Melinda Munson: Will, there are several issues that are reoccurring that will be discussed again at this next meeting. Give us a refresher.
Will Steinfeld: Porcupine Road – we’ve talked in the past few weeks about how the borough has to decide if they want to continue along with this project, which has a phase two and a phase three that haven’t been completed yet, haven’t been approved. But theoretically, when this all started back in 2021, was part of the plan. And it would be a big, expensive project to improve this road, Porcupine Road, that could then be reimbursed by Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Last assembly meeting, the borough manager Alekka Fullerton basically told the assembly, this is your decision, not my decision. So it’s going to be on the agenda this week. And we don’t know if there’s anything definitive that’s going to come out of it, but it will definitely be discussed.
Another thing we have is daycare reimbursement.The assembly is going to be discussing whether or not they want to give some money to local daycare providers, early childhood education providers, to help them stay afloat, really, in what has been described as a pretty difficult time for the whole childcare industry.
Then the last thing is communication equipment. It’s been a pretty safe bet that this is going to be on the agenda at any given assembly meeting this year. And that’s following a special meeting that the assembly held with the planning commission and the code review commission, where they kind of tried to iron out some some rough spots or unclear spots in the current ordinance that would regulate where communication equipment can go up in the borough, and how that process of permitting new communication equipment, like cell towers, would would be approved.
There is a new ordinance up for introduction by two assembly members. And it does mirror an ordinance that’s currently in place in Skagway. Tell us about this ordinance.
It’s been proposed by assembly members Kevin Forster and Gabe Thomas. And what it looks like on first read is regulating how mining companies can transport and ship ore out of Haines. What it would do is require companies to basically keep ore particulates in sealed containers until it’s loaded onto ships, at a theoretical transfer facility in the Haines Borough.
That’s obviously a controversial topic. Anytime mining in the borough comes up, it’s a controversial topic. And it’s especially relevant in the general government conversation right now, because of the Lutak Dock, which assembly members, including Forster and Thomas, have said is not going to be an ore terminal — is not going to be used to ship ore.
And in fact, Gabe Thomas this fall at a September assembly meeting, said he was planning to propose some legislation that would actually ban the use of Lutak Dock as an ore terminal. That never came up – he hasn’t yet proposed that legislation.
And did Forster or Thomas yet say why they were introducing this particular piece of legislation at this time?
They haven’t. I haven’t talked to them about it. And I would assume we’ll hear their intent at the meeting on Tuesday.
I did talk to Gabe Thomas before the election in October, where he was reelected … His view is the Assembly really doesn’t have much control over whether or not a mine goes in the Chilkat Valley. And so he sees his job as an assembly member as basically preparing the borough, the residents of the borough, to get the most possible positive impact of a mine and the least amount of negative impact if a mine is ever active in the area.
Will, thanks for getting us prepped for this meeting and we’ll talk to you again soon.
Thanks for having me.”