2026-11-02 - Assembly Committee of the Whole Worksession

00:00We will bring the Assembly Committee of

00:01Whole to order for November November

00:032nd, 2026.

00:06Um

00:07Ms. Akersin, would you say the land

00:09acknowledgement, please?

00:10>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. We would like to

00:12acknowledge that the City and Borough of

00:13Juneau is on Tlingit land and wish to

00:15honor the indigenous people of this

00:16land. For more than 10,000 years, Alaska

00:18Native people have been and continue to

00:20be integral to the well-being of our

00:22community. We are grateful to be in this

00:23place, a part of this community, and to

00:25honor the culture, traditions, and

00:27resilient Tlingit people. Gunalchéesh.

00:31>> Thank you, Ms. Akersin. Uh Madam Clerk,

00:33will you call roll of the Assembly and

00:36then roll of the Airport Board?

00:38>> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

00:39Deputy Mayor Smith?

00:41>> Here.

00:43>> Mr. Kelly?

00:45>> Here.

00:47>> Ms. Akersin?

00:48>> Here.

00:49>> Mr. Steininger?

00:51>> Here.

00:51>> Ms. Hall?

00:52>> Here.

00:53>> Mr. Brooks?

00:55>> Here.

00:56>> Ms. Cosgrove?

00:57>> Here.

00:58>> Ms. Neven?

00:59>> Here.

01:01>> Madam Mayor?

01:02>> Here.

01:07>> Ms. Sutiye?

01:08>> Here.

01:09>> Mr. Epstein?

01:11>> Here.

01:13>> Ms. Roddel?

01:20Ms. Roddel?

01:27Mr. Williams?

01:30>> Here.

01:31>> Mr. Nusel?

01:33>> Here.

01:34>> Mr. Kessler?

01:35>> Here.

01:36>> Mr. Gotkin?

01:38>> Present.

01:41>> And I am looking one more time for Ms.

01:43Roddel.

01:47We have Ms. Roddel in attendance. I'm

01:48just going to bring her over. We have

01:50quorum for both boards.

01:53>> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Um seeing no

01:55changes to the agenda, we will consider

01:57the agenda approved.

02:00Um approval of minutes, Mr. Kelly.

02:09>> I move that we approve the minutes for

02:12the September 21st, 2026 Committee of

02:15the Whole. And ask for unanimous

02:17consent.

02:18>> Any objections?

02:20Seeing none, that motion is approved.

02:23Next, we will go to our agenda topics

02:24and we'll start with the joint meeting

02:26with the Juno International Airport

02:28Board. And we'll start forward with

02:30introductions, so um

02:34Do you want to start?

02:36Let me introduce you to him.

02:37>> My name is Eva Soutiere, or E. Soutiere.

02:40>> Madam Mayor.

02:40>> Sorry. Sorry. Apologize.

02:45We have a special order.

02:47>> [laughter]

02:49>> Ms. Hall.

02:52>> Thank you, and I would like to invite

02:53Linda Krueger from

02:55the Juno chapter of AARP up for this.

02:59Can I get you to hold this?

03:00>> Absolutely.

03:01>> Okay.

03:02We have a proclamation for National

03:04Family Caregiver Month, which is

03:06November 2026.

03:08Whereas the City and Borough of Juno

03:10recognizes the many family caregivers

03:13across our community who are helping

03:15older parents, spouses, and other loved

03:18ones live independently in their homes

03:20and in their communities.

03:22And whereas millions of Americans,

03:24including countless individuals and

03:26families in our community,

03:29provide unpaid care and assistance to

03:31loved ones each year, giving significant

03:34significant time, effort, and personal

03:37resources to meet their needs. And

03:39whereas the contributions of family

03:41caregivers help sustain families,

03:44strengthen our communities, and

03:46alleviate demands on the long-term care

03:48system, providing substantial benefits

03:51to our state and its taxpayers. And

03:54whereas caregiving responsibilities

03:57often place significant financial,

03:59emotional, and physical demands on

04:02individuals who may assist loved ones

04:05with daily activities, medication

04:07management, transportation, and medical

04:10tasks, frequently with little or no

04:12formal training.

04:14And whereas many family caregivers incur

04:17out of substantial out-of-pocket

04:19expenses to meet their loved ones'

04:21needs, while others must reduce their

04:23work hours or leave the workforce

04:25entirely to provide care.

04:28And whereas family caregivers deserve

04:30our gratitude, recognition, and support

04:33that help ease the financial and

04:35personal burdens of caregiving.

04:38And whereas caregiving touches families

04:40throughout our community, whether

04:42through providing care, supporting a

04:44caregiver, or relying on a caregiver

04:47ourselves in the future.

04:49Now, therefore, I, on behalf of Mayor

04:52Beth Weldon, Mayor of the City and

04:55Borough of Juneau, on behalf of the City

04:57and Borough Juneau Assembly, do hereby

05:00proclaim November 2026

05:02as National Caregiver Family Caregivers

05:05Month.

05:07And um with that, I will ask uh

05:10>> I got it. Yeah. Yeah, thank you so much.

05:12I'm pleased to accept this um

05:14proclamation on behalf of Juneau AARP

05:17um Community Action Team and the Juneau

05:19Commission on Aging um and caregivers

05:22across the city. Um caregivers in Juneau

05:25are caring for parents, spouses,

05:27partners, special needs children, and

05:29grandchildren. Um thank you again. Um

05:33thank you for Miss Hall. That was quite

05:35a proclamation to be read, and this was

05:37practice. She'll read it again Wednesday

05:39morning to open our um AARP Caregivers

05:43Partners Summit and Resource Fair at

05:46Centennial Hall. And so anyone who's

05:48interested will be down there all day

05:50with a number of different speakers and

05:51caregivers from across sent caregivers

05:54and and seniors from across this the

05:56city, the community.

05:58Um uh I'd like to Well, I have the

06:00floor, I'd also like to take a minute to

06:02thank Mr. Kelly and um and Miss Hall for

06:05their leadership as assembly liaisons to

06:08the community the committee on aging.

06:10They were wonderful participants in our

06:12meetings and also Mr. Brooks for

06:14attending some of our commission

06:16meetings and Ms. Niven for coming to an

06:19AARP meeting. So they've shown an

06:21interest in seniors in our community and

06:24we really appreciate that a lot.

06:26We we look forward to working with the

06:27assembly on topics of interest and

06:29concern to Juno's older residents

06:32especially housing, transportation, and

06:34recreation. And so I thank you again for

06:36serving Juno and thinking of seniors and

06:38especially caregivers this month. Thanks

06:41so much.

06:46Thanks

06:47and and I will be seeing you on

06:48Wednesday.

06:50Thank you.

06:53>> Make her do the gauntlet.

06:54>> Oh, no.

06:57>> We won't make her do the gauntlet.

06:59Thank you for that and

07:01remember uh

07:03your keynote speaker I believe is at

07:041:30 or 1:00.

07:08Yeah, so

07:09good speaker.

07:11Yep, Claire Richardson good speaker. So

07:13if you have an opportunity to go down

07:14and say hello or just visit them anytime

07:16during the day.

07:18So thank you. We'll get back to our

07:19agenda. So we'll start with

07:21introductions and what we're looking for

07:22is just your name and how long you've

07:24been on what either body. So Chair

07:28Sutiye.

07:29>> Um Eve Sutiye, I've the airport board

07:32and chair and I've been on for oh gosh

07:35like 5 years or something.

07:37>> Here, and we'll just go down.

07:41>> I'm David Epstein. I served a full three

07:44terms plus on the airport board in the

07:482010s and uh

07:52was brought up out of

07:53retirement by Mayor Weldon last year and

07:57glad to be back on the board.

07:59>> We're glad to have you. Ms. Hall.

08:02>> Assembly member Hall and I'm in my third

08:05year of my first term.

08:09>> I'm Michael Musel, uh brand new to the

08:11airport board this summer.

08:13Just started and uh

08:15glad to be on it.

08:19>> I'm Nano Brooks. I'm an assembly member

08:21in my second year of my first term.

08:26>> I'm Charlie Williams and I'm either in

08:28my third or fourth year on the airport

08:30board.

08:33>> Neil Steininger on the Juno Assembly and

08:36I just started year three

08:38of my first term.

08:41>> Jerry Godkin, I've done

08:45one th-

08:46uh nine years, so nine years on the

08:48first term, then I had to take a year

08:50off, back

08:52again

08:54and then I timed out

08:57or I went off after two years and then I

08:59was asked by the assembly with some

09:01vacancies if I would consider returning

09:04and I have.

09:06I thank for

09:08inviting me back.

09:10Nice to feel welcome.

09:13>> Assembly member Cosgrove and I am one

09:17week in.

09:18>> [laughter]

09:19>> And already chaired a meeting.

09:21>> Oh.

09:23>> I'm Jordan Kessler on the airport board

09:25and I'm four months into my first term.

09:29>> I'm Mila Attwoodson on the assembly and

09:31I'm starting my fourth year.

09:33>> Thank you. Uh Mr. Kelly?

09:36>> Paul Kelly, I am just starting my second

09:39week of my second term.

09:41And I also want to take the opportunity

09:43to thank the airport board members

09:44who've come back out of retirement.

09:46Thank you for your service.

09:48>> Yep. Mr. Smith?

09:51>> Thank you. Greg Smith in my eighth year

09:53of the assembly.

09:56>> Thank you.

09:57Uh Ms. Roddell?

10:02>> Uh this is Angela Roddell and I was on

10:05the airport board for six years

10:08and then reappointed

10:12um

10:12last year to another 3-year term.

10:16>> Thank you, Ms. Niven.

10:20>> Joyce Niven on the assembly for 1 week.

10:24>> [laughter]

10:26>> You haven't quite shared yet. Mila's

10:27ahead of you. Or excuse me, Ms.

10:29Cosgrove's ahead of me. Um so I'm Beth

10:31Whelan if you don't know it and I'm on

10:32my third year, my third term.

10:35>> [laughter]

10:36>> Um so with that, we will go to

10:39uh item B.

10:41Madam Chair.

10:43>> Okay. Um

10:44item B is the aircraft rescue and

10:45firefighting uh replacement planning.

10:48>> Uh

10:48let's turn the microphone on, okay.

10:50And um I'll probably be leaning on Mr.

10:52Delgado pretty heavily on this, but as

10:55you may know, um we uh needed to upgrade

10:59badly.

11:00We uh lost our index for a short period

11:03of time. The reason the public didn't

11:05see it was because the heroic efforts of

11:07Mr. Delgado and his staff to um

11:11uh coordinate with Alaska Airlines to

11:13ensure that those planes could come in.

11:17I think you got this 737-700s

11:20in. Was that right instead of the 8 and

11:22900s?

11:23>> That is correct. Yes.

11:25>> Um so what we're hoping to do is plan

11:29for future replacements so we don't end

11:31up in this situation again.

11:34Um

11:35our our trucks are essentially timing

11:38out. They they get so expensive that we

11:40cannot maintain them. You can't find

11:42parts for them, etc. Um Mr. Delgado can

11:45speak a little bit more on this, but um

11:48just getting what we did for for

11:51lending, um we worked with the state, he

11:54did, worked with the state to get uh a

11:57truck from Gustavus to to maintain

12:00through through the summer and now we're

12:02at full strength. Mr. Delgado, would you

12:04um care to take any questions or explain

12:06any further?

12:07>> Um thank you, Madam Chair. Yes,

12:08absolutely. Um so our trucks as of last

12:12year had uh as Ms. Utsey said uh timed

12:15out. They were older. We just could not

12:16find parts for them. We had a Every time

12:18something went wrong with the truck, it

12:20was a nationwide search. Um

12:22parts ran out eventually. So, um

12:25it got to the point where uh

12:28one of the trucks suffered a

12:28catastrophic uh failure to the

12:30transmission. They don't make that

12:31transmission, so we had to put it out of

12:33service uh permanently.

12:35Um

12:36through a lot of coordination, thank

12:38goodness for uh Chief Bagwell over at

12:41uh CCFR, uh we were able to get a truck

12:44from Palmer

12:46for the low low price of $500 a month or

12:49quarter, and uh the other one through

12:51Gus Davis, and they were very uh

12:54very uh gracious to to lend us that

12:56truck um

12:58while they had no need for it. Uh we

13:00have now gotten a delivery of both

13:03trucks, uh so we are now back at full

13:05strength and anticipate no further

13:07issues for

13:09uh at least 10 years until it's time to

13:11look at replacement trucks again. So,

13:13uh I'll field any questions as well.

13:16>> And I think just to add on to that, just

13:17the um

13:19the fact that we know that we're going

13:20to be looking in 10 years, that's what

13:22we want to talk to the assembly about,

13:24how to get

13:26forward thinking in that funding. So,

13:28when 10 years elapses, we're not in the

13:30same position we were this summer.

13:34>> Does any um

13:36member of the board want to add on to

13:38miss Mr. Godau said before we get to

13:40questions or

13:44Go ahead, Mr. Godkin.

13:47>> Yeah, it was it was alarming to me

13:49coming from the fire service that

13:52we got into that situation.

13:54Um we owe a lot of thanks to

13:58this the city staff for helping us work

14:01through a very uh trying

14:04period. But, what was alarming to me was

14:07uh

14:08we have a new chief now, and all we can

14:10do is look forward, and I have told

14:14or asked

14:15our manager to be more involved with

14:18fire service

14:21to have a better understanding of what

14:24what's happening with this equipment. It

14:26would

14:27I felt blindsided as a board member

14:30and all of a sudden we've got a crisis

14:32and we couldn't get out of that crisis

14:35without a lot of help from

14:38uh downtown and uh the airport staff and

14:42you know, so they had to work through

14:43stuff. So, I have asked our airport

14:47manager to work with

14:50the current fire chief

14:52and maybe Ms. Kester who supervises him

14:55so that we've got a uh

15:00a good

15:01knowledge base of what's happening with

15:03it. I'm I'm alarmed that uh

15:0610 years is the is the number now cuz I

15:08came from an environment where it was 20

15:11years and uh

15:13I would encourage people that uh write

15:16specs that uh

15:18unless they take an exception to an a

15:20spec that uh

15:22they have to provide you know, you try

15:24to build these trucks and they're not

15:26just built with an somebody's

15:29one-time made transmission. I mean,

15:32they're made by Allison. They're made by

15:33people that are reputable and you should

15:37be able to get parts and I think that

15:39should be part of the spec. So, 10 years

15:42really seems like a big thing to chew

15:44off at at what the expense is

15:47for these uh apparatus.

15:50So, uh it's going to be good to be

15:52having this discussion. The unfortunate

15:54thing is we had to buy two in a row. So,

15:57now if you're saying 10 years, it'd be

16:00nice to have had

16:01staggered.

16:04So, that you just don't get this big

16:06boom at at 10 years from now that

16:09everybody's trying to figure out. So, we

16:12need to try to figure out how to to get

16:15some spacing in there if at all possible

16:18so that you can better plan down the

16:21road. So, anyway, thank you.

16:24>> Thank you, Mr. Williams.

16:26>> Well,

16:27the [clears throat] last time we sat

16:28here updating the assembly, um we were

16:30in crisis mode and I think we need to

16:33acknowledge and thank the assembly and

16:35and city staff for um stepping up and

16:38helping us through that. Um without some

16:40emergency funding, we couldn't have uh

16:42responded as well as we needed to and um

16:45we did shorten the

16:47you know, through that efforts, we

16:49shortened the late greatly um

16:51to be able to be able to maintain our

16:54index. So, I I do want to acknowledge

16:56and thank the assembly and the city

16:58for their help.

17:01>> Anything further from the board?

17:03Uh seeing nothing, any questions from

17:04the assembly?

17:09Mrs. Hall.

17:10>> Yeah, thank you. Um is it just two ARFF

17:13vehicles that that the airport needs or

17:16or do you have more?

17:18>> Thank you. Uh we have three ARFF trucks.

17:20Um two of them are brand new. The third

17:22one, which until recently was our newest

17:25one, uh has now been placed in reserve

17:26status. And so, it'll only deploy uh

17:29when absolutely needed. Um

17:33So, yeah.

17:35>> Go ahead.

17:36>> Um Mr. Delgado, can you explain the

17:37situation where it would be needed just

17:39so people understand?

17:41>> Absolutely. So, uh these trucks are

17:44designed and equipped to respond to the

17:47most catastrophic of um scenarios that

17:50we would encounter at the airport, which

17:53hopefully never happens. Um the FAA

17:56requires us to uh keep and maintain and

17:59operate these pieces of equipment um

18:01that are equipped specifically to combat

18:03fuel fires and and uh fires involving

18:05hazmat and large um

18:08quantities of

18:09fuel.

18:10Um

18:12So, um

18:13>> And how many do we need um to be running

18:15at any given time?

18:17>> At a bare minimum, two.

18:19Um however, we do have three because we

18:21cannot rely on anyone else um,

18:23in as quick as quickly as we would one

18:25would hope.

18:29>> All right, seeing Oh, now they all come.

18:32Uh, Mr. Brooks and then Mr. Epstein.

18:35>> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

18:36Uh, and this is kind of to Mr. Godkins

18:38uh, comments earlier. Uh,

18:41knowing how heavy equipment can be,

18:42there is some very reliable and

18:46serviceable heavy equipment. And I know

18:48that the more bells and whistles you put

18:50on something, the

18:51the harder that can be, but

18:53like if the most

18:56indestructible, highest cost ARFF truck

18:59was purchased that has, let's say, a

19:02service life of 50 years, would the FAA

19:04still require it be replaced in 10?

19:09>> It's not so much a requirement to be

19:11replaced in 10 years. Um, that's the

19:13typical life expectancy across um,

19:16other airports, many other airports. Um,

19:1910 years keeps us just below that point

19:21in time where the trucks begin to have

19:23issues.

19:24Um, at some point, and and mind you, the

19:27transmission issue was was just an

19:29example, but um,

19:31the pumps fail frequently, the seals uh,

19:35fail frequently. Um, gears fail

19:37frequently, and those parts are more

19:39hard to come by because it's not as as

19:40common a an item as a transmission would

19:42be. These are specialty items

19:45um, that are more difficult to source.

19:47Um,

19:48once the manufacturers stop

19:50manufacturing a truck and move on to the

19:51next generation, they stop manufacturing

19:53that part. And so, uh, with everyone

19:55else that's running a 2016 truck, um,

19:59they're buying up all the parts as as

20:01fast as they can get them.

20:03Um, and that's that's where we begin to

20:04run into the issues because the trucks

20:05may be reliable for quite a long time,

20:07and then come year 16, we run into that

20:10issue where that part

20:12is no longer available, we can't find

20:13it, and that's when we run into the real

20:15issues.

20:16Um,

20:17the trucks that

20:19we had replaced were well over 30 years

20:22old at this point. So, um we're very

20:24fortunate and very lucky

20:26that the trucks had run for this long,

20:28but we do want to avoid getting into

20:30this kind of situation again.

20:34>> Thank you. All right, Mr. Johnston and

20:35then Mr. Steiner.

20:37>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um

20:40Mr. Delgado, we we also got another

20:42piece of equipment that it might

20:44interest the assembly to hear about.

20:46Could you explain that, please?

20:48>> Absolutely. That would be the Marsh

20:50Master, the wetland rescue vehicle. And

20:52this one came about because the FAA

20:54required it. Um for any airport that's

20:57near a body of water, um we are required

21:00to have a water rescue plan.

21:02We are We have a lot of water. We also

21:04have a lot of mud and wetlands. Um

21:08our situation is is a little unique

21:10because these wetlands are very much

21:12tidal. Uh we needed something that could

21:14respond both in the mud and on the

21:16water. And uh I I invite any assembly

21:18member to uh come visit us at the

21:20airport and I'd be more than happy to to

21:22show it to you. It's It's very unique.

21:24It looks very much like a tank, it but

21:26it floats. It'll go on the mud. It'll go

21:29on the ice. It'll wade through just

21:32about any kind of water, so.

21:33Um again, hopefully we never have to use

21:35it, but if we ever do,

21:38I'll be glad that we have it.

21:40>> Mr. Steiner.

21:42>> Um thank you. And I I know there's some

21:44mention uh in the memo about trying to

21:47avoid the use of emergency funding in in

21:5010 years or maybe hopefully 15 or

21:52however long you can make these trucks

21:53last.

21:54Um I know one technique we use for city

21:57fleet is a replacement fund that we pay

21:59into.

22:00Um has there been consideration by the

22:02airport board of establishing a

22:04replacement fund for these trucks so it

22:06doesn't become an emergency funding

22:08request and take some of that, you know,

22:11stress off of that decision in 15, 10,

22:1415 years or whenever these get replaced.

22:16>> Mr. Steiner, you jumped the gun. We were

22:18just going to talk about that.

22:20>> [laughter]

22:21>> I'll send it to the Madam Chair first

22:23and then

22:24>> Um yes, we've we've actually been

22:27discussing that. Um, we've uh

22:30been working out with the finance

22:31committee. Um, Angela um, Rodela is on

22:34from the finance committee as is

22:36uh Mr. Williams. I don't know if they've

22:37been working on it cuz I haven't been

22:38able to go to a finance committee

22:40meeting, but Mr. Delgado, um, I don't

22:42know if you have more information as

22:44well, but I'm going to punt it to one of

22:46the finance committee members or Mr.

22:48Delgado.

22:50>> Mr. Williams, you're on the spot.

22:52>> I can start off. Um, so we're in the

22:55process of updating um, our our contract

22:59agreements with the um, part 135

23:01operators right now. And as we all know,

23:05you can't have a budget without money,

23:06so we have to figure out the money part

23:07of it first, but that um, we've had

23:10discussions about um, creating, you

23:13know, funds that will allow us to

23:15forward fund and and be prepared to

23:18replace these, but we have to we have to

23:21kind of work our through the ourself

23:23through the process, which is one of our

23:25agenda items here on the leases part on

23:28D. So, we have talked about it, um, but

23:31it's a little premature because until we

23:33have money, we can't create a budget for

23:35it, so.

23:37>> All right, Mr. Delgado, do you have

23:38anything to add to that?

23:39>> Uh, absolutely. Um, we had historically

23:42relied on FAA funding, uh specifically

23:44the airport improvement program. Uh,

23:46that comes those grants come with a lot

23:48of strings attached. Um,

23:50for example, we can't

23:52had we not requested [snorts] any help

23:55from the city or the assembly in this

23:57case, um, our next available

24:00our next window of opportunity to

24:01acquire a truck would have been in 2031.

24:04Um, the failure of of these trucks

24:06forced our hand essentially.

24:08Um,

24:10the AIP, the airport improvement program

24:12grants are are very very much

24:15very much tie our hands. And so, um, a

24:17more flexible

24:19way to fund these these piece of

24:21equipment are through PFCs, passenger

24:24facility charges. Uh, that's the $4.50

24:27that you see tacked on to your to your

24:29tickets

24:30Uh, and is considered a source of

24:32revenue for projects

24:34um

24:35at least historically it's been for

24:36projects but

24:38ARFF trucks are eligible for this for

24:40this

24:42source of revenue as well so um there's

24:44no time restrictions there's no

24:47restriction essentially no restrictions

24:49to the type of equipment we can get or

24:51sorry the the bells and whistles that we

24:52can get on this truck um and that means

24:55that the airport has the flexibility to

24:57acquire these trucks

24:59on the dot every 10 years

25:01um or as needed.

25:03>> Mr. Williams

25:05>> I I just like to add that um through the

25:08PFC 10 which is the the next cycle for

25:11collecting those funds that's how we're

25:13going to be

25:14>> Mr. Williams can I interrupt you can you

25:15say what PFC is since we have new

25:17members?

25:18>> What is that acronym? I only just know

25:20it as PFC.

25:21>> Sorry yes the passenger facility charge.

25:23>> Okay yes so that is how we're planning

25:26to repay the

25:28the money that was loaned to us from the

25:29city to to get this truck that that we

25:32needed quickly so.

25:34>> Okay perfect.

25:36Did that answer your question Mr.

25:37Steininger? Okay any further comment or

25:39question on this item?

25:43All right our next item is the sale of

25:45the Hertz building and I just know about

25:47this cuz I went to one of you guys'

25:48meetings cuz I knew your liaison was not

25:51going to be there. Ms. Cosgrove is your

25:53new liaison

25:54and we have asked the body this time

25:57that if someone is going to miss a

25:59meeting that they ask somebody else to

26:01fill in so hold us to the fire on that

26:03and if someone doesn't show up

26:05let me know and we'll take care of it.

26:08>> [laughter]

26:08>> Uh so with that um

26:10one of the reasons I wanted this brought

26:12up is I don't know that the assembly

26:14members realizes the airport property

26:16extends past the the fenced in area so

26:19that's why I brought it up. Madam Chair.

26:22>> Um and again I will probably be pointing

26:25a little bit to Mr. Delgado but first

26:27off um so

26:30we own this this piece of property. It's

26:31that that Hertz wash bay. Um I don't

26:34know if you guys have seen it. It's over

26:35by Alaska Airlines Cargo.

26:38Um

26:39it Hertz decided to to leave their

26:41lease. And so, we're trying to decide do

26:43we lease the building or do we put the

26:46building up for sale and lease the

26:48property? Meaning, they can buy a build

26:50a suit, etc. Um I think part of one

26:54Well, one of the reasons why uh

26:57it was a more of a discussion than it

27:00should have been was

27:01um

27:03because we're an enterprise fund, I

27:05think we're unsure about whether or not

27:08if we do sell the building, if we're

27:09going to be able to keep those funds

27:12uh because there's been some some things

27:13going on with the the assembly and other

27:15enterprise uh

27:18other enterprise boards.

27:20But, needless to say, we we've got to

27:22figure out what to do with that

27:23property. I think what we're going to be

27:24doing is is voting on it next next

27:28assembly or next uh board meeting, which

27:30is in in a week.

27:32Uh if you have any questions about the

27:34building itself, I'm not in a position

27:35to answer

27:36very well, but Mr. Delgado can answer.

27:40>> Um any questions for Mr. Delgado?

27:46Do you have anything Oh, Mr. Williams,

27:48go ahead.

27:49>> Not a question, just a comment.

27:51Um [clears throat] one of our concerns

27:52that we um discussed at our last board

27:54meeting or

27:56uh was it the board meeting? Yes, it was

27:57at the board meeting.

27:58Um is the disposition of funds if we

28:01were to decide to sell it. Um given the

28:03age of the building,

28:05it doesn't seem like it would be um

28:08very feasible for us to

28:10upgrade the building and, you know,

28:12bring it up to spec. And so, the the

28:15path um best and given given our

28:17constrained budget, the path we

28:20fee uh or at least the feedback that we

28:22had discussed at the board meeting is to

28:24sell the building. But, one of our

28:26concerns is will we as the airport board

28:29receive the funds for that? And, you

28:31know, given our tight budget, especially

28:33in the capital improvement and in the um

28:36um

28:37uh what's what's the fund that only has

28:38$59,000 in it?

28:40>> Uh capital uh reserve.

28:42>> The capital reserve, given our

28:43constraints there, we're hoping to

28:45convince the assembly to help us um

28:49bolster that [clears throat] fund

28:50through that through the proceeds of

28:52that sale. So

28:53>> And if I can add, um I think the biggest

28:56thing for the board is um

28:58when CBJ policy is going to affect

29:01airport property leases, revenue, etc.

29:04Uh I think the board would really

29:05welcome being brought in early, very

29:08early. Um so we can um

29:11tell the assembly how that would affect

29:13the airport.

29:20>> Go ahead, Mr. Steininger.

29:22>> Thank you. And and may just clarifying

29:24question so I can make sure I understand

29:27uh what you said, Ms. Sutray.

29:29Um

29:30so that

29:32Hertz [gasps]

29:33is ending their lease with Williams. So

29:37no So currently it's not occupied or

29:39it's

29:41If Okay, so if if held like they're

29:44another potential lessee that might be

29:46interested in leasing the building, you

29:49know, if you held that as an airport

29:50asset?

29:51>> Uh there are. Um

29:53the decision we have to make is do we

29:56kind of sell the the surface, the

29:58building itself, and then just lease

30:01the actual land, or do we maintain that

30:05building, which is old,

30:07um and would cost us money, and lease

30:09that building as is?

30:11>> Yeah.

30:12So I guess to

30:13follow up, um

30:15so there might be an interested party in

30:17the building as is, or probably not in

30:19the building as is?

30:21>> There might.

30:21>> There might.

30:22>> Uh but I think and Mr. Delgado can speak

30:24more on this. I think the concern that

30:26the airport board has, at least um a

30:29couple of the members have, is uh

30:31becoming a landlord to

30:33a um

30:35a building that's going to need a lot of

30:36work

30:37>> Mhm. and will cost us a lot.

30:41>> I apologize for the noise, but welcome

30:43to City Hall. That is our air handling

30:46unit going because it's not hot enough

30:47in here, so it thinks it needs to pump

30:49heat in.

30:50>> [laughter]

30:52>> So, um

30:53uh

30:54mayor and manager uh can correct me if

30:56I'm wrong, but typically this gets

30:58determined by documentations of whose

31:01building it was a long time ago or who

31:03put money in the building and for my

31:05understanding there has not been able to

31:06find that documentation, so according to

31:09our finance director um the funds would

31:11likely revert to the airport fund. So,

31:14Ms. Kester, do you want to

31:16say anything to that or

31:17>> I I think you you great gave a great

31:19summary much much like

31:21uh um capital projects when the original

31:23force source of funding is general fund,

31:25if there's any funding left over that

31:27reverts back to its original funding

31:28source, uh we would apply the same logic

31:31here. However, uh

31:33staff hasn't been able to find any

31:34documentation on kind of who paid for

31:36that original asset, uh and ultimately

31:39that'd be an uh assembly decision.

31:43>> Mr. Delgado has kindly sent out the

31:45process in his memo, so thank you for

31:47that. So, hopefully that answers your

31:49question.

31:51Mr. Gutkin.

31:54>> Uh thank you to the chairs. Um I just

31:56wanted to go backwards just a little

31:58bit. It's It's been a dilemma for the

32:00airport board over the years that when

32:05property

32:06came

32:07available on or around our proper of the

32:10airport uh that

32:14let's talk about the property from Fred

32:16cross from Fred Meyer's. When all of

32:18that acreage came up, that's the

32:20Bicknell property. Uh the airport really

32:23thought that they should move on that,

32:26but the airport is a not in a position

32:29to go out and buy land.

32:31And that's where I think

32:34we're in a new era with the assembly, I

32:37believe. We didn't have as much

32:41interaction.

32:43I don't believe that previous assemblies

32:45really

32:47cared, if that's the word, really what

32:50went on. They trusted us to run the

32:52airport.

32:53They did their thing downtown. They

32:55approved things that we needed, but

32:58uh I think it's important as we move

33:00forward that

33:02when

33:03properties

33:05in or around the airport that can be

33:08utilized for the airport

33:11as revenue-generating

33:14properties

33:15that are on there, like that would have

33:17been.

33:19And it there was discussion about that

33:21being in the flyaway, and and that the

33:23airport should have it anyway.

33:26And uh we weren't in the position to do

33:28it. Next thing we know, we turned around

33:30and it was gone. So,

33:31uh I I thank the current

33:34and some of the previous uh assembly for

33:38for taking more interest in

33:41the airport

33:42because it's not something that we have

33:44just alone as the our enterprise board.

33:47It's the whole city. You know, the

33:50assembly shares in this as well. So, the

33:52more informed you are

33:54um through through us and through your

33:59uh liaison, um I think we can

34:02start to develop and work through these

34:05things, like the ARFF truck

34:07land, and uh not be in adversarial

34:10positions

34:12uh about

34:13these things. It just We're working

34:16together. So, anyway, thank you.

34:19>> Uh thank you, Mr. Godkin. Anything else

34:21on this topic?

34:22>> It's somewhat related to the Oh, sorry.

34:25Um somewhat related to this topic. I I

34:27think that I would urge all the assembly

34:29members to be looking at the uh

34:30statewide transportation improvement

34:32program, as well.

34:33Um

34:34we're in an interesting position that

34:36the state does not own or manage the

34:38airport. And um I don't know that the

34:42state remembers that we're

34:45an important airport.

34:47We're important for freight. We're

34:49important as a hub for all the outlying

34:51villages and I think that the assembly

34:53should weigh in on the

34:56step as soon as possible cuz they're

34:58trying to finalize it.

35:06>> Yep, I'm just trying to

35:08We just sent something in on the step.

35:10Was it this meeting or next meeting?

35:12>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. The Public Works

35:14and Facilities Committee reviewed a CBJ

35:16comments to state DOT on the step and

35:20our comments are focused on the fact

35:22that step construction funding was

35:23excluded this year for Juneau-Douglas

35:25North Crossing, which is a high assembly

35:28priority. They have been included in

35:30previous years.

35:32>> Madam Chair, do you have something else

35:33that you want us to comment on?

35:36>> I know Mr. Epstein does, too, but I

35:38think the the assembly should also

35:40remember the flyway and coordinate with

35:43Juneau-Douglas Crossing with the airport

35:45because

35:46that could affect bus service.

35:49>> Thank you. Mr. Epstein and then there's

35:51Rodel.

35:52>> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

35:53Along with um

35:56the assembly, there's another player

35:58involved when we talk about

36:01possibly disposing of

36:04uh

36:06property that's

36:07on airport property that's FAA. So,

36:11um

36:13I would expect it if we go forward doing

36:16something with the Hertz building that

36:17we make sure that we're in compliance

36:19with our grant assurances.

36:23>> I'll leave that up to you guys.

36:24>> [laughter]

36:26>> Uh Ms. Rodel and then Mr. Kelly.

36:29>> Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted

36:31to tack on to something that um Chair

36:34Suti said about the step. It's not just

36:37the step, but we also have I believe the

36:39comment period may still be open on the

36:41Southeast Alaska Transportation plan uh

36:44for DOT and I think it's really

36:47important to recognize that Juno Airport

36:50is the small hub for Southeast Alaska.

36:53And so, it is the hub that allows

36:57places like Yakutat and Petersburg and

37:00Sitka to have essential air service and

37:03for that to work for Alaska Airlines and

37:05they need that um

37:08they need that Juno Airport to be a

37:10viable option. And when the state

37:13stopped matching grants for us right

37:15around the time of COVID,

37:17um it set it set the state into a

37:20different direction.

37:22And when I think about the Hertz

37:24building, when I think about the our

37:26funding, and I think about the the this

37:31transportation plan,

37:33I think one of the things that I would

37:35love to come away from this meeting is a

37:38sense that we're as as Mr. Gotkin said,

37:42we are adjointed and we are together and

37:46we are aligned

37:47as to the importance of the airport and

37:51that funding the airport is not

37:54optional. It is the primary

37:58infrastructure that allows Juno to

38:01flourish. And I don't know if you all

38:03saw it, I was on the Columbia ferry last

38:06week. I was fortunate. I got I got on

38:09the ferry, I got off the ferry. That

38:11ferry's hung up in Ketchikan now for

38:15we don't know how long.

38:16And it has become very apparent that the

38:20airport is going to be the key piece of

38:22infrastructure

38:24to maintaining a transportation network

38:26for Southeast Alaska.

38:28And so, the whether it's

38:32being reassured that we get the funding

38:34from this if we sell the Hertz building,

38:37that we don't have to sit on pins and

38:39needles that the assembly may choose to

38:41do something else with that funding,

38:44or that we have grant funding matched,

38:48things like that. Um, it would just I

38:50think it's just really important to

38:52recognize

38:54just how key this piece of

38:56infrastructure is to Southeast Alaska.

38:59Thank you.

39:00>> Thank you and um,

39:02we will have um,

39:04Ms. Kester check or manager Kester check

39:07on the Southeast Alaska transportation

39:09plan and see if we can still comment on

39:11that. Um, Mr. Kelly?

39:14>> Thank you. I I guess um, I was kind of

39:17following up both on the comments about

39:19the step and now also about the

39:21transportation plan. Are there specific

39:23projects that you would uh, like the

39:25assembly to focus on in our comments?

39:28Or um,

39:29is there something maybe you can you

39:31could forward a list to to staff? Um,

39:34thank you.

39:35>> Uh, thank you for that but we're

39:36probably getting ahead of ourselves

39:37because that we are going to talk about

39:38projects here on I to meet.

39:40>> [laughter]

39:44>> Anything further on this topic?

39:47Seeing none, we'll go to leases and um,

39:50again this is just um,

39:53just talking to some of you guys, we had

39:56heard that uh,

39:58our previous manager uh, may not have

40:01codified some of the leases that we

40:03probably needed to have. So, we just

40:05wanted to check and make sure that was

40:06happening.

40:08>> Yes, and Mr. Delgado's been um, working

40:11very hard to get these

40:13done and finalized. I do want to

40:16basically turn that over to him because

40:18he's got the most up-to-date

40:19information. I know he's been talking to

40:21them at length.

40:23>> Mr. Delgado.

40:25>> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

40:26Um, so the last time that a use and

40:29lease agreement was or an operating

40:31agreement was negotiated with Alaska

40:32Airlines was back in 2002.

40:34Um, these leases

40:37these operating agreements do not

40:39necessarily expire. We simply convert to

40:40a month-to-month agreement thereafter

40:42and we have been with Alaska Airlines

40:44since 2007. Um, similarly with Delta

40:47Airlines, we have been month-to-month

40:49since 2019 when the last um

40:52uh agreement kind of rolled over. Um

40:55these agreements were negotiated um

40:59and use

41:02not so modern um

41:05terms, business terms.

41:07Uh the airport has evolved over time. Um

41:12Essentially, uh it's time to

41:14renegotiate, really.

41:16Um

41:17the

41:20current airport financial model has been

41:23um

41:23is closely tied to these operating

41:25agreements and has been

41:27uh

41:28structured the same way since about

41:312001, if not longer.

41:34Um

41:35renegotiating these contracts means also

41:38changing or updating

41:40the airport financial model.

41:43Um Over time,

41:45the airport has grown more complex.

41:47There have been uh revenue streams that

41:49we haven't uh

41:50seized upon.

41:52Um

41:53so there there has been some foregone

41:55revenue. To what amount I don't know.

42:00But uh the time to negotiate is now. Um

42:03And this was all uh this has all come

42:05about thanks to Alaska Airlines uh

42:07wanting to uh they they had reached out

42:09and wanted to renegotiate, so um we're

42:11more than happy to do so. Uh we have

42:13since gone out for a financial

42:15consultant uh to help us both negotiate

42:18with the airlines and uh work on the

42:20financial model.

42:21Uh the reason they are doing both of

42:23these items is because of how closely

42:25tied they are.

42:26And uh we're able to work on the

42:28financial model as the terms are being

42:30negotiated.

42:31Um

42:32uh

42:33the

42:35solicitation period has closed and we

42:36now have had only one respondent to it,

42:39and that is uh

42:41one that's familiar to us, and that

42:42contract is yet to be uh executed. Uh we

42:45expect that to happen uh I was hoping

42:47for today, but perhaps tomorrow would be

42:49a better day for this.

42:50So, uh as soon as contract is executed,

42:53we will work very, very quickly to

42:54provide them all the information they

42:55need and uh we will begin to have all of

42:59our uh finance committee meetings and

43:01uh negotiations with the airlines.

43:03So, I'm very much looking forward to

43:05that.

43:06>> Perfect. Any comment, Mr. Newsome? You

43:09sat up. Do you have something to say on

43:10this one?

43:11>> [laughter]

43:13>> Uh no, Madam Mayor, other than I think

43:15it's a long overdue as you can tell from

43:16the dates on the

43:18uh negotiated agreements that exist uh

43:21when we don't know the history of how

43:22we're collecting fees and revenues,

43:24which time to get that written and

43:25established and on paper.

43:28>> Certainly. Any other comments or

43:30questions on this topic?

43:32All right. That brings us to item E,

43:34project updates.

43:37You want to start with this, Madam

43:38Chair?

43:39>> I can. I'll just kind of

43:41do a quicker overview. Um

43:43I think

43:45bigger picture

43:47Sorry. The big picture that that we've

43:49been looking at um through the board is

43:52through the airport master plan

43:54um looking at growth and visitors.

43:57Um

43:58I know that there's there's there are

43:59ways and and Mr. Rodal can speak on this

44:02um that the assembly can assist

44:05um

44:06growth at the airport through small

44:09cruise ships, that kind of thing. Um

44:13uh

44:13and then also um sorry, it's been a long

44:17day.

44:18Um

44:20>> You can phone a friend.

44:21>> Yeah.

44:21>> [laughter]

44:23>> Um

44:26I I'll go ahead and just turn that over

44:28to Mr. Delgado and I'll figure out what

44:30my thought was.

44:31Sorry.

44:31>> No worries. Mr. Delgado.

44:33>> Thank you. Uh so, I have here our FY27

44:37airport capital projects. Um

44:39I had intended to also add FY28 and

44:41FY29, but that's way too far out. Uh we

44:44have a meeting with the FAA. They're

44:46coming to town uh to talk

44:49airport CIPs

44:51uh on Wednesday. So, this list may

44:53change.

44:55It depends what they have to say and

44:57whether I've got good ideas or bad ideas

44:59here.

45:00Um

45:02Our capital program is very much

45:06limited

45:07in terms of money. And that's not

45:10airport money. It's It's FAA grant

45:12money.

45:13Uh we have our yearly entitlements on

45:16the AIP side, the airport improvement

45:18program side, which amount to just over

45:19$3 million per year. And then there's

45:22our infrastructure investment and jobs

45:24act money or otherwise previously known

45:26as bill money, uh which is set to expire

45:29in

45:31FY 29.

45:32And that's roughly 3.2 million a year

45:35until [clears throat] FY 29. Uh so uh

45:38it's a race to the finish to spend

45:40finish spending that IIJA money

45:43and get some projects on the list. And I

45:46Again, I would have liked to add more,

45:48but um

45:49the further out I get on these projects,

45:51the hazier it becomes. We do have a

45:53fairly solid idea of what the next few

45:55years of CIP projects or CIP planning

45:58looks like, uh but with changing

46:00priorities and

46:02um

46:04nick

46:05in

46:06conversations with the FAA, those those

46:08projects may change yet uh from year to

46:10year. So, I figured it wasn't worth our

46:12time here today.

46:13Um

46:15I welcome any questions. I can go into

46:17anything here.

46:19So.

46:19>> All right. Any questions other than um

46:23we'll kind of go back to Mr. Kelly's. Is

46:24there any of these projects that we can

46:28help you on either with the STIP or the

46:30Alaska or Southeast Alaska

46:32transportation plan?

46:34Is there any

46:35advocacy you need from us with this?

46:37>> I think I think that's that's part of uh

46:41Sorry. I think that's part of what I was

46:43um intending to say was just um

46:46to ensure that that this hub remains a

46:50hub, but also the the CBJ can assist

46:54with transit planning um to and from the

46:57airport for both visitors and

47:00legislators, people who come. The taxi

47:03service, as as you all probably know, is

47:05is not great, um, especially in the

47:08winter trying to get out there.

47:10Um,

47:11uh, air service is economic development,

47:13um, that's something Ms. Rodell has said

47:16and would say.

47:17Um,

47:18and then potentially with the visitor

47:20industry tax force task force working

47:23there, I know Mr. Delgado and the board

47:26have all been kicking around ideas. Mr.

47:28Delgado has ideas to bring revenue into

47:30the airport and we're trying to also

47:32figure out how to couple with the

47:34assembly in order to,

47:36um,

47:37increase that revenue stream even wider.

47:40>> Any questions, comments?

47:45Mr. Williams.

47:47>> Just a comment. [clears throat]

47:47>> You get called on.

47:49>> Just

47:49Just a comment. Um, so I want to thank

47:51the staff. Um, Andre and his staff have,

47:54um, recently, um, gotten a very

47:57fast-paced grant to replace the roof on

48:01the tower and, uh, long long overdue

48:04and, uh, without their their great

48:06efforts on that, we wouldn't be having

48:08that done. So, I just want to say thank

48:10you.

48:11>> Good job, Mr. Delgado.

48:13I was wondering about that. Can we get a

48:15tour of the tower anymore or is that Let

48:17me see.

48:18>> Absolutely. Yes.

48:19>> Okay.

48:20And someone, was it you, Ms. Cosgrove,

48:22that said you were going to

48:23have a tour pretty soon?

48:25>> I believe it's next week.

48:26>> All right. Do you Are you going to

48:28invite two friends with you?

48:30>> If you're really nice to me, maybe.

48:32>> [laughter]

48:34>> If anybody's interested, uh, get a hold

48:35of Ms. Cosgrove and see if that time

48:38slot works for

48:39you. So.

48:41Mr. Ms. Hall.

48:42>> Yeah, thank you. Um, I was just

48:44wondering, have there been pullbacks of

48:47federal funding in the last

48:49recent, uh,

48:51past?

48:52>> Only for the 2024 ARFF truck grant.

48:56>> Um,

48:56>> but none since.

48:57>> Okay.

48:58>> There's There's always the the risk if

49:00we don't get things in on time.

49:02>> Okay.

49:03Thank you.

49:07>> Madam Chair. Um I I just Mr. Delgado was

49:10able to turn What was that grant correct

49:13that you were able to kind of turn into

49:15a road grader snow removal?

49:17>> Yes.

49:18>> Yes. So, we didn't lose the grant

49:22completely.

49:23>> Yeah Yeah Yeah, I should I should have

49:25clarified. We repurposed that grant to

49:27uh be able to acquire a vacuum truck and

49:29a uh motor grader. Thank you for

49:32reminding me.

49:34>> Good job. You're clever.

49:36Um since some of your projects have to

49:38do with PFCs, I'm going to just go back

49:40to that. Can you explain to us a little

49:42bit of how that works other than we it's

49:44kind of similar for the main passenger

49:46fees for us, but again we have new

49:47members. So, if you would just kind of

49:49explain how that works when you're

49:50forward funding type.

49:52>> Absolutely. Um so,

49:54we typically forward fund So, let me

49:57backtrack some more. I'm already off

49:58track. Um the federal grants

50:02uh from the FAA typically cover 93

50:05almost 94% of the total project cost.

50:08Um we are therefore left to make up for

50:11the other 6.25% in local match, what we

50:14call

50:15airport fund balance or capital reserve

50:17or

50:18ideally PFCs. Um we would like airport

50:21fund balance or capital reserve to be

50:23the last dollar in.

50:24Uh that way we're able able to leverage

50:26every

50:27every cent we have.

50:29Um there's not very many other places

50:31where you can do that. Um for every

50:33dollar that we put in, we get almost $10

50:35back, really.

50:37Um

50:38so,

50:40PFCs allow us to submit an application.

50:43We negotiate with the airlines. They

50:44approve the projects. They say, "This

50:46looks great to us." And then they levy

50:48the $4.50

50:50um

50:50rate to passengers for outgoing legs up

50:53to I believe $18

50:55um depending on how many legs there are

50:57in their flights.

50:58Um the airport receives approximately $1

51:00million per year

51:02in PFC revenue. Uh and then we apply

51:05that to projects. Um

51:08now depending on the amount the quantity

51:11of projects that we add to our

51:12application, we add 10 projects that

51:14each demand a million dollars in in um

51:17in local match, then they would take us

51:2010 years to recoup that money. And then

51:22we would do another PFC application

51:23after those 10 years have lapsed.

51:25Um most PFC applications are roughly

51:27four to five to six years.

51:30Uh some airports out there have 30-year

51:32PFC applications, which is just

51:33ridiculous, but I digress.

51:35Um so

51:38the our ideal

51:39um

51:41situation to be in would be to use PFC

51:43money first.

51:44Um which is how we were able to recoup

51:47the money for the ARFF trucks, for

51:48example, uh along with other projects

51:50that we have uh sprinkled in there uh

51:52that would utilize that.

51:54Um I think that should answer your

51:56question unless I'm missing something.

51:58>> No, that's good. And like I said, I just

52:00wanted to have the uh assembly

52:02understand that. So

52:03>> I could go on all day.

52:05>> Mr. Godkin.

52:07>> And on to PFCs cuz this dates back, but

52:10the PFC number that he threw out is a

52:13very outdated number, the $4.50.

52:18And I would and and hope with the

52:21support of the assembly as well as us

52:23working with our uh

52:26legislative or delegation

52:29in Washington

52:31um and a few people meet with them,

52:33there's been a push nationwide year

52:35after year. It never gets enough

52:37traction, but it's well overdue for a

52:40cost increase. So it uh

52:44airports all over it just it hasn't

52:47gotten it, but those you know, you guys

52:50are looking for ways of more funding to

52:53do what you need to do to provide

52:55services and we're in the same thing. If

52:57we could get an increase in that PFC

53:00dollar

53:01would help us a long way.

53:04Anyway, thank you.

53:06>> So, ironically, you must know that Ms.

53:08Kester and I are leaving on the 17th to

53:10Washington, D.C.

53:12>> [laughter]

53:12>> So, you get us a white paper on

53:14something like that, we can talk to the

53:15delegation about that. That'd be great.

53:17So,

53:18Ms. Kester, I'm giving you all kinds of

53:20assignments today.

53:21I like seeing opposite. And then you're

53:23right in my target.

53:25>> [laughter]

53:26>> Any comments or questions before we

53:28adjourn this meeting?

53:30Madam Chair.

53:31>> Just one [clears throat] brief

53:32>> point. I don't know if Ms. Rodell, she

53:34had forwarded a couple things to me.

53:37So, she can chime in and raise her hand

53:39at any time if I get this wrong, but I

53:41think Mr. Delgado can also correct me,

53:44but I think the

53:45issue that we have is that Well, it's

53:47not an issue, it's actually a good thing

53:48that passenger numbers have increased.

53:51And what was it, about 5% a year this

53:54last year?

53:55>> That is correct, yes.

53:56>> Okay. And so, I mean, we've got that the

53:59regional outlook about how our

54:00population is declining, but visitorship

54:02is

54:02up. And so, that's something that can

54:04help drive the financing of the airport.

54:07Um and I think what the assembly should

54:11should really take away from this is the

54:13difference between the shrinking

54:14regional market and a growing visitor

54:16market is opportunity. And so, um

54:20we need the assembly's help to make that

54:22opportunity happen.

54:24>> All right. Um Ms. Rodell, did you have

54:27Did you want to add to that?

54:30>> I would I would just say that um one of

54:32the things, you know, and we sent

54:34comments to the Visitors Industry Task

54:36Force as well, but just recognizing, as

54:40I said before, the airport as an asset

54:43and to include us as you think about

54:46different

54:47um different issues, growing the visitor

54:50industry, how it works, um

54:53you know, surveys taken, where where

54:56people are traveling to, where residents

54:57in Juneau when they come to the airport,

55:00are they get Are they truly getting off

55:01in Seattle as the data would suggest, or

55:04is it that they're just doing a 24-hour

55:06layover and then they're headed

55:07somewhere else and how can we capture

55:11enough information about who's coming

55:14and where they're going to really help

55:17those Alaska Airlines, Delta Airlines,

55:19and any others who are interested in the

55:21airport think about route selection,

55:24think about plane selection, and growth

55:27um because the airport uh really could

55:29benefit uh from having that partnership

55:34uh

55:35with CBJ, with the visitors industry and

55:38as a as a way to continue to grow our

55:40revenue and be a viable enterprise.

55:45>> Uh thank you and um hopefully you guys

55:47know that the visitor industry task

55:48force is taking public testimony on

55:50Thursday.

55:52So, if you guys want one of you guys

55:53want to

55:54at the Valley Library. Thank you. It's

55:56not here, it's at the Valley Library, so

55:58I believe it's at 5:00 or 5:30. Which

56:00one?

56:00>> 5:30.

56:01>> 5:30, thank you for that.

56:03Ms. Atkinson is the chair, so

56:05um

56:07so, that would be nice to hear that

56:08comment

56:09cuz others think we should reduce our

56:11visitors. Um I do know that they are

56:14looking at uh

56:15Seattle-Portland uh run instead of I

56:19mean not a Seattle, a Juneau-Portland

56:20run, but I don't know how much traction

56:22that will get

56:23from Alaska Airlines. That was a

56:24discussion at the

56:26our last conference we had.

56:28So, any other comments or questions?

56:31We don't get to see each other often, so

56:34Mr. Kessler, I want to pick on you.

56:36Anything to add?

56:37>> Matt, you sure?

56:39>> I'll have to pick on him first and I'll

56:40come to you.

56:42>> [laughter]

56:43>> Nothing to add. It's uh been a pleasure

56:45um

56:46learning all all thing all things

56:48airport the past 4 months um uh thank

56:51you to Andre for all of his work and um

56:54really walking me through um everything

56:56that goes on at the airport.

56:58>> Uh Mr. Nessel.

57:00>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um you mentioned

57:02the Juneau to Portland route. I was

57:04fortunate enough to attend a meeting

57:06with uh Alaska Airlines representative,

57:08Mr. Delgado, and uh Rodel. Um

57:12and I was

57:13impressed with their

57:15um comment to us that we were not on the

57:17wrong track pursuing that that they were

57:19thinking along the same lines. That may

57:21be very beneficial. Uh there's still

57:23work to be done I think to um

57:26cement that and and prove that that

57:28would be a viable option. Uh but they

57:31didn't shoot it down. So, I think it's a

57:33viable alternative.

57:36>> Yep.

57:38Anybody haven't spoken that wants to

57:40speak?

57:41Okay.

57:41>> I just have one.

57:42>> Go ahead.

57:43>> Um just I invite the assembly and any of

57:46the members um with Mr. Delgado's

57:48permission if if you want more

57:50information about the airport, he has

57:52put together an incredible presentation.

57:55And um I think he'd be willing to to

57:57send it along. Thank you and welcome to

58:00Miss Cosgrove for our liaison. Thank

58:02you.

58:03>> And remind us when your board meetings

58:04are.

58:06November 12th?

58:08>> The second Tuesday second Thursday of

58:10the month. It'll be the nicest Thursday

58:11of the month. Without fail.

58:15At 6:00.

58:16>> Yep.

58:16>> At the airport.

58:17>> But it is a that that room is lovely

58:19that you get to see every year around.

58:21So, okay, seeing nothing further. Uh

58:24Miss Hall, go ahead.

58:25>> Take a moment to say thank you. This is

58:27always valuable to come together, meet,

58:29and hear hear each other's concerns. And

58:32yeah, so thank you and appreciate your

58:34leadership.

58:35>> It's a pleasure. Thank you.

58:36>> Thank you.

58:37>> Yep. Um and thank you to the ones uh Mr.

58:40Godkin and

58:41uh Mr. Epstein and Miss Rodel that uh

58:43you did your time and then you came

58:45back. So, we appreciate that. So, um

58:47>> [laughter]

58:47>> all of you we appreciate it. We know

58:49you're volunteers. So, we appreciate all

58:51your time. So,

58:52um like I said, but we're going to keep

58:55uh Miss Cosgrove's toes to the fire. So,

58:57she does not showing up, let me know.

58:59I don't think that will be a problem,

59:00though.

59:02We're adjourned.

59:05>> Just real quick, don't wait too long.

1:01:17>> Mhm.

1:03:20>> Mhm.

1:05:23>> Mhm.

1:07:25>> Mhm.

1:09:28>> Mhm.

1:11:30>> Mhm.

1:13:33>> Hey.

1:13:37>> We will bring the Assembly Committee of

1:13:38the Whole back to order. Thank you to

1:13:41the Airport Board. We had a nice meeting

1:13:43together.

1:13:44Um

1:13:46with that, we will go to

1:13:49item number two.

1:13:51Madam Clerk, or is that Madam Finance

1:13:53Director? Or is that Madam

1:13:57Yeah, who wants to Who raise your hand,

1:13:59whomever wants to be called on this one.

1:14:00>> Madam Mayor, I'm going to go ahead and

1:14:02kick us off and then quickly hand it

1:14:03over to the Finance Director while she

1:14:06pulls up or while the City Clerk pulls

1:14:08up the presentation. So, you might all

1:14:10be wondering um

1:14:12why you have a budget item on the agenda

1:14:15tonight. Uh tonight's item is a fiscal

1:14:19update on FY26. This is in preparation

1:14:22for your retreat. I unfortunately will

1:14:24not be here on Wednesday and so I'm

1:14:26making all of you suffer through this

1:14:28presentation today uh because I wanted

1:14:31to make sure I was here for it to hear

1:14:32all of your feedback. Um hopefully it

1:14:34will make your Wednesday meeting

1:14:35shorter. Um as I mentioned, this is a

1:14:39update on our

1:14:41year-end FY26. Um this is

1:14:44the information that you use to build

1:14:46the FY27 budget. We're in this this

1:14:49circumstance of always having to play

1:14:51catch-up, right? Trying to build a

1:14:52budget 9 months a year uh before we have

1:14:56any real data. So, a budget is a crystal

1:14:58ball and that means we will always be

1:15:01wrong. Um but this information, uh in

1:15:04addition to some 27 updates that we will

1:15:07bring to you at the retreat, will will

1:15:08kind of be the basis for that

1:15:10discussion. So, really mostly wanted to

1:15:11just give you some information,

1:15:13um

1:15:14give you a couple weeks to like sit on

1:15:16that and and chew on that and then take

1:15:18some a deeper dive

1:15:20uh on November 21st at our retreat. So,

1:15:22I'll hand it over to the Finance

1:15:23Director.

1:15:25>> All right, Finance Director, and I'll

1:15:26warn you that stop at every slide so we

1:15:28can ask questions cuz there's a lot of

1:15:30meat packed in these slides.

1:15:32>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm happy to.

1:15:34And typically we would bring you the

1:15:36FY26 update and FY27, kind of where are

1:15:39we, and then a forward look to FY28 all

1:15:42in one meeting later in November, but

1:15:46we're just going to spread this out a

1:15:47little bit. So, tonight we're going to

1:15:49talk about 26. As the manager said, she

1:15:51wants to

1:15:52get you all um thinking about some

1:15:54things we're talking at the retreat.

1:15:56When we get to the retreat, we will have

1:15:58um like literally probably the Tuesday

1:16:01before the retreat we'll have our first

1:16:04quarter of FY27 sales tax data in. So,

1:16:07we'll be able to give you a better kind

1:16:09of this is we know more now and uh what

1:16:1227's looking like. We will we'll also

1:16:14have

1:16:15some very high-level FY28 data um to

1:16:18talk about at the retreat. So, tonight

1:16:20we're focusing on FY26.

1:16:23And so, we'll start on a slide that's um

1:16:25green at the top to help remind us that

1:16:27we're going to talk about revenue first.

1:16:30And it's hard to see that it's green on

1:16:32that, but it really is.

1:16:33Um so, when we talk about um the next

1:16:36couple of slides are all uh set up

1:16:38generally the same. So, let me just walk

1:16:40through how the slide is set up. So, um

1:16:43the first thing on the side we're

1:16:44talking about revenue um gives you your

1:16:46type of revenue. So, we've got charges

1:16:48for services, federal dollars, state

1:16:50dollars, etc.

1:16:52Um and then next you'll have the FY26

1:16:54budget.

1:16:56The next column is the FY26 actuals.

1:17:00And the following column is the

1:17:02difference between those two, right? So,

1:17:04um

1:17:06if the number's positive, that means we

1:17:08brought in more revenue than we

1:17:10budgeted. So, positive is a good thing.

1:17:13Now, um back to what Ms. Kester said, we

1:17:16forecasted and prepped FY26 where we

1:17:20thought we were going to end

1:17:22back in February so that we could get

1:17:25ourselves positioned to talk about the

1:17:26FY27 budget. So, when we talked about

1:17:30the FY27 budget, that next to the last

1:17:33column is the impact that we thought we

1:17:35would have

1:17:37from our FY26 revenue as we were looking

1:17:40into FY27. So, for example, on the

1:17:44federal line,

1:17:45um

1:17:46we had a budget of 3.9 million in total

1:17:50for federal. We brought in 4.7 million.

1:17:53That's $729,000

1:17:56of excess above our budget.

1:17:59Back in February, we thought we were

1:18:01going to have about $142,000

1:18:04more in federal.

1:18:06We actually ended up with the 729, and

1:18:08so that means the very last column is

1:18:10the new impact to our revenue. So, in

1:18:13this case, we had um $586,000

1:18:17more in federal revenue than we even

1:18:19thought we would back in February as we

1:18:22were planning for the FY um 27 budget.

1:18:25Does that make sense how those columns

1:18:26line up?

1:18:28Okay.

1:18:29So, now that we've walked through the

1:18:30format,

1:18:31we can talk a little bit about the

1:18:33content here.

1:18:34I think the things I want to draw your

1:18:36attention to are um in the state um

1:18:40revenue.

1:18:41Um

1:18:42we [clears throat] did have um

1:18:45a grant for child care through thread,

1:18:48um and that's the first line, the grants

1:18:50for $860,000.

1:18:52Um we actually uh

1:18:54received cash and ended up deferring

1:18:57that revenue um because of how expenses

1:19:00came in, and so we had a slight budget

1:19:01adjustment, but that was not in um in

1:19:05our plan. So, um we ended up um

1:19:09thinking we would have $860,000 more, um

1:19:13and actually the budget got adjusted, so

1:19:15we kind of wiped that extra 860,000 out

1:19:18of our prediction. So, that's why it's

1:19:19negative in the last column.

1:19:21Um investments, I feel like we talk

1:19:23about investments every year.

1:19:25Um so, in our investments world,

1:19:28our budget was, we'll call it 6.7

1:19:29million. We um actually earned 10

1:19:33million.

1:19:34When we So, $3.3 million

1:19:37is um our our variance to the good. When

1:19:40we built our budget, we thought we would

1:19:42have 3.6 million dollars to the good.

1:19:44So, we actually are are coming in a

1:19:47little bit under our expectation. And I

1:19:49just want to say a couple things about

1:19:50our investment earnings cuz I know it

1:19:52does um cause a lot of questions year

1:19:54over year.

1:19:55The way that our central treasury model

1:19:57works, all of our investments get pulled

1:20:00together. All of that investment earning

1:20:03that yield comes into the general fund,

1:20:05and then we pull out of the general fund

1:20:08to provide interest earnings to

1:20:10enterprise funds, to special revenue

1:20:12funds. Um with the enterprise funds,

1:20:15they they all have little capital um

1:20:17funds that go with them. And so, we

1:20:20allocate um interest earnings out, and

1:20:22so that basically leaves us with

1:20:25everything else being general fund

1:20:26revenue that you see represented here.

1:20:31>> [clears throat]

1:20:32>> Sales tax, we talked about a lot about

1:20:33sales tax at our last AFC meeting. Um

1:20:37we did really, really good on estimating

1:20:40our lost revenue due to the election

1:20:43last year. We were within a couple

1:20:45hundred thousand dollars, but what we

1:20:47did not predict in early February was

1:20:49that we would have a conflict in the

1:20:51Middle East that was going to drive

1:20:53particularly fuel prices, but inflation

1:20:55everywhere. And um really uh

1:20:59gave us a skyrocketed

1:21:01um last quarter numbers. So, um April,

1:21:04May, and June, as you recall, sales tax

1:21:07was phenomenally high. And so, whereas

1:21:09we expected to

1:21:12um have a shortage of revenue in sales

1:21:15tax by about 4 million,

1:21:16um I'm sorry. We expected about 9

1:21:19million in lost revenue. Uh we only had

1:21:234 million. And that difference is really

1:21:25what we saw in that last quarter of the

1:21:26fiscal year with the increased

1:21:28inflation.

1:21:29And then the last one we're going to

1:21:31talk about is in the other line. And I

1:21:33think Mr. Barr, you wanted us to talk

1:21:34about that one.

1:21:37>> Uh

1:21:37GHS.

1:21:391.7.

1:21:42>> Thank you, Ms. Flick. Um, thank you,

1:21:44Director Flick. So, this this is

1:21:46represents the $1.7 million

1:21:48that

1:21:49you appropriated for Gastineau Human

1:21:50Services as part of the FY27 budget

1:21:53process to make them whole from an

1:21:56anticipated loss of state revenue that

1:21:59as of my last communication with GHS,

1:22:01they have not yet realized, although

1:22:03they still anticipate realizing. Um, and

1:22:06there we have an open question about

1:22:08whether or not that will be a one-time

1:22:10or an ongoing

1:22:12uh loss in loss in state revenue, which

1:22:14we'll revisit if not um, if we don't

1:22:18have if if we have more information by

1:22:19the retreat, possibly then um, if not

1:22:22then certainly as part of your FY28

1:22:24Assembly Grants process.

1:22:29>> And per your request, Madam Mayor, that

1:22:31covers this slide.

1:22:32>> Okay, who has questions on this slide?

1:22:34Mr. Brooks.

1:22:36>> Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you,

1:22:39Ms. Flick, for the presentation on the

1:22:42uh property tax. I know that last year

1:22:45when um, those

1:22:46discussions were happening, it was that

1:22:49you know, the idea was that if the mill

1:22:52rate cap and the removal of this uh

1:22:55sales tax on utilities and groceries

1:22:58both passed, it would be something like

1:23:0012 million potential lost. And I'm just

1:23:04wondering what that

1:23:06what that planned impact was for the

1:23:08property tax cuz I see that we made a

1:23:10million more than last year, but that's

1:23:13what it's showing as the change from

1:23:15planned impact. And I thought I thought

1:23:16we were con-

1:23:18factoring for that in some sort of

1:23:20impact.

1:23:21>> That's an excellent question, Mr.

1:23:22Brooks, and something that we're going

1:23:24to um, we're going to help each other

1:23:26through is those impacts impacted FY27,

1:23:30not FY26.

1:23:33So, the the property tax mill rate um,

1:23:36impacted FY27, so we lowered um,

1:23:42had the assessment stayed flat, we would

1:23:45have lowered our revenue by about a

1:23:47million dollars.

1:23:49Um, but with the increase in

1:23:50assessments, we didn't have to do that.

1:23:51But that was all for FY27. So in FY26,

1:23:55there wasn't an impact. Um, the sales

1:23:57tax was the 9.2 million that we thought

1:24:00we would lose since that ballot

1:24:02initiative took effect

1:24:04basically 30 days after certification.

1:24:06>> Thank you for the clarification.

1:24:07>> Yep.

1:24:09>> Any further questions?

1:24:12Um, Ms. Hall, and if you're on Zoom, I

1:24:14can't see hands, so just pipe up.

1:24:18>> Yeah, um,

1:24:19>> [clears throat]

1:24:20>> just I'm wondering if Deputy Manager

1:24:22Barr could restate what you had said

1:24:24about the GHS. Is that down in the other

1:24:26line? I'm a a little confused.

1:24:30Um,

1:24:31if that's where you were

1:24:33having that discussion.

1:24:34>> Yes, yes, Ms. Hall. You you are It is

1:24:36fair that you are confused because I was

1:24:38remembering a completely different GHS

1:24:40topic.

1:24:41Um, and the the GHS topic for this one

1:24:44was not actually part of your FY27 grant

1:24:47making process. It was part of a grant

1:24:49that you provided a GHS to construct

1:24:51what was going to be a housing project

1:24:54on GHS's property um for individuals who

1:24:57are in recovery and needed um substance

1:25:00use recovery housing while not um

1:25:04utilizing substances, right? So

1:25:06permanent supportive housing for that

1:25:08population. That project did not come to

1:25:10fruition because of the loss of federal

1:25:12money, not state money.

1:25:14Um,

1:25:14and there have been there has been some

1:25:16movement uh in that sector to try to re

1:25:20re revitalize that project, if you will.

1:25:23Um,

1:25:24hasn't borne fruit yet, but that is

1:25:25still something that that we and others

1:25:26are working on.

1:25:28>> Okay, follow up. Sir, and and so is our

1:25:31contribution just kind of on hold over

1:25:34there or or going to be repurposed?

1:25:36>> It has been returned to you.

1:25:39>> Okay.

1:25:41>> All right.

1:25:42See nothing further, go ahead.

1:25:44>> Excellent. So we'll go to the next

1:25:46slide.

1:25:47Which is um blue at the top um to help

1:25:50remind me that we're going to talk about

1:25:51expenses. Um so, these are broken out

1:25:55into um just a couple of categories. So,

1:25:57salary, wages, and benefits. And again,

1:25:59it's laid out the same way. FY26 budget

1:26:02was about 66 million. Our actual was

1:26:04about 62 million.

1:26:06And our budget to actual was 3.7

1:26:10act- realized. Um when we prepared the

1:26:13FY27

1:26:15budget,

1:26:17um we predicted about 3.5 million

1:26:19dollars in personnel savings. So, we

1:26:22were off about 151,000, which is

1:26:26really lucky.

1:26:28Um but fantastic Very skilled. Um as as

1:26:34the manager said, uh it's a crystal

1:26:35ball. Um I do want to just take a moment

1:26:38to note that through this process

1:26:41in FY26, right, before we got into kind

1:26:44of budget crisis mode, um we had already

1:26:47started looking at um salary vacancy

1:26:49savings and starting to kind of ratchet

1:26:52in where we saw um significant savings.

1:26:56But as you remember, when we built our

1:26:58FY27 budget, is where um the assembly

1:27:02directed the manager to really reduce

1:27:05the budget through um vacancy factor

1:27:07salary savings. And so, um we would

1:27:10expect this number

1:27:12in a few months when we talk about FY28,

1:27:14our expectation to be very low. But um

1:27:17we're we're pretty happy with how our um

1:27:20prediction came out with reality with

1:27:22respect to salaries and and wage

1:27:24savings.

1:27:25We are off about 2 million dollars with

1:27:27the rest of commodity and services,

1:27:29which is a 5% um off of 36 almost 37

1:27:33million dollars. So, that's That is um

1:27:36um pretty decent budgeting. I feel like

1:27:38um

1:27:39that's

1:27:40I'm I'm really comfortable with that

1:27:42kind of of level of forecasting. There's

1:27:45um we'll talk about it in just a second

1:27:48where we saw um some non-personnel kind

1:27:50of variances. You'll see our community

1:27:53and youth grants had a little bit of a

1:27:54variance and our capital outlays

1:27:57actually was

1:27:58>> [clears throat]

1:27:59>> pardon me, was a little bit more. Often

1:28:01times what we find is

1:28:04departments will budget under just

1:28:05regular commodities and services, but

1:28:07when the the purchase happens, it really

1:28:09should be classified as capital outlay.

1:28:12So, I wouldn't get too worried about

1:28:14that overage. It's it's a common

1:28:16thought process as you're budgeting and

1:28:18then

1:28:19when accountants get involved and apply

1:28:22some strict definitions, things slide

1:28:24around between those categories.

1:28:26So, I'm happy to take any questions on

1:28:28this view. We are going to look at the

1:28:29non-personnel services in more detail.

1:28:33>> Thank you. Mr. Kelly and then Mr.

1:28:35Brooks.

1:28:36>> Thank you. I was just

1:28:39maybe ask a little bit of clarification

1:28:41on the

1:28:42on the slide.

1:28:44So, the commodities and and services

1:28:47looks like this is supposed to be

1:28:49inclusive of all the items in blue that

1:28:51are below it.

1:28:53And this one

1:28:54in the second to last column the planned

1:28:57impact we have 178,400

1:29:02but in

1:29:03we don't see that reflected anywhere in

1:29:04any of the things that are in the blue

1:29:07that are below it. So, I was just

1:29:09wondering

1:29:10where that came from.

1:29:14>> Thank you, Mr. Kelly. That's a great

1:29:15question. Um when we prepared our

1:29:17budget, we didn't um

1:29:21we did look at all of the detailed to

1:29:23come up with 178,000. I didn't go back

1:29:26through all of those forecasting details

1:29:27to indicate which lines was which one.

1:29:31But it would be you are correct that

1:29:33commodities and services are made up of

1:29:34all of those lines in blue.

1:29:38>> Thank you. Mr. Mr. Brooks.

1:29:41>> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

1:29:43>> [clears throat]

1:29:44>> I'm just noticing

1:29:45I

1:29:48the travel and training was down to a

1:29:52number very similar to what I was

1:29:54proposing as a reduction

1:29:56in that in that fund. And I was just

1:29:59wondering if you guys can speak a little

1:30:01bit to

1:30:03was there opportunities enough to try

1:30:05and utilize that funding or was it a

1:30:07staffing issue or just why uh

1:30:10why so much wasn't utilized out of that?

1:30:14>> Yeah, I'll I'll take that and then chime

1:30:16in if anyone has more detail. We we

1:30:19generally come in under budget on travel

1:30:21and training because the way that we

1:30:22manage our travel and training is you

1:30:24have to have that

1:30:26you know, you have to know the

1:30:28conference you want to go to, what the

1:30:30hotels are going to cost, how many days

1:30:32you're going to be there when we build a

1:30:33budget. So each like named individual

1:30:36has that training budgeted. Inevitably

1:30:38there's turnover,

1:30:39uh vacations,

1:30:41they can't go go on those. So I think a

1:30:44lot of that lapse in travel training is

1:30:47is due to that which is which is also

1:30:49why we still you know,

1:30:52request that full amount. You'll see the

1:30:53same argument when we talk about

1:30:55commodities and services later. Like

1:30:57it's important to have that full

1:30:58authority even if we don't fully spend

1:31:00it because it allows that employee to

1:31:03you know, have that opportunity or that

1:31:05employee to have you know, the

1:31:06opportunity that like that department

1:31:08have the opportunity to to purchase

1:31:09something if it's a commodity

1:31:11with while maintaining our budget

1:31:13culture that's not like you have to

1:31:14spend every penny or have the authority

1:31:16the next year.

1:31:18Is do you have more detail on that

1:31:20Deputy Manager Burke?

1:31:21>> Yeah, thank you. I'll just add that it

1:31:23is it is very likely and Director Fluke

1:31:26can correct me if she thinks I'm wrong

1:31:28that the lion's share of this variance

1:31:31is public safety related.

1:31:33You'll see on a later slide that a great

1:31:35deal of our personnel savings is public

1:31:37safety related and when we budget travel

1:31:40training for

1:31:41public safety

1:31:43in addition to doing it how the manager

1:31:44described it, we also budget for travel

1:31:47training for positions that we hope to

1:31:49hire because we will need to train them

1:31:51if we are successful in hiring them.

1:31:56>> All right, thank you. Next slide.

1:31:58>> Excellent. So, um we're going to just

1:32:00stay on personnel for a moment and look

1:32:02at a pie chart of our personnel savings.

1:32:04So, um on the previous slide we saw we

1:32:06had $3.7 million

1:32:08of personnel lapse.

1:32:10And we often get the question, well, how

1:32:12where did that occur? Which departments?

1:32:14And so, this slide is really intended to

1:32:16um help you see that the lion's share as

1:32:19Deputy um Manager Barr just explained is

1:32:22in public safety with police and fire

1:32:23being um the biggest, um community

1:32:27development and parks and rec um being

1:32:29the next two largest after that. And

1:32:32again, um you know, our our expectation,

1:32:35our our forecast was really close to our

1:32:37our actual

1:32:39personnel lapse. And um I'll just say

1:32:41again, this was before we really

1:32:43ratcheted down on tightening the belt

1:32:46for '27. So, um I I would be surprised

1:32:50if we see a chart like this we have this

1:32:52conversation in a year.

1:32:54Any questions on this one? Um there is

1:32:56more personnel savings on the next slide

1:32:58that um

1:33:01>> Go ahead.

1:33:02>> Okay. So, we'll go to the next slide.

1:33:04Um this was [snorts] something that um

1:33:06we we did a couple years ago and updated

1:33:08last year. And this is really kind of

1:33:10looking at the biggest um departments

1:33:13that had personnel lapse. So, um closest

1:33:17to the department name you'll see the

1:33:19the FY26 um personnel savings

1:33:22and there in that department's total

1:33:24personnel budget and kind of the

1:33:25percentage

1:33:28that their lapse is of the total.

1:33:31Um

1:33:32but then in the next three columns

1:33:33you'll see the '25 numbers. So, what's

1:33:36interesting in this to me is is somehow

1:33:39um is partially how the departments

1:33:41change from '25 to '26, but then

1:33:44overall, if you look at the the

1:33:45percentage of lapse in '25 and compare

1:33:49it overall kind of to the departments in

1:33:51'26, you can start to see we were

1:33:53ramping down on um our our vacancy

1:33:57savings and and building that into our

1:33:59budgeted numbers.

1:34:01Um but you'll also um

1:34:03see that we are are gaining some success

1:34:06in hiring. So, there's a a combination

1:34:08of things in there. I do want to point

1:34:10out um

1:34:11the public works and engineering may be

1:34:13catching your eye going from 3.3 million

1:34:17down to 237,000. There's a couple of

1:34:21things going on there, so don't get too

1:34:23excited. Um our

1:34:26We had a practice in 20 FY25 and earlier

1:34:30where uh when project managers are

1:34:32working on a project, they charge their

1:34:34time to those projects. Um we would show

1:34:38that as lapse as savings.

1:34:41Um and we have cleaned that process up

1:34:45in FY26

1:34:47um so that there's not this huge

1:34:50apparent lapse when really in fact we're

1:34:52we're budgeting for those project

1:34:53managers to be allocating their time to

1:34:56projects, and so we want to see that

1:34:58happen in our actuals as well. So, um

1:35:01that is the biggest driver in that

1:35:03engineering and public works variance.

1:35:07Happy to take other questions on this.

1:35:11>> Mr. Steineger.

1:35:13>> Um thank you. My eyes kind of caught by

1:35:15that community development percent

1:35:18um

1:35:19and two years in a row where it's like

1:35:21one in seven, one in eight positions are

1:35:24vacant.

1:35:25Um I guess kind of how concerned like is

1:35:28that just a two-year trend or is that

1:35:29just a blip that's happening or that

1:35:32kind of a longer-term trend in that

1:35:33department? Kind of should we be

1:35:36concerned about our ability to recruit

1:35:38and retain there?

1:35:41>> Thank you for that question. Um it is

1:35:43difficult to recruit and retain those

1:35:46entry-level planners.

1:35:48Um however, I am pleased to say that we

1:35:50are almost fully staffed at CDD. We have

1:35:53one senior planner position vacant, but

1:35:54they are actually bumping up against

1:35:56that vacancy rate ceiling that was

1:35:57established uh year in the budget. Uh so

1:36:00we are holding off on hiring for that

1:36:02that final position and that might be

1:36:04part of a a mid-year adjustment that I

1:36:06bring to you. Um so real hiring

1:36:09challenges at CDD. Um however, we've

1:36:11made some some successes recently.

1:36:17>> Seeing nothing Oh, Ms. Cosgrove.

1:36:19>> Just a point of clarification. The

1:36:21percentages that we're talking about are

1:36:22as a percentage of budget, not

1:36:24necessarily a percentage of staff. And

1:36:26there's a loose correlation, but not an

1:36:28exact one. Is that a fair statement?

1:36:30>> That's a fair statement, yes.

1:36:31>> Thanks.

1:36:35Seeing nothing further, go ahead.

1:36:37>> Excellent. So, we'll move out of the

1:36:38personnel realm into the non-personnel

1:36:41lapse.

1:36:42The chart on this page is just the

1:36:45department or division um

1:36:47where

1:36:49the non-personnel lapse was 99,000 or

1:36:52more cuz there was just a great breaking

1:36:54point right there. I was trying to get

1:36:55to 100,000, but

1:36:57that last CDD just felt like it belonged

1:36:59in the on the chart. So, we went with um

1:37:03you know, those departments that are

1:37:05over

1:37:0799,000. Um we're going to just kind of

1:37:10walk through um

1:37:12a a few of the items with respect to um

1:37:15each of these, um not like beat them um

1:37:19beat them into uh submission.

1:37:22Uh so, we'll start with RecycleWorks. Um

1:37:24there's a couple things going on there.

1:37:27Um

1:37:27they they did have about $100,000 in

1:37:30invoices that they did not process

1:37:33timely in FY 26. So, those are going to

1:37:36roll into FY 27. So, that's um

1:37:38administratively um

1:37:41a little that that lapse looks bigger um

1:37:44than actual expenses. Um but we also had

1:37:47um about $162,000 in our junked vehicle

1:37:50program um that wasn't expended. Um

1:37:54we will probably talk about junk vehicle

1:37:56program um a bit because we are as in

1:38:00other areas seeing some pretty high

1:38:02escalation in costs there.

1:38:06Um

1:38:07I'm just going to run through these

1:38:08Manager Custer unless you like give me

1:38:10the high sign that you want me to that

1:38:12you want some of these.

1:38:13Um in transit the biggest um

1:38:15the biggest savings there um compared to

1:38:18budget um had to do with the paratransit

1:38:20contract um negotiated less than the

1:38:23previous. Um and they also had a bit of

1:38:25savings um in their bus maintenance

1:38:28parts. But they also saw higher than

1:38:31expected fuel costs. So a little bit of

1:38:33offsetting there.

1:38:35Um and I think Mr. Brooks to to your

1:38:37question earlier when we talk about um

1:38:39the police department, one of their

1:38:41a lot of their savings was just kind of

1:38:43sprinkled around not super interesting.

1:38:45But one that jumped out at me was um

1:38:47their uniform allowance had a a pretty

1:38:50um high lapse about $43,000

1:38:52um which is just indicative of the

1:38:55number of officers that they have. Um so

1:38:57that um personnel savings um kind of

1:39:00drives that.

1:39:01Um

1:39:02in the manager's [clears throat] office

1:39:03there were um a couple of things that

1:39:05drove that savings.

1:39:08One is the beautiful update to our audio

1:39:10visual in this room came in under

1:39:12budget. Um and also our conflict

1:39:14attorneys were significantly um less um

1:39:18than budgeted. We did um see some

1:39:20savings about um $50,000 related to our

1:39:23website redesign. And that's a one-time

1:39:26expense anyway and it's really um a

1:39:27timing. It's it got pushed to 27 um to

1:39:30continue and finish that work.

1:39:33Um in our IT world um we saw some

1:39:36significant savings with um

1:39:39uh just this subscription based um uh

1:39:43everything in software is subscription

1:39:45based. So in those maintenance fees and

1:39:47subscription fees. But we're also seeing

1:39:50um a significant spike in some of our

1:39:52data lines. Um so there's was kind of a

1:39:54mixed bag of ups and downs.

1:39:56Um the fire department

1:39:59again had um some sprinkling all over.

1:40:03Um general supplies um and medical and

1:40:06health services were both down by 73,000

1:40:09and almost 60,000. And again, um,

1:40:11looking back to their their personnel

1:40:13lapse, almost 38,000 in, um, training

1:40:16was unexpended.

1:40:18Um, in the clerk and elections area,

1:40:21um, printing was down, training was

1:40:23down, postage was down, um, all of

1:40:25those. And then, um,

1:40:27similarly as we talked about with

1:40:28personnel savings in community

1:40:30development, um, they had almost 50,000

1:40:33dollars worth of training that wasn't

1:40:34expended primarily due to vacancies in

1:40:36that department. Um, and then a few

1:40:39other things, um, that contributed. So,

1:40:41those are the big drivers, um, in the

1:40:43commodities, um, and services area.

1:40:46Um,

1:40:47for 26. Any questions?

1:40:50>> Is that it, Susan?

1:40:51>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, with the

1:40:53hundred some thousand invoices from

1:40:56RecycleWorks, was that like is that a

1:40:58common thing from them or was it like

1:41:00snowpocalypse holding them back,

1:41:02throwing things in at disarray? What

1:41:04what happened there?

1:41:06>> Uh, that's an excellent question. Um, I

1:41:09don't think it's a common thing. I think

1:41:11there were just some,

1:41:13um, a lot of things going on, um,

1:41:16with personnel in that area and they

1:41:18just

1:41:20one day opened a door and went

1:41:24That is a very technical explanation.

1:41:27Um,

1:41:28so, uh, I I would not expect to see that

1:41:31again.

1:41:34>> All right. Continue.

1:41:36>> All right, we'll go to the next slide.

1:41:40Yes.

1:41:41So, we've spent, um, most of our time

1:41:43talking about general fund, um,

1:41:45general funded departments and

1:41:47divisions. I think, um, you all know

1:41:49that you have responsibility for the

1:41:50entire city budget and so we wanted to,

1:41:53um, highlight some of how those others

1:41:56departments or funds,

1:41:57um, were faring,

1:41:59um,

1:42:01I don't know that I need to read all of

1:42:03these, but I know, um, fleet's going to

1:42:05catch your eye, fleet replacement, we're

1:42:07going to talk about that on the next

1:42:09slide. So, on that one, um, you can save

1:42:12questions. I will talk about risk

1:42:14management. That was, um, that one is

1:42:16showing over budget on here, and that

1:42:18was part of the supplemental, um,

1:42:21ordinance that was introduced on Monday.

1:42:25Last week Monday. Yes, a week ago. Um,

1:42:30wow. And that really does have to do

1:42:33with snow pop snow pop that big

1:42:35snowstorm we had in December last year.

1:42:37Sorry, I can't say that word today.

1:42:39Um, and we do anticipate that, um, we

1:42:41will be reimbursed through our

1:42:43insurance, through the state, um, for

1:42:46those costs. But, um, you know, there

1:42:48was plenty of of damage, lots of

1:42:50assessments, and and so all of that's

1:42:52just going to live in the risk fund, um,

1:42:55and we'll adjust the, um, the budget for

1:42:57that.

1:42:59I'm happy to

1:43:00answer questions on any of these.

1:43:05>> Hospital?

1:43:07>> Yeah.

1:43:10Hospital is over budget.

1:43:13Um, this is in addition to the

1:43:15supplemental that was done,

1:43:17uh, maybe in June, July. I can't

1:43:19remember exactly what month it came to

1:43:21you.

1:43:24We are working with the hospital to try

1:43:25to better understand what that overage

1:43:28looks like. Um,

1:43:31they are one of, um, they're the only

1:43:34department of the city who, um, does not

1:43:37use, uh, the city's accounting software.

1:43:40And so, the information that we have is

1:43:44really about cash that's that goes out

1:43:46the door, and then we true that up to

1:43:48their financial statements as their

1:43:50financial statements are collected.

1:43:52Um, we have done a preliminary true up

1:43:55of their expenses, and also, um,

1:43:58expenses that would

1:44:01come out of a budget world and really

1:44:04end up in a balance sheet. We can have a

1:44:06great accounting discussion later, but,

1:44:08um, we've accounted for that,

1:44:10um, it does leave them with about $7.4

1:44:13million of cash out the door that's

1:44:15sitting as an expense um, pending their

1:44:19final financial statements if anything

1:44:21comes through in that um, that would

1:44:23have us, um, do adjustments, but at this

1:44:25point um, it does look like those are

1:44:28are actual expenditures and and that

1:44:31um, department was also included in the

1:44:32supplemental that was introduced last

1:44:34week.

1:44:38>> Okay, I'll ask the follow-up question.

1:44:41Are they on a different software system

1:44:42because

1:44:44the hospital has

1:44:46weird things that happening at the

1:44:48hospital? Why are they on a different

1:44:49system, I guess, is my question.

1:44:52>> Madam Mayor, that's a fantastic

1:44:53question. Um, the the hospital

1:44:57is a department of the city and they do

1:44:59have, um,

1:45:01they have several operations that are

1:45:03run distinctly outside of the regular,

1:45:07um, city. Um, I I believe it's

1:45:09absolutely appropriate for them to have

1:45:11a point of sale system. Their business,

1:45:13just like Parks' business, is unique.

1:45:16And so, how they manage their billings

1:45:18and their insurance processes and their

1:45:20patient billings

1:45:22all of that's, um, you know, definitely

1:45:25unique to the hospital and I would

1:45:26expect them to have their own system for

1:45:28that.

1:45:29Why their accounting software is

1:45:31separate from the city is an interesting

1:45:34question, um, and I don't I don't have

1:45:36any history for why that is. Um, I don't

1:45:40you know, just sitting here today

1:45:41without doing a ton of research, I can't

1:45:43tell you that they need to be separate.

1:45:45Um, but they are.

1:45:49>> All right, Mr. Brooks.

1:45:51>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Do you know if

1:45:52they're making a 5% or more revenue?

1:45:56In addition to being over budget, do you

1:45:58know if they're bringing in more money?

1:45:59>> Uh, they're actually, uh, in the in the

1:46:03trial, um, balance sheet and income

1:46:05statement that I received mid-September,

1:46:08they actually are posting an operating

1:46:09loss. So, their revenue does not cover

1:46:12their expenses.

1:46:16And that's not finalized. That was

1:46:18preliminary. Just I'll say that again.

1:46:20>> Um Ms. Hall.

1:46:22Yeah, and is this related to the federal

1:46:25funds that typically come through that

1:46:28that haven't?

1:46:30>> Um I would not expect their expenditures

1:46:33to be related to the federal funds.

1:46:35Perhaps the revenue.

1:46:37Um I understand that if that that

1:46:39revenue

1:46:40is approved through

1:46:44um

1:46:45the body that it's sitting in that it

1:46:47contains language that would allow for

1:46:49retro

1:46:50um payments and so they would expect to

1:46:53get revenue associated with FY 26. So

1:46:56that could change their their revenue

1:46:59versus expenses, but their expenses over

1:47:01budget um would not be impacted by that.

1:47:06>> Madam Manager, December is when our

1:47:08joint meeting is?

1:47:11>> December 2nd.

1:47:13>> Well, thank you for that. This might be

1:47:14a topic for our agenda.

1:47:16Uh seeing nothing further, go ahead.

1:47:20>> Okay, let's uh move on to talk about

1:47:22fleet and the fleet reserve.

1:47:26Excellent. Um

1:47:28as as the previous slide showed um the

1:47:31fleet replacement was about 46%.

1:47:34Um under budget uh budgeted for 13

1:47:37million only expended seven.

1:47:40And um so here's a list of the

1:47:42departments and their over under budget.

1:47:47And to get to that variance, um I will

1:47:49point out that fire, transit, and

1:47:51wastewater make up 80% of the variance.

1:47:54Um also of note, those three departments

1:47:58have the highest single item value

1:48:03equipment across the entire fleet. So um

1:48:07we're talking about fire trucks and

1:48:09ambulances and uh super specialized

1:48:12trucks to do cool wastewater things. And

1:48:16um a vac truck and uh buses. I mean

1:48:19there there are the expensive equipment.

1:48:21And um another thing to realize is that

1:48:25a lapse in this does not mean that

1:48:27there's not a need. This is really about

1:48:30timing. And particularly when we're

1:48:32talking about these big expensive unique

1:48:35pieces of equipment,

1:48:37we um require the appropriation to

1:48:40happen before we put a a purchase order

1:48:43in for them, but it may take us well

1:48:46over 12 year 12 year or 12 months, maybe

1:48:4924 months before we get that apparatus

1:48:52in and it really gets expensed. So um

1:48:55you know, in the case of uh fire, you

1:48:57know, ambulances, fire trucks are are

1:48:59just really spendy and they take a year

1:49:01to 2 years to get. So we we certainly

1:49:04don't want to

1:49:06um equate this lapse with a lack of

1:49:08need. This is this is all about timing.

1:49:14>> Ms. Atkinson.

1:49:17>> Um with these timelines being so long

1:49:19for these very specialized um

1:49:22pieces of equipment, are, you know,

1:49:24wastewater and fire looking at extending

1:49:26their

1:49:28uh

1:49:28replacement schedules to account for

1:49:31that or are we just going to keep kind

1:49:33of being behind?

1:49:40>> Happy to take that one. Thank you, Ms.

1:49:41Atkinson.

1:49:43Um so yes, uh

1:49:45departments absolutely are taking that

1:49:46into account. It is only recently, at

1:49:49least in the fire world, Manager Custer

1:49:50probably knows more about wastewater

1:49:51than I do, but um at least in the fire

1:49:53world that um

1:49:55the industry, particularly on the engine

1:49:58side, but also on the ambulance side,

1:50:00has has frankly become quite

1:50:03monopolized, that there are very few

1:50:05vendors that are providing um these

1:50:07these uh large pieces of equipment

1:50:09anymore, and their backlogs have gotten

1:50:11longer and longer as time goes on. So

1:50:12fire is taking that into account in

1:50:14their fleet replacement schedules. It is

1:50:16not uncommon for the, you know, quoted

1:50:20time frame to be in the 3 to 5 year

1:50:21range, which 5 years ago was in the like

1:50:241 to 2 year range.

1:50:26Um

1:50:27and just looking at these numbers, I

1:50:29know for sure that fire has about $2.8

1:50:32million committed in a prepaid account

1:50:34for equipment that is on order. So, you

1:50:36you could you could reasonably view that

1:50:38line as flat, not as 93% under budget

1:50:41for that reason.

1:50:45>> Anything further?

1:50:47Madam Manager?

1:50:48>> Thank you. I just want to add the last

1:50:50two budget cycles we have more closely

1:50:53scrutinized that fleet contribution.

1:50:56Um and so we will continue to do that as

1:50:58as we progress. You know, sometimes

1:50:59maybe you don't need a new truck after 7

1:51:01years,

1:51:02you can you can extend that. So, that

1:51:04analysis happens um

1:51:06on a department by department basis.

1:51:11>> Okay, seeing nothing further. Go ahead.

1:51:14>> Excellent. Well, we will move on to what

1:51:16I know you're most curious about, which

1:51:17is your fund balance in the general

1:51:19fund.

1:51:20Um so

1:51:24I'm going to just going to walk through

1:51:25some timelines here and how things

1:51:27changed. So, um

1:51:29I'll just ask you to humor me as we do

1:51:31this.

1:51:33So, again, way back in March

1:51:37we um

1:51:38uh prepared the manager's proposed

1:51:40budget and with that we did some

1:51:42forecasting.

1:51:44Um the assembly had taken actions on

1:51:46things in FY26

1:51:48and we anticipated the ending fund

1:51:51balance

1:51:52um of FY26

1:51:55to be 20.7 million.

1:51:59And then April and May happened and we

1:52:02could go to the next slide if that's

1:52:03okay, Madam Mayor.

1:52:05>> Yep.

1:52:06>> And by the time we got to our adopted

1:52:08budget

1:52:09so in July of 2026, our 2026 budget went

1:52:15from 20 million to 10 million.

1:52:18Why, you might ask?

1:52:21There was a small little ordinance in

1:52:23there to resolve a revenue sharing

1:52:25agreement that was about 9.5 million

1:52:28dollars in the general fund.

1:52:31Is the bulk of that.

1:52:33So, as we were just like

1:52:36closing closing the door on time um in

1:52:40July that um

1:52:42FY26

1:52:45fund balance had dropped from 20 to 10.

1:52:48Okay, going to the next slide. Um this

1:52:50I've two slides

1:52:52that are the

1:52:54um kind of fund balance summary related

1:52:56to FY26. So, um and I did this in two

1:53:00slides so that there was a at least a

1:53:02small chance you could read this tiny

1:53:04writing.

1:53:05Um

1:53:06but some of this um

1:53:09on this first slide this is all of the

1:53:11appropriations

1:53:12that impacted FY26.

1:53:16And then on the next slide

1:53:19are

1:53:20the um anticipated

1:53:24and realized variances.

1:53:27So,

1:53:28um

1:53:30you know, through

1:53:32uh you'll notice

1:53:33Sorry, let me see if I can get this

1:53:35right.

1:53:36We went from March having 12 million to

1:53:39July having 10 million

1:53:42and now because we've experienced

1:53:45everything in FY26

1:53:48we're up to 18 million. So, we've got an

1:53:50increase almost 19 million. An increase

1:53:54of 8.6 million from the adopted budget.

1:53:57We can go back to

1:53:59um 2 million dollars in um commodities

1:54:03and services that added and your revenue

1:54:07that added to the fund balance as well.

1:54:10So, those are the big big drivers um

1:54:12that took you to

1:54:15um that ending balance in FY26.

1:54:21And we can talk about FY26 or I can

1:54:23answer the question of well, what does

1:54:24that make FY27?

1:54:26Cuz I'm sure that's

1:54:28also the burning question.

1:54:30>> Let's go with the burning question.

1:54:32>> Okay, so we'll go to the next slide. So,

1:54:35um

1:54:36this again, I'm going to take you back

1:54:38in time in June as you were adopting the

1:54:40budget,

1:54:42uh we gave you a summary of your fund

1:54:44balance.

1:54:45And at the end of FY27 after all of the

1:54:49budget decisions were made,

1:54:51and

1:54:53um [clears throat]

1:54:54with anticipated FY26 legislation, you

1:54:57were going to be at um $3.3 million,

1:55:01and with potential foregone revenue

1:55:04items that were in the queue, it's going

1:55:06to get you to $3.7 million.

1:55:09So, again, back in June,

1:55:12that's where we thought we were going to

1:55:13be.

1:55:14And then we can go to the next slide.

1:55:16With that change in our ending FY26

1:55:20fund balance,

1:55:22it pushes your expected FY27 ending fund

1:55:26balance

1:55:27from $3.3 million up to $12.1 million.

1:55:31And again, we'll point back to those big

1:55:33revenue drivers. That sales tax that was

1:55:35really driven by that um conflict in the

1:55:37Middle East. Um we had almost $2 million

1:55:41from um Gastineau Human Services that we

1:55:44um hadn't anticipated the return of the

1:55:46grant.

1:55:47And then that additional $2 million in

1:55:49commodity and services lapse from 26.

1:55:53And that's the real driver um

1:55:57to get you to that 27 fund balance. So,

1:55:59if you ask me, what's my fund balance

1:56:01today? The answer is $12.1 million.

1:56:03>> And remember, it's today, just watching

1:56:05all the different things happen.

1:56:09Ms. Cosgrove.

1:56:11>> You you may not be able to answer this,

1:56:13but I'm curious. We we talk about the

1:56:15increase in sales tax revenue driven by

1:56:18um the conflict in the Middle East.

1:56:20Surely some of those same things

1:56:22impacted our expenses, and I'm curious

1:56:24if you've seen that on the

1:56:26other side. And I know there was a lapse

1:56:28in some of those pieces, so I recognize

1:56:29that, but I'm just curious how that same

1:56:31thing is impacting the city.

1:56:32>> That That's a really great question. I I

1:56:36don't have hard data to to to share with

1:56:39you, but the last couple of years our

1:56:41non-personnel lapse has been 3 4 5

1:56:45million, and it was only 2 million this

1:56:47year. So, I think that some of that um

1:56:51cost that impacts the the city's ability

1:56:53to give services

1:56:55is seen in that lapse being just 2

1:56:57million.

1:56:59Um as we looked through um the various

1:57:03ways that we can slice and dice sales

1:57:05tax data,

1:57:07um the biggest driver was anything that

1:57:10used fuel. So, anything that needed a

1:57:13barge to come up here, anything that

1:57:15needed a plane to come up here, whether

1:57:17that was a thing or a person, um you

1:57:20know, those um those were so clear as um

1:57:24differences from a year ago.

1:57:26Um and and

1:57:28you all know when you

1:57:30drive by anywhere that's got the fuel

1:57:31price, diesel at

1:57:34over six is um mind-blowing.

1:57:40>> And before we get too excited about the

1:57:4212 million, we still have the GLAC

1:57:44conversation.

1:57:46Um

1:57:47seeing no further questions, um I'll ask

1:57:50a question. So, the restricted budget um

1:57:53reserve, we pulled some money out of

1:57:55that without replacing it. Can you give

1:57:58me a ballpark figure of that?

1:58:00And uh just remind my assembly members

1:58:02that we are supposed to replace this

1:58:04when we pull it out.

1:58:06>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um I'll give you

1:58:07a couple of facts about your um

1:58:10restricted budget reserve.

1:58:12Um you've got 17.

1:58:17Looks like 17.6 million in there right

1:58:19now.

1:58:20Um you should have 24.

1:58:22Um 3 and 1/2 million dollars

1:58:26um was pulled out for GLAHF-related

1:58:30expenses. Um,

1:58:33there was a small amount that came back,

1:58:37um, about $300,000, where FEMA,

1:58:40um, funding came through, and so that

1:58:43restored, um, some of the restricted

1:58:45budget reserve. So, $3.2 million of the

1:58:48restricted budget reserve is, uh, was

1:58:51pulled out for GLAHF. You also have, um,

1:58:55just about $2.5 million um, set aside

1:58:58for the Eagle Crest deficit, which I

1:59:00know is,

1:59:01um, something we can, um, is on the

1:59:04agenda to talk about on Wednesday.

1:59:06Um, [snorts] but those two things

1:59:07together is, are, you know, almost $6

1:59:09million, $5.7 million.

1:59:14>> Ms. Atkinson.

1:59:16>> Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a

1:59:17clarifying question. With that, uh,

1:59:19$17.5 million, is that exclusive of the

1:59:23$2.5 for Eagle Crest, or are we

1:59:24factoring that in as if we have it?

1:59:29>> If you were to,

1:59:31um,

1:59:33direct us to resolve the Eagle Crest

1:59:36fund deficit through regular

1:59:38unrestricted general funds, it would

1:59:40take you from $17 million up to $2.5

1:59:43million, $19.5 million. Thank you.

1:59:50>> All right. Any further questions on

1:59:52that?

1:59:54Okay. Carry on.

1:59:55>> Excellent. So, the last slide is what

1:59:58Manager Custer really wants to talk

1:59:59about.

2:00:01>> Thank you. Uh, yes, this is a a teaser

2:00:04slide for, uh, questions that, uh, I

2:00:07would, uh, direction that staff would

2:00:09like to get at the November 21st, um,

2:00:12budget retreat, so that we can take that

2:00:14direction and build you a budget. Uh,

2:00:17so, one of the things that we're going

2:00:19to be talking about is it's time to

2:00:20assemble a temporary 1%. And, um,

2:00:23looking for some guidance on assembling

2:00:27that list for you. My recommendation

2:00:29that we, of course, will go into greater

2:00:31detail of like example projects and

2:00:32needs would be a real theme of taking

2:00:35care of what we have. And there's a

2:00:37policy decision to be made there because

2:00:39often the 1% in the past has kind of

2:00:41been where you fund some of those more

2:00:44um

2:00:45pet projects for lack of a better word,

2:00:47but you know, where constituencies are

2:00:48really looking

2:00:50certain constituencies are really

2:00:51looking forward to, you know, different

2:00:53things,

2:00:55new services. And so that would be

2:00:59that would be a policy conversation for

2:01:00you to have. The other policy

2:01:04conversation is we have, you know, new

2:01:06revenue and how do you want to budget

2:01:09for recreation? My my recommendation is

2:01:11a status quo budget. We currently spend

2:01:14between capital and operating almost $20

2:01:16million a year on recreation-related

2:01:19items. We will detail that all for you

2:01:20in the retreat, but that will of course

2:01:22be,

2:01:23you know, how the assembly is

2:01:26wanting to kind of spend the those new

2:01:28dollars that the voters very

2:01:29intentionally

2:01:31intended to be meant for preserving

2:01:33recreation

2:01:35while leaving that discretion with the

2:01:37the governing body.

2:01:39Also will be asking for guidance on on

2:01:43budget, right? Every year you say, you

2:01:45know, last year you said cut, tighten,

2:01:48trim,

2:01:49and find new revenue.

2:01:51So we are we are looking for direction

2:01:54on both kind of

2:01:57status quo budget, cut budget, you know,

2:02:01what what you all want to see, but also

2:02:03will be asking you advising that we

2:02:06would present a balanced budget. So

2:02:07we've had a couple of years of fund

2:02:10balance spent in order to

2:02:13balance the budget. And this really

2:02:15isn't best practices.

2:02:16There were really good reasons that, you

2:02:18know,

2:02:19as evidence by today's presentation,

2:02:21right? The the good reasons why you did

2:02:23not make wholesale cuts to a lot of

2:02:25programming.

2:02:26Those have borne fruit. But it's kind of

2:02:28time to probably get back to

2:02:31balanced budget. But that of course is a

2:02:33policy decision for for you to give. Um

2:02:35also some policy uh guidance on our CIP

2:02:38appropriations. We have trimmed back um

2:02:42CIP spend because our CIP spend is um

2:02:47uh a lot of our CIP piece is sales tax

2:02:49driven and we just have a different

2:02:52sales tax number. So um we are in the

2:02:54last year of 1% and every year we've

2:02:57kind of um sacrificed a a project that

2:03:00might have been on the 1% list in order

2:03:01to make that budget goal. So kind of

2:03:03checking in with you on that. Um and

2:03:06then the the last item that I think will

2:03:08be really interesting to talk through

2:03:10from a policy perspective is

2:03:13how um aggressive we are on forecasting.

2:03:16And I know we've had this conversation

2:03:17before. I mean my first year as city

2:03:19manager we had the whole how aggressive

2:03:21do we do we forecast. Um but but uh

2:03:25acknowledging that we've experienced

2:03:27this um inflation in in

2:03:31you know, transportation costs which has

2:03:34meant we have more funding um but it

2:03:37also is incredibly volatile, right? We

2:03:39we don't know what's going to happen.

2:03:41And so we want to get guidance from the

2:03:43body on a way to structure our budget um

2:03:46and I'm thinking capital budget

2:03:48specifically uh where you can still make

2:03:52some of those really kind of bold um uh

2:03:55assumptions on revenue, maybe more bold

2:03:57than even the finance director would

2:03:59recommend uh but but bifurcate your CIP

2:04:01appropriation in a way that if we don't

2:04:04make those returns,

2:04:06um

2:04:07we're not, you know, um overspending.

2:04:10And so just talking through that that is

2:04:12a policy decision. So I I mostly wanted

2:04:14to make sure that you had time to kind

2:04:16of chew on those, that we can uh chat

2:04:18about them.

2:04:20And um let you know what we plan on

2:04:23asking of you in uh no on that November

2:04:2621st date.

2:04:28>> Any questions on the ask or any

2:04:30questions that you want to

2:04:32prepare staff for for our retreat.

2:04:37>> Is all

2:04:38Yeah,

2:04:39would at the retreat will we be provided

2:04:42with, you know, what was cut last year

2:04:43so we can take a look at that as well as

2:04:46if we want to do any adding back?

2:04:50>> Absolutely.

2:04:54>> Um my question will be magic finance

2:04:57manager.

2:04:59Um

2:05:01my question would be I'm not going to

2:05:02ask you for night just to put in your

2:05:04head and I don't even know if it's going

2:05:05to Can you peel out inflation on your

2:05:08sales tax and give us how close you

2:05:10would have been without sale without

2:05:12inflation? But yeah, I'm not asking you

2:05:14to give me that number, but is it

2:05:15possible to do that?

2:05:17>> Um it may be possible. One of the things

2:05:19we absolutely tracked was um the amount

2:05:23we of sales tax we thought we would lose

2:05:26due to

2:05:28the uh food exemption and the

2:05:32residential utility exemption.

2:05:34And we were within a couple hundred

2:05:35thousand dollars of that. Um so as so

2:05:39that makes me believe had there not been

2:05:42inflation, our overall sales tax number

2:05:45would have come in

2:05:47um fairly close to our our

2:05:50reduced with the election result um

2:05:54forecast.

2:05:55>> That's pretty tight.

2:05:57So, anyway, if you could bring those

2:05:59that those numbers, that would be great.

2:06:01Anything further, Mr. Brooks?

2:06:05>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Is there any way

2:06:08to

2:06:10get, you know, like um

2:06:13a view over the last handful of years of

2:06:18parcels that have gone off of the

2:06:20property rolls or that the property tax

2:06:23rolls?

2:06:24Just, you know,

2:06:26not necessarily housing stock, but just,

2:06:30you know, commercial properties, too,

2:06:32things like that. Just so we can

2:06:35kind of have like that comprehensive

2:06:37view of

2:06:40what we have compared to what we had

2:06:43just, you know, years prior.

2:06:46>> So, Mr. Brooks, just to make sure I'm

2:06:48clear, are you saying a piece of

2:06:50property was paying sales or property

2:06:52tax and now it's not? Okay, thank you.

2:06:57>> Uh that's a good question. Um we

2:07:01certainly can

2:07:03um

2:07:05Y- The answer is yes.

2:07:08The the the thing that I don't know

2:07:11sitting right here is if I can do it in

2:07:14minutes, days, weeks, or months. Um

2:07:18because certainly we can get a list from

2:07:21any year

2:07:23and

2:07:25put another list next to it and put

2:07:27another list next to it, and it's a very

2:07:29manual process. Um we we talked a few

2:07:33months ago about um

2:07:35looking to replace our enterprise

2:07:37systems, and one of the reasons why

2:07:40we're looking to replace them is um the

2:07:42reporting out of it is just

2:07:45not excellent. And um our parcel data um

2:07:51is is part of that group that's just

2:07:54really hard to to be able to answer a

2:07:56question like that.

2:07:57Um that being said, we can do just kind

2:08:00of initial cursory review and see see

2:08:03what we think it would take, and I can I

2:08:04can work with Manager Custard to figure

2:08:06that out.

2:08:08>> I I do, and correct me if I'm wrong,

2:08:10Director Flick, but uh

2:08:11getting the value of

2:08:14um

2:08:15uh the assessed I mean, we could we can

2:08:18we can get like moment in time uh well,

2:08:21it's one it's one year at a time uh

2:08:24value for

2:08:26property that is taxable and

2:08:28non-taxable, correct? So, so like that

2:08:31high-level data is easier to get uh and

2:08:34the parcel-specific information is more

2:08:36difficult. Am I understanding that?

2:08:40>> We have aggregate um

2:08:43valuation numbers, absolutely at a high

2:08:46level. Um there are some properties that

2:08:49um there's some parcels that just don't

2:08:52get values assigned to them because of

2:08:54the type of parcel they have. They are.

2:08:56So, um

2:09:01like I said, I'll I'll do a cursory

2:09:03review to see what we think we can pull

2:09:05together.

2:09:06>> And yeah, to follow up on that, what uh

2:09:08the manager was saying, yeah, that uh

2:09:11that larger view of like what is taxable

2:09:14on the rolls and what is isn't, you

2:09:17know, that for a handful years would

2:09:20would be just just as good as space.

2:09:23>> Okay.

2:09:25That where you think you got what you

2:09:26needed then, Ms. Cosgrove?

2:09:29>> Let me see if I can frame this in a way

2:09:31that makes sense. If we're going to look

2:09:33at aggressive revenue forecasting, can I

2:09:35assume that you all are going to bring

2:09:37back some

2:09:38uh projections versus actuals so we can

2:09:41kind of look at trend over time of what

2:09:44that looks like and maybe also

2:09:45consideration of what are those big

2:09:48unknown things that happen and pop up,

2:09:50which they frequently do, inflation

2:09:53being one of those things. Does that Is

2:09:55my ask clear?

2:09:57>> Thank you for that question. Um we are

2:09:59planning to bring you um several years

2:10:03of, for instance, sales tax data by

2:10:05year, um what was budgeted, what was the

2:10:08actual um sales tax for that given year.

2:10:12Um and then also

2:10:15um

2:10:16by

2:10:18November 21st, we'll have had

2:10:21July, August, September quarter of sales

2:10:23tax data

2:10:24um [snorts] was due today.

2:10:27Um so we'll we'll have, you know, some

2:10:30more current numbers, and we hope to

2:10:33have a at least a first blush of what we

2:10:35think 28's going to look like. Um so,

2:10:39hopefully through all of that that trend

2:10:41data will pop.

2:10:43Thank you.

2:10:45>> Um Ms. Niven.

2:10:49>> Going back to the fleet reserve

2:10:52spreadsheet, is it possible to get the

2:10:55encumbered

2:10:57amounts and add a column in there so we

2:10:59get more of real time where we stand?

2:11:04>> Uh thank you for that question. Yes, we

2:11:06can.

2:11:07>> Thank you.

2:11:11>> Okay, seeing nothing further,

2:11:13um let's go ahead and take 9 minutes.

2:11:21So, bring us to 8:20.

2:14:51>> Mhm.

2:16:54>> Mhm.

2:18:56>> Mhm.

2:19:39>> I can the session.

2:19:42Save us quickly from that discussion.

2:19:46Uh

2:19:48Telephone Hill request for

2:19:49qualifications, Madam Manager.

2:19:52>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. On page 28 of

2:19:54your packet, you have a cover memo from

2:19:57me that's kind of outlining this topic.

2:20:00Um

2:20:02This RFQ is the culmination of about 3

2:20:05years of Assembly work that, you know,

2:20:08began with public meetings, um

2:20:10developed into the place guide uh that's

2:20:13posted on the website, um evolved into

2:20:16many, many different decisions that the

2:20:18Assembly made. Um eventually, the

2:20:20Assembly decided to

2:20:23uh pause on planned demolition of

2:20:25Telephone Hill and issue this request

2:20:27for qualifications to kind of see what

2:20:30uh developments are out there. So, uh

2:20:32nor- normally, a process like this, and

2:20:34I say normally, but uh acknowledging

2:20:36that this is definitely not a normal

2:20:37process, and there's nothing about uh

2:20:40redeveloping a core part of downtown uh

2:20:44that that is normal, right? So, part of

2:20:45why you were here and you put so much

2:20:47effort into this is it is a unique and

2:20:49transformative opportunity. Uh but, we

2:20:52do RFQs and RFPs all the time, and staff

2:20:55has the authority to issue those um

2:20:58after the assembly has um

2:21:01appropriated those funds and given that

2:21:02direction. In this instance, just

2:21:04because it's such an important project,

2:21:06there's new assembly members, we really

2:21:08wanted to bring the topic back to you

2:21:10and just have a

2:21:11a touch base.

2:21:13Um

2:21:16Sorry, I got distracted.

2:21:18We just wanted to come back and and

2:21:19touch base with you on uh the RFQ, the

2:21:23RFQ process, and most importantly, the

2:21:26evaluation criteria. The evaluation

2:21:29criteria is on page 50 of your packet.

2:21:32The the memo says page 15, that's

2:21:34because when I drafted the memo, I was

2:21:35working off of a uh RFQ that got

2:21:38repaginated when it got stitched into

2:21:40the packet. So So again, uh focus of

2:21:43that is on page 50. You also have in

2:21:45your packet a nice timeline that staff

2:21:48put together just kind of detailing the

2:21:50steps and the major decision points as a

2:21:53uh

2:21:54as a matter of background on this topic.

2:21:56Uh so the purpose for this conversation

2:21:58today is to really focus on

2:22:02um

2:22:03the the that uh

2:22:05evaluation criteria. We will issue this

2:22:08RFQ uh pretty much as soon as you give

2:22:11us that direction to do so. We'll We'll

2:22:13hold it open for about 60 days. We'll

2:22:15have pre-bid meetings. Uh you know,

2:22:17we'll go through all of that process.

2:22:19And then staff will come together and

2:22:22have a a scoring committee. So we will

2:22:25take that evaluation

2:22:26uh criteria that's in the RFQ. It will

2:22:28be um it will be a rubric, right? And

2:22:31and staff will use that rubric to score

2:22:34all of the applications and all of the

2:22:36proposals, and we will develop a

2:22:38recommendation um that is

2:22:41most aligned with the evaluation

2:22:44criteria. And you'll you'll notice again

2:22:46that's on page 50 of your packet. Uh

2:22:48that includes the the project vision,

2:22:51which is an important part. It's kind of

2:22:52like what we've been talking about for

2:22:54the last 3 years. But really the major

2:22:57part of that

2:22:59uh that criteria is based on a firm's

2:23:02ability to to do the work and their

2:23:04history doing the work. This is why it's

2:23:06a request for qualifications and not a

2:23:08request for proposals. So

2:23:11so staff will it'll be open for you know

2:23:13at least a 60-day period.

2:23:16Um we will come together and we will we

2:23:18will score those

2:23:20proposals and then we will bring those

2:23:23proposals to the assembly with a

2:23:24recommendation. So we would say we

2:23:27recommend proposal

2:23:29B because it is

2:23:32most aligned with assembly vision and

2:23:35most experienced team project team and

2:23:39the

2:23:40developer has

2:23:42experience developing affordable housing

2:23:44in urban environments similar to Juno

2:23:48and you know for all of these reasons we

2:23:49recommend this

2:23:51this you know proposal proposal proposal

2:23:54number B

2:23:56then if you you know accepted that

2:23:58recommendation

2:24:00you would just like you do with all of

2:24:02our land

2:24:03development transaction. So think of

2:24:0612th Street in in Franklin for example,

2:24:10you would

2:24:11um

2:24:13authorize the city manager to enter into

2:24:14negotiations with that developer to

2:24:18flesh out details of that project,

2:24:20right? So there's still one thing I want

2:24:22you to take away from today's process is

2:24:25there are still many touch points for

2:24:27assembly approval. If you get to that

2:24:29you know we've had the 60 days staff

2:24:32gives you a recommendation and you say I

2:24:34don't like staff's recommendation

2:24:36because I don't think they adequately

2:24:38assessed

2:24:40you know our vision

2:24:42as established in the RFQ I recommend

2:24:44proposal C. You can do that. I just

2:24:48would encourage you to have it justified

2:24:50in the evaluation criteria and the

2:24:52project vision that you're establishing

2:24:54in the RFQ process today, right? Because

2:24:56it's important that all those

2:24:57respondents know what you're going to be

2:24:59valuing when you when you score those

2:25:02and when the staff scores those but

2:25:04ultimately when the assembly reviews

2:25:06those. So,

2:25:08there is I think a degree of flexibility

2:25:10built into this process and touchpoints

2:25:12built into this process, right? You will

2:25:16authorize the manager to enter into

2:25:17negotiations and then the manager will

2:25:20hammer out details of you know

2:25:23feasibility and and all the like all the

2:25:26details that really matter through this

2:25:28process because

2:25:31a proposer is going to have to invest

2:25:33six significant amount of money into

2:25:35developing all of those details and then

2:25:37you would have you know another

2:25:38opportunity to approve any project or

2:25:41any transfer of property.

2:25:44So, not as you know not as probably

2:25:46crystal ball as we would like to have to

2:25:48know exactly what we're going to do but

2:25:50I think it lays out a process that keeps

2:25:53us moving forward on Telephone Hill

2:25:55while maintaining the assembly's

2:25:57discretion to you know provide that

2:25:59direction. Happy to answer any

2:26:01questions.

2:26:03>> All right, who has questions?

2:26:08Well, I'll start with mine then since

2:26:09everybody's being shy. Okay,

2:26:12I have said from all along we should do

2:26:14this a little bit differently but that's

2:26:15okay.

2:26:16I can go with the will of the body but

2:26:18I'm just want to make sure that this is

2:26:19open enough. You say up to 150

2:26:22155 units but let's pretend that I'm a

2:26:26developer I want to do 30 high-end

2:26:27condos. Can I still answer the RFQ?

2:26:32>> Yes, and you could answer the RFQ

2:26:35to not develop the entire site. You

2:26:37could

2:26:38let's say you wanted those 30 high-end

2:26:39condos on the the the forward lot.

2:26:43You could just respond for for that um

2:26:48that piece.

2:26:50>> So, I'll just keep going. What if I just

2:26:52want to do infill? Keep a couple of the

2:26:53houses and put a fourplex or something

2:26:56there. Can I still respond?

2:26:57>> Yes, you can respond and it would be

2:26:59scored according to the criteria that's

2:27:02established in this RFQ.

2:27:04>> Well, Mr. Brooks.

2:27:06See, I

2:27:07got you guys started, so now you'll

2:27:08start thinking. Mr. Brooks.

2:27:10>> Um

2:27:11I just want to know like

2:27:15the things that we should iron out for

2:27:17the understanding of us on the body here

2:27:19is like exactly [clears throat] how many

2:27:21units do we want, what level of subsidy

2:27:24do we want to provide on the taxpayers'

2:27:26dime, and you know, what do we want to

2:27:29see out of this RFQ because right now

2:27:31it's

2:27:32for you know, up to 155 units, but all

2:27:35the language is still very much full

2:27:37demo, high-rise, high density, and I

2:27:40think we need to go around the table and

2:27:43see if that's actually what we want, and

2:27:45kind of iron out some of those details

2:27:47now so we don't push this through and

2:27:49then get

2:27:50less than desirable responses and then

2:27:53have to get something new issued down

2:27:55the road. Let's I want to be efficient

2:27:57here.

2:27:57>> Well, Mr. Brooks, I hear what you're

2:27:59saying, but that's why I just asked my

2:28:00questions is it's anywhere up to 150

2:28:03units, so I don't think we want to take

2:28:06anything off the table, but we'll let

2:28:09the body think about that for a minute.

2:28:10I'll go to Mr. Kelly.

2:28:14>> Uh thank you.

2:28:16Um

2:28:19So, I'm looking at the timeline that you

2:28:21have here on page 31 of the packet.

2:28:26And I'm

2:28:28thinking I I've I've been looking

2:28:30through this as much as I can over this

2:28:32weekend, and I might have some ideas for

2:28:35amendments, but there's some things I

2:28:37might want to hash out if we ended up

2:28:39taking another meeting to in order to do

2:28:42this.

2:28:43Uh would how would that impact the

2:28:45timeline?

2:28:49>> Madam Manager.

2:28:52>> Um

2:28:53it would delay the timeline by uh

2:28:56at least

2:28:58to at least another month, right? We're

2:29:00in November 2nd, our next Committee of

2:29:02the Whole is November 30th.

2:29:05>> All right, Mr. Kelly, start asking your

2:29:06questions.

2:29:08Um Ms. Hall.

2:29:10>> Another uh I'm I'm looking at the

2:29:12available incentives and the low-income

2:29:15housing tax credits, which um that

2:29:17program they usually expire in 30 years.

2:29:21So then that would make those vulnerable

2:29:24to becoming market-rate. Um

2:29:26so I'm just wondering are are we would

2:29:28this allow developers to consider other

2:29:32uh such as say limited equity co-op

2:29:36housing?

2:29:37Um yeah, I I want to make sure

2:29:40we throw out several different potential

2:29:43um

2:29:44models that they might take a look at.

2:29:48>> Madam Chair.

2:29:51>> Yes, one of the reasons why we are so

2:29:53heavily focused on the qualifications of

2:29:56the developer is cuz we want to attract

2:29:59a developer that has experience in some

2:30:01of these

2:30:02um unique financing mechanisms, but also

2:30:05uh programs for affordable housing,

2:30:07programs for for financing. So um we

2:30:10would be leaning on on that experience.

2:30:12We would be hoping to have that

2:30:14experience in uh the the proposers who

2:30:17respond.

2:30:20>> Mr. Kelly.

2:30:24>> Uh thank you. I um

2:30:27also looking at the time. I just had a a

2:30:30question about uh what the definition

2:30:32for So you So I guess um

2:30:35LCG, which I think uh is Leland

2:30:37Consulting Group, would be contacting

2:30:41regional developers. So So what would

2:30:43that mean? Would that mean uh people

2:30:46What What defines region? Is it like

2:30:48Southeast Alaska? Is it

2:30:51um region like the this region of the

2:30:53United States? Um

2:30:56what are we talking about, Stephanie?

2:30:57>> Madam Chair.

2:30:58>> It is Pacific Northwest, and there is

2:31:01linked in the uh memo

2:31:03um

2:31:04the his- historical memo, there is a

2:31:06link to that initial developer outreach.

2:31:08I believe nine different developers, you

2:31:10know, in this was months ago

2:31:13from the Pacific Northwest. There might

2:31:16have been some from

2:31:17the the middle of the country as well.

2:31:20But really

2:31:22we've been advised that the kind of most

2:31:25attractive, you know, developers that

2:31:27would find this attractive would be in

2:31:29our geographic region. So we would focus

2:31:32our outreach there.

2:31:34>> Thank you.

2:31:34>> I'm going to follow up to Mr. Kelly. So

2:31:37I know we can't say Alaska-based

2:31:39developers cuz that's illegal, but can

2:31:41we say anything about who build in

2:31:44wet snowy climates or

2:31:47anything like that?

2:31:50>> I think

2:31:50>> Question for the attorney.

2:31:51>> Yeah, well, I think that the that would

2:31:53go under

2:31:55the qualification section where they

2:31:58have demonstrated experience in similar

2:32:00projects.

2:32:01>> Thank you, Mr. Smith.

2:32:08>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm kind of on

2:32:10that same vein

2:32:12just in terms of, you know, people

2:32:14building in northern climates or Alaska

2:32:17or I mean

2:32:19respect.

2:32:20I guess is it is it is that important to

2:32:24include or or not? I mean I guess it

2:32:27isn't included now. It's like similar

2:32:29projects, but it's not like similar

2:32:31climates or

2:32:34things.

2:32:36>> [clears throat]

2:32:36>> Madam Mayor.

2:32:38>> We can certainly make sure that there's

2:32:40a

2:32:41reference in our criteria under quality

2:32:45and success of previous projects that is

2:32:48specific to

2:32:50not just similar land uses to those

2:32:52provided or scale of projects, but

2:32:57building in

2:32:59northern climates.

2:33:01Northern southeastern climates.

2:33:03>> Yeah.

2:33:04>> And I know Madam Mayor.

2:33:05>> Go go ahead, Mr. Smith.

2:33:07>> I was just going to say like only if

2:33:10only if that actually makes sense. I

2:33:11mean saying like in Alaska I could see

2:33:13not making sense because there's, you

2:33:15know, interior permafrost and then, you

2:33:18know, southeast clay soils. So, like,

2:33:21anyway, I I I just wanted to

2:33:23flag that as

2:33:25if it makes sense to include some type

2:33:26of

2:33:27it that anyway, just

2:33:29then go forward. I'm not saying it has

2:33:31to. Thanks.

2:33:35>> And I know we don't have to

2:33:38we're looking at specific projects, but

2:33:40can we get any idea

2:33:42from this what the cost per square foot

2:33:45would be?

2:33:46Um

2:33:48or was that

2:33:50as we get closer to a project?

2:33:53>> Yeah, I think that level of feasibility

2:33:55uh just

2:33:56uh would be uh you know, would require

2:33:59significant investment on the proposer's

2:34:01part. So, I would see that level of

2:34:03feasibility hammered out after entering

2:34:06into negotiations.

2:34:07However, we have asked under the project

2:34:10vision um that uh projects requiring

2:34:14less assembly incentives will be graded

2:34:15higher because the reality is we don't

2:34:17care how much it costs per square foot.

2:34:19We care how much uh taxpayer dollars are

2:34:23needed to make the investment

2:34:25successful. So, we're really trying to

2:34:27focus on that piece.

2:34:29>> Good job. You answered my other

2:34:30question. I was going to say can we rate

2:34:32how much subsidy is needed, but that

2:34:34answered my question. Ms. Niven.

2:34:38>> I was just going to comment on what Mr.

2:34:41Smith said and and I do like adding the

2:34:44environmental experience in our climate

2:34:48um to make sure that's clear.

2:34:53>> All right.

2:34:54Anything further?

2:34:57Mr. Smith.

2:34:59>> Thank you. I I hear and I you know, what

2:35:01is I read the words that construct up to

2:35:04155 units. I you know, I I I see how

2:35:09I I see how this it is it is open there.

2:35:12I guess I just

2:35:14just a point of consideration is

2:35:17do should we use

2:35:20should we provide examples or you know

2:35:23say things so it is crystal clear like

2:35:27submissions do

2:35:29anyway like submissions do not need to

2:35:32redevelop all

2:35:35um parcels or you know just

2:35:39just to make it like very clear that

2:35:41though that the other options are are

2:35:43allowable. Um I see how it is but again

2:35:47I don't I don't know if like so anyway

2:35:50I'm not sure if a developer reading this

2:35:51would say oh hey I want to develop one

2:35:53parcel

2:35:54and I'd feel good submitting that. Um

2:36:00>> Yeah, thank you for that question. I

2:36:02think that we can make sure that we're

2:36:04clear that um it's not an all-or-nothing

2:36:07uh RFQ and there are other places that

2:36:09that speak to that. I think it is

2:36:12difficult

2:36:14uh

2:36:14to

2:36:16you know if if you guys are like I

2:36:18really want to prioritize something

2:36:20low density over high density. That

2:36:23would be direction to give at this time,

2:36:26right? Because you have you you don't

2:36:27want the highest density. You made that

2:36:29decision when you when you discussed the

2:36:31place guide, when you discussed

2:36:32statement of objectives. But if you're

2:36:34like I really think a lower density

2:36:37number would be preferable

2:36:39notwithstanding all other variables than

2:36:43155 units, then that is direction you

2:36:45you should give because the direction

2:36:48that we have gotten up to this point is

2:36:51um

2:36:51that you know higher density is

2:36:53preferred. Now

2:36:55you can see how the scoring criteria is

2:36:57weighted.

2:36:58Your quality and success of previous

2:37:01projects and your experience delivering

2:37:03projects is weighted far greater than

2:37:05project vision which encompasses all of

2:37:08those things. So you have you have uh 70

2:37:10points for basically can they do the job

2:37:14uh and then only 30 points for what's

2:37:16their vision of of the job. So,

2:37:19um

2:37:19I I think there's

2:37:21uh a lot of room for that. But, if if

2:37:23really you don't want to entertain 155

2:37:26units, that is direction you should give

2:37:29today.

2:37:30>> Thank you for that, and I hadn't

2:37:31forgotten Mr. Brooks. I just was taking

2:37:33questions first before we had that.

2:37:37Mr. Steininger, you look perplexed.

2:37:42>> Uh

2:37:43less perplexed. I'm just thinking about

2:37:44the statement that uh that Mr. Smith

2:37:47made and kind of

2:37:48I I'm

2:37:49trying to consider that with comments of

2:37:53of Manager Kester. Um I'm I'm do kind of

2:37:56lean towards the

2:37:59towards what Mr. Smith just said of

2:38:01maybe having some kind of statement in

2:38:03there. Finding a way to include some

2:38:05kind of statement that makes it clear

2:38:06that

2:38:07a or a

2:38:09a not proposal cuz these aren't

2:38:10proposals, but a a response that

2:38:14that did not look like there's this

2:38:17diagram on the the place guide page 47

2:38:20where it shows the nine

2:38:22different um

2:38:24design guidelines. In every one of those

2:38:26pictures, all the current buildings are

2:38:29gone and replaced with new structures,

2:38:32which I think would further lead a

2:38:34respondent to maybe think that response

2:38:38is required all the structures

2:38:40demolished because they're not going to

2:38:41watch this hearing and go back and read

2:38:43our minutes. So, maybe a statement that

2:38:45makes it very clear that

2:38:49they're not required to demolish all

2:38:51structures, but that you know, the

2:38:54addition or the

2:38:57there be a favorable score to responses

2:39:00that

2:39:01increase the number of units

2:39:04on the hill or something. I'm not

2:39:06getting That's why I look perplexed. I

2:39:07couldn't phrase what I wanted to say in

2:39:09my head.

2:39:10>> [laughter]

2:39:11>> Mr. Brooks.

2:39:13>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh

2:39:15do you think an appropriate way to

2:39:18encompass what uh Assemblymember Smith

2:39:21and Steininger are saying is something

2:39:23like and and I'm not going to use the

2:39:25155 units because I don't think it's

2:39:28nearly as feasible, but could you say

2:39:30something like 30 to 80 units

2:39:33including existing structures and then

2:39:37that way it could encompass what's

2:39:39already there in addition cuz I mean of

2:39:41course we want more uh housing. So, the

2:39:4530 or 35 is double what's already there,

2:39:49but what's already there could be

2:39:51contributed to it and then doing that

2:39:53range 30 to 80, you know,

2:39:56it sets that clear definition is like we

2:39:58have to do at least this much and then

2:40:00up to up to this point.

2:40:05>> Um so, I I want to go back to

2:40:07Assemblymember Steininger's comment. On

2:40:09page 50 it says a statement of the

2:40:11respondent's vision for Telephone Hill

2:40:13including whether they propose to

2:40:14develop the entire site or only a

2:40:16portion, proposed uses and open spaces

2:40:18and considerations for affordable

2:40:20housing. So, um

2:40:22uh it is mentioned in there.

2:40:25I I also want to note that when you um

2:40:29when you pause demolition, you paused

2:40:31demolition. You did not cancel

2:40:33demolition, you did not say you were not

2:40:35going to to demo those houses or pay for

2:40:37demoing those houses. So, that is one of

2:40:39the potential Assembly incentives that

2:40:41is still on the table for uh development

2:40:45of this project. And then to address

2:40:47Assemblymember Brooks' question, um

2:40:51I think that you absolutely could amend

2:40:53this RFQ and say we want to prioritize

2:40:57infill over new development and we want

2:41:00to prioritize a lower density of of

2:41:02housing. I think that would be a very

2:41:04hard pivot from all the work that has

2:41:07been done to this this moment and um

2:41:11might, though I'm not sure, necessitate

2:41:13a little bit more just thought work

2:41:15because it is because we've kind of been

2:41:16going on this like this path, right? The

2:41:19the place guide is very

2:41:20is very clear. Like I think we would

2:41:22want to like go back to the place guide

2:41:24and look at some of the other options

2:41:25and maybe spend just a little bit more

2:41:27time if we're going to prioritize. So,

2:41:30it's not that that option's not on the

2:41:32table, right? It's not that if someone

2:41:34submitted a proposal and said, "I want

2:41:36to do 30 units and I want to do infill."

2:41:38That this simply wouldn't that that you

2:41:40wouldn't it wouldn't be considered. It's

2:41:43just that it would be scored lower than

2:41:45a project that is proposing a higher

2:41:47density project

2:41:51all other things equal, right?

2:41:52Remembering that we're actually valuing

2:41:55the ability of the team to do the work

2:41:56more than anything else, which still

2:41:58leaves a lot of a lot of room, right,

2:42:00for those negotiations on exactly what

2:42:03that project would look like.

2:42:05So, I I guess if we want to go back um

2:42:09you may want to consider kind of just

2:42:11sitting on this for a little bit longer

2:42:13and and rethinking that if that's the

2:42:14direction you want to choose. I

2:42:16an idea.

2:42:18>> Uh follow up on the Ms. Uh

2:42:20>> Thank you, sir.

2:42:21>> Thank you.

2:42:22I you know, I I was just asking if a

2:42:24proposal like what I had suggested would

2:42:26encompass what Mr. Smith was asking. And

2:42:29that was, you know, the the clear

2:42:33statement whoever might be responding

2:42:36that hey,

2:42:38it can be a combination of some existing

2:42:40things and then also given that clear

2:42:44definition of exactly what we're looking

2:42:46at for a range, not just up to one large

2:42:49number. So, would you know, that

2:42:52direction of 30 to 80 units that which

2:42:55can include existing structures

2:42:57encompass

2:42:59what Assembly Member Smith was kind of

2:43:02asking for in a sense?

2:43:11>> I'm sorry. Um

2:43:13I might have be lost as to what Assembly

2:43:15Member Smith was asking for.

2:43:18Can Assembly Member Smith, can you

2:43:19restate that?

2:43:20>> Mr. Smith.

2:43:22>> Thank you.

2:43:23I don't think I was suggesting putting

2:43:26in another set of numbers.

2:43:28I think I just wanted to

2:43:32I wanted to

2:43:34have some language potentially in there

2:43:36that just

2:43:37made it clear that

2:43:41you know, I mean you you brought up

2:43:43about letting out developing parcels.

2:43:45Anyway, I guess just language in there

2:43:46to to make it clear to proposers

2:43:50that

2:43:51it doesn't have to only be 155 units in

2:43:54developing the entire site.

2:43:56I'm not totally sure how exactly to

2:43:59phrase that, Madam Manager, but that

2:44:01that is more of what I I want that's

2:44:03that was more of my intention. Does that

2:44:05help?

2:44:07>> The

2:44:07um thank you, Mr. Smith. She's nodding

2:44:10yes.

2:44:11Ms. Cosgrove.

2:44:13I don't know if this helps.

2:44:16Um but on page 45 of the packet,

2:44:21there's [clears throat] a uh under

2:44:22goals, site plan and design,

2:44:24there's a um

2:44:27diagram of the Telephone Hill area with

2:44:30the four primary lots drawn in. And

2:44:33under goals, it says construct up to 155

2:44:36housing units, blah blah blah. Now,

2:44:38obviously you're not going to get 155

2:44:40units if you only say, well, maybe we're

2:44:42going to

2:44:43do one

2:44:45parcel. You're not going to get 155

2:44:47units on one parcel. And so maybe in

2:44:49that area, that's a place to just

2:44:51rearticulate

2:44:53that um proposals for less than all four

2:44:57lots will be considered or something

2:44:59along that line. I'm not phrasing that

2:45:00very well.

2:45:02Um but maybe that gets to Mr. Smith's

2:45:04concern. I do recognize

2:45:07um

2:45:08what you said, Manager Custer, about

2:45:09that being included elsewhere.

2:45:12I just think we want to be clear that we

2:45:13are not um

2:45:15communicating

2:45:19We're not creating dissonance in what

2:45:20we're in what we're communicating, if

2:45:22that makes sense.

2:45:25>> I think everybody has kind of said the

2:45:27same thing. I think we just want to make

2:45:29it clear that we will look at any

2:45:31project. But here's our grading

2:45:33criteria, but we'll look at any project.

2:45:35So, we just want to make that clear in

2:45:37it somewhere. And if it's that's the

2:45:39place or up in the front, just I think

2:45:41some statement that says we're

2:45:43interested in any project that increases

2:45:46increases

2:45:48housing units or something.

2:45:50>> [clears throat]

2:45:51>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think just to

2:45:53kind of

2:45:54uh summarize that, I think um Assembly

2:45:56member Crosier, that's an excellent

2:45:57addition and we can definitely add that

2:45:59bullet point. I also think that there's

2:46:01probably somewhere in a preamble

2:46:03uh to summarize this conversation. And

2:46:08um I I would I think I can I think I can

2:46:10take that direction right to like the

2:46:13Assembly will consider all options. We

2:46:15we've done our best to lay out a vision

2:46:18that's consistent with community values

2:46:19and public process. However, we

2:46:21understand that there are many factors

2:46:23that would influence, you know,

2:46:24feasibility and developers uh you know,

2:46:27um

2:46:28ability to bring this project to

2:46:30fruition. Something

2:46:33something like that. And keep in mind,

2:46:34we will also have pre-bid meetings with

2:46:36uh

2:46:37developers um where they can

2:46:41ask a lot of these questions, too.

2:46:43>> Good. So, I'm just looking, does that

2:46:45satisfy you, Mr. Brooks? Something like

2:46:48that.

2:46:50Okay. You can say more. Um Mr. Smith,

2:46:52does that satisfy you? Or are you

2:46:55looking for something different?

2:46:57>> That that works for me.

2:47:00>> Okay, Mr. Brooks, what would you have it

2:47:01say more?

2:47:04I see Mr. Kelly, but we're having a

2:47:05conversation.

2:47:06>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just

2:47:08you know, want to emphasize that I think

2:47:12being willing to allocate

2:47:15millions for demo

2:47:18like there's two fronts on it, you know,

2:47:20the reason I said the 80 is because of

2:47:24the dual access. We go over 100 and it

2:47:26changes the complexity of you know,

2:47:31having two modes of entrance and access

2:47:34for

2:47:35emergency response and

2:47:37you know, we're looking at doing

2:47:40offering potential utility work, but not

2:47:43offering the road reconstruction and

2:47:46that puts it to where only very few

2:47:48people can respond or do work like that.

2:47:52But also,

2:47:54you know, the

2:47:57the

2:48:03And

2:48:04so,

2:48:06for that reason is like doing that 80,

2:48:08it kind of alleviates the need to have

2:48:10that potential for such large amounts of

2:48:13demolition and

2:48:16it just

2:48:20spending millions and millions of

2:48:22dollars should produce something, a

2:48:24foundation, a skeleton of some sort of

2:48:27housing.

2:48:29I can't imagine spending that kind of

2:48:31money

2:48:33with our financial situation to produce

2:48:37no housing at all.

2:48:39And it's something that, you know,

2:48:42in in better standings and, you know,

2:48:47better financial positions or more

2:48:49buildable areas would might be a little

2:48:52easier to digest, but I just

2:48:54currently cannot imagine, like I said,

2:48:57millions being spent, especially since a

2:49:00large portion of that is a shipping cost

2:49:03to just make our hazardous material

2:49:05someone else's problem.

2:49:07And so, I would really like a focus to

2:49:10be is like, "Hey, you know, let's get

2:49:14as much

2:49:15additional housing as we can in the

2:49:17area, but we can't subsidize it with

2:49:19millions of dollars of taxpayer funds

2:49:21just to make a blank slate. We have to

2:49:24use money like that to actually create

2:49:25housing."

2:49:27>> Yep.

2:49:28>> And I think that will be a further

2:49:29discussion because I I

2:49:31that's where

2:49:33we would differ as a body as all of us

2:49:35want increased housing, but how much we

2:49:38have to spend as a city is probably up

2:49:41for discussion, but I think there'll be

2:49:43a future discussion. Mr. Kelly, did we

2:49:46Did you have anything to add?

2:49:49>> Um I was going to move the discussion in

2:49:52in other areas. I was going to go over

2:49:56the incentives a little bit, um

2:49:58but

2:49:59>> Uh could you pause for 1 second? Miss

2:50:01Adkins raised her hand.

2:50:04Are you ready to chat now, Miss Adkins?

2:50:06Or let Mr. Kelly Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

2:50:11>> Um I I was just kind of I was looking at

2:50:14the available incentive and I was also

2:50:15kind of looking at the at the overall

2:50:18project

2:50:19scope, you know, being up to 155 units

2:50:23uh with with 30 of them being

2:50:25affordable. Um I think that actually

2:50:29um

2:50:30I mean, so if somebody did want to build

2:50:32the maximum of 155

2:50:35and do the 30 units, that would not

2:50:37technically be 20% um affordable units.

2:50:40That'd be just shy of that.

2:50:42Um so I think I would want to specify

2:50:45like if you are searching for that

2:50:48incentive

2:50:49um that you still must meet the

2:50:53requirements of that incentive. We're

2:50:54not going to give you special treatment

2:50:57because you're doing this project.

2:50:59Um that was That was one point I wanted

2:51:02to make. I think there might be another,

2:51:04but I'll let Miss Adkins go first.

2:51:07>> Um Madam Manager,

2:51:09uh that might be a tough one, Mr. Kelly,

2:51:12because I think the rest of ours are

2:51:14going

2:51:15we don't want to put too many sidebars

2:51:17on any projects. So,

2:51:19I would certainly entertain them

2:51:20speaking for myself totally 30 unit

2:51:24condos.

2:51:25So, if nobody else comes through, yes,

2:51:28we want to find

2:51:29more housing and we'd love to do

2:51:31affordable housing, but if no one's

2:51:33going going on that, then I don't want

2:51:35to stop anybody from putting a project

2:51:37forward that we could consider.

2:51:40Is that it, Gissen? You want to jump in

2:51:41there?

2:51:42>> Uh yeah, Madam Mayor, I guess I'll just

2:51:44have kind of a a broad thing, which is

2:51:46uh we can definitely go through this

2:51:48whole RFQ and pick apart and really try

2:51:52to be so specific about what we're

2:51:54looking for, but I actually think that's

2:51:55the wrong approach. I I like the

2:51:57questions you asked in the beginning,

2:51:59um trying to be as flexible as possible

2:52:02while still making our intent clear, cuz

2:52:04I I don't know about the rest of the

2:52:05body, but I want to see any feasible

2:52:07project that people can come up with.

2:52:10So, uh we've made it clear what we're

2:52:13looking for, but I'm not really

2:52:15interested in adding a lot of side bars

2:52:17that would prevent a person from being

2:52:19responsive and submitting a project.

2:52:22>> Mr. Kelly and Mr. Smith and Mrs. Niven,

2:52:25you can't see it, but people are nodding

2:52:26their heads on the assembly.

2:52:32Okay, who else has

2:52:34Mr. Kelly.

2:52:36>> I guess my pushback to that is that

2:52:38we're going to put this out

2:52:40and then we're going to create this

2:52:42expectation that this is this is what we

2:52:44want. If you give us if you give us

2:52:47we're saying that these are what this is

2:52:48what we're looking for. And if somebody

2:52:51puts back a proposal and then it ends up

2:52:52being something that none of us actually

2:52:55like or maybe a majority of us don't

2:52:57actually like,

2:52:59then um

2:53:00then we're actually kind of damaging our

2:53:02credibility a little bit. And so, I

2:53:03think it actually would be important to

2:53:06actually be specific on what we're

2:53:09reaching out to the developer community

2:53:12and asking for.

2:53:16>> I'll go to Madam Manager on that one. Do

2:53:18we have enough criteria to rate people

2:53:21on that we could say no to a project

2:53:23that we didn't like

2:53:25if it didn't meet some of our

2:53:28>> Yeah, I I think where Assembly Member

2:53:30Keller Kelly is getting is

2:53:33is this line that you guys need to draw

2:53:37and the body

2:53:38Needs to draw between

2:53:40um being specific enough to articulate

2:53:42what you want so that there's a fair

2:53:44process and so that the developers are,

2:53:47you know, positioning themselves to it

2:53:50to

2:53:51um

2:53:52build something that you that you want

2:53:55and that's going to be judged based on

2:53:56pre-established criteria, not based on

2:53:58the whim of like

2:54:00the whim of the day. And the the the

2:54:04flip side of that is to make sure

2:54:05there's enough flexibility so you can um

2:54:09be attractive to all kinds of different

2:54:11developers because you don't know what's

2:54:14out there and you don't know the the the

2:54:16what is possible. And I think this RFQ

2:54:18really tries to thread that needle.

2:54:21I also think that there is room in here

2:54:23for you to give different directions. So

2:54:25if your

2:54:26uh you know, direction is less density,

2:54:28you should give that. If your direction

2:54:30is more affordability, you should do

2:54:32that. If your direction is we absolutely

2:54:34don't want to spend any money on

2:54:36demolition, you should give that

2:54:38direction. Does Does that help? I I know

2:54:40that um

2:54:42I mean I I And I don't want you to get

2:54:45so wrapped around the axle on all these

2:54:46details because in the end, really

2:54:48doesn't matter how long we talk about uh

2:54:5080 homes, 31 units affordable, 30 units

2:54:54affordable. What matters is what people

2:54:56are willing to build.

2:54:58>> Mr. Steiniger and then um Ms. Nevin.

2:55:04>> I I'm good. I'm good for now. Yeah.

2:55:06>> Ms. Nevin.

2:55:11>> I think

2:55:13maybe we need a more little more

2:55:15flexibility in the points under vision

2:55:17and maybe that will help.

2:55:20I feel like

2:55:21um

2:55:23if people propose building a larger

2:55:27number of units, they're going to

2:55:28require more incentives

2:55:30and the points that we score them at are

2:55:34going to offset each other.

2:55:37But only if we have the flexibility

2:55:40to do that with the the way the points

2:55:43are so that

2:55:45our vision for what we want to see

2:55:47outweigh not necessarily outweighs but

2:55:50gives more weight than the experience

2:55:54of the

2:55:55the contractors the developers that

2:55:57propose it. I think it's I think it

2:56:00sounds to me like everybody wants to

2:56:02make sure we get what we want and I

2:56:05think with having 30 to versus 70 points

2:56:10it's going to be harder to

2:56:12to meet our vision than just making sure

2:56:15we have a really good contractor.

2:56:19If that made sense.

2:56:22>> Uh thank you for that Mr. Steineger you

2:56:23want to add to that or

2:56:24>> Um yeah I guess that that is inspiring

2:56:27me to chime in a little bit cuz I

2:56:28actually kind of think about this sort

2:56:30of the opposite. Um

2:56:34I I like that

2:56:36success and experience prior success and

2:56:38experience it are

2:56:42because to me yeah there's a lot of

2:56:43things that I might want to see on

2:56:45Telephone Hill there might be

2:56:47you know

2:56:49a greater level of density. I think you

2:56:51know having seen a lot of density lost

2:56:53in downtown over the last decade or so

2:56:56but

2:56:58achievability of a project is a lot more

2:57:02important I think than

2:57:05you know my aesthetic desires for what

2:57:07the buildings look like or the exact

2:57:11number of units or how it's done

2:57:14and that's why I really want to make

2:57:15sure that we're

2:57:17you know like my comments earlier about

2:57:18making sure that's very clear we're not

2:57:20going to throw away our application if

2:57:22it doesn't look exactly like this 155

2:57:24units. If you're only you know if you're

2:57:26leaving these homes and you're building

2:57:28you know 30 new units net total

2:57:32yeah it's not the 155 but if you're an

2:57:34applicant that

2:57:36has experience can get it done that's

2:57:38more important I think than these

2:57:41kind of dream and visions and so I I

2:57:44kind of like that scoring criteria and I

2:57:47I hope maybe that statement answers some

2:57:49of the questions Miss Kester asked

2:57:52about, oh, do you want to change

2:57:55specific terms? I don't think so. I

2:57:58think what's in here is good cuz it

2:58:00highlights wants, but it doesn't bind us

2:58:04to them at the end.

2:58:07>> So, thank you for that statement, Mr.

2:58:08Steiniger. So, we will just I think you

2:58:11led us to where we're to the statement

2:58:13thing. So, um

2:58:19Katie doesn't get to talk.

2:58:21Go ahead, Madam Manager, cuz I think

2:58:23we're to the point where we might say

2:58:25what we were thinking and cuz I'm

2:58:27hearing that we're pretty open to ideas,

2:58:29but I want people to state if that's the

2:58:32case, so I'm not misspeaking for them.

2:58:35Go ahead, Madam Manager.

2:58:36>> I just want to remind the body that

2:58:38um

2:58:38this is a request for qualifications for

2:58:40a reason and we heard that from the

2:58:42developer community. They were like,

2:58:44this should be a different request for

2:58:45qualifications, not proposals. And that

2:58:48there will be additional opportunity to

2:58:50negotiate what that transaction looks

2:58:52like once you select the most qualified

2:58:56developer.

2:58:57And and that is really where you're

2:58:58going to hammer out like

2:59:00some of these uh

2:59:03the more of the details.

2:59:06>> Uh thank you for that. So,

2:59:08um

2:59:09Mr. Smith, we'll start with you.

2:59:11Give us your statement. What do you want

2:59:12to see?

2:59:17>> Um

2:59:19I

2:59:21I'm fine with the two kind of at least

2:59:24with the counting two changes that we

2:59:25have before just

2:59:28creating some space or opening, you

2:59:30know, that

2:59:32to make it clear we'll accept proposals

2:59:34that are not, you know, 255 units on all

2:59:37four parcels. Um

2:59:38anyway,

2:59:39I think we've already covered that.

2:59:42With the things we've already discussed

2:59:43and the way it is now, I'm I'm actually

2:59:47fine with it.

2:59:49With those with those changes.

2:59:52>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

2:59:56>> Um thank you. I I think I am, too. I

2:59:58just I don't know. Do we need some sort

3:00:00of

3:00:01is the is the manager at this point kind

3:00:03of taking

3:00:08I I yeah. Um is the is the manager at

3:00:10this point kind of um

3:00:12going to make edits based off of our

3:00:14conversation or do we need a motion to

3:00:17make edits and make things clearer?

3:00:20>> We're going to wait and see what we

3:00:22after everybody talks if she thinks it's

3:00:24clear enough for her.

3:00:26So.

3:00:30>> Okay. Um

3:00:31>> your two cents?

3:00:33>> No, I I think um well, I guess I'll just

3:00:35uh add add two cents. Like I I just um

3:00:38I'll just reiterate that I think if we

3:00:40are going to offer any sort of

3:00:41incentives uh that involves certain

3:00:43program requirements that um

3:00:46those would be conditional on on meeting

3:00:49those program requirements. So, if it's

3:00:51you know, something they're they're

3:00:53looking for the affordable housing

3:00:55fund support, they should still

3:00:58um meet the requirements that any other

3:01:01contractor would have to meet in order

3:01:03to do that to qualify.

3:01:06>> Okay. I think you said it a little bit

3:01:07better than Mr. Kelly. So, um if they

3:01:10meet the affordable if they want to use

3:01:12the affordable housing fund, then they

3:01:14have to meet the criteria that to use

3:01:15it. So, that's what I got out of what

3:01:17you said. Is that correct?

3:01:20>> Yeah, and I was being more broad. I

3:01:21think that's the only one that has I

3:01:22think that's the one that has the

3:01:23strictest requirements. So, yeah.

3:01:25That works.

3:01:26>> Thank Thank you for that. Um Ms.

3:01:28Atkinson.

3:01:30>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I I'm in a

3:01:31similar boat to Mr. Smith. I I'm fine

3:01:34with the way it is currently with, you

3:01:35know, I think the language about um

3:01:38working in a similar climate and kind of

3:01:39giving them more flexibility that Mr.

3:01:41Shininger was mentioning. Uh so, I'll

3:01:44spend my time talking about what I am

3:01:45opposed to. I am opposed to changing the

3:01:49top number of units we have in here. I

3:01:50think it should remain at 155.

3:01:53I like the way it is currently. I don't

3:01:56want to change direction on

3:01:59whether we do density or infill.

3:02:01This is the

3:02:03direction we've been working towards for

3:02:04the last 3 years and it's a direction I

3:02:06remain committed to.

3:02:09>> Thank you, Ms. Atkinson. Mr. Steininger,

3:02:11do you have anything to add to your

3:02:12statement?

3:02:14>> No, I'm good.

3:02:15>> Ms. Hall.

3:02:17>> Yeah, and I I'm also good with what's

3:02:20here. I I think that up to 155 is clear

3:02:24enough and um

3:02:26and

3:02:27nothing here precludes that someone

3:02:29couldn't propose infill, so

3:02:32and yeah, I'm not

3:02:35in favor of a big direction change at

3:02:37this point and

3:02:39if um

3:02:41no one's planning infill and we decide

3:02:43to incentivize clearing some of the

3:02:46properties,

3:02:47I'm okay with that as well.

3:02:50>> Thank you, Mr. Brooks.

3:02:53>> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

3:02:55I still think that it should go below

3:02:58100 just because that I believe will

3:03:01elicit more responses because the type

3:03:03of development with less than 100 units

3:03:06in that area is easier to do than over

3:03:09100 units or right at 100 units.

3:03:12And I would like to see

3:03:14no offer site demolition. We can do tax

3:03:18abatement or other ways, but

3:03:21spending the taxpayer's money to destroy

3:03:23existing livable structures is

3:03:26I don't think in their best interest.

3:03:28Thank you.

3:03:29>> Thank you, Mr. Brooks.

3:03:33Ms. Cosgrove.

3:03:37>> Thank you.

3:03:38I am comfortable given the conversation

3:03:40that we've had today about maybe putting

3:03:42in a couple places that people can

3:03:44propose less than the full four.

3:03:47I think we just need to move forward and

3:03:49we need to figure out if there's anybody

3:03:51out there and what that looks like at

3:03:52this point and I think rightly so there

3:03:55are a lot of people with a lot of

3:03:57questions that we simply can't answer

3:04:00right now until we have more information

3:04:02and for that reason I I think we just

3:04:04need to move forward and um trust that

3:04:08we've created a process that will allow

3:04:10us to look at the options and uh

3:04:13navigate towards the best solution for

3:04:14the community.

3:04:17>> Thank you, Ms. Cosgrove. Uh Ms. Niven.

3:04:23>> After the conversation we've had and

3:04:25with the recent um

3:04:28what Ms. Cosgrove said and

3:04:31um

3:04:33the city manager said, I think I agree.

3:04:36I think I'm ready

3:04:38to go with the way it is with the

3:04:40changes that we've we've suggested.

3:04:50>> Thank you, Ms. Niven. Um now if you

3:04:52notice this is one time I went by

3:04:53seniority. I usually don't do that but

3:04:56the senior people have dealt with this

3:04:57for a lot longer so I figured they could

3:04:59get first stab at it. Um my take would

3:05:02be I think we've made it quite clear um

3:05:05that it could be less than 150 units.

3:05:08I've said all along I thought 150 units

3:05:10was uh

3:05:11way too high. Sorry, Ms. Adkins, but I

3:05:13agree with Ms. Cosgrove and I think we

3:05:15just need to move forward and just

3:05:17basically see who's interested in what

3:05:19they're interested in doing. So I'm okay

3:05:21with moving forward with

3:05:23um hopefully a little bit wording just

3:05:25to let people understand fully that

3:05:28we're looking at all options. So now

3:05:30it's your turn, Madam Manager. Do you

3:05:32have enough direction, do you think?

3:05:34>> If you will indulge me, I'm going to

3:05:36summarize the edits that we will make to

3:05:38this RFQ.

3:05:39>> You have 30 seconds.

3:05:40>> Thank you. Uh

3:05:42when we talk about the affordable

3:05:44affordable housing fund as a potential

3:05:47tool, we will mention that the project

3:05:49needs to meet requirements of that fund.

3:05:51We will mention in our scoring rubric

3:05:54that there will a climate experience in

3:05:57similar climates will be weighted. We

3:06:01will

3:06:02um

3:06:03um Oh lord, we will add a preamble that

3:06:08expresses the

3:06:10desire for kind of any option to be on

3:06:12the table notwithstanding you see our

3:06:14vision, but we we want you know

3:06:18um to to to know that

3:06:21uh uh

3:06:22proposals that are outside of that

3:06:24vision may be scored may not be scored

3:06:26as high. However, they will still be

3:06:28considered. So, working on a preamble

3:06:30and then adding a bullet point to our

3:06:33goals that says we

3:06:35um

3:06:36will also entertain proposals that only

3:06:40propose to develop a portion of the the

3:06:42lot.

3:06:45>> Can everybody live with that or do we

3:06:46need to take a formal vote?

3:06:52Thank you, Mr. Burke, for your uh

3:06:54flexibility on that. So,

3:06:56um I think we're good to go. So, okay,

3:06:59next item.

3:07:04Gloff strike team update two.

3:07:09And like I said, this is where any fund

3:07:11balance just disappears.

3:07:14>> um

3:07:17Thank you Thank you, Mayor Weldon.

3:07:19Um this memo is informational only. It's

3:07:23really meant to summarize the work of

3:07:25the Gloff strike team. Um

3:07:26as I mentioned, this group gets

3:07:29together, hammers through some of these

3:07:30details, and then we report it out to

3:07:32you. No final decisions are made. So,

3:07:35this is informational. There are just a

3:07:37couple of of of impactful numbers

3:07:40included in this memo. One of them is

3:07:43the combined spend either

3:07:46committed, appropriated, or spent. So,

3:07:48keep in mind that this this number of

3:07:50$86 million on your first page does

3:07:53include funds that haven't been spent

3:07:55yet. But it just gives you a really good

3:07:57order of magnitude idea of this problem

3:08:00that we have honestly the week I was

3:08:03appointed city manager or started

3:08:04experiencing. So, that's been 3 very

3:08:06long years. Um has consumed a lot of the

3:08:10resources and the energy and the

3:08:12opportunity cost for our community and

3:08:16uh and and our agency partners, too. And

3:08:18this list does not include uh DOT, Click

3:08:20and Haida, Coast Guard, or DMVA. So,

3:08:23there there are numbers not articulated

3:08:25on here. It's it's mostly just like a a

3:08:28a good

3:08:29snapshot. Um we all

3:08:32>> Before we move on, could since everybody

3:08:34can't see this chart, could you just say

3:08:36how much CB CBJ funds we've expended?

3:08:40>> Yes, it's it's 14 million.

3:08:45>> Okay, carry on.

3:08:47>> So, so then the memo kind of um breaks

3:08:49up the um

3:08:52all things flood into three different

3:08:54categories. Event response, that's the

3:08:57very specific standing up the EOC,

3:09:01uh manning the pumps, manning the

3:09:03hotline, doing evacuations. Really, it's

3:09:06the moment that the EOC is activated.

3:09:08The EOC is activated by the city

3:09:10manager. So, um there's a lot of work

3:09:12that happens before the moment that is

3:09:14activated, but when the EOC is

3:09:16activated, it's all hands on deck,

3:09:17right? So, we are pulling people from

3:09:19the library, from the Parks and Rec

3:09:20Department. All other city business kind

3:09:22of comes to a grinding halt at that

3:09:24moment. Uh then we have flood fighting

3:09:27as a program, and that includes all

3:09:30things HESCO, but also our our public

3:09:33education and our outreach, and you

3:09:35know, all the things that we do

3:09:37year-round that are really specific to

3:09:40flood fighting. So, um

3:09:42uh

3:09:43lots of of HESCO maintenance, lots of

3:09:46communication with homeowners, and and

3:09:48that type of thing. And then we have

3:09:50long-term solution, and that is really

3:09:52working with the Army Corps of Engineers

3:09:54on an emergency water conveyance

3:09:56prototype. So, that includes uh lobbying

3:09:59efforts, that includes um

3:10:02a lot of engineering coordination. We

3:10:05are responsible for, you know, a lot of

3:10:07the uh interagency um

3:10:10like like permitting and things like

3:10:12that. So, it just takes a tremendous

3:10:14amount of of effort. So, those are the

3:10:15the three buckets. And if you look at on

3:10:18page 58 of the packet, um we have tried

3:10:21to think of these uh three buckets,

3:10:24event response, flood fighting, and

3:10:25solution work in um different

3:10:29categories.

3:10:31And um

3:10:32the the category of new funds needed is

3:10:36money that we don't have currently

3:10:38appropriated in the budget or money that

3:10:41we've been spending CIP uh funds on, but

3:10:44we really need to start opera-

3:10:45operationalizing it. So, when you look

3:10:47at the first line, event response, we

3:10:49have a small um

3:10:52a small line item of new fund new funds

3:10:55needed of $21,000.

3:10:57Uh event response is largely funded by

3:10:59on by um

3:11:01uh the um ongoing budgets, right?

3:11:05Because we're all getting paid every

3:11:06day, and then when we pivot to event

3:11:08response, we're still we're still

3:11:09getting paid. That increase really

3:11:11represents um some training. We want to

3:11:15do more um coordinated training uh for

3:11:18um

3:11:19for response, so that if we have a Hesco

3:11:22breach, we're we're a lot more prepared.

3:11:24Um then we've got the opportunity cost

3:11:26piece, and that is um I

3:11:30I sorry, I misspoke. The training would

3:11:31actually go into flood fighting because

3:11:32that is outside the actual event. So, I

3:11:34apologize for that. Keeping the But the

3:11:37the opportunity cost is mostly streets

3:11:39time when they are working on EOC

3:11:42response and not streets. So, again,

3:11:44that's a a a

3:11:46a cost that gets absorbed. Um and then

3:11:48it's the other line item is um

3:11:52emergency programs budget. Um and that

3:11:54is again money that we we appropriate

3:11:56for emergency response and and seems

3:11:58fine to live there. So, event response,

3:12:01you know, you could say it cost $125,000

3:12:04to

3:12:06uh spool up that EOC and respond to that

3:12:09event in you know, a couple week time

3:12:10period in a normal event. We're We're

3:12:12kind of We don't We've never really had

3:12:14a normal event, but this last year was

3:12:15kind of as normal as it can be, right?

3:12:17It was still very impactful, still very

3:12:19exciting, but we didn't have a lot of

3:12:21rescues or or or, you know, damage or

3:12:24things like that.

3:12:26Flood fighting operating

3:12:28um includes

3:12:30uh the new fund item would be things

3:12:32that have been funded in the past

3:12:34through CIP spend. So, a lot of that is

3:12:36your project manager time coordinating

3:12:39with property owners. It's your Hesco

3:12:42maintenance and and like I said, that is

3:12:43where our our training would live. Um

3:12:46flood fighting operating opportunity

3:12:48cost is again a lot of those labors and

3:12:51street workers that, you know, are not

3:12:53filling potholes because instead they're

3:12:54working on uh on flood fighting. Uh and

3:12:57then there's a big portion of the

3:12:58emergency programs budget. Um flood

3:13:00fighting operating also includes a lot

3:13:03of um

3:13:04communications because it's a very

3:13:06communications heavy effort to to do um

3:13:10uh do this work. And if you recall, we

3:13:11had planned on funding about 20% of the

3:13:13communications engagement budget with

3:13:15CIP projects. We have not been able to

3:13:17meet that metric because we've been

3:13:19spending so much time on um

3:13:23uh flood related projects. And when we

3:13:25can, we charge that time to flood

3:13:26related CIPs. But again, as we we

3:13:29operationalize

3:13:31uh this this event, uh it's more

3:13:33appropriate for that to live in an

3:13:35operating budget. Um and then solution

3:13:37work, we uh we would use um

3:13:42that funding to fund um a new position

3:13:46that would really be like chief engineer

3:13:48for um coordination with uh Army Corps

3:13:52of Engineers. And and there's some other

3:13:54communication staff time like, you know,

3:13:56making us presentations and and uh you

3:13:58know, communicating

3:14:00uh I'm I'm us. I'm saying Mayor Wheeler

3:14:02and because we we're headed to DC to do

3:14:04a lot of this communicating work. Um and

3:14:06that is work that you cannot fund with

3:14:08any You need to make sure you're not

3:14:09funding that with any um federal funds

3:14:11because of the nature of that work. So,

3:14:13we've we've broken it up into those

3:14:15categories and kind of um

3:14:18determined that the new operational cost

3:14:21is about $630,000

3:14:24a

3:14:25uh

3:14:25um year. The opportunity cost of the the

3:14:28the

3:14:29things we're not spending money on is

3:14:31about $130,000.

3:14:33And then it's a significant portion of

3:14:35the emergency programs budget, which

3:14:36we've already budgeted for and and that

3:14:38money is already appropriated. So, um

3:14:41when we met with the strike team, we

3:14:43talked about how we want to um approach

3:14:45these uh

3:14:47you know

3:14:48this new cost center, right? And so, the

3:14:50the group kind of decided, yes, we

3:14:52should be accounting for this in a cost

3:14:54center. So, even though emergency

3:14:55programs is already got budget for

3:14:58emergency management, we should be

3:15:00making sure we're tracking what they're

3:15:01spending for GLOSS because there's also

3:15:03other emergencies. Same with like our

3:15:05street sweepers and our our equipment

3:15:07operators, right? Like like we don't

3:15:09necessarily need to backfill that with

3:15:10new positions. We're going to

3:15:12acknowledge that opportunity cost.

3:15:14Um and then there's the the new funds

3:15:16that we've we've been able to lean on

3:15:19this CIP, right? Because we've been

3:15:20doing all of this HESCO construction

3:15:22work. So, the HESCO construction work

3:15:24has funded the project managers and a

3:15:26lot of that that work. And moving

3:15:28forward, we would need to operationalize

3:15:30that. So, so the the team

3:15:33liked that idea of um absorbing what we

3:15:37can within the opportunity cost and um

3:15:40looking at a new cost center that's

3:15:42about a million dollars a year in um

3:15:46GLOSS uh

3:15:48all things flood GLOSS response um and

3:15:52no acknowledging that we need to come up

3:15:54with about $630,000 of of new ongoing

3:15:58revenue. The other piece um that we

3:16:02pulled out of operating costs was HESCO

3:16:06maintenance. So, there still will be

3:16:07some ongoing HESCO maintenance. We

3:16:09really don't know what that is. The

3:16:11estimate this year is is $1.2 million.

3:16:14You know, keeping in mind the Army Corps

3:16:15of Engineers said they're going to

3:16:18they're going to fund any damage to

3:16:19HESCO barriers that happened during this

3:16:21event. They're working through what that

3:16:23looks like. Engineering and Public Works

3:16:24has has worked with them on a a damage

3:16:26assessment. Um but there's still going

3:16:29to be a role for us to play in all of

3:16:31that and we wanted to carve that out as

3:16:34a CIP because

3:16:36above and beyond the like normal

3:16:37communication with property owners,

3:16:39serving the HESCO barriers, you know,

3:16:41those types of operational costs. We

3:16:42really don't know what that is. And so,

3:16:44the recommendation that the team made

3:16:46was to

3:16:47use a portion of the

3:16:50funds that were appropriated for the

3:16:52general investigation study way back in

3:16:542024. If you recall, you had an

3:16:55emergency appropriation to to

3:16:58appropriate $3 million as a match for

3:17:00our general investigation study to get

3:17:01started on a long-term solution. Very

3:17:04valuable to have it in our back pocket

3:17:05as we went to Washington, D.C. and

3:17:07demonstrated the community support, but

3:17:10really because that has morphed into a

3:17:11different funding mechanism for our

3:17:14long-term solution.

3:17:17Applying it to these funding sources, we

3:17:19think would be reasonable. So, we would

3:17:20want to come forward with a transfer to

3:17:22spend a portion of that $3 million that

3:17:25was appropriated on on this HESCO

3:17:28maintenance and then the remainder as

3:17:29match to our $3.2 million

3:17:31congressionally directed spending

3:17:32request that Congressman Begich got us

3:17:35and

3:17:36would really focus on long-term

3:17:38solution, geotech, engineering,

3:17:41and all of those types of things. So,

3:17:42those were the recommendations that the

3:17:44team made

3:17:45um

3:17:46uh and and the idea is to update you on

3:17:49those here, but to incorporate those

3:17:51actual decisions as part of the budget

3:17:54process. So, you will see, you know,

3:17:56these decisions um and be able to make

3:17:58those decisions as a body. Just wanted

3:18:00to walk through the thought process.

3:18:04Did I miss anything, team?

3:18:07>> And we will look forward to see this in

3:18:09the future. Any questions on this right

3:18:11now?

3:18:13Ms. Cosgrove.

3:18:14>> I just wanted to thank you for pulling

3:18:15this together. I think it's really

3:18:17helpful, um, not only for the assembly

3:18:19as a as a body in making decisions, but

3:18:21I also think for the general public to

3:18:23understand the impact moving forward.

3:18:26So, thank you. It's really well done and

3:18:29it's quite possible

3:18:30>> that wasn't a question, but thank you

3:18:31for saying that.

3:18:34We'll train you yet.

3:18:35>> [laughter]

3:18:36>> Any questions?

3:18:39Uh, seeing none, again, we will see this

3:18:42We'll make more decisions on this at a

3:18:43future date. Information only, so.

3:18:47That brings us to

3:18:49>> Madam Mayor, can I get a 2-minute at

3:18:50ease?

3:18:51>> Absolutely.

3:18:53>> Thank you.

3:18:53>> 2 minutes.

3:20:36>> All right, item number five.

3:20:39Madam Clerk, we'll have you read the

3:20:41resolution title.

3:20:45We want you to participate.

3:20:49>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. A resolution

3:20:51supporting a partnership with the

3:20:52Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida

3:20:55Indian Tribes of Alaska and Tlingit

3:20:57Haida Regional Housing Authority to

3:20:59advance housing opportunities and

3:21:01coordinated infrastructure development

3:21:03in support of United States Coast Guard

3:21:05expansion in Juneau.

3:21:07>> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager.

3:21:10>> Thank you.

3:21:12The purpose of this draft resolution

3:21:14before you today is really just to

3:21:16further formalize an existing

3:21:18partnership that these three entities

3:21:21have specifically on developing a

3:21:24Klawock Creek subdivision.

3:21:26We jointly applied for a Thriving

3:21:29Communities grant that provides

3:21:31technical assistance to

3:21:34to that project for removing obstacles

3:21:37to development. And the reason why

3:21:39that's the the three partners are

3:21:41engaging in that is the

3:21:44Tlingit Haida, the Housing Authority,

3:21:46and CBJ all are landowners of that

3:21:48subdivision in total approximately 50

3:21:50acres of land in that area. That's in a

3:21:52in that area is right across the the

3:21:54bridge.

3:21:55Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority

3:21:58is the most um

3:22:00accessible land. They've they've already

3:22:02begun some site development, so that is

3:22:04the most

3:22:06developable land.

3:22:07But but more than that, we really wanted

3:22:10to just provide um

3:22:13our partnership in aggressively pursuing

3:22:16Coast Guard housing. Um, the Coast Guard

3:22:19issued the request for information for

3:22:21Coast Guard housing uh, proposals in uh,

3:22:25January and we haven't heard uh, heard

3:22:28much since then. There have been some

3:22:30public meetings and some updates. I did

3:22:32reach out to Senator Sullivan's office

3:22:34and of course uh, Senator Sullivan has

3:22:36been a champion in the of the bringing

3:22:37the icebreaker to um,

3:22:40uh, Juneau and is uh, you know, helpful

3:22:42in in trying to move that forward move

3:22:44the housing piece forward as well. Um,

3:22:47so uh,

3:22:49we I as a as a group I think and I um,

3:22:54imagine the assembly shares this and

3:22:56this is an opportunity for you to

3:22:57articulate sharing that. We've really

3:22:59been told we need to be aggressive in

3:23:02solving some of the obstacles for home

3:23:04porting the Storace in Juneau and I do

3:23:07uh, have an opinion in this memo that

3:23:09says without adequate housing the

3:23:11Storace will not make Juneau its home

3:23:13port and I think I should qualify that

3:23:15because that is just the city manager's

3:23:16opinion. Um, there is an option for the

3:23:20uh, Storace to home port in in

3:23:25Juneau. It has been commissioned in

3:23:26Juneau and has been uh, you know, it is

3:23:28a Juneau vessel with um, in

3:23:31geographically separated status. So, if

3:23:34they don't have housing they could um,

3:23:38have just the service members living

3:23:40aboard the vessel and the the family

3:23:42staying back at home. That is not I

3:23:44think what we think about when we think

3:23:46of having the Coast Guard uh, as our

3:23:48friends and neighbors and but when you

3:23:50look at their um, environmental

3:23:52assessment statement for the project

3:23:54they do site that geographically

3:23:56separated status would be uh, um, uh,

3:23:58a possibility.

3:24:01So, just wanting to keep pushing, you

3:24:03know, pushing the ball forward on doing

3:24:06everything we can to advocate, to

3:24:08coordinate, uh, to work with not only

3:24:11our government partners but also you

3:24:12know, Southeast Conference and JEDC, um,

3:24:16uh,

3:24:17and the Navy League. The the Navy League

3:24:18has been an amazing champion in in

3:24:20making uh Juno a hospitable home for

3:24:23Coast Guard. So, um, I don't know that

3:24:26uh

3:24:27this resolution does much than restate

3:24:28all the work that we have been doing,

3:24:31um, but I do think that the opportunity

3:24:33to further formalize it is is good. Um,

3:24:36you may ask, "What does that partnership

3:24:38look like, Katie?" Well, for example, we

3:24:40need to bring utilities into that

3:24:41subdivision. And if we bring utilities

3:24:43in in a coordinated way, we have the

3:24:45potential to open up a lot more land for

3:24:47development. So, that's the type of

3:24:48coordination that I would be talking

3:24:50about. And anything that goes beyond,

3:24:53um,

3:24:54coordination would require assembly

3:24:56approval and assembly resources. So, you

3:24:58know, this would

3:25:00uh

3:25:00this would be kind of the the first step

3:25:02in, um, in many more touchpoints. Happy

3:25:06to answer any questions.

3:25:08>> Thank you, Madam Manager. Any questions?

3:25:12Seeing none, Ms. Aggeson, can I get a

3:25:14motion?

3:25:15>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move that we

3:25:18forward to the full assembly the

3:25:19resolution or a supporting of

3:25:20partnership with Klukwan Haida in

3:25:22regards to Coast Guard housing, and I

3:25:24ask for unanimous consent.

3:25:25>> Any objection?

3:25:27Seeing none, that motion passes. Item

3:25:30six, Madam Clerk.

3:25:36>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Resolution 4043,

3:25:39a resolution encouraging increased

3:25:41engagement in City and Borough of Juneau

3:25:43Boards, Commissions, and Committees.

3:25:47>> Uh thank you, Madam Clerk. Um, this is

3:25:49kind of self-explanatory, unless you

3:25:50want to say something, Madam Manager.

3:25:53Seeing uh

3:25:55No, we'll just bring it to the assembly.

3:25:57Uh Ms. Aggeson.

3:25:58>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move

3:25:59resolution 4043 to the full assembly and

3:26:02ask for unanimous consent.

3:26:03>> Any objection?

3:26:06Seeing none, that motion passes. So, um

3:26:09no staff reports, next meeting date

3:26:12November 30th, 2026. And I hope that Mr.

3:26:15Smith is will be back to do an awesome

3:26:17job. I blundered through today,

3:26:19but uh

3:26:20we made it. Um

3:26:24I thought you raised your hand madam

3:26:26clerk. Don't raise your hand. All right,

3:26:27seeing nothing further we are adjourned.

3:26:32Thank you for the guys to be here

3:26:33online.

```*