Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Hazard Mitigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Juneau assembly adopts updated hazard mitigation plan amid public concerns about Tetra Tech maps

5492349 · July 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City and Borough of Juneau adopted a five‑year update to its multi‑jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan to keep the city eligible for federal grants, after residents urged the assembly to delay adoption until the public could review a consultant's final draft and stronger disclaimers for landslide maps.

The City and Borough of Juneau assembly voted to adopt Resolution 4022 on July 28, 2025, approving the 2025 multi‑jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan update so the borough can remain eligible for federal hazard mitigation grants. The vote followed more than an hour of public testimony raising concerns about last‑minute changes to the consultant draft and the use of Tetra Tech landslide maps.

Residents and neighborhood representatives urged the assembly to delay adoption until the final consultant draft could be reviewed and stronger disclaimer language about the limits of the 2022 Tetra Tech maps was inserted. Kay Mel, a downtown resident, told the assembly “the final consultant's draft, which you are being asked to recommend, was released at 04:00 this afternoon,” and said members of the public and the assembly had not had time to review the changes.

The plan includes a prioritized list of mitigation projects the city expects to use when applying for grants; staff told the assembly the city needs an approved plan before the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program NOFO (notice of funding opportunity) in mid‑October, and that State DHSEM review and FEMA acceptance are part of the approval path. The city's emergency manager explained the schedule in public comment: “The approval from the State of Alaska DHSEM is anticipated to take about 30 days. FEMA has 45 days to accept the plan. Our deadline for the hazard mitigation grant program is October 15.”

Several public commenters pressed for stronger language around landslide map limits and the proper disclaimer when maps are used for land‑use decisions. Olivia Senaiko and Kyle Renick, who said they participated in the public process around the Tetra Tech study, said the draft lacked the explicit disclaimer the assembly previously requested and warned that inaccurate or unqualified maps could affect property transactions and insurance. Former fire chief Larry Fanning and other commenters recommended the plan consider additional monitoring tools and referenced approaches used in other Southeast communities.

Assembly members debated two procedural proposals during the hearing. Deputy Mayor Greg Smith proposed attaching a 2023 ordinance (Ordinance 2023‑18, which addresses development and landslide/avalanche hazard areas) as an appendix to the adopted plan to clarify the maps' status; that proposal failed on a 2–5 vote. After further discussion about the tight grant timeline and the ability of FEMA to require edits later in their review, the assembly voted to adopt Resolution 4022. The roll call on the final adoption recorded six yes votes (Hall, Bryson, Adkisson, Steininger, Wall, Deputy Mayor Smith) and one no (Kelly).

City staff said the resolution allows the city to seek necessary grants immediately and that FEMA or the state could request edits during their review; staff also committed to annual plan review and to reporting to the assembly if FEMA requires substantive changes. The assembly and staff said they would continue outreach with affected property owners and tribal partners as the state and federal review processes proceed.

The assembly's adoption authorizes the city to pursue hazard mitigation grant applications (including for a glacial lake outburst flood mitigation project identified in the plan) but does not itself create or fund individual projects. Residents and groups who raised procedural or technical objections said they plan to continue to press for clearer disclaimer language and greater public review as grant applications and project designs move forward.