chris Yestad, fisherman and NSERAB board member. So when I read this on the agenda, I kind of tried to put two hats on, obviously, as a fisherman. I'll start with that. The way NSERAB budgets work is, everything is paid for through cost recovery. And that is one or two boats go out, harvest the fish from Ensorah and sell it to the processors at their pre-bid price. But during that, us fishermen are not allowed into these facilities while this is going on. So these fish are not available to common property. So obviously as expenses go up, which this lease, is slightly going up but the market rate is substantially more the cost isn't necessarily to insura but to the hundreds of fishermen that are out there by losing opportunity within our areas just as an example for this opening on thursday i have zero access to insura fish because cost recovery is being performed at their facilities, or there is, we're waiting for brood stock to come in, but this Thursday, I have no opportunity to go after anything that NSERA produces. So it's a pretty big deal to me. Most of my season so far this year has been comprised of NSERA fish. So having an opportunity to go after anything NSERA produces is huge. And obviously leases are one of our big expenses. But on the other side, I tried to put on the, how can this be justified to you guys? And I was there at the last meeting, I heard the subsidization discussion and in the memo, and I was like, well, okay, how could I justify this to the taxpayers? And one way I see it is we offer a lot of, lower rates um you know we have property tax that isn't paid by some people um um geez losing my train of thought here looking at the time um but there there are other programs that we do that um One of the things is, yes, it could be viewed as a subsidization, but it's not saying that we're really losing anything with the market rate there. Because with that, we have empty lots in the Jeep Park right now. And are we subsidizing those because they aren't bringing in revenues? So, INSRA brings in a lot, and we may not get direct value to the city, but we get a lot of indirect value. And I got two seconds. So, well, I got a lot more, but that's all I got out. Thanks, guys.

Anyone else on 26-18? Assembly deliberation? Yeah.

I've been involved with this a little bit as a GPIP liaison, but more I'd like to go back to when we created the GPIP board, or the GPIP. I think it was called an enterprise fund because we didn't know what else to call it, honestly. And you could also argue it's more like CETA. It's more of an economic driver. And if you look at the leases they've done over the years, they reflect that. You know, Forrest of the Bear, the hall out for that matter. The idea has always been to, get things going and getting it done. And so I don't, and again, the idea was eventually GPIP goes away. I mean, the board at least, and it just becomes city property as we get it fully working, which we're a lot closer to now than we used to. So I don't have as much, I'm not too concerned about, okay, are we keeping that fund healthy because it's hopefully we eventually don't have that fund. I mean it's gone. And the goal of that whole enterprise, I think it was, I think we called it an enterprise fund more in the actual meaning of the word enterprise like you would a business uh it's an enterprise to get work enterprises going in sitka that's what the goal of the gpip is and it's not like the electric fund where it's in perpetuity um so uh i don't i think this is a better one i like the fact that we have a bit more ramp up for down the road uh but You know, there's a lot of economic activity. You can make the argument that NSERA produces more economic activity than other things we've done to try and make economic activity happen. Some of it's very clear, fish tax, but also sales tax from guys. I'm sure Chris, when he goes out, goes and buys groceries, you know, and that kind of thing for his crew and at LFS. So... I don't have a problem with this now. I understand it was a little bit of a shock. It seems very low, but also Chris brings up a good point that what are we going to do with that land anyway? And I don't, you know, yeah, we can hold them over a barrel, but do we want to? And I also, you know, if the GPIP fund gets truly out and they do need it, that's when they would come to us. But I don't want to do it until We need to because every time they lease a piece of land or they sell it, that's one less responsibility. And hopefully at the end of the day, we have a little ceremony where we disband the GPIP board.

I disagree with you on a lot of that. I can't wait for the GPIP board to go away. It's been a ball and chain on town. Silver Bay was $33 million in the black after the first year they opened up. Fortress of the Bears has been on a cakewalk forever, million dollar outfit, and the lease is out there, and then now with the town voting to haul out boats and GPIP holding out people, and the grid was just so overrun, people trying to get their boat ship shaped. Yeah, I'm gonna vote for it, but I can't wait for GPIP to go away.

Thank you, Stephen. I would say I agree with Tor on this one. I think, you know, I understand the argument about the fund, the enterprise fund, not making money. definitely agree about what tours discussion about it whereas it seems like it was just something we didn't know at the time i wasn't on here when we did it uh created that just because there was nothing else better but this is not the kind of thing where it was meant to be like the electric department warrior for a very long time and customers are paying for it. This is for the benefit of the entire community, even those who are not fishermen, because in my opinion, the benefit is exponential and probably very, very difficult to calculate. You know, you have sales tax. You know, the people who, the fishermen who make this money, they are paying taxes on the fish they catch. They're paying sales tax on anything that they buy for themselves or families for personal use or for their crews. The revenue that comes in to the city directly is a lot from that, and not to mention the multiplier effect from every dollar that the fishing community spends in town gets circulated all throughout the town. I understand it's an issue we're gonna have to deal with. The fact that the GPIP fund is not in the positive as far as their financials are concerned, but this is, I think we should be looking at more as this is an investment in our community and our economy. A lot of folks is talked about with tourism, but fishing is extremely important as well, and one of the legs of our community, and I think we should support it. Thank you. JJ?

John, I have a question or two for you. Maybe, maybe Scott, if he can chime in. How many agreements or ballpark does the city have with answer for leases? Is it like less than five more than five?

If this is approved, it should. It's just to write Scott, the Medici and then this one.

Yes, Scott, please come forward if you have something to add.

And a Tidelands lease, right?

Yeah, so we have Uplands and Tidelands. So there's multiple parcels of Tidelands and Uplands, Medavigi, Sawmill are the two primary. But there's multiple Tidelands as well related to those operations.

And is this lease kind of similar enough to help you administratively manage all of your leases, or is this an out-of-the-ballpark one?

Out-of-the-ballpark in what context?

You know, we're looking at this from the city's perspective of minimal management over time. I didn't want to kind of just check in with you guys to see how you'd be able to administer this over the course of the initial term and then the subsequent four terms.

Yeah, I mean, the previous lot was lot three at Sawmill. That was a 10-year. We had to come renegotiate every 10 years with the assembly, so this basically takes it out of that park unless there's an issue with the lease or terms that somebody has to deal with, but no, it's more an automated process.

So more of a like exchange to an existing lease, so it wouldn't be cumbersome for you guys. Okay, thank you. So thank you for that. I appreciate it, John. My comments are we do quite a bit to streamline things and help us out, and then we kind of have these ones that just don't kind of fit a mold. But we've started that this fiscal year, like a lease management program, so it's nice to see that that's happening and we can come to some consistencies with that. And the terms, I'm going to say thank you to the groups for being solution-oriented with this without, you know, very prescriptive guidance from the Assembly. I think the updates to this did take the spirit of the conversation from the Assembly well and put it into the words. So I'm, you know, not trying to get too far out of you know, the future of GPIP. But I think if when we do move towards kind of eliminating that from our structure, something at least like this could could work well for whatever fund enterprise or not administers that land. John was that part of the thinking behind how this lease came to be for these updates?

Kind of. Yeah, I've talked to you all about this before. I've started working on that report on GPIP as a whole, what the status is, what lots are still there, what they're being leased at, or if they've been sold, what's still remaining, and then have they substantially completed their tasking from the authorizing ordinance that set them up. So it is nice to have a clean break from Tidelands leases versus Uplands leases. We've got a dock out there that is more of a harbor type structure. So I think, yes, this is built in a way that they'll be able to manage the two different ones, the Tidelands one versus Uplands, wherever that ends up landing, depending on the future of GPIP.

Great, thank you. I didn't want to get too far into a discussion direction on the future of GPIP, but it is important to note that as a potential that would happen within the term of this lease. So it is a consideration, and I appreciate that scoping that's been done and foresight there. So I think this meets my criteria, and I appreciate everyone for going along the ride.

So I believe I intend to vote in favor of this, but I do, the pros and cons have always been very important to me, so I just wanna talk through a couple things. And Scott, I'm gonna ask you this question only because I believe that this is a public figure I don't believe that it's a number that is hidden. If that's the case, please don't answer the question, but I'm just curious what the cost of operations annually are at that particular hatchery. And if that's not a public figure, please let me know, but I thought it was, I just don't remember what that number is.

well it is i can't remember the exact figure off the top of my head but um it's i would say it's in flux because our current building has existed since the late 2000s primarily as chum and coho we're currently building a new chinook facility that is not operating yet but hopefully will be next year and that is going to substantially increase our operating costs but those have not been part of our that we budgeted this current fiscal year for FY27, I would have to guesstimate, I could pull up on my phone if you really need a hard number, but it's probably, I'd say close to a million dollars.

A million dollars is great. I had thought it was 1.2 that I had heard at one point, but it sounds like that could have been when I heard the number, so I thank you for that.

Okay.

And the reason I ask that is because I'm running a whole bunch of numbers here, and numbers can be construed one way or another. When you hear that the Assembly is increasing NSERA's lease by 42% a month, well, damn. That's 300 bucks, right? It was the same argument when the Assembly had a pay increase of a couple hundred bucks a month, and that was a 50% pay increase, right? So when you look at a million dollars annually, the amount being asked for subsidization is about $30,000, $12,000 a year versus about 41,000 annually at market rate, so $30,000. I believe Chris Yestad, who spoke earlier, a prolific fisherman, if he was alone in an area with no other competition, $30,000 could probably be a couple sets. We're not looking at massive amounts of money here that the organization could not absorb. This is not something that is going to stop Insura, stop the production. However, this is a community good. Right, I think everybody here has spoke to that. I think everybody here has established that. I heard something that just made me jump for joy, a new king salmon production facility. Great, let's give them the land for free at that point, right? No more chums, lots of king salmon. But I also know king salmon are expensive to produce, right? So just wanna throw that out there as, The numbers aren't substantial in anybody's budget necessarily. NSERA could absorb it, we could absorb it. This is a community good, I think. If NSERA wanted, they could pack the room full of people asking us to give them a subsidized rate. But I just wanna remember that this is a subsidized rate, that we are, Working in conjunction with answer on this as we have in the past and will continue to do going forward so that I hope that our spirit of negotiations as we go forward will always continue to to reflect that mindset right want to maintain a good partnership here, although with all these renewals. Scott, I don't think it'll be you or me the next time we have to sit down and do this again, which is also ideal, right? There's a lot more that he could be doing this evening than sitting here having to ask for a lease, really, whether it's subsidized or not. All that being said, again, I think I'll vote in favor of this, but it's the yin and the yang of it all. Further comments from the Assembly? Sarah?

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-18 on first reading, Mr. Moser? Yes. Mayor Eisenbeis?

Yes.

Mr. Salin? Yes. Ms. Carlson? Yes. And Mr. Christensen? Yes.

The motion passes 5-0, first reading on item F. Now Scott can go do all those better things that he has to go do this evening. Unless you really want to stay, you are excused. I mean, yeah. Item G, please. Additional new business items.

I move to approve Resolution 2026-06 on first and final reading authorizing the municipal administrator to execute a legal services contract with David Grossman and Associates. PLLC for contingency bias, civil, legal claims, harm, and protected damages from contamination, microplastics, including tobacco product waste, PFAS, and 1,4-Dioxane.

Second.

I'm really glad that I just get to say Resolution 26-06, but is there any... Rachel, you have an introduction for us on this one.

do thank you mayor um so this came out of the last aml conference in december there were law firms there presenting on this issue which is a nationwide settlement so kind of getting the big picture for what that is um these the the one that has been settled is is the pfas at their per and polyfluoroalkyls known as forever chemicals. So they are chemicals that don't go away. They're in everybody. It's like 99.5% of people have them in their bodies. And the way our system deals with harms that large is by making those companies pay money back to the harmed. entities or people so the lawsuit that we would be joining is a it's actually a settlement so we wouldn't be joining a litigation class we would be joining a settlement class against its dupont 3m other manufacturers of these pfas forever chemicals they're they're in like everything they're in sting resistance of water resistance of firefighting chemicals that was my question

Is this the firefighting foam?

Yes, it's the firefighting foam. And so what happens when you join the settlement class is the law firm sends somebody out to do testing to find out if you actually have those chemicals. And if you reach certain levels, then you're a member of the settlement class. and are entitled to some of the funds from that settlement. The settlement for the PFAS is in the teens of billions, and it's specifically for municipal and public water systems. There will be other settlements negotiated for the microplastics. The tobacco waste products are like cigarette butts. And then the dioxane, those have not reached a number yet, but this would put us in a position where if the testing comes back positive, we can be one of the municipalities in the settlement class that can then receive those funds. There's no cost to the municipality. Um, these law firms are operating on contingency. So, you know, whatever, whatever proportion of that settlement that we become entitled to, if we have these chemicals in our testing, the law firm takes their 33%, the rest comes back to the municipality. and there's no strings on how that money is spent. The idea is that it's for remediation or replacing the equipment or chemicals that we have with things that don't contain these chemicals, but it would just go into the general fund.

Thank you, Rachel. I'll add on this introduction that myself and John were also present. I can be a resource as well, because I spoke with some representatives as we go forward. Public comment on resolution 26-06. Assembly deliberation. Scotty.

Rachel, is it dioxin? Because it didn't say that on there. And I'm just curious, is that going to be for Blue Lake? That if we tested a little bit differently before the water was filtered, we'd have dioxin in our drinking water. Is that what I'm reading here?

The current settlement class is for the PFAS. Specifically, that's what the settlement has been reached on and the dioxin negotiations are ongoing. But in theory, yes. Once a number is reached there for that settlement, then there would be another round of testing to see if we test into that settlement class as well.

So going from a Superfund site to a DEC state-run drinking water and we have a waiver for... you know, turbidity in Blue Lake, this is specifically, if dioxin comes up in our water, 33% goes to the lawyers that we're joining right now, and then the borough- Gets the rest. Pardon me?

Yeah, it would be 33% in fees, and then the remainder goes to the borough.

Thank you. Kevin? Rachel, This sounds to me a lot like, I think it's fine to do it. It doesn't cost us anything. It sounds like one of those things where a company, other class action lawsuits in the country where, say, your ID was compromised or something with something like Blue Cross or something, and then they send you a $10 check after it's all said and done because there's just so many people. Do you anticipate us actually getting any real monetary value?

This particular settlement is for municipal systems in particular. So individuals who are harmed, who have say downstream cancers from these chemicals, there's a separate litigation going on for those individuals that may or may not PRODUCE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNTS TO THEIR HARM, BUT THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR MUNICIPALITIES, SO THE SIZE OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS IS LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF WATER SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES, WHICH I THINK IS IN THE THOUSANDS, MAYBE 10,000 AT THE MOST. SO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THE 400 MILLION AMERICANS WHO HAVE THIS IN THEIR BLOODSTREAM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION AGAIN. As I understand it, one of the risks of joining a class action like this is that we essentially hold the producers harmless if we accept it. And correct me, so... Sorry, I read King of Torts. To me, a little bit of the risk is if we... test positive for this and we're gonna be giving up our right to sue individually, correct?

Yes.

And my concern is that the, you know, obviously the companies are trying to make this go away and I could see a scenario where we accept it and yet all of a sudden our costs are significantly more than the settlement and we're gonna be on the hook for that. And so my little bit concern is that we will be giving up our right to sue for actual damages down the road that may be greatly and higher than the amount of the settlement we get.

That is a legitimate concern because you are giving up the right to sue individually. The flip side is that in an individual suit, you need to prove both the extent of your harm and causation. And by opting into a settlement class, we do not have to prove the amount of harm or that these chemicals or this particular manufacturer caused cause those chemicals to be present.

Rachel I'm so sorry but you know my square head mind I just saw the Japanese the mill caused our dioxin in the lake from the mill and but whoever these companies are making all the PFAS they're liable for the acid rain from the digesters that went back into the lake now years later and if we test positive for dioxin this is good for getting some compensation from the initial mill

This is the producers of those chemicals paying into a settlement for alleged harm caused by those chemicals. So the intermediaries, how it got from the producer to the municipality, we don't have to prove that. That's the benefit of it being a settlement class as opposed to what Mr. Christensen was asking about suing them individually. If we were suing them, the borough against DuPont, we would have to prove that causation. You sold it to the mill, the mill got it into the lake, all of those steps. but because the settlement class has already been settled and the agreement is that if you test positive, you qualify, we don't have to prove any of that causation. We just need to get the testing done. And if we meet the threshold levels, then we're eligible for the settlement without having to prove any of those intermediary steps.

The reason I'm focusing in on this is I have all the paperwork from when the mill was sued and the city was sued by the EPA and the, You know, the waiver that we have for a landslide that goes into that lake with the turbidity, and the turbidity makes the dioxin come off the bottom of the lake, and the EPA only tests filtered water. They don't test the water that's going into our filter. Our filter takes the dioxin out of the water, and they test it on the other side. I got the paper, so I'm like, I'm just, I'm blown away on how this.

Yes, it's not the EPA doing the testing. The attorneys will come here and work with our water folks to do the testing.

because I actually have the paperwork where the EPA was supposed to use trout traps to handle a two to three year old trout and all the traps were minnow traps that gave the results to transfer the Superfund to the DEC of the state when it all switched.

So admittedly, when we first heard about this, I was extremely skeptical. I think we've known about it for a little bit and didn't necessarily want to go down this and give a law firm a third of our settlement. But representatives through AML, I've had a lot of really good conversations with. I met one of the partners of this law firm, and one of the nice things about this, so there is a, and I don't have the website anymore, I apologize for that, but there is a list out there of sites that are presumed contaminated and sites that are not presumed to have. We are on the list of presumed contaminated sites. So there are others, Kevin, kind of part of your question, there are others that are not, they may not have. I was encouraged to hear that part of this settlement, as we proved, the amount of damages could be used to pay back previous things, so our secondary water treatment plant could be completely reimbursed from this settlement should it go down that way. AML, believes enough in this law firm, whether who approached who, I don't know, but they have facilitated discussions at AML with this law firm and have, I wouldn't say pushed participation, but have encouraged participation from these municipalities. Are there unforeseen consequences potentially? But Rachel was here and has talked a lot more intelligently about this than I have tonight. I have faith that she's gone through it and understands the high sides and low sides of it. So at this point, knowing that we are on a presumed list, I feel like I have to take some sort of action. And even if that action is we get some settlement, we install better filters, we clean up our water. Having been a firefighter, I know that PFAS foam was sprayed all over the airport site multiple times. Whether that has anything to do with the water Now, I don't know, but everybody from Gus Davis is more than happy to get on this because they sprayed PFAS foam at their airport and now all of their groundwater is contaminated. So I think at this point it is a good thing to do. If nothing else, just so that we know and if it comes back negative, that's even better. But I think we'll be part of this and we'll see what the next steps are.

If there's any information we have on the existing waiver and if some sort of contamination would void our waiver, that would be very valuable to share at this time. I can just speculate on the amount of money we might receive, but that waiver is critical for for our minimal system.

Rachel, I'm looking at this again and it's spelt different. I thought it was just that thing of enunciating or putting in print and dioxin is what we got and this dioxane, that's gonna be a different thing. So everything I said was nothing.

There will be testing regardless though.

Kevin? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Stephen. I'm going to vote yes based on some of those comments and just for what I thought in the beginning. But it just occurred to me that we're talking about all this, and I'm assuming everyone here is assuming. I know I am assuming that our drinking water is safe, but John, just so for the record, is our drinking water safe?

for people when this gets reported yes absolutely i mean second best drinking water in the nation a few years ago but um yes we do we do regular testing for a lot of these chemicals and when we filled out the paperwork for the original agreement there was a section in there it's do you do testing have you found anything uh and the answer was no we haven't so i just said that more just for the public with me you know what's talked about in the press thank you

Anything further? Sarah?

All right, on the motion to approve resolution 2026-06 on first and final reading, Mr. Mosier?

Yes.

Mr. Christensen?

Yes.

Mr. Salin? Yes. Mayor Eisenbeis?

Yes.

And Ms. Carlson? Yes. Motion passes 5-0. First and final reading on item G.

Thank you, that'll bring us to item H. Item H tonight is appointing an individual to fill Tim Pike's vacated seat. The clerk's office did receive two applications, Jeremy Plank and Chris Yestad, to serve for the remainder of Tim's term, which would be August or October 6th, and then through the regular, or when the election results are certified on October 13th. So at this point, we do need to go through a process to nominate both of them to serve as the assembly member for the remainder of his term, and then we can take a, I'm comfortable taking an open vote on this one, but we can do secret vote if it is desired of the assembly. Sorry, I realized I turned away from my microphone and might not have been heard as well as I should have been. This process is in code and has been followed multiple times in order to fill vacant assembly seats. So this is a standard procedure that we are following tonight based off of the two applications that were received. So unless there's any questions at this point, if we could have nominations, please.

I nominate Jeremy Plank and Chris Yesdad to serve as an assembly member for the remainder of Tim Pike's term until October 6, 2026. Regular election results are certified on October 13, 2026. Second.

All right, we have two nominations. Does the assembly want to deliberate on either of these applicants? Kevin.

I don't necessarily want to Like, I just wanted to make a comment. I guess that is deliberation. I just wanted to thank both people for putting your names in to serve. It's a big deal, even if it's only for a couple months, and I very much appreciate that. So, Mr. Mayor, is this where we just say who we want to vote on, or we just?

We'll go to that in just a second when Sarah's ready to. Okay, roger that. Can we ask him questions? Yes, if they'd like to answer questions, you're welcome to call them up.

Like if GPIP finally, you know, if the decision comes to the Assembly to haul out our boats like the will of the people, are you gonna say haul out like Wrangell and Hoonah or are you gonna have our guys go to Wrangell and Hoonah because of the insurance? Sky is falling.

And I'm assuming that question's gonna be for both Jeremy and Chris. If you're willing to answer the question, please come forward under no obligation.

Do you need my name or anything, for the record? Just once, please. Chris, yes, Ed. yeah it's i would say that is something that's on my unfinished business is trying to get it so our uninsured vessels can get hauled out i know when i was serving on gpip and then assembly all vessels has been my goal so yeah that's going to be something i'll definitely push for in the three months that i would be serving

Jeremy Plank. I kind of agree with Chris. I think opening up the hall out so people can get in and reviewing those insurance requirements. As you guys may know, I'm part of Allen Marine, and Allen Marine, we haul a lot of different people, and we have our own different insurance requirements and stuff like that. So I think that there's definitely potentially a path that could be made through some of the insurance requirements to make sure that our goals of keeping the city and Highmark protected, but also opening things up for the different uh people that need to haul out services and expanding that because i think that's also economic diversification which is another thing i think is really important for the city as well do we have questions for either of our applicants while they're in front of us jj can you give just a paragraph or so um about why you'd like to be an assembly member for three months

I guess that means Jeremy's gotta go first this time, because Chris did last.

I can go first. You know, I've been serving for the last couple of years through the Tourism Task Force and the Tourism Commission. I've been advocating a lot for the community. I work in a lot of different circles where I see the importance of the issues that the city is presented with, whether it's housing, whether it's economic. I have felt the pull to come and serve on the city assembly and try to help use the experience and background that I have to make this a good place for everybody that lives here. And that's really my goal is to make sure that Sika stays what it is for people's enjoyment to live in. And so this was an opportunity obviously to come and get a little bit of experience without having to go in for a full term. So I thought it was an interesting idea to test it for a few months. I'm not saying I'm going to run in the fall, and I'm not saying I'm not going to run in the fall, but it's an opportunity to see what that looks like.

I guess, for me, it was as soon as I heard that Mr. Pike was gonna be stepping down, I instantly just went, I'd be willing to fill that seat. A lot of it was, it would be an honor to fulfill his term, I guess. I respected him a lot up here, and... I don't know, it was just an instant call to me that I would at least put my name in and see where it goes from there. Even though I've stepped away and have been enjoying myself away from it, I still wanna serve the community. It's a community I care for very much, and I do have some unfinished items that I would like to see across the finish line, but at least help get there if it doesn't happen within these three months. My time away, I've also thought of a few other things that I'd like to try to address. Three months is a tight timeline, probably, but maybe it can at least get the ball rolling and the discussion started. Yeah, if I could bring value over the next three months, great. If the assembly wants to go another direction, that's perfectly fine with me as well. I don't think you could go wrong with other candidates sitting next to me either, so.

Anything else for either of the applicants? I thank you both for being willing to speak to the assembly. I guess I'll just throw out my thought process tonight. I find that I could probably work with either one of those individuals. The reason I'm going to vote for Chris this evening is that there is no learning curve. And in a very short amount of time, I think we need someone who's up to speed. But more importantly, Jeremy is the chair of the Tourism Commission, a very active, and the Tourism Commission continues to do a lot of good work. We need that commission, we continue to task them, and they operate at a very high level. And at this point in time, Jeremy's role as chair there is more important to me to keep him there than it is to have him sit on the assembly. As he indicated, October may change that. I don't know. But for my purposes, I find his operation and running of the Tourism Commission to be extremely valuable and I think that we would be benefited the most by keeping him in that role and then having Chris serve out the remainder of the term.

I would just second what you said. I don't want Jeremy to think that it's because of anything. I think you're not qualified or anything. Chris just has the experience and I was really thrilled to hear him say that he was interested in helping resolve the haul out issue with the insurance. I know that's just one thing, but so it's only for a short period of time. Chris has the experience on the assembly and that's why I'm choosing him.

Anything further before we go into voting? Anybody require a secret ballot? Great, Sarah, on voting for candidates, please.

All right, so I will call your name, and then if you can state the individual that you would like to vote for, and then we will need a majority vote for someone to be appointed. All right, so Mr. Saleen. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Carlson.

Chris.

Mr. Christensen.

Chris.

Mr. Moser.

Chris.

And Mayor Eisenbeis.

Chris.

All right. Mr. Jelstad is appointed to serve the remainder of Mr. Pike's term. And Chris, if you'd like to come forward, we'll have you take your oath. Yes.

You think that's bad? I have to sit next to you.

Do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the laws and ordinances of the city and borough of Sitka and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as an assembly member for the city and borough of Sitka to the best of my ability.

Excuse me, sir, the table is this way. Thank you to both the candidates for putting your names in. Appreciate anybody being willing to serve on the assembly. And really appreciate having a full assembly again that we can continue to charge forward. Speaking of charging forward, as Tim Pike was our deputy mayor, we do now have to appoint a deputy mayor. It was my assumption and intent that our vice deputy simply rolled up to deputy. However, that's not in code. So maybe change code later, but tonight, I would suggest that our Vice Deputy Mayor just simply rolls up. That does need to be voted on by the body. So if anyone has a nomination at this point for Deputy Mayor.

I nominate JJ Carlson for Deputy Mayor.

Second. No, you don't need to accept. Any other nominations? Okay, with only one person being nominated, congratulations, JJ. You have ascended the ladder to Deputy Mayor. Appreciate you and your service filling in for me previously. I guess I should have told you before you accepted that. I already have multiple scheduled absences. Correct, so you will be most likely leading some meetings in my absence. Now we do have a Vice Deputy Mayor seat open, so it'll open up for nominations for Vice Deputy Mayor.

I nominate Chris Gerstad. You've been here for three years, man.

I nominate Tor Christensen.

I'll second that.

Hey now, no funny business. Any other nominations for Vice Deputy Mayor? Seeing none, we will go to a vote on this one. Does anybody require a secret ballot? Sarah, for Vice Deputy Mayor.

Mr. Saleen.

Chris.

Ms. Carlson? Chris. Mr. Yesdad?

Tor.

Mr. Christensen?

Chris.

Mr. Mosher?

Tor.

Mayor Eisenbeis?

Chris.

All right. Mr. Yestad, you are vice deputy mayor.

I expect a little more enthusiasm next time. As JJ may be gone as well. JJ, shall we go somewhere at the same time?

Hey, you know what I'm doing all summer long.

Okay, following up with that one, Tim did hold several liaison assignments. The easy way is for us to just ominous-dominous and make Mr. Ystad do all of those ones. However, I don't think that's very fair. So we do have a sheet in front of us with some vacancies that has been created by Mr. Pike's absence. So I'll just start from the top and work our way down and we can discuss who may be able to fill those particular time slots and boards, committees, commissions, starting with library. This would be an alternate seat.

I am actually okay with just taking over Tim's seats if that just makes it easier.

Unless people want to shift. Is there anyone opposed?

Not at all. Go fast.

Yeah. Sweet, because I thought I was going to have to be Maine for police and fire, so. Dora?

Yeah, I was looking at this earlier, and I was going to suggest that I take police and fire and give GPIP to Chris.

Thursdays are a fishing day for me, so I can't hit the meetings during basically the summer.

Because I wound up, GPIP is all I have. And so that's why I was thinking I could take something off your plate if you wanted me to. But that just looked like a... easy one to if you want to do the same thing for sustainability last year well sustainability oh you can't do it never mind never mind yeah yeah no that's kind of yeah the thursdays are fishing so i would miss all the summer meetings so

Along that same lines, when we had Tim as the alternate liaison to Sitka Tribe of Alaska, it was done that way so that the mayor was the primary and the deputy was the alternate. JJ, are you okay jumping in on that one as the alternate?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing.

Great, thank you. That way we have leadership talking to leadership on GPIP there, or not GPIP, I'm sorry, Sitka Tribe of Alaska. Anything else with assignments, reassignments? Great, Chris, thank you for making that easy for us all. I appreciate your newly appointed service already. And that will move us on, Sarah, unless we had anything else that I missed on that one? Okay, gotta double check with you to make sure we're on track. Sounds like we are. That would bring us to persons to be heard. This is public participation for any item on or off tonight's agenda, not to exceed three minutes for any individual. Everybody's jumping at once, so we will move on to reports. If I have to think that hard, I guess I don't have a report for this period. It's been slow mayoral-wise, but busy everything else. Do have a couple conferences coming up here soon that John will be attending along with myself. So yeah, thank you. John.

Thanks, Mayor. One quick item. I had emailed the Assembly about it yesterday. We did receive a $4.5 million grant. I can't remember the name of it. It's an FY27 grant. legislative discretionary grant, I believe is what it's called, but essentially it was CPV funding from the state that was divvied up to multiple communities. And receiving that letter yesterday from DCCED, we have a 30-day timeline to... basically pick a project and provide a loose scope to start the clock for the five-year money. So given there are some differing opinions, the plan is on the Assembly's July 28th meeting, we will have a discussion direction decision item on where to focus that $4.5 million for a project and then try to get something scoped and to the state by the deadline.

Thank you. Rachel, attorney's report.

Thank you, Mayor. I think it came up earlier in the meeting that lease management software is moving forward. Mindy's been working on the purchase order for that, and she's also been doing some training with the software company, some representatives from them so that we are informed when writing the job description. And then we'll be working with HR to start that hiring process. I'll be on vacation July 27th to August 16th, but I'll have my computer be keeping things moving along, including that lease management rollout and ramp up. And then the recodification project as well will be coming along with me, trying to get all 380 or so of those projects. answered and assigned to folks so that feedback that we need from department heads will be assigned to them as summer is winding down. But yeah, just keeping everything moving.

Thank you. Liaison representatives. Kevin.

Hi, Mr. Mayor, so today I attended the parks and rec, the monthly parks and rec committee meeting. They only had two agenda items, I mean one agenda item, there was gonna be two, but one of the presenters was not available, so they couldn't go forward with this one, but this was a continuation of the discussion of the dog leash issue that is of concern to many people in the community. that is, in this specific case, talking about the Kikushihin field and the Volandry field, Volandry being the one right next to Blatchley Middle School, and the Keet one being adjacent to Keet-Gushihin Elementary School. They decided and voted, and there was a lot of discussion at the last meeting where they talked about enforcement and that's an issue, but they ultimately decided to make, I can't speak tonight, make a recommendation to create this, change it so that those two fields are off their, sorry, the dog leash, they cannot have their dogs without a leash during the periods, or they can have their dogs without a leash on those fields other than the period of March 15th to June 30th because of the seasonal sports that go on. There was one person in the community who stated she was a responsible dog owner and that she felt that that wasn't going to be enough that people are still gonna do what they're gonna do, and the members addressed it and recognize that that's true, it's hard to do that, but the first step is to create a rule in the first place. So, thank you.

Chris, you got a report?

No, nothing from me.

No, noted. Clerk's report.

All right, so we have a number of vacancies on boards and commissions. Let's see, we have the Health Needs and Human Services, Investment Committee, Library Commission, Parks and Rec, Police and Fire, and Tree and Landscape. So if folks are interested, they can stop by our office and we'll get them set up with an application. And then I also wanted to remind folks that we have the following vacancies that are to be filled through the October 6th election. One mayoral seat, two assembly member seats, and then three school board member seats. The candidate filing begins on Monday, and it runs through August 7th. And that does need to be... their paper packets that need to be picked up from our office and then returned to our office by 5 p.m. on August 7th. So if folks are interested, they can contact us and we'll answer any questions that we can ahead of time.

Thank you. Any other reports this evening? JJ?

The walking advocacy group I'm a member of will be working with outer coast students over the coming weeks to paint at least one crosswalk on Lincoln Street. So they've had several updates over the course of, you know, this project. And there was six finalists from our community showcase last month. And we're looking forward to, you know, getting those added to our asphalt here in the coming weeks. So if you do see some public works people directing traffic with some students in the road, please be extra careful. They are doing a community project for crosswalk safety. Thank you.

Alright, that would bring us to our executive session this evening.

Are you looking for a motion? Okay. I move to go into executive session to review the application submitted for the municipal administrator position under the statutory category of discussing subjects that may tend to prejudice the reputation and character of an individual and invite in Assistant Municipal Administrator Joshua Branthover. In addition, I move to exclude the municipal administrator and municipal attorney.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to enter Executive Session. Is there any public comment on entering Executive Session? Sarah?

All right, on the motion to go into Executive Session, Mayor Eisenbeiss?

Yes.

Mr. Christensen? Yes. Mr. Moser?

Yes.

Mr. Selene? Yes. Ms. Carlson? Yes. And Mr. Yesdad?

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0, and we'll be meeting in room 4, just down the hall.

Thank you. Assembly, take a break on your way, please, as it's been over an hour.

Can you start it?

I was worried it was going to do that thing again. When I heard it start coming in, I just started it.

Motion to reconvene. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. We are reconvened as the assembly in regular session. So the assembly met in executive session to discuss municipal administrator applicants. At this point we have narrowed down our focus to a singular applicant. by the name of Jenny Alber. She was interviewed multiple times by this body in public sessions. We've gone through a continued search process to see if there were additional applicants that would rise out, and there has been none. So at this point, the Assembly is interested in inviting Jenny Alber up to Sitka. in order to do a community meet and greet and such as we have typically done with our administrator candidates. So we will, if a motion passes, we will be working with her in order to get her up here so that we can have, it sounds like a couple meet and greet sessions at multiple locations trying to reach a large segment of the community. And then we'll have, if some dates work out, some anticipated dates, an assembly meeting right afterwards in which she could sit through. If there's a motion, and then we can, if anyone wants to discuss the application as well.

I move to extend an invitation to Jenny Albert to come up to Sitka for a meet and greet and to meet our community to be determined at a mutual time by our HR coordinator, but as soon as possible.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to invite municipal administrator applicant Jenny Alber to Sitka for a community meet and greet. Is there any public comment? Any assembly discussion?

No, other than I'm excited to bring her up as soon as we can and have the community meet her as well as us to be able to meet her in person.

the only thing i would add to my statements at this point jenny is considered a finalist while it is not mandatory in years past after meet and greets the assembly has offered employment to candidates so that is a potential outcome after this meet and greet so the The assembly has narrowed our focus and is at this point a one-track search for our next administrator. Anything else?