Kodiak Borough: Borough Lands Committee Regular Meeting of May 4, 2026

Okay. All right. I will call the Monday, May 4th, Code of Columbia Lands Committee regular meeting to order at 12:02 p.m. Roll call, please. Mr. Griffin?

Here. Mr. Johnson? Here. Mr. Whiteside? Here.

Ms. Frazier? Here. Ms. Craig? Mr. Grawn? Here.

Mr. Townsend? You have a quorum. All right. Thank you. We will start off with citizens' comments.

This is the only time in today's meeting for citizens to make some comments. For those who wish to call in, the local number is 907-486-3231. Toll-free, 1-855-492-9202. For those in the room who wish to speak, come to the podium and sign in, turn on the microphone, make sure the green light is on before speaking, and speak directly into the mic. And please state your name for the record, address all remarks to the committee as a body and not to any member thereof.

And we have somebody in the chambers. Go right ahead. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Linda Freed, and I am the chairperson of the Kodiak Electric Association Budget and Policy Committee. I'm here to provide any information, answer any questions about your Item 4A.

And in addition, when you make a recommendation, I request that you forward that recommendation to the Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission. By borough ordinance, they are required to review every disposal of borough property. We are on their agenda for their June meeting. So the timing is working out. So we would just request— we would request that you approve the request, but then also forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

And happy to answer any questions when you get to that item. Thank you. Thank you, Linda.

Anyone called in?

Okay. Next up is approval of the October 13th, 2025— yep, that's it— minutes. Is there a motion? So moved. All right, it's moved.

Is there a second? Second. We can voice vote this, right? All right, voice vote on the motion. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Any opposed, same sign. All right, minutes are approved. First thing, first agenda item is to take action on the Kodiak Electric Association request for the Terra Lake Hydroelectric for parcels of land. We have the memo from Ms.

Freed and KEA there in front of us. And Manager Williams also printed out a map showing us exactly where the parcel is, and I also have it up here on the Lands Viewer, too. So we haven't adopted any formal, you know, process rules, you know, in terms of introducing a motion and things like that. So we can just go ahead and start. Start with discussion.

After our discussion last month at our previous meeting, is there any further discussion on this item? Yes, Mr. Gronick. Mr. Mayor, I move to recommend parcel number 18874 be surplus to KEA. Is there a second? It's moved and seconded.

All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Weishek. Thank you. I think it's important for the public to have a thorough understanding of of the ask.

I have limited support of this. I do support moving it forward to the Assembly, but I do not support the no-cost gifting of this land to KEA. The reason I feel that way is these 4 parcels total 1,584.49 acres, and the fair market value of these parcels is $1,220,000.

Acknowledging one of those parcels is underwater and has limited value to any other user groups. I brought up the 2025 Kodiak Electric Association financial report. Their patronage capital fund, KEA, holds $78,786,210 in member equity.

As noted as patronage capital, this fund is designated for capital reinvestment including the acquisition of land, potentially including the acquisition of land and infrastructure. Liquidity and debt management. In 2025, KEA retired over $1 million in capital credits to its members and paid down $8 million in debt. Capacity to pay for borough land. KEA's 2.78 TIER, which stands for Times Interest Earned ratio, confirms they have surplus revenue necessary to meet a negotiated purchase price without negatively impacting member utility rates.

So that said, I'm open to a negotiated rate because it does fall under Kodiak Island Borough Code guidelines for nonprofit land sales at a reduced rate. I do feel that there is capacity within KEA to purchase this land at a reduced rate with the goal of utilizing that revenue for upcoming land development that we have to take into consideration. The borough has limited funding capacity for infrastructure development. So if we are going to open up land for residential development, we don't have the funding to do it, not to the extent we would like. So if we were to generate revenue from this land sale, the Assembly could direct those funds towards infrastructure development for residential use.

So I'm— again, I guess, come full circle. I support pushing this forward to the Assembly, but I think it is in the community's best interest to have a negotiated reduced rate versus a complete gift of land to KEA, who is in a very solid financial position to purchase land.

Mr. Grom, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I believe— I appreciate Mr. Whiteside's explanation, but I believe that is not of the purview of the Borough Lands Committee, and I think that discussion should be had at the Borough Assembly level, not at this Committee level, if I am not mistaken.

Yes, yeah, I think we will be discussing that, yeah, if and when it makes it to the Assembly level, yeah. We'll get to it then. Any other comments?

Okay.

Roll call vote. Mr. Griffin? Yes. Mr. Johnson? Yes.

Mr. Whiteside? Yes. Ms. Frazier? Yes. Mr. Grawn.

Yes. Motion passes.

All right. We will see that in PNZ in June and then we will see it probably at the Assembly soon after.

Let's see. Okay. Our next item is the Burroughs Land Disposal Principles and Screening Criteria. We have had time to look over this a little bit more. There were some ideas and thoughts on this going forward.

One of the big ones was, of course, a lot of these— a lot of this language relies on the Bureau having a strategic plan of sorts, and the Assembly is in the process. Of adding, of getting a strategic plan done over the next year, putting in some funds in next year's budget to actually do that. Obviously we don't have that, that plan here now, but that is something that the Assembly is moving forward on. So I think I did— I didn't make any changes, just waiting for the regular meeting so that if any members want to make amendments, change language, then we can kind of go through that process. We have time, actually, on this meeting to dig through this and make sure that this is something acceptable to the Committee, if it's acceptable at all.

However the Committee wants to go. So I'll open it up for discussion and amendments. Yes, Mr. Geron. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I would have preferred to have this before we transferred the last Commissioner Lander recommended that because I think we do need a process.

But in absence of that, I'm— the suggested committee workflow, I feel like for me as a committee member, rather than just looking at maps and GIS, I would rather have a memo up front what is needed from the Bureau. So like using the last land section that we just advanced to the Bureau Assembly, if the staff had prepared a memo for us to outline their needs, their wishes, their desires That gives us more information to make an informed decision based off, you know, the public need. In absence of that, it's hard to— without a letter from the borough, you know, protesting or saying we're against that land transfer, to me, it's hard to not push forward a parcel like that. So step 2 seems like to me would be the start step, you know, get a memo from them identifying lands that's meet some of these criteria. It seems like that's a first initial step.

Otherwise, we are going to be just pulling off parcels and I don't think that's appropriate.

So let me see if I just understand you correctly.

Okay. So you think step 1, initial nomination, Lands Committee doesn't really need to be involved in that. Our process starts at step 2. I believe that to be true. Otherwise, we are going to be going off the GIS map.

Just saying, well, I want that land available, I want that land available, not knowing what the borough's needs are. I think the borough staff and the— they have a better understanding of what their needs are. Otherwise, me, it's just going to grab that, let's put that on there, let's put that on, and I don't think that's a good process. Yeah, I agree. Yeah.

Um, is that a formal amendment? I guess we can strike step 1 and turn and just change the steps. Step 2 becomes step 1, step 3 becomes step 2. I think I see some consensus there. Mr.

Chair? Jarrod. I don't believe we have a motion on the table yet. I didn't hear a motion.

Would you like to make that motion, Mr. Geron? Do I think we have to put this whole thing up for motion first? So I move to adopt the Burrow Lands Disposal and Principles and Screening Criteria. Second. Okay.

It's moved and seconded. Now we can—. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to make an amendment to strike step 1 from the suggested committee workflow. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Can we do a voice vote on— we haven't formally adopted Robert's Rules, so we can kind of—. You can do whatever you want. Bobby's Rules.

Right. Would you like—. Yeah, would you like to do voice vote on the amendment? I think voice vote is just the thing. Okay.

Voice vote on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Okay.

Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Grom. So we are back to the main motion as amended. Yep. Back to the main motion as amended.

Any further discussion or amendments? I guess if I can, a question about Section G, avoidable conflict. Maybe there is— maybe if there is an example that I can wrap my head around, what does that mean? You know, this is something that Mr. French, Director French suggested.

Let me go back to—. Mr. Mayor? Yes. Can you speak to that? Yeah.

Well, thank you. I think he was suggesting that we avoid if it's in conflict with a comprehensive plan and we take into consideration, uh, not selling lands for a purpose that would obviously be against the comprehensive plan. So we're doing it right now in the borough. We are rezoning a residential lot into a public use lot, which is— would be against the comprehensive plan, and the Assembly's stated goal of creating more land available for housing. So we're doing it so we can have a lift station, which is also necessary, but that would go against our, like, proposed future use of land.

So I think that section is in there, right, just so that we aren't suggesting land sales for uses that would go directly against what we've already determined to be the best future use of that land. But— and I'm sorry, he has laryngitis, so he can't be here today. But if there's more specific information, I can absolutely ask him to provide that. Well, kind of a follow-up on that, Mr. Mayor, if I can. Uh, would the— would the borough— is the borough's intent to all surplus land go through the Lands Committee prior to going up to the Assembly?

And the reason I asked that is for a lift station, obviously that is that that's a necessary conflict. That's a very necessary conflict. But back to my step 1, if we have a memo from the Bureau, we would— they would have already vetted that prior to it coming to our level. So I guess that's where I'm getting at. Well, Amy's example is a rezone.

It is. Not surplus. Right. Great. Yeah.

All right. I think I've wrapped my head around it. Thank you.

And then I'll bring this up too because this is something from my notes, Corey. Was H. You had thought about taking out letter H. Yeah, I would also— I stand by— I would move to strike Section H from this document.

I'll second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Do you want to speak more about that? As we talked at our last meeting, revenue generation, expansion of the tax base, they are legitimate considerations, but I don't I think that's our purpose at the Lands Committee, kind of much to Mr. Whiteside's earlier testimony.

Negotiations of any land sales, that's not for this— I don't believe that's for this committee to discuss. And I think our goal is to put land that is surplusable into the public's use. And so to me, I don't— revenue shouldn't be a factor. How the borough surpluses the land, it's not our— it's not our bailiwick. So that was my point behind that.

Fair, fair point. It has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion on Letter H? Okay. Voice vote on the motion to eliminate Letter H. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed, same sign. Okay. Letter H is gone.

So we are back to the main motion as amended. Back to the main motion as amended. Any further discussion, questions? Dave's got something. Yeah.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER_MILLER] Yeah. I've been reading through it and I don't know, you know, and again, it's not to beat that poor horse, but, you know, that lack of a strategic plan rearing its head because as only one member of this committee, I have— we've been getting screamed at for a long time to open up land and my fear and concern and what I do not want to see is all of a sudden we're flooded with very niche interest disposals in our more remote locations when we should be focusing on easing the crunch that is in front of us. You know, the alligator closest to the boat, if you will. So I don't know if and where it could go into this document, but that would be something I would want us to focus on. For at least the foreseeable future.

Mr. Weisheit. I guess I will piggyback on that concern. You know, I mentioned this fairly recently at the Assembly level. Absent a Strategic Plan, that doesn't mean we can't think strategically. I do like the Amendment that was adopted to shift that burden onto the Assembly.

I think we have received plenty of public testimony over the years prior to myself being on the Assembly and then while on the Assembly of what the public wants to see and where. I think we have a— I would say from myself personally, I can only speak for myself, I have a very good understanding of where we should look towards. Land disposal within town and adjacent areas. And I agree with the concern that I'm not receptive to niche interests outside of public workforce needs in the near term. Longer term, that's when I think the Strategic Plan could come into place if we're going to think about disposal for satisfying, expanding access to tourism-related activities or businesses, but I think in the near term, I have heard an abundant and overwhelming need for leasing land to develop housing to support our local workforce.

Thank you. Any further comments, discussion, amendments?

Okay, seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote on the main motion on this one. Mr. Johnson? Yes. Mr. Whiteside? Yes.

Ms. Frazier? Yes. Mr. Gronn? Yes. Mr. Griffin?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? Motion passes 5-0. All right, thank you. Yeah, I'm I appreciate the votes, and I think, yes, absent a strategic plan, this at least gives us something to work forward.

All right.

Okay. Look at that. We are on to committee member comments.

We'll start with Mr. Grawn.

Just keeping it short, hearing our two Assembly members, thanks, everybody, for your time today. I just request that staff work on a memo for our next meeting on some lands that could go towards workforce housing. I'd request that they put some parcels for us to consider, to chew on, because I I agree. I think that's what we've all heard over the years. So since it's now step 1, I'd request that they get on that and maybe identify some parcels for us to discuss and chew on.

And then I suppose maybe for our next meeting it would be nice— I thought we were going to have an update as to where some of the other parcels that we've approved for disposal, we were supposed to get an update, I thought, on that in our packet, and we had not. So maybe the next meeting we can have an update as far as where those parcels are. I think I've seen some of.

On the paper, but yeah, anyway, so thank you. I'll reserve my comments when I get to me, but yes. Ms. Frazier.

At the last regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, we approved a preliminary plat for Kodiak Island Housing Authority's subdivision on Salif Lane near the Safeway end. So I just wanted— to on the record say that we appreciate Kodiak Island Housing Authority's efforts. It's one of the bigger residential subdivisions that's come through in the recent years, and that subdivision also has lots of potential to get some of our working-class, hardworking folks in houses of their own for a reasonable cost with the program that the Housing Authority is using. So good news on the housing front. Thank you.

Mr. Weisheit. Thank you. I just want to thank folks for volunteering their time here. And I'm encouraged by the more structured approach moving forward for identifying parcels for disposal. And the public, I think, is starting to pay attention, so I'm hopeful that now meeting here and being able to stream these meetings on YouTube, the public will be more willing to— I guess if they have already had recommendations for the Assembly, I guess thinking about the reorganized steps to the process, bring the ideas to— new ideas to the Assembly are always welcome and then certainly those that folks maybe have brought forward and— or have been discouraged that they haven't been entertained.

So I would encourage anyone who has ideas on which parcels would best suit our near-term goals for housing development for our local workforce, please reach out to the Assembly.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Weisheyer. Mr. Johnson? No comment. All right.

Thanks again for everyone for being here on their lunch hour. As for— yes, brief update. There really is not much of an update. One, we are waiting to approve the minutes of today. To forward so that the Assembly can start working on some of the other properties that you'll approve in the October meeting.

And then the Island Lake properties, the one between Beaver Lake and Salif Lake, the Assembly has devised some terms of sale of auction and they're just waiting for attorney feedback on that. I think next— the next meeting's update will be much more substantial because of that feedback and more Assembly direction on that one, too.

With that, let's set the next date— next meeting date and time. Do we still want to keep the first Mondays of the month?

June 1st works for me. So that would be June 1st? That will work for me.

If I'm not in— if I'm not on jury duty, that works for me. I am waiting to hear about my schedule that day for some labor relations meetings, but as soon as I know, I can pass that along. Okay. Yeah, Beau. This may be out of order, but I guess relative to Availability for the chair, has this body ever, committee ever had a co-chair in the event that the chair is unable to preside?

So—.

I move to make Mr. Bo Whiteside the co-chair. Second. We can definitely add that to the next meeting. Yeah. I think that would be worthwhile to keep our momentum.

I'm understanding—. Just in case I'm in a jury, then yeah. That makes sense. Yeah. And as we are talking about first Mondays of the month, July and August first Mondays will be challenging for me.

I won't make either of those. So maybe as we consider a summer schedule— for sure. Anyway.

Okay. So we will stick with Monday, June 1st for now, and we will just keep an eye on Sarah's schedule and my jury duty. So far so good. I'm 0 for 1.

So we will add to Mr. Bo Whiteside's point, we will add coach chair selection for next meeting. Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

All right, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Seconded. Second. All in favor say aye.

Aye. And we're adjourned.