Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - September 15, 2026

Oh!

Oh!

Good evening, everyone. We'll get started in a couple minutes.

Okay everyone, I'm going to call this meeting to order.

Tonight is Tuesday, September 15th. Welcome everyone to our meeting. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Member Handeland. Present. Member Martinez. Present. Member Gerker.

Here. Member Silvers. I understand Member Perez Verdia will be joining us later. That's correct, he's excused for the time being. Member Brawley.

Here. Member Voland. Happy to be here. Member Baldwin-Day. Present.

Member Scout. Present. Member McCormick. Here. Member Park.

Here. Member Johnson. Here. Chair Brawley, you have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Vice Chair Vohland, would you please lead us in the Pledge?

Yes. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Mr. Martinez, would you please read the land acknowledgement?

A land acknowledgement is a formal statement recognizing the Indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present Indigenous stewardship of the lands we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity. The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional land of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land.

It is with gratitude and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Next on our agenda, we have no minutes of previous meetings, so I will turn to the mayor for the mayor's report. Go ahead, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening, everyone.

Before we get into tonight's agenda, I want to acknowledge the passing of longtime former Assemblymember and Chair Dick Traini and to acknowledge too that we have a number of former Assembly members here in the chambers tonight. Dick was chair when I joined the assembly in 2017, and it was a privilege to work alongside him during my first 2 years on the body. His leadership and years of expertise helped me understand my role on the assembly and how to effectively serve my constituents. He was a staunch advocate for his community and always stood up for what he believed in. Dick was also a true family man who cherished time with his wife Sandy their children, and 20 grandchildren.

Our community is better because of his leadership. Deepest condolences to Sandy and all of Dick's family. I also want to acknowledge that this last Friday marked 25 years since the deadly September 11 attacks that killed 3,000 people from across the nation. We remember those lost and their families, and we honor the courage and sacrifice of the first responders who answered the call for help. Thank you to our municipal first responders who put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe.

Turning to tonight's agenda, there's an appropriation of Community Assistance Program funds from the state of Alaska to replenish our, our shelter surge funding. Due to extreme cold last winter, we made the safe and responsible decision to spend surge money we had allocated for this season. Our advocacy for increased community assistance funding worked, and we can now dedicate those funds to ensure we have surge capacity for this winter. We are starting the surge process earlier this year than we have in the past with the intent to have all surge beds open by the end of November. Fall is the most dangerous time for people sleeping outside, with temperatures dropping at night to lows that could cause hypothermia.

In fact, just today we opened 20 beds at East 56th and another 20 at Linda's Place. Our municipal outreach teams spent time in the Midtown area, and I'm happy to report we filled all 40 beds. That is 40 people off the street and in a safe place. Also on the addendum, you will see my substitute version of AO 2026-108, which establishes clear policies and restrictions for the use of surveillance technologies. The original AO version continued an important community conversation on how code should regulate APD's use of new technology that has the potential to threaten individual privacy rights if misused.

The S version creates meaningful legal guardrails on how technology may be used, establishes a structure for assembly oversight, sets clear public reporting requirements for policy changes, contracting, and misuse. Because it was developed with input from municipal departments, it can be implemented immediately. I want to note that Alaskans have some of the strongest privacy protections in the nation under our state constitution, and I think most of us wouldn't have it any other way. Municipal Code also regulates the use of surveillance technologies, and APD has very strict department policies governing the use of technology. Still, we need to take every opportunity to safeguard privacy, and I support codifying these protections in Municipal Code.

This will help ensure that future leaders and police chiefs continue to protect individual privacy rights. Given how quickly technology is changing, this conversation will need to continue, and it's likely that code updates will be needed again too. Lastly, a quick reminder about a grant opportunity for Anchorage youth ages 15 to 24. Funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies. Microgrants of up to $5,000 are available for proposals related to Anchorage's climate challenges.

There's a co-design session this Thursday, September 17th, here at the Lusak Library Moose Room at 6 PM to get more information. Thank you all. Back to you, Chair Brawley.

All right, thank you, Madam Mayor. Next on our agenda is the chair report, so I'll share a few items this evening. First, good welcome, or good evening everyone. Welcome to our regular business meeting. First, as far as the annual budget, so the mayor on a couple weeks ago shared the preliminary budget memo to the assembly last week.

That's really the first official step in our budget process this fall, in addition to all the work that departments and Office of Management and Budget and the mayor's office have been doing to prepare that memo and getting ready for our budget. So that kicks off the budget cycle and This Friday, uh, September 18th— sorry, uh, we will be reviewing that memo at a work session. The work session is from 1 to 2:30 PM at City Hall. The memo outlines the mayor's projections for revenue, major priorities for this coming year, how we're going to fund services. It includes a preliminary list of priority capital projects and a high-level overview of major trends and future developments likely to impact our local budget.

So look for more discussion on that soon. And of course, we can expect the actual budget to be published in October, which will kick off our budget review, amendment, and approval process. The budget is a reflection of our values, vision, and priorities of our community, and we're going to be facing, as has been said before up on this dais, some really tough budget decisions. So it's important that the community is involved in these discussions around, around these budget decisions. Government budgets are complicated, but you don't need to be an expert to provide your input and feedback.

The Assembly has a lot of information and resources that can help guide you through that, through that process on our budget and taxes page, which you can get to from uni.org/assembly on the Assembly website. So you can also look for opportunities to provide input when the budget is formally introduced next month and as we work through our review process, draft amendments, and anticipate debating and passing that budget in November. When community members get involved and share their priorities, it helps the mayor and Assembly pass shape the budget to meet our community's needs. Next, I'll note briefly, this is the official wrap-up of our past year celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Municipality of Anchorage, or Munification. In September 1975, residents of the City of Anchorage and the Greater Anchorage Area Borough voted to unite their local governments, creating what is now the Municipality of Anchorage, or MOA.

The 50th anniversary provided an opportunity to reflect on the history of that unification recognize the people and communities who have shaped Anchorage over those last 5 decades, and consider the future of our community. Thank you again to everybody who has been part of that, past and present, and who really made— helped make this big milestone a success. We were not only able to celebrate what we've done, reflect on who we are, and dream about our future, the next 50 years. I'll also note most of our events happened last fall, but I'll point to item 10F4 on our agenda. It contains a report summarizing the events and activities that took place, including a really nice commemorative booklet with deep dive history essays that a number of folks authored about various aspects of our community.

So I hope you check that all out. Speaking of making municipal history, I'll echo the mayor's comments regarding the passing of former assembly chair and Midtown member Dick Trainey. I know we have several former members in the audience and community members here who are here for this event, so I will I will just say briefly, knowing that we will be saying more words soon, one bit of the statement that Vice Chair Voland and I released on Friday on behalf of Assembly leadership. Although we never served alongside former Chair Trainey, certainly have been in the room many times when he was chair, however, his wisdom has been passed through the branch throughout the years. Quote, you can either be an active member of the community or you can be a potted plant.

Don't be a potted plant. And I know we'll have a lot more discussion on that soon. So the last item I'll share right now is, uh, finally last week I announced the new assembly committee structure, including some changes to our schedule and leadership assignments and some of the topics. So if you take a look at our new schedule, uh, you'll see a few things have shifted around and some schedule changes to make more efficient use of our time on the days that we do have those meetings. The assembly has committees on important topics that range from the budget to audit to public safety.

Like all of our official meetings, committee meetings are open to the public, and they're a great chance for the public to follow the municipality's work. You can access the full list of committees through muni.org/assembly, or the, the individual meetings get published on our public notice calendar. Meeting agendas and documents are posted ahead of time so you can review in advance and see if there's an item of interest. And most committees will be starting their new meeting times and schedule and shifting leadership in October, so look at those changes soon on our schedule. With that, I'll do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible.

This is a business meeting. We are here to do the work of the municipality. Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers. Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing. Please keep any signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size.

Please keep the aisle clear except when you're lined up to testify. Please don't approach the dais directly. If you do have something you'd like to share with members, you can hand it to the clerk for distribution. Please stop speaking if a point of order is called so I may rule on the point of order and the record is clear. If rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance.

If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If it's— there's an actual disruption, I will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or begins again or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. And then I will also note one more thing. If there are any student guests in the audience here for a class, our tradition is to have you come up and introduce yourselves. This evening we are going to be swearing in our 3 youth representatives, so they'll be joining us up here on the dais shortly.

And at that time we'll take a break, and then I'll ask those students to come up and share your name, your school, or— and the class that you're here for. So stay tuned for that. And if you need a signature to verify you were here, you can find your assembly member during the dinner break to sign your form, so we can take care of that at the break. So I believe with all of that, that concludes my report. So next we'll move on to our committee and liaison reports, and I will start this evening with Mr. Johnson.

No report tonight, Chair. Ms. Park. Nothing to report, Chair. Mr. McCormick. Nothing to report.

Thank you, Ms. Scout. Nothing to report. Thanks, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, just a brief reminder that the Assembly Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee of the Whole is meeting Thursday at 11:15.

15. Thank you. Okay, next, Vice Chair Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair. The next meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee of the Whole will be this Thursday, September 17th, at 10:00 AM at City Hall Conference Room 155.

In addition to our normal standing reports, we will be continuing a conversation on service areas. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Uh, next, Miss Silvers.

Nothing to report. Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing to report. Mr. Martinez.

No report. Mr. Handeland. Nothing to report, Madam Chair. Okay, that concludes our committee reports. Um, so next we will move to the addendum to the agenda, and, um, before we do that, we will address late on the table items.

We have several this evening, um, so those will be incorporated into the agenda before we proceed. Um, so we've got a number of items Uh, there's a couple that do need action, but I'm going to start with the supplemental items. So I will read those into the record and then we will, uh, address our other items. Uh, so the first one is, um, as I stated earlier, uh, it will be Item 10A.5, Resolution AR 2026-273, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly. Uh, oh, I'm sorry, actually that one does take action, so I'm going to hold off on that one for a moment.

I'll read the supplemental items first. Um, so the first informational one is, um, Item 10F.12, unnumbered AIM 2026 6, administration's answers to assembly questions. The next ones— let's see, the next ones that are supplemental are for item 13B. There is a new summary of economic effects for AO 2026-93S. That would be item 13B4.

Then item 13C has one additional item. It is an S-1 version, AO 2026-108 S-1. An ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.1002 and amending AMC Section 7.15.040 to impose new restrictions on the use of surveillance technology, establish policy requirements for the use of certain surveillance technologies including automated license plate reader systems and the Real-Time Crime Center, and increase assembly oversight and public reporting of related policies, contracts, use, and alleged violations. Additionally, one moment, um, there's a supplemental item for item 11A, that is AIM 139-2026 Anchorage Municipal Code 3.102.040, report for 2026 regarding unmanned aircraft and confirming no use of facial recognition technology. And one second.

Um, and then there's one more supplemental item, then we'll move to the items that need some form of action. So this is a supplemental item to 10G.6. It is AO 2026-01. 121S version and ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code chapters 2105, 2106, 2111, and 2115 to clarify the definition of mixed-use development, allow more by right more small-scale residential uses in commercial zoning districts, uh, including, um, shop house designs, residential structures with accessory garage or workshop areas larger than the principal residential use, and reduce required lot dimensions and setbacks in the B-3 district for all uses. And there's an associated memo with that.

So then we will now turn to the ones that are not supplemental. So we have one item for introduction. So I'll read it out and then I will be seeking a first, second, and third to introduce that and set the public hearing. This is AO unnumbered 2026, unnumbered, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2020 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan and the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan to reflect updated housing density minimums in transit supportive development corridors provide community-wide benefits and reflect new issues and needs, and amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.01.080, Table 21.01, and comprehensive, comprehensive plan elements. Again, this one is seeking a first, second, and third to introduce.

Move to introduce and set the public hearing for October 6th. Second. Third.

OK, motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to introduce and set the public hearing for October 6th, second by Vohlen, third by Park. So this item has been introduced and the public hearing set for October 6th. And then lastly, we have our— one second.

Okay. And then lastly, this item is for potential action tonight. It would be AR 2026-273, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly honoring the life and legacy of Dick Traini, 5-time chair and longest-serving member of the Anchorage Assembly. Because this is a resolution, it requires 8 votes to lay on the table for action. At this time, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to lay this item on the table, or I'm sorry, I do still need, I believe, a motion and second.

Move to lay on the table. Second. Okay, motion by, um, Mr. Mullen to lay on the table, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Now I will ask, is there any objection to laying this resolution on the table?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, that item has been laid on the table, and of course, items in the consent agenda can be pulled by a member for further discussion. So with that, I believe we have addressed all of our late on the table items, uh, and so at that point, uh, I am seeking a motion to incorporate the addendum to the agenda including those late on the table items. So move to approve. Okay, uh, moved by Mr. Bolland, seconded by Ms. Park to, um, incorporate the addendum including late on the table. Is there any objection?

Seeing and hearing none, um, then the addendum to the agenda has been incorporated including those late on the table items. Uh, in just one second, let me find my agenda.

Oh yeah, you're right, that's the part I always skip. Okay, okay. Um, next we have appearance requests on our agenda. Um, so we have two this evening. Um, we will take them up in the order on the agenda.

First we will have Reverend Emily Carroll, and then we will have, uh, Mr. Jeff Lanfield. So, Reverend Carroll, please come forward.

Thank you. And then I'll remind you, if you press the button on the bottom to turn the microphone on, the light will turn green. And then please state your name and you will have 3 minutes. My name is Emily Carroll. Thank you, Anna, the chair, and the assembly for having me tonight.

I'm currently serving as the pastor at First United Methodist Church downtown on the Park Strip. And for the last 3 years, I've been working with various community partners to pilot a worker-led child care, uh, initiative at First UMC. And I'm thrilled to announce that starting on October 1st, we will celebrate opening the doors of Three Elements Educare, a new licensed full-time child care with capacity for 10 infants, 12 toddlers, 20 preschoolers, and 40 school-aged children for school-age and summer care downtown. Um, you all have seen the news so much of our recent coverage around child care has been rather dismal, with the sector on verge of collapse in many ways and the landscape incredibly challenging for providers, families, and employers. I found this to be true in my personal life as well.

And so I wanted to tell you this story tonight because it is one of success in the sector and to name the so many different aspects of our society that had to come together to make this happen. This project received innovation funding through the State of Alaska Child Care Program Office. That funding provided the baseline through which we could organize community partners, formulate a plan, test some models, and start building renovations. From there, we received additional funding from philanthropic organizations such as the Rasmussen Foundation, the Anchorage Rotary Club, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and these entities really helped bridge that gap needed as we moved building renovations forward and as we trained the workforce with not only the skills to provide child care but also to be able to run a successful business. We've also received funding from both individual and corporate donors such as Santos to bring this project to completion.

And finally, and the reason that I'm here today, is to thank you all as the assembly members for your role in advocating some of the Anchorage child care and early education pilot and capital funding to help bring this project to completion. We received ACE funding in the 2025 and in 2026, and it has literally made the difference for us to be able to open next month. No one entity made this happen. It took investment from federal, state, municipal, philanthropic, corporate, faith community, and individual letters. It literally takes a village, as they say.

And moving forward, we're looking forward to increase— not only increasing full-time child care capacity, but also to launch a child care apprenticeship program within the center so that we can help child care providers become lead teachers and lead teachers become administrators. And then through a proven model of wraparound support of coaching, shared services, technical assistance, and access to resources, our hope is that this really acts as a workforce stabilization project and a workforce development project to catalyze the opening of new centers within the municipality. So many, many thanks to you all for your crucial support in making this happen. Thank you for participating.

Okay, um, thank you. So next person, um, uh, for appearance request is Jeff Landfill. Please come forward.

And I'll note the microphone is already on, so please state your name and you'll have 3 minutes. Thank you. Um, my name is Jeff Landfield. Assembly members, thank you for allowing me to speak here today. I'm the owner and publisher of the Alaska Landmine news website.

I'm here to speak about the Anchorage Police Department and their recent attack on the First Amendment. On August 28th, I posted a video critical of Chief Sean Case on the Landmine social media. The video included footage of Chief Chief Case at an assembly meeting and publicly released body cam footage. The video quickly racked up more than 60,000 views on Facebook. To my surprise, 2 days later I received an alert from Facebook that the video had been removed due to a copyright strike.

I was shocked to learn that Gina Romero, APD's Director of Community Relations, initiated the strike in her official capacity. On September 2nd, I sent Romero an email informing her I was aware of what she did and asking for an explanation. I copied Municipal Attorney Ava Gardner and Assembly Chair Anna Brawley. My email concluded with, "I'm doing a story on this blatant attack on the First Amendment by the Anchorage Police Department. I'm asking for an explanation of why this copyright claim was filed and if the Anchorage Police Department believes they have the right to silence the press.

I plan on publishing the story tomorrow afternoon." Romero did not respond. Two days later, I published an article on the landmine First Amendment attack, "APD at a Landmine Post Critical of Chief Sean Casey's Response." removed from Facebook. Not long after the article was posted, Romero sent me an email. She wrote, "We initially requested the takedown because the post made use of an APD-produced video with a prominent copyright notice. However, after receiving your message and conducting further review, we concluded that your use may be covered under a valid copyright exception.

We have contacted Facebook accordingly to retract the request." I responded, "Who directed the copyright claim to be filed? When do you expect the video to be put back up?" 'Does APD or the LaFrance administration have a comment on this attack on the First Amendment?' Romero responded, 'I just checked and the video is restored.' I responded, 'Thank you. I see the video is back up. What portion of the video does APD believe is protected by copyright? Did Chief Case Director approve the copyright strike?' Romero has not responded.

The First Amendment is a bedrock principle of the United States. We cannot live in a free society without a free press. I recall the outrage from many assembly members when former Mayor Dave Bronson's municipal manager Amy Domboski tried to cut the live feed of an assembly meeting in 2021. The public learned of that because a landmine caught her on camera trying to do it and later obtained and published an email from John Krabb in which he described what Domboski tried to do and how he refused. Krabb was later awarded the First Amendment Award by the Alaska Press Club for his actions.

In 2020, I successfully sued Governor Dunleavy for abruptly ceasing to invite me to his press conferences. A federal judge ruled in my favor, and the Dunleavy administration eventually settled with me, paying my lawyers who represented me pro bono $70,000. I am a First Amendment absolutist. I consider any attack on the First Amendment, especially by the government, to be unacceptable. Gina Romero has refused to answer if Chief Case directed or approved the copyright strike, or what APD thinks the alleged copyright violation even is.

If she won't tell me, maybe she will tell you. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Landfield, there's one person in the queue for you. Mr. McCormick. Um, I guess nobody else has any questions. I would ask the administration for their thoughts on this, who authorized it, what was against, uh, copyright, or Chief Case is here, be happy to hear from, from him or anyone with knowledge of the situation.

Thank you. I see, uh, Municipal Manager Fawzy, go Through the chair to Member McCormick. I sent a note to the Assembly this morning as I caught up to this issue and tried to provide some additional context and background. I'll say for the public benefit, of course, we are also very much fans of the First Amendment, have all taken an oath to the First Amendment and to the Constitution. This was an instance where someone made a well-intentioned but mistaken call, and when it was brought to our attention, it was quickly corrected.

It was not taken because anyone was because it was critical of the chief or because they were critical of the police department or because they used work session video or because anyone wanted to silence the press. It was because of an attempt to make sure that the body cam footage which had been posted with a copyright notice was not edited in a misleading way. But when that was brought to the municipal attorney's attention, I think they correctly advised that that is not a grounds to file a First Amendment request in the Facebook situation. So that request was withdrawn, and again, the video has been restored. Or are you saying now— so the concern was that the body cam footage was copyrighted, that the publicly released body cam footage should not be viewed or used by anyone?

I would not say any of that. I would say my understanding is that the police department has posted its body cam footage with a copyright notice for two reasons. One, because it has been the practice from some of the individuals who previously worked in the media, that that engenders a back and forth with media representations about how the body camera footage should be used. And there was a concern that it could be selectively edited. Who determines what selectively edited means, and who determines what shown in an improper light is?

Is that for the media, the people who voted for the body cams, voted to raise their taxes to pay for that because they want transparency, or is that up to the chief of police, the administration? Who decides what is shown in a fair light? Through the chair to Member McCormick, I would say all this is background context, but who actually decides is we— the person who is publishing the video is ultimately going to know, because as we have said, the municipal attorney has advised that there is a First Amendment right to access this footage, and that is what has happened. Happening now. The footage is back out and it is live.

Well, I see comments saying that you find that this is, um, exclusive of a copyright, that this is an allowed use of a copyright. Are we saying that this is still copyright, or are we saying the public has free access to the publicly released video? In that case, I may— well, enlist the assistance of the municipal attorney. Thank you. Thank you.

Also know we have a few other in the queue, so I'll have to— okay, once we get this question answered, hopefully we can continue.

Uh, thank you. Through the chair to Member McCormick, because I hear you asking questions about the intersection of public records, copyright, and fair use of copyright, and those are all things that are real and exist and matter. The fact that something, something may be copyrighted, it may also be a public record. If I go to the store and I buy a book using municipal funds to help me in my work and I reference it a lot, somebody could— that's a public record. It's a record of something, you know, showing the government doing its business that I keep around.

But the fact that it's a public record doesn't mean that somebody can then request it, make copies, and sell them, right? I'm not— just as an example that public records law does not trump copyright. Copyright can still exist, but we still have to respect public records law. Media free use, though, is what we're talking about. So then we're getting— then, so I just want to distinguish those two things and then we'll talk about fair use.

So copyright law says says, you know, you have rights to protect your work. It has been our opinion that body cam footage is copyrighted. With that said, there are certain exceptions to copyright law, and for example, the media and some other individuals— there's an exception, the fair use doctrine, which is that certain types of limited use, including certain types of media use, are allowed. And so again, this was a well-intentioned effort by an APD employee who came from a media background where the practice was if you see a copyright notice, you reach out and request permission, just to, I think, avoid any gray areas. Because fair use, I'm sure Mr. Lanfield will agree, can sometimes be a gray area.

And so there's a well-intentioned desire to protect APD's copyright from copyrighted work from being used in what appeared to be a misleading way. However, once it was flagged, and we appreciated having it brought to our attention, once it was flagged, looked at it, concluded, oh, this likely is, fair use, and the video was restored. And so public employees aren't perfect. They do generally have good intentions. And again, all we can do is correct mistakes quickly when we, when we encounter them.

So was this authorized by any leadership, or was this, as you said, just employee? And you keep saying they worked in media, but yet they don't understand media free use. Was this just a rogue employee's action, or was this authorized by someone higher? I don't think— so I'll say I'm not aware that it was directed from on high. I'm not aware that there was any top-down direction to do this.

I think this was something— different media institutions, right, have different practices. And so in this person's personal experience, that would have— you know, she had one expectation about how this would have gone. But I'm not aware of any top-down direction. I have one last question if I can. What have we installed now to ensure this does not happen again?

I think we have had a very public discussion, but also we've had some internal conversations about it. And we have also said, when in doubt, reach out to legal. We're always happy to advise. And sometimes it might not be same day, sometimes it might take us a couple days, but we do try to be responsive. Okay, I, yeah, I would appreciate urging on the side of caution with people's constitutional rights rights, that we take a minute to make sure we are getting full approval and abiding by the law.

So with that, thank you. Okay. Thank you. I have a few more folks in the queue. And just to remind folks, this is an appearance request, so if possible, please direct your questions to the person.

Mr. Handeland. Hi. I have just a question for Mr. Fawzy. I really appreciate the follow-up that we had gotten or the explanation in our email. Is there reason why, uh, that wasn't provided to Mr. Lanfield here?

There is no particular reason why it wasn't provided to Mr. Lanfield. It is a public record, and I could provide it to him now if you would like. It sounds like he wanted an explanation. I'll direct this to Jeff. And is that— I would just say that I, I guess ironically, the only reason there was any action was after a news story was published about it.

I gave them 2 days notice. Nobody got back to me. I copied you, I copied, um, Miss Multurney, and it took a news article to get a response from Miss Romero, which happened about less than 2 hours later. Thank you. Um, do you have any further questions, Mr. Handlin?

No, thank you so much. Thanks. Next, Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff, it's great to see you.

Um, hello, Mr. Fauzi. Can you maybe talk a little bit about the requirement to copyright branding on body cam footage. My understanding is that's actually a requirement that was put on APD by the assembly. Is that correct?

I am actually not sure, so I would have to do some additional research and get back to you. Okay, it is correct. So I definitely encourage you guys to maybe put that out there. That is a requirement put on by the assembly to APD, and the point of this is to protect people in body cam, in the body cam footage, is from that footage being sold and being given out. So I guess I would just maybe remind folks, things might not be quite exactly as they seem.

And I do, I do encourage you guys to research that and get that out to the public as quickly as possible. And also, given, get an answer to Jeff. He's asking for it. Let's give it to him. Thanks.

Thanks. And lastly, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I do have a question, and I'll just say briefly, I think it's probably worth looking at the legislative intent of the copyright piece. Certainly, I don't think it was the intention of the Assembly to ever use that in a way to violate fair use.

But my question is, I think we've heard tonight that there is an expectation on the part of the administration that when things are made public and there's language that says, you know, this is protected under copyright, that a media outlet would reach out first to ask permission, essentially, to share that, I think as a courtesy. My question is, can we look at any department before reporting to a third party Can they also do the courtesy of reaching out to any media outlet to request them to take down that footage before reporting them to a third party?

Through Chair to Member Bullock, I think that was a descriptive understanding of how this issue arose rather than necessarily a prescriptive position, but I did hear your suggestion over email earlier today, which you've repeated here now, and I've passed that along. I think that is a fair way way to approach this. All right, thank you very much. Okay, thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue.

Thank you, Mr. Langfield. What's up? Uh, this item's done, so thank you for participating. Okay, and thank you for these great glasses, Dr. Volland. I see you very well.

Okay, next we'll move on to our consent agenda. Um, so a reminder for folks, we will go through and pull items, and then we will take up one motion on the consent agenda minus those pulled items. So of course, if you're here for one of these and it's not pulled, then it would be considered part of that broader vote when we take that vote. So I will go down the dais and ask folks to indicate which items you would like to be pulled. So I'll start with Mr. Handlin tonight.

No items. Mr. Martinez. 10A1.

Okay, 10A1. And 10B1.

Okay, 10B1.

Uh, next, Mr. Gerker. No items, thank you, Chair. Miss Silvers, 10B2.

Okay, 10B2, Miss Silvers. Um, and then, uh, next, Mr. Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I'd like to pull item 10A3. For reading.

10A— am I pulling 10A.5? Are we? Yes. Okay, 10A.5 as well. And then I'd like to pull item 10D.1, and I believe that is it.

Okay, so I have, uh, 10A.3, 10A.5, and 10D.1. Next, Miss Waldwanday.

Thank you, Chair. 10D5, please.

Okay, 10D5. Any other items? Okay, next, Miss Scout. Nothing to pull today, thanks. Okay, Mr. McCormick.

No items, thank you. Miss Park.

Oh, no items. Okay, uh, and Mr. Johnson. Unless I'm— unless I'm mistaken, I thought I was pulling 10A 5. Oh, thank you. That item has been pulled, but I'll note that you had also pulled it.

And, uh, lastly, Mr. Johnson, 10A2 only.

Okay, thank you very much. Um, so I'll read that back briefly. So we've got, uh, 10A1, 2, 3, and— or sorry, I'll read by person. 10A1, Mr. Martinez. 10A2, Mr. Johnson.

10A3, uh, Mr. Bowen. 10A5, Miss Park and Mr. Bowen. 10B1, Mr. Martinez. 10B2, Ms. Silvers. 10D1, Mr. Boland.

And 10D5, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any additional items?

Okay, not hearing any additional items, uh, so we will consider those items pulled from the consent agenda. And, um, so I am seeking a motion to approve the consent agenda minus those pulled items. Move to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Second motion by Mr. Volland to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any further discussion on that, on the consent agenda?

Any objection to adoption of the consent agenda?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then those items have been pulled and— or sorry, the consent agenda minus those pulled items has been approved. So again, if you are here for one of those items that were not individually pulled, then those items have just been unanimously approved by the body.

So, okay, so next we'll move on. Before we take up our recognition resolutions, Mr. Bullen.

Okay, Madam Chair, yes, I'd like to change the order of the day, and that is to take item 10D1 up right before 10B1. And yep, I'll speak to it if I can get a second. Okay, there's a motion to change the order to take up item 10D1, um, after 10A5, before 10B1. Is there a second? Second.

And second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Would you like to speak to it further, Mr. Baldwin? Yes, so that item is moving ahead the swearing in of our new cohort of assembly youth reps, and that gives them the opportunity to express any thoughts they may have on item 10B1, 10B2, and 10C1.

Okay, um, any further discussion on changing the order? Any objection to changing the order of the day as stated?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then we will consider the order of the day changed to take them up in that order. So next we'll move on to our recognition resolutions. So we'll start with 10A1. That was pulled by Mr. Martinez. Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Martinez to approve, second by Mr. Gerker.

Any further discussion on this item?

Sorry, I neglected to read the title of that one. Sorry, I was getting ahead of myself. So we'll consider the— this is the, the item, just to read it in into the record AR 2026-264, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating September 15th through October 15th, 2026 as Hispanic and Latino Heritage Month in Anchorage, Alaska. Again, there was a motion to approve by Mr. Martinez, second by Mr. Gerker. Any objection to adoption of this resolution?

Seeing and hearing none, this resolution has been adopted. I believe it was pulled for reading by Mr. Martinez. Yes, Chair. Okay, thank you. And then anyone who is here to receive this resolution, please come forward.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating September 15th through October 15th, 2026, as Hispanic and Latino Heritage Month in Anchorage, Alaska. Whereas recognition of the impact and contributions of Hispanics and Latinos living in the United States began with the rise of the civil rights movement as a week-long observance in 1968 and was then expanded to a month in 1988, establishing September 15th through October 15th as National Hispanic Heritage Month. And whereas September 15th was chosen as the starting date for National Hispanic Heritage Month because it marks the anniversary of independence of 5 Latin American countries— Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Honduras, and Nicaragua, with the month-long recognition also including the Independence Days of Mexico, Chile, and Belize. And whereas documentation of Hispanic and Latino presence in Alaska dates back to the 1900s in fishing and canning industries, the 1910s for the Gold Rush, and ever since Alaska has heavily relied on them as part of the community and economy. Including assisting with reconstruction efforts after 1960— after the 1964 earthquake, playing a crucial role in industries that developed alongside the oil boom, and serving proudly in the military.

And whereas today Hispanic or Latino residents make up 8.2% of Alaska's population, approximately 60,450 people, and the second largest cultural group in the state of Alaska after Alaska Natives, and continue to benefit our community and economy with nearly 3,000 businesses that employ thousands of workers and contribute millions of dollars to the state. And whereas the recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month celebrates the history and relevance of the community and provides opportunity and education to future generations about the diverse cultural influences shaping Alaska. And whereas Senator Elvie Gray Jackson sponsored Senate Bill 40, stating that it is more than a recognition, it is a message that tells our Hispanic community that you are welcome here in Alaska alongside all of us. SB 40, which was signed into law in 2026, formally recognizes September 15th through October 15th of each year as Hispanic Heritage Month in the state of Alaska, further acknowledging the history, culture achievements of Hispanic and Latino Alaskans throughout the community.

Y el mundo con celebraciones comunitarias en el lugar, aquí en Anchorage y en todo el estado de Alaska. Por tanto, la Asamblea Municipal de Anchorage reconoce el 15 de septiembre al 15 de octubre de 2026 como el mes de la herencia latina e hispana. Aceptado y aprobado por la Asamblea Municipal hoy, el 15 de septiembre.

All right, thank you. And if anybody present would like to say a few words, you're welcome to come forward and speak into the microphone. You don't have to, but you are welcome to.

Okay, I'm seeing a pass, so thank you again for being here.

Okay, next we will move to 10A2, and I'll do it in the correct order this time. So this is AR 2026-265, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly recognizing the Board of Equalization for their continued service to the Anchorage community. This was pulled by Mr. Johnson. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Johnson to approve, second by Mr. Handeland. And any further discussion on this item? Any objection to adoption of this resolution? Seeing and hearing none, this resolution is therefore adopted. And I believe we have Mr. Johnson reading and Mr. Hindlen presenting.

So if you are here from the Board of Equalization, please come forward and then please feel free to read when you're ready. Whereas the Board of Equalization was established in Anchorage Municipal Charter at the founding of the municipality to review property assessment appeals from Anchorage citizens; and whereas the Board of Equalization consists of assembly-appointed private citizens and professionals who voluntarily contribute their time and expertise to serve the community of Anchorage; and whereas the Board of Equalization plays a critical role by providing an independent panel for residents to appeal municipal decisions on property valuations; and whereas the Board of Equalization has historically operated with vacancies, often with less than half of 21 seats occupied and whereas the Board of Equalization has served the community of Anchorage through several challenging periods and applied their expertise and market knowledge to create the assessment systems the municipality relies upon today, and whereas the Board of Equalization received a record 1,990 property tax assessment appeals in 2026, and whereas in response to the significant rise in assessment appeals in 2026, the Board of Equalization filled all vacancies for the first time in over 20 years, and whereas the Board of Equalization has completed 118 hearings in 2026 compared to the average of 63. Now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly honors the following members of the Board of Equalization for their dedicated service to the Anchorage community and for their vital role in municipal property assessment. Edward Holtiness III, Chris Diamond, Jonathan Wilson, James Jim Frederick, Doug John, Mark June, Jen Motika, Heather Flynn, Carol McCann, Jeff Adams, Moira Gallagher, Ian Moore, Michael Jenks, Olu Tunde Akindipe, Arthur Aishum, R. Scott Taylor, Roy Longacre, Stacy Dean, Teresa Hillhouse, Chris Colrick, Sandra Vasquez. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 15th day of September, 2026.

Thank you. Yeah, and thank you so much, members, for your service. If anybody would like to say a few words, you're welcome to step forward, but you're not required to. Okay, thank you. I know you have already given many hours.

Don't go yet. Before you walk away, yeah, there's—. Don't go yet. There are a couple folks in the queue who wanted to speak as well, so I'll first turn to Mr. Voland. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just going to say a big thank you, echoing the resolution. You all stepped up at a time where we really needed you to do so, both folks who have been, you know, long time involved in this process, but also new folks who, you know, there was a call for volunteers. And so those who maybe stepped up for the first time, much gratitude. And you really saved the assembly from having to step into a role that we didn't want to. So yeah, heartfelt gratitude.

Thank you. Thank you. And then next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I would love to be added as a sponsor on this resolution and just want to echo my truly my gratitude to you all.

If you don't do the work, the assembly does the work, and I cannot imagine what our summer would have been like if we had been fielding, in addition to our usual, our usual tasks, hundreds of Board of Equalization meetings. So thank you truly. Your— I think your service to the community of Anchorage is totally undervalued and unsung. And so just such appreciation for you taking time away from your summers to ensure that municipal processes proceed equitably and promptly. So thank you so much.

Thank you. And one more, Miss Scout. I'd also like to be added as a co-sponsor. And, um, yeah, I think undervalued is the right word for your service. So thank you.

Okay, yeah, and please, uh, directing the clerk to add those two members. I guess I'll ask, uh, is there anybody who is objecting to be added? Okay, so please direct to add all members to that resolution. Thank you. And thank you again for your service.

Thank you for being here.

Okay, next we'll move on to item 10A.3, Resolution AR-2026-266, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September 25th, 2026 as Dolly Day. This was pulled by Mr. Boland, I believe. Yes, Madam Chair, move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Boland to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Any further discussion on this item? Just, do we have anybody here to receive this? Okay, great, come on down. Okay, and is there any objection to adoption of this? Okay, I see, I see some costumes.

Well, Madam Chair, I just have to make sure I have the proper attire on. For this next resolution. Okay. Thank you. So, so without any objection, this resolution has been unanimously, unanimously adopted.

So please proceed. I believe we have Mr. Bolland reading and Ms. Baldwin-Day presenting. All right. A resolution. And whoever is here to receive it, please come forward and come up to the podium.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September 25th, 2026 as Dolly Day. Whereas Dolly Parton brought extraordinary joy and imagination to the world through her music storytelling, philanthropy, and unwavering belief in the potential of every child. And whereas Dolly founded the Imagination Library in 1995 in honor of her father, who could not read or write, with the simple belief that every child, regardless of income or circumstance, should have books of their own. And whereas in 2009, the Anchorage Imagination Library was established by a group of dedicated partners and today serves more than 6,000 children from birth to age 5 with books sent to children every month, putting over 73,000 books each year in the homes of local families. And whereas the Anchorage Imagination Library, as a program of the charitable organization Best Beginnings, continues to support children who participate in the program by planning family engagement events, supporting literacy activities within our community, and providing parents and other caregivers with the tools, resources, and support needed to incorporate reading into the— into their daily family lives.

And whereas reading with children from birth has been shown to have positive health and academic outcomes for children as it helps them develop early literacy skills, get ready for kindergarten, and strengthens the bonds between children and their families. Whereas the Anchorage Imagination Library has been successfully maintaining for over 17 years through a partnership with Dolly Parton's Imagination Library and a group of generous families, volunteers, businesses, foundations, community organizations, and individuals that continue to send free books to children from birth to age 5 each month. And whereas the passing of Dolly Parton touched the hearts of residents and businesses of Anchorage and have made individual contributions to the municipality in Dolly's memory in recognition of her contributions to families around the world, And whereas September 25th, 2026 is a fitting day to recognize and celebrate a woman forever associated with working 9 to 5— I promise I won't sing— and who has had so many people in the Municipality of Anchorage working to carry out her dreams for children and their families. Now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes September 25th, 2026 as Dolly Day to honor Dolly Parton and the legacy of her life, and the work of the people in the Municipality of Anchorage continuing to fulfill her commitment to children and their families. Be it further resolved by the Anchorage Assembly that residents, residents should come together on Dolly Day to celebrate Dolly Parton's legacy by reading with children of all ages, distributing books to those in need, and supporting community literacy efforts that will help Anchorage's youngest children learn to read.

Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 15th day of September, 2026.

Works. Thank you. Yeah, and if you want to speak, please feel forward— or please feel free if you turn the microphone on, the button on the bottom. When the light turns green, it's on. Okay, please go ahead.

Thank you. Amy Collins, Executive Director of Best Beginnings, and I just want to say a great thank you to all of you for your support and helping us recognize Dolly's legacy here in Alaska. Um, on that note, 3 years ago we came to this body looking at our program at a low where it was only serving 4,000 kids in Anchorage, and it was through the investment in early childhood through this body and our colleagues in the school district that we were able to find a home to support Imagination Library. So today, we— 3 years later, we've added— now we're serving more than 2,000 additional kids every month because of that partnership, and we're watching the results of that in the Alaska Dental Profile where for the third year in a row, our Anchorage School District kindergartners are coming to school more prepared and more ready than our statewide colleagues. And we believe that's because of the investment this community is making, not just in early child education but in literacy programs like this one.

And we're very proud to continue that legacy. I would be remiss to not mention, if you wanted to sing, that we're having a Dolly Parton tribute party at Refuge on September 25th. So we hope to see some friendly faces there. But thank you all.

Thank you. And before you step away, there's one person in the queue, Mr. Martinez.

Mr. Martinez. Yeah, I just had a, a comment. Um, thank you for being here to represent, um, you know, what Dolly represented in, in this particular moment. Speaking specifically for how important literacy is in our underrepresented communities, how early investments in early childhood education— Dolly on the forefront of making sure that kids in the hood had books. So just understand that too.

And one thing about it, we're not just celebrating— the reason I stood up, and I think the reason that folks have cowboy hats on and have love in their heart for Dolly is because she represented the books as a manifestation of the love, but she represented the love through her inclusiveness of her character. And so I think that's to be emulated as well. And thank you for being here. And thank you, Dolly Parton, for your work. Work.

God bless.

All right, thank you very much. So next we will move on to our last recognition resolution to read this evening, and that is, um, one second, uh, Resolution AR-2026-273, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly honoring the life and legacy of Dick Trainey, 5-time chair and longest-serving member of the Anchorage Assembly. This item was pulled by Mr. Bowen and Ms. Move to approve. Second.

Okay, motion to approve by Mr. Bowen, second by Mr. Martinez. Any further discussion on this item? Any objection to adoption of this item? Seeing and hearing none, this item is unanimously adopted. And I know we have several guests who know the drill, so please come forward if you would like to stand with our group to receive this.

And then I will turn to actually Madam Mayor LaFrance to read this item And then I'll invite also, if members would like to go down and stand, you're welcome to do so. So please go ahead. A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly honoring the life and legacy of Dick Traini, 5-time chair and longest-serving member of the Anchorage Assembly. Whereas Dick Traini was dedicated to a life of public service, to representing the residents of Midtown Anchorage on the Anchorage Assembly. And whereas Dick and his wife Sandy moved to Anchorage, Alaska in 1971, continuing his more than 20 years of service duty for the U.S. Air Force until 1992, and whereas Dick earned a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Alaska Anchorage.

He later earned a master's degree in public administration and a professional planner certification in urban planning. And whereas Dick was first elected to the Anchorage Assembly representing Midtown in 1991, and whereas Dick went on to represent Midtown on the Anchorage Assembly for a total of 19 years across several terms spanning 3 decades, and whereas Dick was the driving force behind a wide range of legislative measures that had a lasting impact on Anchorage including the municipal ban on indoor smoking, the establishment of dog parks, and the implementation of recreational cannabis rules, among many others. And whereas Dick embodied the role of a nonpartisan legislator on the assembly, representing his conservative values without wearing a label. And whereas Dick developed a close and enduring friendship with Senator Elvie Gray Jackson during her 17 years serving as staff to the Anchorage Assembly, a friendship that only deepened when they later served together on the Assembly. Dick was a steadfast and loyal friend who could always be counted on, and he extended that same loyalty and support to employees throughout the Municipality of Anchorage, standing up for them and earning their lasting trust respect and affection.

And whereas in 2006 Dick became the first representative from Alaska to serve on the National League of Cities, NLC, Board of Directors, the oldest resource and advocacy organization for cities within the United States, and went on to serve on NLC's Advisory Council. And whereas Dick was recognized at the end of his term-limited tenure by AR 2019-121 as the longest-serving assembly member and chair of the Anchorage Assembly to date, and whereas Dick Traini died on Friday, September 4, 2026, at the age of 77, surrounded by family and friends, and whereas Dick's legacy is one of dutiful public service and reverence for civic participation at all levels of government. Now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly honors Dick Traini for his dedicated service to Midtown Anchorage, remembers his lasting contributions to the Municipality of Anchorage, celebrates his extraordinary life of service as a public servant, and extends its sympathy to Dick Brooks' family, friends, and community. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage and approval by the assembly. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 15th day of September, 2026.

So I know folks will want to speak. Um, what I'm going to suggest, because I know we want to make time for this, so this is a really special time and I appreciate having so many former members and folks who have been involved in the municipality here. So I'm going to suggest we do some remarks and that we'll take a few minutes break after this item And also that gives an opportunity for us to do a big group photo. I think people, especially folks who are sitting up here, maybe would want to do that as well. So just to say, we'll do that.

We'll take a few minutes break. And then after this, we will also be changing the deck a little bit so that we can swear in our youth reps. So with that, I will turn to Senator Grey Jackson. Thank you. I want to start off by thanking you, Madam Chair, and all assembly members for this resolution.

And I'm so thrilled that Dick Traini's family gave me the honor of accepting this resolution this evening, and the formal resolution will be presented on Saturday at his service in Palmer. There's a whole lot of stories that I could tell about me and Dick Traini, but I don't want to take up too much time. But there are some that I want to tell. And first, you know, I met Dick in 1991. I started working for the Anchorage Assembly in 1988.

I met him in 1991. When he first served, and we hit it off right from the beginning. He had a great sense of humor, I had a great sense of humor, but throughout those 17 years, he, you know, he realized that I was a valuable employee and he always had my back no matter what. I mean, I have several stories that I could tell throughout those 17 years, but like I just said, it would take up too much time. And then I want to mention this: Dick was like my brother.

Okay, and you know, brothers and sisters, they have disagreements. And for those who remember when I ran against Dick in 2008, I ran against Dick because we had a disagreement. He pissed me off, I pissed him off. I said, fine, I'm running against you. And that's how that happened, and that's the truth.

But I felt bad after, you know, but I knew that it was a higher calling that made things go that way, because if I hadn't run against Dick in 2007. If I hadn't run against Dick, I would never have had the opportunity to spend the next several years serving on the Anchorage Assembly with Dick. And I'm so truly honored that I had that opportunity because again, we had each other's back. And I have to tell one other story. Dick and I worked so well together that there were folks in other assembly members' districts, constituents that will call us and ask for help.

I mean, often. As a matter of fact, a whole lot. To the point where Dick and I said, okay, fine, here's what we'll do. So we had t-shirts made, and the front of the t-shirt said, who you gonna call? And the back said, Dick and Elvie.

Because that's who they called. But anyway, again, I want to thank you for this opportunity. I will miss my friend immensely. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello everyone, I'm Celeste Hodge-Growden, and many of you don't know that I started working for the municipality right out of high school in the '80s. And, um, you know, I was working in a department, Public Works Facility Maintenance, and out of the 100 employees that worked there, I was the only person of color. I was the only Black person I was the last hired and the first fired. And I say that because there's a long history.

I worked for the municipality for almost 30 years, but I worked in facility maintenance for the longest period of time, and I started in an entry-level position, and I could not get promoted. I could not get promoted to save my life, but I was told it was because I didn't have a degree. So I went to school, went to college, got my degree, but I still couldn't get promoted. But I would witness so many people that didn't look like me get promoted that didn't have a degree. So there's a lot that I could share as well.

It was nearly 15 years in that entry-level position. Thank goodness, thank God for Dick Trainey, because when that department tried to lay me off, I was the only person that was being slated to be deleted out of the 100 employees, the lowest paid position, because they were in need of funding. And it was Dick Trainey, because I came to the assembly and I fought the administration to save my position. And Dick Trainey, lo and behold, along with Mayor Mark Begich at the time— but Dick Trainey said this, and you can go back and check the records. Dick Trainey said, I find it strange that out of 100 employees The only person of color that happens to be Black.

This is the only position that's being deleted. And thank you, Dick Trainey, for allowing and sharing and using your voice, because the assembly agreed and they overrode the administration's decision to delete my position, and I stayed in that position I caught holy crap, you know, from the department for that. But Dick has always been that individual that just had the courage, even sometimes when he stood alone, to do what is right. He gave hope to the hopeless, and I just want to say thank you so much, Dick Trainey.

If anyone would like to make remarks, please feel free to come forward.

I don't have comments. I have a poem. Maybe this will be the end of it. It's one we all know. It's 402 years old.

For Whom the Bell Tolls. No man is an island entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thine own or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.

Therefore send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

Sorry, I can't resist. I don't have as many stories as Elvy, but many, many years ago I was testifying on Something I Know Not What, and I'm ready, I'm in it, and all of a sudden, boom, we're adjourned like halfway through. It's 11 o'clock. What is this? I don't know.

They didn't have these these then, Assembly 101s. But he did come up to me afterwards, he says, "All right, John, sorry about that, but we had to adjourn. But you can be first next time and I'll give you the full 3 minutes." And I was like, well, that was so kind of him. But you know, I always thought of him as chair for life. And when he left, he's chair for life.

And when I talked to him after he left, I said, "Dick Traini, you're chair for life." Now he's not alive, but you know, he's still chair for life. You know, I mean, just, he was the chair. So thank you.

Okay, I'm not seeing folks rushing over to the microphone, but I'll say again, thank you so much for you all for being here and for making this opportunity for us. I know a lot of us didn't directly serve with, with Mr. Traini. Certainly we've probably all been in the chambers at some point when he was chairing, though. And I know there is a celebration of life on Saturday, so I know a lot of folks will be attending that. Go ahead, Senator.

I want to end this with, Sandy and family, if you are watching, we loved Dick Trainey, didn't we? Yes. Thank you. So with that, I think we will take a few minutes break, and then as I said, we will pick up with item 10D1, swearing in our youth representatives. And folks who would like to participate in a group photo, I think we can get that arranged right now while we're on break.

Thank you so much.

Okay everyone, I will call us back to order. Next on our agenda is Assembly Memorandum or Item 10D1, Assembly Memorandum AM580-2026, Appointment of the Anchorage Assembly Youth Representative Cohort for the 2026 -2027 school year. This is pulled by Mr. Voland. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Voland to approve, second by Mr. Martinez. Any further discussion? Mr. Voland? Um, yeah, I'll just say that I, I think we have a great group that has been willing to step up. I was very impressed, as I often am, when we do our interviews of those who are applying to be assembly youth reps.

I don't know what y'all were doing in high school, but I certainly wasn't doing what they do. They have quite a resume already, and just their, uh, their interest, their records of community service, the, the issues that they feel engaged with. Yeah, I'm impressed, and I think that they're going to serve us well, and I look forward to swearing them in tonight. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, thank you.

I don't see anyone else in the queue, so I'll just state— so we will take our vote to approve this this, and then immediately afterwards we will ask our 3 representatives to come up so that they can be sworn in officially. As a reminder, they are not voting members, but they will be serving on the dais for the next essentially school year and providing advisory votes or preference votes, I'm sorry, and participating in debates. So we will certainly be hearing from them more soon. So in the meantime, I'll— oh, sorry, Mr. Martinez, you're in the queue. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Just for the sake of a little background legislative history, especially because a member of Rivera just left the chamber, I'd like to just say this is a really important position for our young folk, but this just— this didn't just happen. This was part of an intentionality for a decade ago where the Berkowitz administration was tasked to bringing back the Youth Commission. And the Youth Commission made a recommendation to be one of the first cities in the United States of America with a youth representative on its body. I was doing that work from the mayor's office, but we don't move legislation without assembly member introduction, without assembly member support.

And Member Rivera was our champion. Um, and he worked with his colleagues at the time, but I wanted to give Member Rivera props on that work as well, because it takes time and iteration sometimes to continue to move good projects forward, and today is a culmination of the next good step. Thank you, Chair. All right, thank you. Any— is there any objection to adoption of this memorandum and approval of these members?

Seeing and hearing none, then this item has been unanimously adopted. So with that, I will welcome our 3 youth representatives to come forward. They are Mr. Rakeek Ali, Mr. Malachi Cochran, and Miss Rebecca McCullough. So please come forward, and then the clerk will be swearing you in. And then as a reminder, we will get that done, and then as we invite those folks to come sit up on the dais with us for the evening, then I'll also ask our other— any other students who are here to come introduce yourselves as well.

But we'll do this first, so please go ahead, Madam Clerk.

I solemnly swear or affirm— I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States—. That I'll also work to protect it! Support and Defend? The Constitution of the United States?! One more time: Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

Superindefende constitutione Unites Staits. Perfect. The Constitution of the State of Alaska; the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the Charter of the Municipality of Anchorage, and the Charter of the Municipality of Anchorage, and I will faithfully perform the duties, and I will faithfully perform the duties, of the Anchorage Assembly Youth Representative, of the Anchorage Assembly Youth Representative, to the best of my ability, to the best of my ability. Congratulations. Thank you.

Switched. So here are the pens. Is today the 15th? Yes.

All right, and with that, we can officially welcome our youth reps to the diet.

Yes, and then I'll also note, as the clerk is coming back up, um, uh, that we— our intent is that we ask our youth representatives for a preferential vote, um, not on every single, uh, procedural motion, but on, uh, really the, the final vote on items. And, uh, the intent will be to ask for that vote. Of course, there's only one person voting tonight. We have all three of our reps here, so they can work out, um, who is voting at what time. And, um, also to note that I will be asking them before we take our, uh, vote.

So that is a change in practice that we've had. Um, so thank you to members Scout and Handlin for bringing that up. Um, and so I have made a note for myself to remind myself to ask the youth rep. So, uh, please also hold me accountable if I, uh, forget, and other members please notice, because this is the first time that we've had our cohort sitting up here since, since I started as chair. So with that, I'll also, while we're on this brief pause, just ask any other students to come up and please introduce yourselves.

So our— this is our tradition. We will ask our students to come say hello. So if you please want to come line up at the podium, we just want to ask your name, what grade you're in, what high school, and what class you're here for.

Yeah, and then for the first person, if you could press the button on the bottom so that the light turns green, and then you can just leave it on as folks cycle through. So please go ahead. Um, hi, I'm Apollo Hannah. I go to Chugiak High School and I'm here for my U.S. Government class. I'm a senior, by the way.

Oh, sorry, it's already on. Yeah, you can just leave the microphone on. If you press the button again and the light turns on, then it's on. Yep, go ahead. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Lars Skinner-Reed. I'm with West Anchorage High School for an AP U.S. Government class. Class, and I'm here for Rakeek Ali.

Hello, I'm Cole Smith. I'm a senior at West Anchorage High School, and I'm not here for a class, but I think Rakeek will be an excellent youth representative.

Hello, I'm Raziel Onofre Alvarado. I came here for to watch the youth representative come to life. I'm from West My name is Elizabeth Anderson. I come from Grace Christian School, and I'm in 9th grade.

My name is Autumn Powell. I'm from Chugiak High School, and I'm here for my U.S. government seminar class.

I'm Jeremiah Haas. I'm a member of Chugiak High School, and I'm here for U.S. government class as well.

I'm Connor Howe. I'm a senior at Chugiak High, and I'm also here for my, uh, U.S. government class.

My name is Daniel Raya Quintas. I'm from AK Homeschool, and I'm here for my U.S. government subject.

My name is Ivy Jeter, and I'm here with AK Homeschooling taking notes for my U.S. government class. All right, well, welcome everyone. Thank you for participating in your local government. So again, if you do need anything signed off— and thanks also for the folks who are here for our youth reps, very heartening— if you do need anything signed, we can take care of that when we break for dinner. But we have a few more items left.

So with that, we will turn back to the rest of our consent agenda. We have a few items. So starting with item 10B1, that is AR 2026-01. 26263, A resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage adopting the amended Municipality of Anchorage Public Transportation Agency Staff Agency Safety Plan. This is pulled by Mr. Martinez.

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Martinez to approve, second by Mr. Voland. Mr. Martinez. Uh, Chair, I thought this was another item, but if the, uh, if anyone in administration had something to say good about this, uh, or something to tell us That's fine, but I don't have anything to say.

Ready to vote on it.

Okay, I don't see other members in the queue, so I'll ask first the youth representative vote. What is your vote on this item?

And I'll remind folks, please turn on your microphone, and if someone could have a paddle.

Oh yes, okay, thank you. Youth representative votes yes. Um, uh, then I'll ask, um, is there, uh, from members, is there any objection to passage of this item?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, then this item is approved, 10B1, uh, unanimously by the body. And again, um, youth representative vote is yes. Uh, next we have, uh, item— sorry, Sorry, going through my paperwork. We have item 10B2, that is AR 2026-270, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly calling for the establishment of a genuine joint school rightsizing committee equally comprised of members of both the Anchorage Assembly and Anchorage School Board. This item was pulled by Miss Silvers.

Move to postpone indefinitely. Second. There's a motion by Miss Silvers to postpone indefinitely, second by Miss Scout— Miss Silvers. We are scheduled to have this discussion on September 18th during our joint meeting. And so my co-sponsors and I have agreed that we should have that conversation on Friday at that meeting and then come back with a response based on that conversation if we believe it is necessary.

Thanks. And next I have Ms. Scout.

Yeah, just supporting Member Silver's Motion here and looking forward to Friday. I really hope that my colleagues and the public will attend this meeting on Friday. I know it's in the middle of a workday for many, um, and participate in this important conversation. Thanks. All right, thank you.

I don't have any additional members in the queue, so again, the motion is to postpone this item indefinitely, uh, 10B2. What is the, uh, I will ask for the preferential vote of the youth representative.

Yes. Okay, youth representative has voted yes, um, and I'll ask— members may proceed to vote on this item.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, this item has been postponed indefinitely. Um, our last consent agenda item is item 10D5, that is AM586-2026, cooperative purchase from Yukon Equipment Inc. or Yukon through Sourcewell contract number 050625ETN for the purchase of 2 entire blacktopper distributor trucks and 1 entire chip spreader for the Municipality of Anchorage Maintenance and Operations, not to exceed $1,001,000.

$151,774. Uh, this item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to approve, seconded by Mr. Johnson. Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Wanted to point out that this is the, um, the, the midpoint of a long arc for the municipality reacquiring chip sealing equipment for road maintenance purposes. This was a part of our, our FY26 budget, and I just want to highlight highlight for my colleagues and the public the very long arc that it takes for us to make these types of adjustments in the ways that we handle deferred maintenance on our roadways.

I, I don't know about others who grew up in Anchorage, but I had chip-sealed roads in my neighborhood and some scars from falling off my bike to prove it. And this is, this is really a cost-effective way for us to start to, to take some bites out of the deferred maintenance that's on our roadways right now. And in the face shrinking to non-existent capital funds coming from the state of Alaska and some challenging times with respect to, to bond funding. This is one way we start to claw back some of the maintenance that needs to happen. And so I, I'm really delighted to see this contract coming through, this purchase coming through, and I look forward to maintenance and operations putting it to good use next summer.

Thank you. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, um, so Youth Representative, what is your vote on this item?

Yes. Okay, Youth Representative votes yes, um, and, uh, members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 11 to 0, um, AR— or AM 586-2026 passes the body unanimously. Um, I believe that's all of our consent agenda items. So at this time we will be taking our dinner break and we'll be back in about, um, I'm going to guess, uh, 30 minutes, so, uh, just before 7:30. And, uh, I will also advise, um, at that time we do have, uh, one, one item before we get to our public hearings, but then we will move into our, um, public hearing items. Items at that time.

So see you back in a little bit. We are on break. Thank you.

All right, everyone, we are going to call the meeting back to order. As usual, if you have conversations you want to continue, please take them out in the hallway. So, uh, so we have gotten through our consent agenda so that we have one, uh, excuse me folks, just asking folks to come to order. And again, continue conversations outside the chambers. Um, it is— you probably hear the sound echoes in here, so we need folks to, um, to be quiet.

Uh, so we have one additional unfinished item before we get to our public hearing items, and that is 11A. Sorry, just asking folks to please end your conversations if you're walking into the chamber. So let me read it into the record. 11A, uh, AIM 139-2026, Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.02, report for 2026 regarding unmanned aircraft, UAS, and confirming no use of facial recognition technology. This item was postponed from the meeting of, uh, September 1st.

There is no motion pending. What is the will of the body? Move to postpone indefinitely. Okay, there's a motion from Mr. Bowen to postpone indefinitely. Is there a second?

Second for purposes of discussion. Okay, second by Ms. Silvers. Um, Mr. Bond, thank you. Yes, so I'm making this motion at the request of the administration, so in a moment I'll have them speak to that request.

But first, I have a question for Member McCormick. There's a late on the table item that's supplementary to this item, um, and I looked at it and it appears to be a memo with a lot of redacted material as the attachment. I did not see in that item though an explanation or, or context for— I'm assuming there was an information request here, um, and this is what was maybe provided to Member McCormick. But I wanted to give an opportunity to Member McCormick to provide some context for the supplementary item as it may affect my decision on whether or not to postpone Great, thanks. Uh, yeah, Mr. McCormick, if you could answer the question.

Yeah, thank you, and I, you know, apologize it's late on the table, so we didn't have time to, to review this. This was in regards to the drone report, which as we discussed last time was incomplete, um, of many of the legal requirements that I find are, are years behind with month gaps. And then I had a constituent reach out and state that they were involved in a police case where a drone was flown. They showed me a copy a police report stating that a drone was flown and that it's not on the drone report, which raised additional concerns of more missing information. So I requested records from the Anchorage Police Department.

There was certainly a lot of back and forth and seemingly feet dragging of trying to get me this report. And what I've received now is, yeah, 40, I believe, pages of entirely blacked out There is, uh, not a single word provided here, so I can't confirm whether the drone, uh, was flown at that time. I've seen with, with my eyes a report that from the constituent that said a drone was flown, but this brings up additional concerns of whether the police are following the legally mandated requirement of reporting. We've noted it's not being reported on time. Months missing, information missing, and now potentially flights that are missing.

Okay, and then, um, Madam Chair, if I can, I'll turn it over to the administration to maybe lay the grounds for the postponement. Thanks. Yeah, I'll turn to Municipal Manager Fawzy. Thank you. Through the chair to the members of the assembly, yes, we would appreciate letting this item die in favor of bringing you a revised report, which I'm pretty confident I should be able to get to you by the next meeting, October 6th.

The police department, as we mentioned last time, has been regularly submitting its data, but largely in the format that was developed in 2019, and that's been accepted in the past. And that drew some comment at the last meeting, and we've taken that to heart. And so I've asked APD to take a fresh look at that historic data, and then we're going to produce a revised report that takes that discussion into account and more fully complies with the code provisions. So effectively, we're asking for a mulligan, and we'll be back to you with a new drone report at the next meeting. All right, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. Um, so as a reminder, um, or one moment, sorry, I need to clarify, um, the I think the movers had accidentally said approve the—.

Never mind. Okay, sorry, sorry.

Okay, and I see there's multiple folks in the queue, so I'll go next to, I guess, Mr. McCormick. Technically you'd already spoken, but you were answering questions, so I'll go to you next and I'll move through the queue. Thank you. I just have a brief question. Um, why postpone indefinitely?

Could we postpone to a date certain, like the next meeting of October 6th? Through the chair to the member, we are intending to introduce a new item with a different title, which is part of the reason I thought we would just let this one go. If you wanted to carry this one over and then have it travel with the revised version, I don't think we have an objection to that. This one is already in the permanent record as an item that was introduced. Okay, I guess my, my only concern is I felt that this wasn't introduced in the legally mandated way and were posted online for the public to view and for the assembly to have oversight on.

So I have some consternation around postponing indefinitely. I would rather see this postponed to a date certain. So with that, I would move to postpone this until the meeting of October 6th. Second. Okay, there's a motion by Mr. McCormick to postpone to the meeting of October 6th.

Second by Ms. Scout. Do you want to speak to that further?

No, I believe, uh, um, I, I've stated my justification. I want to keep this on the agenda, on the record. We were told last time they would have it available at this meeting. Now this meeting they're saying next meeting. Let's keep tabs on this.

Thank you. Okay, next I have Ms. Scout. Is that on the motion to postpone, uh, to a time certain? Um, I had the same question as Member McCormick, so I appreciate him making the motion.

Okay, um, next, Ms. Baldwin-Day on, uh, postponement to a time certain. Yeah, so just to clarify the, the intent of the mover, so you, you would like for this report to be accompanied by whatever future report the administration might bring forward, uh, which would include additional detail, is that correct? Correct. They're legally mandated to provide it. This is what they provided.

Which is not complete, but it's what they chose to enter into the record. I would like to keep that along with. Okay. I do— I think I would like to understand the— I would like to better understand the assertion that there are potentially missing flights from the record that is before us.

Um, curious if someone from APD can discuss this particular incident that's been placed before us via AIM and share with us if in fact there was a drone involved in this incident.

Um, yeah, I don't know if there's— uh, sounds like Mr. Fawzy would like to answer, and then also note I see Miss Gardner in the queue, so So Mr. Falls, if you'd like to answer— I don't know if Miss Gardner, you're answering that question as well, but yeah, I'll take a quick stab at that. And going first, I was a little surprised to hear the representation that we were unsure whether a drone was used here. It's my understanding that APD has already communicated back that a drone was used here and that this item will be included in the revised report that we sent to the assembly at the next meeting. And with that, I'll defer to the municipal attorney.

Yeah, go ahead, Miss Gardner, if it was on this item. Uh, thank you. Through the chair, uh, to Member McCormick, I would like to— if appropriate, I'd like to speak to the redactions in the document that he received, um, from APD. So there is an exception under the Public Records Act that we have in 3.90, as well as in the provision in, uh, Title 2, 2.30— I think that 2.30.085 about assembly member access. To records, and both of those exclude APD investigative files.

So open investigations, investigative files are not records that are made available to the public through public records requests or to assembly members, even with their additional heightened access to municipal records. And as the— if you look at the end of the lengthy document of redactions, there is an explanation of the redactions at the end that identifies this as being a case that still has an open investigation there is still an open case in court, uh, an open prosecution related to this incident. So that would be the reason for the redactions. Just wanted to put that on the record for clarity and for members' information.

Okay, thank you. Um, uh, next I have Ms. Silvers. Oh, sorry, yeah, that's right, Ms. Bottomley, sorry, you originally had the floor. Please go ahead. Thank you.

So I'd like to understand what might, what might have transpired that we have an incident where a drone was deployed and it is not in fact a part of this report, even though it looks like the date falls within the time frame. It falls between the last two items that are listed on the report that is in front of us, and I'm wondering how that omission happened.

Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, I can tell you that on this instance in particular, the report that I received from APD is that this is a human process. And so behind the curtain, every time the drone is launched, they have been logging it in an Excel spreadsheet that was in Microsoft Teams. And for a while it was glitching, and so they lost this item in that report. So we are going back and trying to make sure we didn't lose anything else. But so far as I know, this was just simply a technological hiccup and for certain no desire to hide anything here.

So as soon as this was brought to our attention, it is my understanding it was confirmed, yes, that was a drone use and yes, we should include that in the next report. Thank you. Next, Ms. Silvers.

Yeah, so I'm, uh, looking at this about this public records request that has been spoken about. And I see that there is a complete redaction log. And it says confidentiality of information regarding open criminal investigation that could interfere with law enforcement purposes if released. And so I guess I just want to ask, if you were to give these records unredacted on Assemblymember request, what effect could that have on an open criminal investigation, particularly if the unredacted information was put on the public record as the redacted paperwork was today?

Through the chair to members of the body, I might involve— invite Deputy Chief Wilson to provide some color here, but I think the preliminary response is that while the investigation is pending, we don't want to provide open communication about who is being investigated in what manner and what information the police department has already obtained.

So it could jeopardize the investigation is that correct? Is that what you're saying? I think in a word, yes. Thank you.

Okay, um, next I have Mr. Bolland in the queue. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think this is interesting.

Um, while I can appreciate that, you know, information can be withheld during a criminal investigation for legitimate purposes, I don't know, I think this for me sparks a number of questions. Number one, you know, happy to support the postponement here, but I think it really speaks to the lack of fulsomeness of the original report. How many similar circumstances can we expect? How many— how much missing information? How many other cases that fall within that time period were not in the original report.

Do we have an estimate of that?

I do not, but that is a conversation I'm having with the police department as we prepare the second version. Okay, um, and then, you know, for— I mean, I understand my colleague from East Anchorage, the concerns that she's voicing, but I also can certainly share the concerns of my colleague from South Anchorage, you know, to have a constituent reach out to you and say, hey, um, I was involved in an instance involving drones and I don't see that instance in the public report.

Um, I think sometimes it's difficult as an assembly member to surface that type of complaint without putting something on the public record. In a way that will have it taken seriously. And I can't say, I can't speak to whether that was the case in this situation. I, I have no insight into that, but, um, I can appreciate it bringing— brought forward and to light so that we all know, okay, here's an example where there's some missing information here. So I'll just state that.

I think the other question though, um, that I have, it would it be the expectation then in this next report that comes forward that the drone uses where there are open criminal investigations, would they still be— would any information be included on the next report, or are we saying that we're not going to report those uses in that report if they are open investigations?

No, it is my understanding that there hasn't been any proactive redaction of drone use that was involved in an open case. So it isn't as though we said, here are all the drone uses, and then these 15, they're still pending, and so delete them from the table. I think you will still see a case number, a date, and then the additional information that's required by code. Okay, that is helpful. All right, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks. Next, Mr. Handlin. Yeah, I just wanted to— I mean, I didn't want to limit debate and stuff, but just kind of point of order on this. Uh, postponing indefinitely opens up full debate for the merits, but postponed to a time certain actually limits debate to the reasons and time for postponement.

Thanks. Um, yeah, that is a good point. I know it's a, an art, not a science for what is in order, but, um, but thanks for the reminder. Um, so I see I see Mr. McCormick in the queue, and then I will ask, um, the motion on the floor is to postpone to a time certain. So Mr. McCormick, again, postponing to a time certain due to keeping this on the table and on the record of what was submitted.

We wouldn't be having these conversations if I hadn't brought this forward. We don't know how many other reports are missing. We need to keep this to be on the table, to be postponed to a time certain so we can continue to track the developments as they come. Who knows how many more of these are? Maybe more constituents will reach out with more reports.

We keep hearing from, from APD, trust us, our policy, we've got it, we're going to protect you with our policy in regards to surveillance, in regards to your First Amendment rights, and now to the drone reports. And we keep finding air. For that reason, we need to keep this on a time certain and postpone this. And again, they told us they'd be ready this meeting. It's not ready this meeting.

We need to keep a record of this moving and do it till time certain. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue. I will also note, again, we are— I'm, I'm still learning the procedure with youth reps. So just to be clear too, I— and there was a few instances before where I had asked those folks to individually vote, and then we did unanimous unanimous consent. So just to say as well, I intended to have folks vote on this one, but also to say if we're doing unanimous consent, then I'm not going to ask additionally for a preferential vote from youth because it's implied. But I know the clerk has spoken with the youth reps, so they are aware that they can object, and anybody can object, and then we have a roll call vote.

So all that said, just for context, members may proceed to vote on— or sorry, I will ask the youth rep for your preferential vote first, and then we'll proceed to vote? Yes. Okay, that was a yes to vote from Youth Rep. Uh, so next members may proceed to vote. The motion is to postpone to a time certain.

Okay, on a vote of 8 to 3, um, this, this item is postponed to the meeting of October 6th.

One moment.

Okay, um, one tiny bit of, uh, procedural item. Because the prior, uh, vote was actually an amendment, um, we don't need to redo it. Um, but we were essentially amending the original motion to postpone indefinitely to a time certain. So, um, so essentially we need to take a second vote that is to, um, postpone this item to a time certain. Um, and then again, I will ask, um, the youth members preferential vote, and then we'll, we'll take that vote again.

Um, so point, or I guess question, was that a— because it— I, I believe that postpone to a time certain is a preferential motion to indefinitely. And so when this comes back, I believe that the motion to postpone indefinitely would still be on the floor then for it.

So let me briefly confer with the clerk, who's our parliamentarian.

Okay, thank you. We had some procedural, uh, conferral. Um, so essentially, uh, as we've clarified, um, so we did amend that motion basically The motion to postpone it definitely will travel with the item, so we don't need to take a second vote, but it means that that is the motion on the floor. And so of course we can take that up at that time and deal with it with a new version or whatever, whatever happens with that. So, so no additional vote needed.

Thank you. Thank you everybody for participating in Robert's Rules Live. So, OK, so with that, so that item has now been postponed to the meeting of October 6th. 6, Again with the motion to postpone indefinitely still on the floor with that item, as will be noted on our agenda. So, uh, that takes care of our unfinished items, uh, so we will now be moving to our continued public hearings.

Um, and then before we move into public hearings, I'll just briefly note, um, some reminders for public testimony, uh, since I did not say them earlier in the meeting. Uh, first we'll say, uh, when you come forward to testify, we'll ask you to state your name the community council area or district that you live in. And then I'll ask folks to please stay on topic and direct comments to me or other people on the dais. I will interrupt you if you're off topic, or you may have a member call a point of order. Folks will have 3 minutes unless community council representatives are speaking on behalf of the council, then they would have 5 minutes.

And then last reminder, public testimony is the public's time to speak. Assembly members do not typically answer questions during this period. But they may address topics and seek other information during debate. So that would happen when we are in debate. And then also, I will just double-check if we have Mr. Perez-Rodilla on the phone.

Yes, I'm on the phone. Okay, thank you. So please mark him as present as of 7:50. Okay, so next we'll move on to our continued public hearings. So the first one is AO 2026-02.

6.89, An ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly enacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.110, Tax Incentives for First-Time Homebuyers. Also note there is an S version on the agenda. I know we had a few folks testify already, so I'll say if anybody is here to testify and you testified at the last hearing, then I'll ask you to please limit your, um, your comments to the substitute version or any amendments that you'd like to speak to. And otherwise, I will ask folks to come up to the podium. Public hearing is now open, so please come forward if you would like to testify.

Again, this is AO-2026-89, and I'll remind you as well, so please push the button on the bottom. When the microphone light turns green, then it's on. Yes, go ahead. And then please state your name, what part of town you're in, and you will have 3 minutes. Madam Chair, members of the assembly, my name's Bill Taylor.

I'm co-owner of Colony Builders, and I've been building in Anchorage for over 40 years. And I am here speaking in favor of AO 2026-89S, but I do have some recommended changes.

Unfortunately, we have a very sobering housing shortage in Anchorage, and this shortage will continue to swell without some kind of action. We have two choices: we can do something or we can do nothing. I think that we should do something, and it reminds me of an old hockey proverb that the hockey player that will miss 100% of the shots he doesn't take. So we need to do something, and I think this AO will— is a good first step. Is it going to solve the housing crisis?

No. But if you look at the housing crisis as a brick wall, this is one brick in that wall, and it will help. Without creative experimenting, we'll never reach our mayor's housing goal of 1,000 houses per month. Uh, the first-time homebuyers virtually disappeared from our market. Market.

And the average age for the first-time homebuyers jumped from age 31 to 41 in the last almost 2 decades. So we can help lure these buyers back into the market with a property tax incentive. By my rough calculations, this tax abatement will represent roughly 15% of the first-time homebuyer's mortgage payment.

Those savings just may make a difference in bringing them back into the fold, and rather than sitting on the homeownership sideline.

The city needs to expand their tax base. Even though the revenue will be deferred, it will be recognized in 10 years. Years. So we'll get the money. It will just take some time.

This potential may be an important beginning. Young individuals and couples are missing an opportunity to take the first step on the housing ladder. And most Americans' home equity is their largest financial asset.

And this is a big number, so brace yourself. According to LendingTree Financial, the U.S. mortgage borrowers hold a record-shattering $18 trillion in home equity, and the average U.S. household homeowner holds roughly $380,000 in equity. Thank you for your testimony. Your time is expired. Pardon?

Uh, thank you for your testimony. Your time is expired, um, but you can, uh, provide comments in writing if you would like. Thank you. All right, thank you. Next person, please come forward.

Um, and then again, the microphone is already on, so, uh, go ahead and speak. Uh, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, everyone. I'm Skyler Quinn.

I'm the president of the Anchorage Home Builders Association. I'm also a local builder, and I want to testify to show my support for AO 2026 staff -89, the S version. First-time homebuyers are having an increasingly difficult time making the jump from renting to owning, and when we talk about affordability, we tend to focus on the price of a home, but in practice, what buyers really care about is the monthly payment. Interest rates, construction costs, property taxes all factor into that payment, and all of them have gone up substantially. There are only so many things the municipality can really do to reduce the cost of housing, And property taxes is one of the most significant tools that you, you all have at your disposal.

And there's also a supply side to this. The new construction entry-level market has been very weak. Buyers in that market are especially sensitive to monthly payments, so builders have increasingly shifted toward building higher-end homes where the economics work better. If the monthly cost of owning a new entry-level home comes down, demands for demand for these homes should improve. And if builders see stronger demand for smaller homes and other entry-level products, I think you'll see a lot more get built.

That's the main point I wanted to share tonight. This type of policy affects both sides of the housing equation: the ability of first-time homebuyers to afford a home and the type of housing that builders have an incentive to produce. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

And I believe you testified at the last hearing, so I'll ask you to just speak to the substitute version or any amendments. Thank you. Go ahead. I do not. My name is Frances Seder.

I'm with U-Ment Tutor Community Council, but I'm here representing myself. I absolutely do not support either of these moves because the tax burden shifts directly to the existing property taxpayers, and that is me. I pay approximately $8,000 a year for a house that was built in 1952. Because of the natural gas shortage, my family and I have consulted tax attorneys and also looked at our energy bills, and we will potentially be paying $1,000 a month in electric to heat our house. It is not responsible for this this body or this administration to volunteer my family to pay for first-time homeowners for a decade.

We just cannot do this. The rest of the people in here who are paying property taxes are probably just as maxed out as we are. We want to see people come to Anchorage. We want to support growth, but you can't squeeze us to the point where we fail. I'm an important person in this community.

I treat brain injury survivors, stroke survivors, all sorts of different folks. And I live in my mother's house that I inherited, Mrs. Baldwin Day.

And I'd like to continue to see my family, my neighborhood flourish. And we can't do that if you give money to other people when we don't even agree to have it done. I wish I could help, I really do. I would like to, but our tax attorney says we're maxed out and we need to be prepared to pay for incredibly high utility bills. And frankly, Chugach Electric is not going to give anyone a break when we run out of natural gas.

So I hope you'll consider that and ask people if they want to do this instead of just voting on it. It would be nice if people got a chance wants to vote on it. Thank you. Thanks. Next person, please come forward.

Um, the microphone's already on, so please state your name and you'll have 3 minutes. Thank you, members of assembly. My name is Josh McCose. I live in Southwest Anchorage. Um, my name— uh, I'm, I'm the communications director for Alaska Libertarian Party.

6 Weeks ago, um, I posted this ordinance and over 200 residents responded— contractors, builders, real estate professionals, professionals. They confirmed what your own policy director, the Home Builders Association president, already told you: the market cannot build qualifying homes at $497,000 in Anchorage. The substitute version moves the cap slightly. The problem still remains. But that's not the core objection.

The ordinance does not lower taxes, it moves them. When the assembly moves— removes property taxes from the taxable base, the mill rate rises on everything that remains. Property owners pay more, renters pay more. Rent prices are downstream from property taxes. We support lower taxes.

We oppose the assembly choosing who pays less and calling it housing policy. If the goal is more housing, lower the rate for everyone. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone's already on.

Please state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Carol Howarth. I live on the west side. Um, I laud the, the initiative with regards to a tax abatement, but I believe that this is kind of misplaced.

Um, in reviewing the recorded sessions of the assembly with contractors giving input, they cited that the challenges that they have are legacy zoning from prior to unification, the high cost of building related to the delays in permitting and also the cost of building that just a differential between Matsu and Kenai where you had higher labor costs and things like that. Those are meetings that some of you are new to, but so you can look at some of the initiatives. You can look at the EDGE Downtown and Bob Peterson would say that really made a difference to be able to build it to have that tax incentive. But at this point, you have people who are having a tax exemption on a house, and they're totally capable of paying for those taxes. And as the other individuals have stated, it ends up that who's carrying the burden?

The burden is being carried by the renters who are having that pass-through and the existing homeowners. There's probably some happy medium in there with regards to providing the builders that incentive. With the argument of saying the use of property tax abatements to incentivize developments that are difficult to finance, you know, that's usually referring to projects related to low-income tax credits. It's usually referring to those folks that are challenged in terms of getting financing, smaller builders and the like. It's usually related to rising development costs and, and, you know, supplies.

And so it gets more to the issue of the bigger question of what's going on with regards to the comprehensive plan that is well overdue, that would help you all get a larger, more strategic view of how to move forward instead of putting Band-Aids on things. Rethink some of these these tax incentives that you're looking at so the long-term implication isn't that it affects these existing homeowners and the renters the way, but it incentivizes the builders. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone's already on.

State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Sean Williams and I'm from the Turnagain area. Um, I wanted to, uh, first share with you that, that, um, I have a degree in economics, an executive MBA. I'm working on a PhD in regulatory economics and public health at UAF.

Um, so I think about this stuff deeply, a lot. And, um, the first thing that comes to mind is that The city of Anchorage is not in the business of choosing winners and losers. I'll reiterate what some people have said already, that, that when you, when you create an incentive like this, someone's going to pay, and it gets shifted from one group to the other group. The other thing I want to point out is that when you create create, you know, this kind of discount, this incentive— and by the way, I want to say I'm not a builder, or I have no, no financial interest in, in whether this passes or not— but when you create an incentive, you create more demand, right? And demand without increasing supply raises raises the price.

Okay, so if you just put on your Econ 101 hat for 10 seconds, you start to realize that this might not be exactly what we want. It reminds me of something called the Cobra Effect. And in Econ 101, you learn about the Cobra Effect. In, in India, they wanted to kill more cobras, so they put up $10 rupee on, you know, 10 rupees on each head. Eventually people started going out and growing these cobras and turning them in for money, and it was many more cobras.

It's a little story. The other thing I want to share with you is that there may be another issue here regarding equal protection. The Alaska Constitution guarantees equal protection for Alaskans. And one could argue that they're being treated differently from other buyers, you know, based on, based on, you know, the new rules that you guys would put into place. The other thing is bigger, and it's more about the US Constitution and equal protection.

So I'm sure that you guys have had your lawyers look through this, but I think there's some bigger issues and you may not get exactly what you're hoping for. So I hope you think, think about this a little bit longer. Thanks. Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

Microphone is already on, so state your name, what part of of town you're in in 3 minutes. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, member of the assembly, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Kourosh Partow. I'm a longtime Anchorage resident for a couple decades. Uh, here I've been living here.

Uh, I've been, uh, building and developing, uh, for the last 20 years in the community. I've been building hundreds of homes, uh, and also developed many subdivisions in the municipality. I usually don't come here and, uh, and testify in front of the assembly, but I felt obligated to come and talk about this matter because it's important. I strongly support the concept behind the first-time homebuyer incentive. As we know, the interest rates are rising, construction costs are going up, land development costs, everything is going up.

These are not strange numbers to me. I see that every day. I see construction costs and development costs, how much it costs to put a road, install utilities, develop lots, buy material, pay labor, and ultimately put a key in someone's hand as a homeowner. And I see this also personally. I have a child, I have a son who is at UAF.

I have a son, he's going to become an engineer and soon graduate. I ask myself, will he be able to afford his first home here? Will he be able to choose and raise— choose Anchorage as his home and raise his family here? I'm sure thousands of people, they think— thousands of families, they think the same way. I'm talking about younger teachers, firefighters, military families, engineers, bank employees, office workers, tradespeople, young couples who want to build their dream in this town, and we have to allow them to grow roots in this town.

This is— should not be a political issue. It should not be Democrats or Republicans. Homeownership doesn't have a color. It's not blue or red.

This is about anchorage. This is about younger family who want to call this city their future home. I wanted to thank the mayor and the administration for, uh, and the assembly for working hard for this matter. It's important to all of us, uh, and continue working on it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Microphone is already on, so state your name, what part of town, and you'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Scott Anderson. I'm from West Anchorage.

I had not read this until just a few minutes ago when a couple different, obviously varying opinions presented themselves with speakers. What this is saying, if I heard correctly, is that the average price in Anchorage right now of a single-family home is $497,000.

This isn't a first-time home that you're proposing to support. You're saying 120% of the average annual price, or of the average price. That's $600,000. That's not a first-time home in the traditional sense of a first-time home. A first-time home is also not 4 bedrooms and 3,000 or 4,000 square feet.

It's 1,200 square feet. Look around Anchorage. Those were first-time homes. In Anchorage. There were first-time homes everywhere in the country until everybody wanted 4 bedrooms, 5 bedrooms, 2, 3-car garage.

This is not what a first-time home buyer should be directed towards. It's not what buyers are saying they're going to build. I would challenge them. I don't think they're going to build 1,200-square-foot houses. I think that's ridiculous to expect.

Um, but you're asking— our mayor is saying we want to build 10,000 new homes and we want to incentivize new home buyers. So let's say only 1,000 of these new homes are first-time home buyers. That's $600 million of potential tax— taxable, uh, value that you're taking off the table for 10 years. That's not fair to anybody else in the municipality.

It's also not fair to people that are buying non-newly constructed homes. What about first-time homebuyers that do buy the 1,200-square-foot houses, 1,300-square-foot houses that already exist in Anchorage? They don't get anything. They have to pay, in fact, more more, because you're giving $600,000 houses 10 years of taxes for free. Somebody else has to pay for every one of those dollars that you're not collecting.

This is shameful.

Would anyone wish to testify? Please come forward.

Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez, C-SYNC. So I apologize, it's redundant. I didn't have a chance to go through this, but I was just thinking about one thing, and then obviously, you know, public hearing, it may close. So I'll just throw this out here. Um, so first-time home buyer, it says the applicant acknowledges that the residential units will qualify for exemption if and only if owned and occupied by a qualified first first-time home buyer.

Um, I'm kind of wondering if this applies to condo garages too. Technically, they are not residential units, but they have a second floor and bedrooms sort of that they can put in these things. And so that is probably not the first-time, you know, home, home units that you're expecting. Could they be considered residential? I don't know.

Um, somebody with more knowledge on this and zoning would probably know, but that's probably not, not what you want. So just throwing that out there. Thanks.

Okay, uh, would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward.

And also ask if anybody else intends to testify in this to please line up behind the podium so we have an idea. So please turn the light back on. On the bottom there's a light, press it, then the microphone is on when the light turns green. Yep. And then please state your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Okay, I'm Kimberly Verite and I'm from the west side, Turnagain. And I'd like to say, well, there's a lot I'd like to say, but I just read this tonight and I'm breezing right on through it. And my first time home definitely was not $400,000. I lived in a trailer in Bethel with a big hole in the center.

I had a rug over it. I had to work my way up. And there's something to be said for having skin in the game and working your way up. Um, and if you defer taxes, then that's not equal and fair because those taxes pay for fire, schools— I mean, a whole bunch of stuff. So that deferred income, one, is not fair, and two, there's just something to be said for working your way up.

Not saying that you have to stay small. I don't have a trust fund. If anybody wants to share their trust fund, I'm open. Okay, but I'm not entitled to that. If people have a trust fund, they have a trust fund.

I'm not entitled to it. There's going to be injustices. I think we can all recognize that. 10,000 Homes in 10 years. Do we have the jobs to support that?

I'm just wondering because we kind of need to have an economy. This Anchorage ebbs and flows, and if the jobs aren't here and people go away, they go away. If we create some jobs, then great. And when it comes to redesigning— oops, that's off topic. I'm back on topic.

Okay, thank you very much. I would really consider— I would like you guys to please consider what you guys are actually proposing. I know that you want to incentivize in some way, you want to make things affordable. I get that, I understand. I happen to be maxed out, and, um, I would take an incentive as well.

I pay my property taxes. Thank you.

Okay, would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward. Anyone at all? And we don't have anyone sign up on the phone, so seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve.

Okay, there's a motion to approve by Mr. Vollen. Is there a second? I will second for purposes of discussion. Okay, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Vollen, do you want to speak to it?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm ready to, I think, move forward and debate this item this evening.

I've made the motion, but I, I want to state that I am disinclined to support this item at this time.

You know, I, I have a few reasons for that. We heard tonight in public testimony from Mr. Taylor, who I respect a lot However, in this particular framing, two choices, something or nothing, I think there's a lot of something that we can do other than this ordinance. And I appreciate you, Mr. Taylor, um, you sent along with, with some of your colleagues a very thorough, um, list of recommendations to the assembly after a work session that we had. And I plan on following up with you on some of those items. This item, this sort of approach, I have a number of concerns concerns on.

Number one is the equity, um, or lack thereof, I think, that has been raised tonight in public testimony. In the S version, yes, it is true, $596,000 approximately would be the assessed value, the 120% of the assessed value of a single-family home. And so what that means is that my constituents who may be struggling to afford their current mortgage payments in Fairview or Mountain View neighborhoods that I represent are going to be subsidizing these— the property taxes of these new, um, first-time homeowners who may be purchasing a home for $596,000. $1 Million. That doesn't sit well with me.

At the same time, we've been telling those same neighborhoods that they should consider paying a sales tax because we are approaching a fiscal cliff.

Yet here we are leaving future money on the table and delaying the building of our tax base. Place with this new construction. So I think we're sending a conflicting message there. Another concern I have is that there seems to be a disconnect between the administration and the assembly on the type of homes that we should be focusing on. I think the assembly has been very focused on multifamily or missing middle housing, 1 and 2-bedroom units, as we heard from the last gentleman who testified.

Those smaller units that are truly more representative of a first-time home.

My third big concern is that I think this item and the one following it are both just a little bit overwrought and complicated. There seems to be this pretzel that you have to do where You know, it has to be below this threshold, if— can you— but it has to be new construction. Can you even find that?

Um, will these tax abatements truly prevent new homeowners from being overburdened on their monthly payments?

So I think if we're going to do this model and we're really going to have a, a critical debate about what are the trade-offs that we're willing to make when it comes to spurring housing creation, but also putting ourselves in a better fiscal picture in the future as a community. Um, you know, we passed the— and this was, uh, the administration brought this forward, and to their credit, and the assembly supported it— the multifamily tax abatement. And the requirement there was for 8 units or more. And I think we have heard from the development community that that has been a success, and I will give credit to the administration on that, as well as my assembly colleagues who passed it.

And so I think if we want to continue to move in the incentivizing direction like this, that a better, simpler approach would be to take another look, another critical look, at that multifamily tax tax abatement and potentially continue— or rather, potentially consider extending the bottom end there. Maybe instead of 8 units or more, it's, it's 4 units or more. There's a requirement in the following item for a base of 4 units. So maybe that's a project that we can do collaboratively together, the assembly and, and the administration, is say, okay, well, let's look at that, that the tax incentive that has been successful, and let's say, should we broaden that? Should we widen that?

And should we double down on our efforts to see more of that missing middle type of housing?

Otherwise, I'm concerned we're going to be calling on some of our lower-income residents who may be homeowners to subsidize more luxury housing. And that's just— it's not the right approach to me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, I have Ms. Silvers.

Thanks. Yeah, I have many concerns with this ordinance. First of all, I don't really think that we need to subsidize or incentivize new, brand new half a million dollar homes. I just don't.

My constituents are facing rising costs, raising taxes, and they are paying their fair share for the roads that they drive on, the, the fire and police departments that protect their homes, using our municipal parks. And so what we're going to be telling these constituents is that that homebuyers of half-million-dollar homes aren't going to pay their fair share for those services that they use. And I just— I can't do that.

You know, I've supported tax abatements for some multifamily development, you know, incentivizing the rehab of derelict buildings into multifamily development. And I think that those things serve a public good. But I think this ordinance is a bridge too far away from providing any type of public good. And then additionally, I have a really large concern about what happens when the tax bill comes due for the people who have been enabled by this subsidy. Subsidy to purchase housing beyond their means.

So what happens in year 10 when their monthly payments jump $500 or $600, $700, you know, who knows? What happens when they can no longer afford that new house that they purchased using that subsidy? And so are we setting the stage for foreclosures, for increased homelessness down the road because we incentivized people to buy beyond their means, you know. And so that's a really big concern also. Yes, so this is just— in many ways, I think this is a bridge too far for me to cross and so I'm going to be a no on this one.

Thanks.

Next, I have Ms. Scout. Thanks. Um, yeah, I want to thank everyone who testified on this, and I've been very eager to hear from my constituents and colleagues on this topic. We had a number of conversations about this in work session and committee, and I've been trying to figure out if there's something I'm missing here, but what it feels like is this really is missing the mark.

Um, if you can afford a new half-million-dollar home, you should pay your taxes. Um, my generation, my district, we're drowning right now in a sea of unaffordability. We have student debt, medical debt, um, groceries are high, we're in an energy crisis, and we need to do something meaningful. I just can't in good conscience support this policy. It feels like it's really missing the mark.

It's not in touch with the needs of our community, and I look forward to discussing more meaningful policy later tonight. Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Handeland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, we've got— I've got an amendment, but I mean, just kind of kind of reading the room here a little bit.

I don't want us to kind of go down a rabbit hole on that, so I would move to postpone indefinitely. Second. There's been a motion to postpone this item indefinitely by Mr. Handlin, second by Mr. Gerker. Do you want to speak to that further?

No. Okay, um, and then there's a couple more folks in the queue, so I'll see Ms. Baldwin-Day on the motion to postpone indefinitely. Yes, thank you. So I've been contemplating the parameters that this ordinance suggests, and I think there is merit to a very particular type of tax incentive for first-time homebuyers that is not necessarily tied to the price of the home, but that is tied to the income of the buyer. And so I would like to postpone this item to the— I would like to move to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th.

I'm very interested in constructing an S version, or an S, I guess, an S1 version of this ordinance that would reframe the conversation somewhat and bring it back for my colleagues to consider at that time. Okay, so there's a motion to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th. Is there a second? Second for discussion. Second by Ms. Park.

Do you want to speak to it? Thank you, Ms. Baldwin-Day. I think people have a— Miss— sorry, I'm recognizing Ms. Baldwin-Day first. Ms. Park, you can get in the queue if you would like to speak though. Yeah, thank you.

I absolutely hear the critique that the shift in who pays taxes is a part of this conversation. I think it's one that I, at a future meeting, I would really appreciate having our municipal assessor speak to in terms of the mechanics of that and the distinction between paying for improvements on a property versus new construction on a property, or the land versus the improvements, I should say.

I think there is something that's worth salvaging from this proposal. And I would hope that my colleagues would offer some time. This is obviously not a must-pass item tonight, so I would appreciate my colleagues giving me some time to see what I can make of it. Thank you. Okay, next, Mr. Martinez on the motion to postpone.

Sure.

It'll be helpful. I have a couple of questions if someone in the administration could answer them, and this might be the municipal manager or it could be the tax assessor if he's in the room.

The question I have is, can, um, and does Can someone describe the difference between whether or not the land is taxed versus the building itself? Can we just get a little more clarification on that?

Yeah, I think—. Point of order. What's your point of order, Mr. Handeland? I mean, so, I mean, back to my original thing. So if we're postponing to a time certain it needs to be on the reasons for us moving to that time certain or on the, the timing for it, not into the actual substance of the debate.

Okay, so I'll give Mr. Martinez an opportunity if there's—. To respond to that point. The substance of the debate is a property tax incentive for single home buyers. The motion on the floor is postpone indefinitely and now to a time certain. I'm not sure I want to postpone it at all without answering some fundamental questions about nuts and bolts.

And I asked one nuts and bolts question. Thanks. So It is broad. I guess what I would ask then is if we could get a couple basic factual answers from the administration, and then to be sure that we are not straying far into the substance. So I see we have our tax assessor approaching and attorney.

So again, I'll ask you folks to answer. Okay, wait, it looks like we also have Mr. Clowder, policy director. So I will ask whoever would like to respond to that brief question, please come to the podium when you are ready.

And Chair, just respectfully, it would seem germane to whether or not an item is postponed based on having a solid nuts and bolts of a foundation of understanding. So thank you, Chair. Yeah, through the Chair to Martinez, so yeah, this proposal that we have have here with ordinance. Can you speak a little closer to the microphone and possibly a little louder? Yeah, is this better?

All right, well, give it a shot and we'll— okay, okay, thank you, thank you. So yeah, this ordinance that we're looking at is what the proposal is. It'll be just taxing the new construction of the improvements, and so the land would remain taxable. So right now, as you look at the land, the land land right now is taxable, it would continue to be. So we're not taking away any of the current tax base that we have.

And hopefully that answers your question. It does.

Chair, uh, point of information that I'm— I have the floor, but I have a question to you independent of the actual item that we're talking about. Yes, please. There were members in the queue that hadn't spoken on this item, but the motion to postpone indefinitely and the subsequent motion to postpone to a time certain were introduced, which essentially usurps the ability for others to talk on the merits. Um, is that a tactic, or is that just— it happens that way? Uh, well, I would say, um, I'm not commenting on anyone's motive, but, uh, in our ladder motions, um, the— and the clerk is keeping track, uh, when there is a motion to postpone, when there's any other amendment, things like that.

The clerk is separately keeping track of the queue and who has spoken first. And so essentially the rules reset. So if, for example, someone has spoken twice on the underlying motion and there's a motion to amend, that person who's already spoken twice could speak to the amendment, if that makes sense. Thank you, Chair. Nothing additional.

Okay, thank you. Um, so next I see Ms. Park has— that's true, yeah, okay. So Mr. Bullock and then Ms. Park. Thank you. I'm going to speak against the motion to postpone to a time certain.

Um, I'm ready to take action on this tonight. I think what Member Baldwin-Day has described and what she wants to do in in her effort, which is to make this tied to income— while I think that's interesting, I think that that is a separate and different project than this. I think it's so radically different than what has been messaged for months to the public. And so it doesn't necessarily— I think it feels a little too extremely different to have that be the next iteration of this project. But I do think it is a project worthy of discussion that could come back as a separate item before us, um, and that we could really— it seems to me we would really want to be able to message that to the public, and so that we're having participation, that people understand, um, what the idea is.

Because I don't know, for me it's just, it's too much of a leap. So I would encourage my colleagues to vote down the motion to postpone to time certain. I would, for my part, would be much more comfortable with a motion to postpone indefinitely or simply a no vote on the underlying item. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next I have Miss Park.

Is this on the motion to postpone? Thank you. Okay, um, I actually do like the idea of tying the tax abatement to income and also to the value of the home. And I feel like there, there's some—. Point of order.

What's your point of order, Mr. Clark? Are we talking to the motion to postpone? Yes. So again, it's an art, not a science. I would ask and remind members, um, so I'm going to rule that the member Park is not out of order, but I will ask to please keep your comments to the postponement.

I know it's— we often stray afield from that, but I think we should try to bringing it in. Thank you. I think that, that's a good reason to postpone, that we could look at, um, uh, a different metric for assigning what the tax abatement would be. And I just think we would need time to do that.

Next, Mr. McCormick on the motion to postpone. Uh, I will echo what, uh, Member Vohland said. I'm ready to dispatch of this tonight. If something else comes of it later, um, we can have public comment on that, but I'm ready to, um, see this, uh, through tonight. Thank you.

Okay, there are no further members in the queue, so, um, uh, I will ask— so we're going to proceed to vote. So the motion is to postpone— to type certain to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th. And, uh, before we open the vote, I'll ask, um, the Youth Rep Mr. Kreps, what is your vote on the motion to postpone to 10/20? Yes. Okay, youth representative vote is yes, and so members may proceed to vote.

Again, the motion is to postpone to a time certain.

Member Perez-Rodilla. Yeah.

Okay, on a motion of 5 to 7, um, that motion to postpone to October 20th has failed. Um, so we are back on the underlying motion, which is the motion to postpone indefinitely.

And then at the moment, I don't have anyone else in the queue, um, and so I also will open the vote on this one. First, how does the youth representative vote? Yes. Okay, the motion from youth reps is to vote— or sorry, the vote is yes. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Presverdial? Yeah.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, um, that item has been postponed indefinitely. Next, we'll move on to item 13B. That is AO Ordinance Number 202693, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly enacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.100, Tax Incentives for mixed-use multi-unit housing. Public hearing on this item is now open. I'll also remind folks, I only have one person on the list who testified last time, but if you have not testified on this item, please come forward.

If you have testified, there is a substitute version, so please keep your comments to that substitute version. And the microphone is already on, so please proceed. Name, part of town, you have 3 minutes. Thank you. Jason Norris, South Anchorage.

Coverage, speaking in favor of this one. As opposed to the previous item, which we were chasing the ghost first-time home on 6,000-square-foot lots with 30% lot coverage when homebuilders could just build something bigger and make more money, I feel that this is an efficient reuse of vacant or underutilized space. It does not take any money off the table. It gets rid of no tax revenue. It delays receipt to ensure we receive something at all.

A lot of these places where they're not generating much for the, for the municipality now, but with some, a little attention and love and rework, they could turn into something that could help us grow our tax base. So I urge your support. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. Oh, one second while we reset the timer. Microphone is on, so state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Great, thank you. My name is Sheldon Fisher, and I'm— I live in the Turnagain Community Council, but I'm here speaking on behalf of MASH and Alaska Marketplace, and we're working to redevelop downtown.

I want to applaud you and the mayor for your focus on housing. Increasingly in our country, population growth drives economic development, and it's not actually— it's not the other way around. In our community city desperately needs additional housing for our community to grow and to be vibrant. Mixed use is particularly beneficial and worthy of support. It tends to be— have less urban sprawl, which actually makes it cheaper for the city to maintain and support those— that kind of housing.

It also creates dynamic walkable neighborhoods that in and of themselves create economic development as well. As they attract businesses because of the residents and the visitors that are attracted to mixed-use properties. Um, this is of course one of a number of policies that you all have focused on and are developing, and, and I urge you to support it. Um, the question I think that where it goes to equity is you have to ask, are we growing the pie or are we just merely redistributing the burden? And Because if you don't grow, then there is no burden to be redistributed.

And I think that this policy has the opportunity to grow the pie and increase the tax base overall. And I hope you'll support it. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone's already on.

State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi there. I am Mark. I live in West Anchorage, Turnagain.

And I think this is a terrific ordinance. I mean, particularly compared to the last one we were all discussing, which was essentially subsidizing demand, and not even subsidizing sustainable demand. This is subsidizing sustainable supply. Listen, like, we all get tired of traffic, we all get tired of gridlock, we all get, you know, really anxious about air quality. One of the best ways to reduce that is by by putting more things closer to where people actually live.

And not only is that very important, but the fact that this will increase our tax base and will be a net positive in terms of taxable income, in terms of what the city gets in, you know, running right to the edge of a fiscal cliff, as, uh, Member Voland had said. And so this is amazing, uh, and of the tax incentives we could support, this is easily one of the better ones. Thank you. Okay, anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. And I'll remind folks too, if you do intend to testify, please line up behind the podium.

Uh, microphone's on. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Carol Howarth, Westside. Um, again, I basically repeat the gentleman's comments, but also before, these are very good ideas, but once again we're talking about a fairly high, um, housing price. The average price is like you, Assemblyman Voland, said.

And there are probably other solutions that can incentivize the rehab or the building of these mixed-use besides giving the tenant a 10-year tax exemption. Once again, it's, it's, it's the building permitting process, it's the, um, it's the, the zoning, it's, um, the labor costs, it's the, it's the design standards, it's all these other things that need to be addressed through comprehensive planning.

Okay, next person please come forward. Uh, microphone's already on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes once the timer is reset. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, members of assembly. My name is Josh McCose. I'm the Alaska Libertarian Party Communications Director. I live in Southeast Anchorage, or actually Southwest. Um, I'm just going to reiterate basically the same thing the last lady said.

I have a degree from UAA in political science and economics. Works. Um, I don't know if you guys remember that, but would say that she was exactly right. I, before I went back to school, I was a builder across the state. I was an electrical apprentice, and it's the same processes that we'd see in Anchorage and to the valley, is that the permitting processes are what cause building to go slowly here in Anchorage.

It's the zoning processes, the amount of time you guys spend talking about zoning, that's more regulation that slows down building in Anchorage. Um, I don't know how long it took to actually get a permit to build a deck at my house over the past year, but it was way longer than it should have been. And that's just all I'm going to flatly say, is that the regulations that you guys consider put on housing and what are slowing the building, not tax incentives. You should look at your actual regulations and cut them. Thank you.

Hey, would anyone else wish to testify on this item? Please come forward if so. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, and no one signed up on the phone, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What is the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. And for clarity, are you moving the original version of the S version? Uh, the S version. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, so motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve the S version, second by Mr. Martinez. Mr. Baldwin-Day— I'm sorry, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. I, um, I, I'd like to ask a couple of questions from the outset.

So my reading of the S version of this ordinance, um, is that this tax incentive is only in the event that residential units are sold. It does not in fact apply if the residential units are rented. Is that, is that a correct read?

I see we have Mr. Clowder coming up to answer. Uh, through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, that, that's correct. This applies to owner-occupied housing, so it'd have to be sold I would add that our existing tax abatement for multifamily rentals could also apply to a lot of these circumstances where a commercial building is rehabilitated into housing. So with the two AOs, or the two sets of code, we would have both scenarios covered. However, this, this is, this is a 4-unit minimum and multifamily is 8-unit, is that correct?

Through the chair, that is correct. That is correct. Okay. So we would have a gap between 4 and 8 units? Through the chair, that is correct.

Okay. Okay. I think that then my— I'm curious what the rationale was for excluding situations where there might be an owner-occupied unit and other units being rented out. Out. Was there any conversation about why that would not apply or why that sort of arrangement would not apply for a tax abatement in this case?

I'm sorry. Through the Chair to Member Baldwin-Day, that— we didn't necessarily think about a scenario exactly like that, no. I think that— so we didn't contemplate a mix of rentals and owner-occupied if the owner-occupied or if the rentals were less than 8. I think we didn't figure that exact scenario, no. Thank you.

I think I'll stop there and yield the floor. Okay, next we have Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I really appreciate Member Baldwin-Day's line of questioning. First of all, I'll just say that renters need housing units just as much as homebuyers need housing units, and that's why You know, I want to support more multifamily, more missing middle, more 1, 2-bedroom units.

That's what we're really lacking here as a city.

So what I would be interested in is another version of this that does two things.

Well, actually, I'd be interested in one of two things. Let me back up a little bit. I'd either be interested in getting rid of the requirement for the units to be sold.

I think what I would be most interested in, as I sort of stated on the previous item, is how do we close the gap that Member Baldwin-Day is talking about between 4 in 8 units without all of the other layers of requirements and hoops to jump through to get the abatement. Um, and so, you know, this is the administration's project. I think that could be done by amendment, but I think potentially a better path would be to to state this for the record, to postpone this item, this one, to a time certain, because I think we can get somewhere on this one.

Um, but I guess I'm just— I hope what I'm voicing will be, will be thoughtfully considered. Um, so with that, um, I would make a motion to postpone this postpone this item to the meeting of, I believe, October 20th. We have a meeting. Yep. Second.

Okay, there's a motion to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th by Mr. Volland, second by Mr. Martinez. Do you want to speak to that further? Um, I, I think the only thing I will do is maybe if Mr. Clowder or anyone from the administration wants to, um, feels prepared, if not totally okay, but to either address that or thoughts on moving in that direction?

Through the chair to Member Voland, I think that, that with these AOs, and we saw this with the multifamily one, 1260, that we passed last year as well, there are always scenarios you can come up with for situations that haven't been contemplated and, and that are very valid ones that we want to see incentivized, right? And I think that that the circumstances you're talking about, one, one way that they could be addressed is a code change, a small code change to 1260, the multifamily incentive to get rid of the 8-unit minimum in circumstances where there's a conversion from commercial to rental property, for example. So I would say that, that some of these kinds of ideas could be good candidates for subsequent legislation rather than to delay this, this one, because I think we can always come up with these kinds of ideas about new, new ways to cover additional circumstances.

Okay, I appreciate that. Um, yeah, I think for my part, I'm still interested in maybe taking a little bit more time with this one. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks. Next, Mr. Martinez on the motion to postpone.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Clowder, Nolan, Member Voland asked for a— to postpone to a time certain because there was a hope that this could be improved in the particular gap. Respectfully, that scenario is not so far to complicate— I mean, to contemplate. It should have been probably one of the top 10 things that people would have contemplated, but that's just my, my opinion.

But you described that there could be a subsequent project.

I first want to say I appreciate that you see this as in tandem with the work we did last year, because I was very disappointed that mixed-use wasn't included. And I think that there's an interesting approach that you described, that, that, that other project could be worked on as well. So you've identified fixing or going back to the one we passed with multifamily and doing something on that, or a third project potentially here. Why do you think this needs to be voted on tonight in terms of the urgency that would, that would kind of communicate versus the step back that was requested? Interested?

Give a good rationale for that. Sure. Through the chair to Member Martinez, I think that we don't necessarily have consternation about a postponement. There is no urgency with passing this necessarily. It is more a matter of that you can always— we can always find these kinds of circumstances and sometimes they make good subsequent legislation, right?

I think that that sometimes there's always that enemy being the— or the perfect being the enemy of the good. That a lot of times we've done a good job of getting incentives out there and getting them in use. Like 1260 has been used a number of times. A lot of housing units are getting built in Anchorage because of it. And we could have always come up with a reason why we could change it in this way and postpone to change it in this way to postpone.

And so sometimes there's an argument for, you know, getting something out there and iterating it through subsequent legislation as we identify real-world scenarios. And I think that that would probably be our preference, but I think that it's understandable if we want to take a different approach as well.

Would this be the first multi-, um, mixed-use tax incentive that has come from, uh, the work that we've all done on the, the housing front, the different tax incentives? Is this the first mixed-use tax incentive? Is this the first of its type in terms of the suite of work that we've been doing? Through the chair to Member Martinez, when we did the multifamily incentive, that also does contemplate mixed use, and it is— it does provide bonus years of abatement for mixed use developments too. So that was thought about as part of that project too, but I, I'm not aware of other incentives that we have that, that pertain specifically to mixed use.

In some circumstances it could apply through a deteriorated property abatement perhaps, but otherwise I'm not aware of any. All right, thank you. This has been helpful and to communicate to my colleagues what I heard so I can interpret it. First of all, I'm a super fan of this work and I want it to happen. It's disappointing that Anchorage has so many 1970s, uh, with, uh, commercial properties without housing.

It's, it's, it's actually a shame and a loss of opportunity. I asked the question about whether or not the multi— the mixed-use was there in terms of mixed-use, but back to the multifamily, and it wasn't an activatable element. It seemed like it was something that other work needed to happen along the way. But we got the language out there that mixed-use is important, and this is part of the strategy. I think that really communicates why a postponement is not a bad thing to fold into more better alignment with that initial ambition, initial intentionality of activating mixed-use meets the very basic gap of rent, renters, and the number of units.

I think those two elements are really important that I don't know another project makes it better. It's like sausage on sausage, and that doesn't work around here so well. Go. Maybe just one better project with the amount of time could be helpful. And I'm a champion for this, but I think those gaps of ownership, the rental question, really raise the issue of why a little more time is probably a good thing rather than forcing this issue tonight and then hoping a better project comes along.

But thank you.

Okay. Next I have myself and Ms. Brawley. Um, thank you. I want to speak in favor of, um, the postponement to a time certain. I do think, um, there is a lot of items of interest.

I just want to put one concern and set of questions I have on the record that I hope we have time to dig into, um, if this item is postponed, and that is around the treatment of service areas. I know that is something that's not in— it's not addressed in our other tax incentives, and so I want to have a deeper conversation about that. That. So that's kind of one area that I'd like to discuss in the substitute version. Not for tonight, but then I will also note if members are interested in having a work session on this item, that would certainly allow for scheduling of that, although our time is tight, or sending this through a committee, as members have stated that was the intention, is to take up more legislation at committee.

So that timeframe would allow for multiple opportunities there. So thank you. Next, I have Ms. Baldwin-Day in the cube. Thank you. I want to be really clear.

I'm absolutely in favor of us incentivizing this type of development. Commercial conversion to residential or addition of residential on existing commercial is clearly a massive need in our community. And I am 100% in favor of this conceptually. I think as I consider this, and I think the reason I'd like to see us postpone this to a time certain is because I'm contemplating this from the point of view of someone who owns a commercial property. And if I own a commercial property and I'm going to put residential on that property, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which I would then sell parts of my commercial— my parts of my property in order to accomplish the, the goal of, of this particular tax incentive.

I, I find it far more likely that someone who owns a commercial building and elects to add residential to it is far more likely to rent that, to make those properties available as rentals and not necessarily as something for sale. So I'm sure that if we're talking about ground-up development where someone is building a mixed-use development on purpose, then Sure, there might be a scenario in which the funding stack itself depends on being able to sell the residential portions of the property. But I think we might need this tool to work in a couple of different ways. And I think it's worth taking the time to sort out whether that can actually happen inside of this particular ordinance, if we need to go back and revisit the multifamily tax incentive, or if we need to do something else altogether. And I think that conversation is best had not on the dais right this minute.

So I would love to see a work session or something, or perhaps bringing this to the Housing and Community Development— Community and Economic Development Committee for further discussion and to see how we could marry all of this up to make something that is potentially greater than the sum of its parts. Thank you.

Okay, before we proceed, just checking, I know Mr. Martinez was switching to the phone. Are you on the phone, Mr. Martinez?

Okay, maybe not yet. I will check back. Um, we've, uh, we'll have 2 members on the phone. Uh, next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, so something I would also be interested in being briefed on, um, via committee or work session would be the existing multifamily tax incentive, 8 units or more.

If, if someone were to currently add 8 units to a commercial property, how would— what sort of tax incentive slash requirements would they be subject to? How does that compare to this where— I mean, because one of the things that I like is, you know, we're not completely taking away from the tax base. The commercial is still preserved, right? Um, you can speak to that now, or I, I guess I would just— I would love to be presented with that. How can we treat the two more similarly, I think, is where I'm headed.

Uh, through the chair to Member Voland, in a circumstance like what you're talking about where somebody wants to convert a commercial building or a portion of it to allow for 8 rental units, that would fit our existing code 1260, the multi-family tax incentive, so they could qualify for for that program and receive that tax abatement. Got it. Okay, thank you. Okay, I don't see anyone further in the queue, so the motion on the floor is to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th. First, I'll ask if the youth representatives—.

What's your vote?

Yes. Okay, and I'll check again. Is Mr. Martinez— are you on the phone yet? I know he was in transit. Yes, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Good. Okay, so then members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez? Yes. Member Perez-Verdia? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, um, that item is postponed to the meeting of October 20th, uh, and that was AO 2026-93S. Um, next on our agenda is our last continued public hearing. That is item AO 2026-108, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly repealing and replacing Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.1, uh, .02 and amending AMC Section 1— sorry, 7.15.040 to clarify existing restrictions on surveillance technology and establish new restrictions on automated license plate reader systems, real-time crime center operations, and live camera monitoring to limit the retention of surveillance data, etc. I'll also note there is an S version and a couple of additional memos on our agenda. So this item, the public hearing is back open.

And I'll state we have an even longer list of folks who have testified before, so I'll ask if you have testified to please keep your comments to the substitute version or any amendments if you've already spoken. But of course, if you have not already spoken, then you're welcome to speak on all of it. So I'll ask the first person to approach. The microphone is already on, so state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Eric Glatt. I live in District 4. I'm the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska. Our policy director did speak at the last meeting as to the original version.

I intend only to speak to the S version and the S1 version that was laid on the table, uh, this evening. Um, I haven't had a lot of time with the S and the S1 versions, so I just want to share a couple observations. First of all, they both contain a complete redefinition of what surveillance technology is. And I would point you, uh, point out the fact that the chapter that this, um, the AO would amend is concerning surveillance technology in general. So this would change, um, how this chapter applied even to technologies that are already in this area of code, like body-worn cameras and remotely operated, um, unmanned vehicles.

When it restricts the definition of surveillance technology only to technology that includes AI, machine learning, or similar, it may actually exclude from its ambit things like body-worn cameras and remotely operated vehicles. And I'm not sure that's exactly what was intended by redefining surveillance technology in such a limited manner, but I, I fear that that may be the effect. To the extent that those areas within the code don't specify, body-worn cameras are a form of surveillance technology. And therefore that limited definition wouldn't apply, then I would ask, why is it in a chapter of the code whose title includes the term surveillance technology? So I think that would benefit from some investigation, interrogation, and cleaning up.

I would also draw your attention to Section 7 of the S version and the S1 version with the 45-day curing opportunity that the muni would provide itself before anyone had a private right of action in the event of a violation. The way this is constructed right now— and I'll first say I don't think a competent government should require 45 days before someone can bring a private right of action when there's a violation. But I would also point out that in section— what would be section C2— determines whether or not a violation occurred. It appears to me that this would give the municipality the opportunity to say, No violation has occurred, therefore, you have no private right of action to go to a court and for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over whether the statutory or this code violation did, in fact, occur. And I don't think that's what's intended.

I would hope that's not what was intended. I think that could probably be cleaned up just by simply saying in Section C2, determines that a violation has occurred. Occurred, and only if a violation has occurred, then the muni gets 45 days to try to cure it before the private right of action could be initiated. Thank you.

And Mr. Glatt, sorry, there's a question from Ms. Scout.

Oh, never mind. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, part of town, and did you testify on this? I'm testifying on the S version. Okay, thank you. Please, please proceed. Thank you, members of assembly.

My name is Josh McCose. I am the Alaska Libertarian Party communications director. I live in Southwest Anchorage. I'm gonna give you guys a quick excerpt from some pop culture, and it's directly related to this motion. In Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Earth is demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass.

The paper was filed, the notice was posted. The process was followed. The plans were on display from a local planning office in the cellar, in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused lavatory behind a sign that says "Beware of the Leopard." The bypass served a larger system. Procedure was satisfied. Acreage voters banned traffic cameras in 1997.

Nobody reversed that vote. In 2002 and 2003, they went back up under a federal transportation earmark. Different name, same infrastructure, no public vote. In 2025, this assembly approved the $12 million connecting— approved $12 million connecting those cameras to a real crime crime center. The Russian Jack Community Council formally opposed it in writing.

That opposition entered this assembly's official record on December 2nd, 2025. 9 Months later, the assembly approved about $600,000 more. Yesterday, President Trump was asked about flock cameras. You know, they're about this Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Axon Flock, they're the same thing. He acknowledged that some people think it's an infringement.

American— all Americans across the nations do. Axios reported that this month, Anthropic's threat intelligence teams documented authoritarian governments, including China, are using the same exact surveillance architecture are deployed by Flock and Axon here. This technology is the same. The data collection is the same. The only difference is which government is running it.

Tonight's substitute was released this afternoon. I have read it. It sets no retention limits. APD sets its own. The department being regulated sets its own limit.

That is not a governing policy. It's a permission slip. It excludes traffic management cameras from its definition of surveillance technology. The 511 cameras feeding the Real Time Crime Center are not covered. It does not address our, our facial recognition platform accessible through APD's Real Time Crime Center partnerships.

It does not address Leads Online, which gives APD access to eBay transaction records and gold purchases histories without a warrant. This— the system assembly is being asked to govern is larger than what this ordinance describes. The common law right to travel predates this, this constitution. A system logging every movement in real time with no retention limit and no warrant requirement burdens that right without due process. Alaska's Constitution Article 1, Section 22 says that right to privacy shall be implemented.

Written in 1972, not implemented in some 54 years. I submitted a bunch of testimony, uh, comments to you guys over email, and that's— Good. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Uh, microphone is on.

State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Elizabeth Anderson. I live in the Sand Lake neighborhood, and I'm testifying on the S version. Um, the Real Time Crime Center says that it utilizes previous technology, but it was stated in a previous meeting that APD already had a Real Time Crime Center, and then 3 months earlier, a report on surveillance technology was due.

And last meeting it still hadn't been submitted up to standard. I'm not sure why they should be able to utilize a new real-time crime center if they haven't proved faithful to the laws and citizens that they defend. And then individual liberty— the stakes are considered serious enough to put in laws and policies. Um, I'm not entirely sure what it meant there, but it sounded like it was saying that certain individual liberties are classified as important. And then tying into that, the policies are meant to uphold public reporting and accountability, though that's already proved to be increasingly faulty.

Protecting individual rights. I'd say that it's one of my individual rights to not be surveilled by cameras, especially ones that have been causing immense controversy in the Lower 48. And that mostly everyone doesn't want. And then the definition of surveillance and surveillance technology, that was really oddly worded and sidestepped a lot. And then in general provisions, no municipality, no municipal agency may sell data to private person or entity.

The Axon company itself isn't under the municipality, as far as I know. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping them from selling that data. And a similar company, Flock, has already done that, which has caused multiple counties in the Lower 48 to stop utilizing Flock. And then the suspension of use, it sounded really simple to sidestep and avoid. Um, and then to limit the further use of the cameras.

I don't think that APD should need to be able to loosen or update the policy, um, especially not for a new feature. Accessing the private feed only is authorized. Um, it doesn't mention who authorizes that though, and it doesn't mention what that process would be. Um, and then also reviewing policy periodically. It doesn't say who reviews it, who decides that, and when it's going to be reviewed.

It just says when something needs to be added.

Um, and then also operational flexibility sounded like a really polite way to say that they can violate our rights when it benefits them.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Um, I believe— did you testify at the last hearing as well? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you.

So yeah, please keep your comments to the S version. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Thank you so much, and I will be testifying to the S version. So I'm going to start with the secondary problem that I kind of have with it, which is, uh, the ordinance, um, what it has to do with the enforcement. Not only have it— not only does it essentially allow APD to kind of police themselves on whether or not they will expand the use of this technology, they've also added another kind of, um, section of enforcement, which is this very assembly assembly as the second body.

The problem that arises to me when I view this is that this isn't really an assembly for the people anymore. It's more or less an assembly for APD. How can you ask the people of Anchorage to trust everybody here with the protection of their rights when you no longer really advocate for them at all? And in fact, in recent times have been opposing them at almost every single junction when it comes to matters of public safety. This to me just seems kind of disappointing, and if you want this assembly to actually be a body for the people, then I urge you guys strongly to give the actual citizens of Anchorage the power to hold APD accountable and not just the state.

I did say that was my secondary problem with this ordinance. My primary problem is that— sorry, my primary problem is that the people of Anchorage don't want any mass surveillance technology in the first place. We don't want ineffective restrictions on mass surveillance like this ordinance kind of offers, and we don't want some mass surveillance in one part of town but not the others. We just want no mass surveillance, period. And lastly, I want to do a quick thank you to the youth representatives here, and I want to urge them to listen to a fellow youth member and see the problems that this ordinance causes.

Thank you so much for your time.

Uh, sorry, sir, before you walk away, um, can you verify your name real quick too for the record? I'm so sorry, uh, Lincoln DeBerry, resident of District 3. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward.

Um, state your name, part of town, and did you testify last time? So I did not testify last time, but this will be in regards to the S version. Okay, thank you. Go ahead. My name is Ian Clark and my community council is Russian Jack Park.

Is my understanding that Axon's two real-time crime center products referred to on their website under Axon Respond and the Real Time Crime Center in the Cloud platform, respectively, are both hosted remotely. Provisions in Section 3 place clear restrictions on a municipal agency sharing or selling surveillance data to a private interest, but what legal restrictions exist on behalf of the up to 3 companies— Axon, Fusys, and RapidSOS— that are or will be involved in the API through which the data is accessed? The municipality's own interests may be bound as tightly as possible, but when the data is not hosted on a secure local network, they are not the only point of failure. How would the municipality ensure that all parties with access to this surveillance data use it responsibly and maintain its security? What recourse exists in the event of a data breach?

Thank you.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. And I don't remember if you testified before, but if If you did, please speak to the S version. Otherwise, you're good to go. State your name, part of town, microphone is on.

You'll have 3 minutes. Thank you. Thank you to the chair and the assembly members. I'm Adrienne Canino. I'm from the east side of Anchorage.

I did testify before. I'll be keeping it to the S version today.

I just want to say again, thank you for putting the policy forward, putting it into the ordinances and the code of the municipality instead of leaving it to a policy that that is a PDF on a website and subject to change, because we should define these things, we should talk about these things, we should make plans for these things. It's going to come up again in like the next 5 years for sure, for sure. And also, um, I want to speak to a piece of the agenda packet that I didn't see last time that's included this time— the resolution from the North Star Community Council. Super want to make it normal to talk about just repealing automatic license plate reader altogether, because I want to make it normal to not have that technology altogether. So yes to defining, and yes to changing the ordinance and the code and making great policy and preventing the future mass surveillance.

And also, I love the idea that we could just maybe take it back and take it off the table altogether. So thank you for allowing me to testify. And before you walk away, there's a question, I believe, from a member. Mr. McCormick, I have a question. I hear you saying You feel like the ordinance don't go strong enough and that you'd like to repeal the license plate readers.

Is there a level of surveillance that you would find acceptable? What threshold do you have there? Well, do you want me to use the verb surveillance?

You can define it however you'd like. Please, I'd like to hear your opinion. Surveillance, as in to surveil for the purposes of watching for wrongdoing. I'm not comfortable with any level. Um, well, okay, that was unfair of me.

Um, a camera that's on all the time for no purposes other than to be on all the time and watching feels to me like it's not doing justice to the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty. It feels like I'm being observed in an effort to find pre-crime. Which is a very slippery and dangerous slope to me. Does that answer your question? Thank you.

Great. Okay, next person please come forward. Um, and I know Miss Walso, you had testified before, so please speak to the S version. Microphone's on. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes.

Uh, good evening, my name is Miranda Walso and I live in Chiaki River. The S version gives the assembly a substantially larger role in surveillance oversight. I want to focus on what information the assembly needs needs to perform that effectively. Surveillance is usually discussed in one direction— government observing the public. But there is another legitimate public purpose for some of the same types of data— allowing the public and the legislative branch to observe and monitor government.

That matters because meaningful oversight requires information outside of records generated by the activity and individuals being evaluated. Investigative records exist because the executive chose to investigate. Body-worn cameras record where officers were already present. Complaints identify problems where someone already believed there was an issue. All is valuable, but it reflects prior selection bias.

We don't know beforehand where a problem will arise, which encounter will later become significant, or what pattern may emerge only after months or years. Accountability requires knowing what happens when nothing goes wrong. To determine whether use of force is exceptional, whether de-escalation policies work, whether enforcement patterns are changing, and whether discretion is exercised appropriately, you need a comparison population dataset that may require broad, initially untargeted information about what was happening across the community, not just information generated after government decided where to look. Doesn't mean that broad data is inherently trustworthy or that government should maintain unrestricted histories on everyone. It means that this type of information can serve two fundamentally different purposes.

Can be used by the executive branch to scrutinize individuals, and it can be used by individuals to scrutinize the executive branch. These purposes are not interchangeable. Information preserved for public accountability should have safeguards appropriate to the purpose. Aggregation or de-identification where identity is unnecessary. Restricted access, clear retention, and limitations on repurposing it for investigations.

But there's a checks and balance issue. The Assembly is being given greater responsibility to oversee executive use of the systems, but if the information available for that oversight consists on only what the executive branch chooses to share, collect, retain, and report, then the branch being evaluated maintains too much control over the evidentiary record used to evaluate it. Structural weakness regardless of who holds the office or which administration there is. Same applies to private vendors. If a vendor controls the infrastructure, logs, or technical evidence necessary for oversight, municipality must have sufficient contractual and technical rights to preserve and obtain that information.

If anchor is going to tolerate broad observational capacity in public public spaces, the public should not flow only towards the executive enforcement side. Some of that capacity should be deliberately governed to make government itself more accountable and observable, and the legislative branch should ensure the executives are not the only source of— the only source of information and custodians of the information by which they are evaluated. So checks and balances opportunity, I see that the S version does not address. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. Um, I know you've also testified before, so please speak to the S version. Microphones on, state your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Hi, I'm actually speaking on behalf of North Star Community Council, um, so like 5 minutes. Okay, thank you.

Let's reset the timer real quick. Thank you. Okay, please proceed. Hi, my name is Jade Powell and I'm the chair of the North Star Community Council, and I'm speaking on behalf of our community council today. I expect that you may have all seen our resolution in your packet.

I hope you read it. I want to note that my goal here is to start and end with nuance. As you saw, that wasn't a unanimous passage of that resolution. The folks that voted no on that resolution did actually support the underlying assembly ordinance and the measure in our resolution that was supportive of the AO. What they did not support of our resolution was our call to roll back the use of ALPRs entirely and to ban the use external data harvested in ways that would violate the ordinance by the police.

So just wanted to note their objections and why they voted no. So I'm doing my part on behalf of them. And I wanted to express like a lot of that reservation from our community council for the folks that voted no or the folks that voted yes but sort of qualified is just a lack of understanding. Folks don't understand it. And even the folks that were supportive of our resolution wholeheartedly said, yeah, we just don't understand enough about about this.

And, um, they're nervous. And what are they nervous about? They're nervous about things like abuse, all the things we've seen in our flock. They're nervous about, as other folks have said, the self-policing of the abuse by the folks that are in charge of the systems and have everything to gain by abusing it. Um, people are afraid of things like SignalTrace, which I mentioned in my personal testimony last time, um, the way in which electronic surveillance is going to be added into the digital picture surveillance.

And I just wanted to note real quick for folks, um, there will be a time 10, 20, 30 years from now when you will not be able to buy a camera that is sold to municipal vendors that does not include the ability to run local models that do facial recognition and also collection of signals. Like, there are certain vendors that sell this stuff— Axon, Flock, etc. And at some point, the technology is gonna be good enough that you can run local models to do facial recognition on device. And there's be no way for us to acquire equipment that does not allow for a very simple software switch to violate the assembly policy. So I just want to throw that out there and make sure we all understand that this is a very, very small technical step between the capabilities that we're legislating against and the capabilities that are completely unrestrained.

Um, so I just want to make that really clear. And that's a lot of what is driving the nervousness and the apprehension on part of our community council is that that it's just a totally wide open field. And this is a great— the ordinance, the original ordinance is great. The S-1 version, I think, is certainly better than the S version, or the S-2 is certainly better than the S-1, or however it's numbered. But I think overall, people are nervous and they don't feel like they understand enough to really participate in this discussion.

And I appreciate all the folks that have taken the time to learn about it and be here. But I think that, you know, if this is going to pass as the S-1 version, I hope that you immediately follow up with more legislation or maybe take some time, figure it out, find some more stuff to add to this to really beef it up because people want more than just what's in there. You saw from our community council, you're going to hear probably from members of the North Star Community Council about MHOP later today or maybe at the next meeting. And I can tell you, we don't all agree on everything, but this is something that we really did have a lot of agreement and unity on in our community council, the nervousness and the fear of these technologies. And the possibility for abuse.

Another thing I wanted to note is that I just read this morning in Ars Technica Boston canceled their contract with Flock partially because Flock was sharing their data without their permission against the terms of their contract with the rest of their network. And so I just want to remind us all that we are at the whims of these technology companies.

I think that one of the discussions that happened in our community council that's important to note is is people asked, you know, what is, what is our role in this? How can we make a change in this? And I said very frankly, this is an ongoing negotiation that's happening between our assembly members and the administration and the police department. And us taking such a strong, frankly non-nuanced stance sends a strong message that whatever negotiation happens with the extremely powerful police department and administration, whatever negotiation happens, we want that to be as protective as possible. So maybe just allow felonies or maybe only allow— start with felonies and maybe we can think about misdemeanors later.

But like once you have this technology in place, it's really hard to take it back. ALPRs, if we were having this conversation a year ago, ALPRs wouldn't be in use. This resolution probably saying you can't use ALPRs. But because they've been in use even for a couple months, that is no longer like reasonably on the table and it's gonna make us seem radical for asking to remove that. Like, you can't take these things back as easy as you can roll them out.

So, you know, a lot of what our community council wants to see is this being rolled out more slowly. And a lot of concern about the use of private vendors and private companies like our big box retail stores who are doing facial recognition, who are doing license plate tracking, who are abusing all these technologies and then just handing over the department There's a lot that needs to be considered beyond just this S version. Thank you.

Chair Craig, uh, yeah, sorry, um, get in the queue. I couldn't—. Oh, sorry. Yeah, so Mr. McCormick has a question. If a previous person come back, please.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for, uh, coming to testify on behalf of your community council. Um, I wanted to clarify. I hear you saying the community council was— wasn't understanding, and I just want clarification on are we Was there trouble understanding the AO? Was there trouble understanding the existing technology?

Where the technology could go? Um, I want a better understanding so I know how to disseminate information and answer people's questions, because I'm sure it's not just your community council. I'm sure that this is a widespread concern and thought. So please, if you could elaborate on that. Uh, D, all of the above.

Um, I think so. To give you a little bit more background, on how this conversation came up. I heard about this because of Senator Alvey Gray Jackson and Representative Zach Fields' legislation in the House and Senate that would basically allow the use of red light cameras, which is something I support. And I found out that through the process of doing research for that testimony that we started using ALPRs. And I thought, what the hell?

That's— I don't like that. I don't like that. It just sort of quietly slid under the radar. And so I brought up this resolution to our community council, and when I brought it up, everyone thought, oh well, can't they not use license plate readers because we put it in charter that we can't? So I had to explain what is an ALPR, how is it different, how does that— and so like at every step, it's been me educating myself and trying to do my best to educate my council.

But even we've had, we've had 2 or 3 meetings about this. Chief Case sort of relatively unannounced showed up at our first meeting when we talked about this, which which to be frank was a little unnerving. But he was there and he answered questions. And even then, I think that our community council just doesn't have enough time to process this and learn about it. So I think D, all of the above.

But we definitely encourage you as much as you can to message specifically about what the technology is now and specifically what it could be in the future, but make sure those things are clear so that doesn't muddy the waters and allow folks that are really pushing for this technology the ability to say, hey, see, like they don't understand it, so they're definitely not going to be opposed to it if they actually understood that it wasn't as bad as they think. I think it's important to note, and I think like is reflective of where we're at. Perfect, thank you very much. Yep, thank you. Okay, thank you.

Uh, next person please come forward. Um, I can't remember if you had testified before, um, the— but the microphone is on. Uh, state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Mike McConaughey from Eagle River, and I'm not listening to music, these are actually hearing aids. So, um, if we're honest, if, if we're honest, we can see that crime is up and the numbers bear it out.

And Chief Case wants to use more tools to try to keep up. APD cannot keep up. I'm against the ordinance because I think he should we should let him use the tools. There are limitations and restrictions in place. I saw the work session, the whole work session.

I read the whole ordinance. Um, we need to let him use these tools to try to keep up with crime. Um, and there's some other things in the ordinance about sharing information It's all American law enforcement. We need to share information, all information.

Um, that's our only shot. Um, I'd like to say thank you to Anchorage Police Department. Um, I don't know how many people in this room have worked in law enforcement But it's one of the hardest jobs you can have, and, um, these guys are putting their lives on the line 24/7, 365, trying to keep up with crime in our municipality. There's a lot of reasons why we have the crime, and that's a whole different bunch of stories, but they're the ones that get put on the line to help take care of these problems. I think they do a great job.

Thank you very much. Um, thank you to, uh, Assemblyman Gerker and Handeland for being very transparent It's given me a lot of information, helps me come here and, and give you guys my humble opinion. So I think that's all I got. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone is already on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Yes, ma'am.

And if you don't mind pulling the microphone down a little bit closer to your mouth. Thank you.

Good evening, Tyrese Coleman, um, 3705 Carlton Avenue West. I believe was Miss Day was my district before the intrusion of RTCC. Um, good evening to you all. My comments concern accountability and audibility under the substitute version AO 2026-108, Alaska Constitution The Constitution expressly recognizes the people's right to privacy and says their rights shall not be infringed. For their protection being meaningful, with modern surveillance technology, government activity must be auditable.

I have an outstanding Police Department APD record request concerning surveillance technology, including ALPR, RTCC, and analytical systems. Systems, data sharing, drones, POL, which is Pattern of Life Living, related technology. I have spent months seeking records because there's an important difference between what technology is capable of doing, what government is authorized to do, and what a system actually did. I also possess numerous original timestamped video documents, aircraft, vehicles appearing repeatedly in close temporarily proximity time when I leave, arrive, or exit between residence and destination. Let me pose a simple question.

How many people in this room could raise their hand and say they have accumulated timestamp recording observation like that over a period approaching over 3 years every time you step out of your home? Phone or your vehicle or my destination.

I have 4 phones of timestamp. When does it not— no longer become a coincidence?

My recording established what, what the cameras captured and when. They do not, standing alone, establish the operator the agency, mission, or purpose. That is precisely why an unambiguous and reviewable audit trail matters. Government surveillance technology use records should allow residents, auditors, courts to determine who authorized it, what factual predicate existed, what technology was used, what query was made, what information was returned, Who received it? Was it verified?

Was it shared or retained? If this is no government— if there is no government connection to this observation, reliable independent records can help establish that. If there is a government connection, those records should establish that as well. A video established an observation in order to establish or disprove the government activity. Actions.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

And I'll remind folks as well, um, you're always welcome to send comments in writing by email if you would like to provide either what you shared or additional information. Next person, please come forward. Uh, microphone's on. State your name, part of town, you have 3 minutes. Sean Williams, Turnagain neighborhood, and this is my first time testifying, so I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet.

Um, basically, um, Alaskans— I feel like I don't need to point this out, but I will— Alaskans highly value their personal privacy. Now you start thinking about how all of these cameras started popping up all over town. They're at every intersection. And I remember seeing them and thinking it was just like an eyeball on every corner. And then there were more eyeballs and more eyeballs.

Then I find out the state is putting up 250 more eyeballs. And then I find out that the city is going to put together a massive, uh, basically collection where all of these can be observed and accessed, uh, in one place.

And I start thinking to myself, here we are now, we're talking about the rules of something that's already been built. Something that already watches us. And I— and then I go to, if this isn't Big Brother, I don't know what is. Seriously. Um, I think at this moment we have a strong distrust, uh, issue with the municipality and with APD.

And, and if you want me to go into that, I can. I wrote down plenty of notes for that. That. Um, and I'll second with the young lady in the pink. I don't know if she's still here, but man, I'll second everything she said because it was like coming, you know, it was good.

Um, I want to point out that some of the policies that we've adopted, uh, here in, in the assembly body, the municipality, uh, has led to theft. It's left to— it's, it's, um, We've gone to shoplifting. Crime has gone up. People are putting stuff all over Nextdoor app and Facebook about how, you know, all these videos of people breaking into their stuff and in their cars sitting in their driveway. And I think I live in a decent neighborhood.

I'm seeing videos there too.

But I wonder if this is the next step to retaking our city, is giving up our privacy and submitting to surveillance. Is that part of the plan? Is that part of the plan? Okay. So you want to— you want to crack down on crime.

You want to find the criminals. You want to get them out of here. This is the plan. We're going to start surveilling everything you do from the time you wake up and walk out of your house.

And then lastly, I'll just say that Anchorage residents should be voting on, on if we want cameras watching us at all.

What's, what's wrong with sending this to, to the voters? And asking them, do you want to be surveilled? Do you want these cameras watching every move you make? I think it goes to the voters. That's where it should be.

Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. Um, microphone's already on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Oh, I'm sorry, do I need to state my name and place of residence again? Yeah, please, for the record. Uh, that, uh, once again, that'll be Mark West Anchorage, turn again I first off want to echo some of the sentiments and concerns that were voiced by the chair of the North Star Community Council. I'm sorry, don't know where that individual is. But anyway, in the sense that, you know, very soon the technology will become compact.

It will become readily available enough to the point where nothing that the city could possibly purchase conscious in the realm of mass surveillance won't go through an AI of some kind, won't go through a machine that is now, from a decision-making process, unaccountable to anyone. These— like, whoever is surveilling anyone needs to be held accountable. Whoever's making decisions about who to profile should be held accountable. And another concern that I have is we know know for a fact that the Department of Homeland Security is requesting records from local law enforcement. They are pressuring local law enforcement and local government to, you know, hand over these records to them, to hand over control of their surveillance networks to them.

We know what the DHS is doing. We know what ICE is doing. They are going in, they are ransacking our communities. They are destroying these neighborhoods. They are going into public schools.

They are going into churches, mosques, and temples. They are going into our places of business, and they are robbing us of our communities. They are robbing us of our neighbors. They are robbing people of their freedoms and doing this in a way that violates people's constitutional rights, that violates the right to due process. I do not think the door should be open to this at all, and it would be helpful if such an ord— it would be helpful for such an order— ordinance to be postponed until the Assembly can work out a way to close the door for these surveillance technologies.

Because I do not understand why crime should only be addressed with more surveillance, with more crackdowns, with more violations of people's civil liberties. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of hearing stories about people from ICE going in and ransacking people's communities, A woman at the temple that I go to, her husband was taken away from her. She is now left as a single mother running her business, raising 3 children, and she received help from no one. She now has to go through the legal system to make sure that her husband is not being mistreated or detained indefinitely by ICE.

And I understand this might not seem cogent to the situation right now, but it will happen. One day the DHS will come along, they'll be like, hey, hey, give us, like, hand over that data from your surveillance network, hand over the data from these cameras. We're just, we're, we're gonna go in and we're gonna do all of our illegal enforcement actions like we've done in every other community. So that's something to consider. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Scott Anderson, I live in West Anchorage. Um, first I want to thank, uh, APD for the job that they generally do. We actually have a pretty darn good police force here.

Uh, I don't know if you've looked around the country. There are some pretty sad examples, and generally APD does a good job. I do think it's kind of funny that Chief Case didn't show up on the second time his report wasn't ready, but that's a separate subject. The S version is really kind of interesting because it seems to pretend to address a lot of things people brought up last meeting. It really doesn't.

It actually makes a lot of things worse. This original version actually had a 14-day retention policy. Maybe I'm not reading it right, but I don't see a retention time in here. So you just keep it forever till APD says they're done with it.

As a lot of people said, several people said, you will not be able to buy cameras or to buy software that does not do analytics. You can buy a $30 camera right now on Amazon that has facial recognition built into the camera, $30. Every camera you're going to buy in the future, including the body cameras very shortly, will have that technology in it. You're not going to have a choice. These safeguards in either version are pretty sad.

Um, it's especially interesting that APD gets to— in the S version— gets to define their own, uh, reviews. And do their own audits, and may— violations of the policies may result in disciplinary action. Not will, may result in disciplinary action.

The audit itself in the S version doesn't require you guys to actually get the audit, just the results of the review. So if they say, oh, we're all good, that's what you get according to this. They also don't have to retain the audit. It doesn't say that in here. It doesn't say they have to retain the audit for a certain period of time.

Just that they have to audit themselves. Themselves? How does that work exactly?

The last thing is the— one of the first things that was brought up tonight, the cause for action.

You're basically saying in here that nobody has a cause for action if they're— the municipality determines there is no cause for action, or that there's a remedial measure, or that they inform you guys wise that there was a remedial measure. Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. Microphone is already on. You'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, Anchorage Assembly, and thank you for your time.

My name is David Hanson, uh, Spinard Community Council. When I grew up in the '80s, my uncles would fly up from the lower 48 and they would catch up on TV shows. And this was because the films were put on barges and there was an 8-week delay between what was current in the Lower 48 and what was being shown in Anchorage now. I think with the issue of AI and facial recognition and cameras that have this technology, the potential risk outweighs the potential reward. And I think we should take a page out of my uncle's book and kind of wait and see what the rest of the Lower 48 does before we make a decision on it.

Thank you for your time.

Okay. Would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward.

Anyone at all?

Okay. And I don't recall if you testified on the previous version or if this is your first time on this one. All right. Jamie Lopez de San Cruz, formerly Coalition, formerly homeless. So terms and conditions.

Applications, terms and conditions. They apply, and you need to read the fine print, and unfortunately, the fine print on this is bad. So you've actually gone a step backwards. So on the original version, to prohibit participation in external surveillance data networks, that is completely gone and omitted. And so more or less, you are already sort of subscribed to one now, which I brought up in, in the previous meeting, and that is Aura.

And so you have a New Zealand company which handles loss prevention software, one of the countries that has the least amount of privacy rights, and then expands into Australia, expands in the United Kingdom, and now North America. And more or less, yeah, you know, if you get uploaded to the system, you're already being put as a profile in this thing, and good luck getting out of it. And so the problem with this is you have no control over the data. None whatsoever. Um, you know, as someone previously mentioned with API access, uh, you can basically just have records come and go.

I also have questions about Mr. Wilson, uh, specifically, you know, um, he went to sort of an event and more or less, uh, did the municipality pay for him to go down to a panel in a Super Bowl party and golf on the 9th, uh, or did the company? And if so, you that doesn't look good either. But really, you know, this has all happened before. And so 20 years ago, what you had was, you know, certain companies, PMCs, and they, they were being used to sort of outsource the problem from the federal government. And now what you have is technologies that are essentially coming down to the local level now.

And so Mr. Dole over here is familiar with the term parallel construction. And more or less, that's what's happening with Aura and with others as well. And I'm sure Mr. Wilson knows that too. And so basically what that means is you use somebody else to sort of do the work for you, which may or may not be illegal per the Constitution or the Fourth Amendment, and then you just get the end result to the test question and then you build your case from there. And so yes, you need to put more protections in here.

You basically— there's nothing in here preventing sort of AI buy in any particular way for compute cycles or just getting an open source model and running it locally on your own hardware and doing it in shop. There are lots of things that I have concerns about with this. And so I do think Mr. Vollen cares. I do think Ms. Gout cares. I do think Mr. McCormick cares.

And you should be very, very afraid. Most of the people up here are naive to how these capabilities can be expanded And once AI, um, within the next 6 to 12 months, uh, starts to hit a certain stage, uh, everybody will become a criminal. And so you are not ready, um, on so many things. All right, I'll leave it for now. Thank you.

Okay, would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward if so. Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, then public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to postpone to the meeting of October 6th. Second. Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Bohlen to postpone this item to the meeting of October 6th, second by Miss Scout.

Do you want to speak to it? Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. Um, I want to thank, uh, well, first of all, my co-sponsors for helping me, uh, become more educated on this issue. I also want to thank members of the community, including— we've heard reference tonight two of the community councils that I represent, um, for also likewise helping to educate me on this issue.

Additionally, I want to thank our Assembly Council. Matthew Hurt led point on this project. And helped us draft the original version. Um, and then I also want to thank our municipal attorney Ava Gardner for, in the last few days before the weekend, really working with us, working with the co-sponsors of the original item, um, digesting a lot of our feedback authoring the substitute version as an alternate proposal.

Um, she was very responsive. We hopped on a lot of calls.

Ms. Scoutwood was traveling, um, and from vacation was joining phone calls and discussions on this. So we've had a lot of conversation, but I think more conversation as as a body needs to be had. Folks will have seen laid on the table tonight an S1 version. Um, ultimately we were not able to come into full alignment with the administration on the S version. Um, we feel that there is still stronger language and stronger protections that are needed here.

Um, and you will see that reflected in the S1. I'd like to have my colleagues, uh, afforded the opportunity to more fully digest that S1 version, um, and would also like to have a work session on this on Friday, September 25th, in advance of this coming back to us. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, next, Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you.

I'm, I'm fully in favor of, um, postponing to a time certain. I was I would prefer to actually have more time with this. We now have two substitute versions to digest, and I think beyond the conversation that we need to have among ourselves and information that needs to be disseminated in a work session, I think we also have an obligation and an opportunity to communicate far more clearly with the public. Book about precisely what it is that we are discussing. And, and I, I want to appreciate the, the clarifying, the follow-up comments from one of the testifiers this evening, um, you know, who said, uh, D, all of the above.

We, we need to know more about what's being proposed. We need to understand what technology is actually operational in Anchorage and, and what is on the horizon as far technology that could be brought to bear, and I think we need more than just 3 weeks to do that work well. So I'm curious if the mover would be willing to extend beyond the meeting of October 6th to give all of us more time to engage with our constituents in addition to one another.

If I might respond then, Madam Chair. Yeah, please do. Thank you. I'm going to keep my motion as it stands for now, with the understanding that this can again be postponed at the meeting of October 6th, again to another time certain. I'm actually hearing from my constituents a lot of urgency on this issue.

This technology is expanding so quickly and so rapidly that folks, I think, want us to move with expediency while we also help educate our— both ourselves and members of the public on this issue. But there's another reason for urgency here, and that's because in my view, we already put the cart before the horse. We should not have approved the funding for the Real Time Crime Center before guardrails were in code, and I will own that mistake in my original vote in support of the, the first round of funding, the larger spend. I think Member Scout has written pretty eloquently in an opinion piece in the ADN that she would have not voted that way, that we took that vote before she was on the body. I did vote no on the, on the recent vote to continue funding for the Real Time Crime Center because I'm very worried that these guardrails are not in place right now.

Any protections for the public are just a matter of internal APD policy. So, Mr. Wilk, I'm going to cut in because I think the request was to answer the question, and I've got another member in the queue who hasn't spoken. Sure. Well, I'm gonna, I'm gonna advocate for, for continuing this to October 6th and, and working productively toward a solution. Thank you.

Thanks. Next I have Mr. Presley. Do I still have the floor since I asked a question, or do I need to get back in the queue? No, go ahead, you have the floor, then I'll move through the queue. Okay, um, in that case, I would like to move to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th.

Second. Okay, there's a motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th, second by Mr. Gerker. Do you want to speak to that further? Sure, I, I think, I think expedience is important. I think accuracy is also important, and I, I understand that this, this is a conversation with significant merit.

People ought to be concerned. Concerned about mass surveillance, but I, I don't think there's any question on that point. However, what we have before us is an extremely— is it's a very complex code change, and I think we, we need to be extremely communicative as we are going through this process and not after the fact. And I think we need more than 3 weeks to do this work well and to do it comprehensively.

It is really, really important, I think, that the community comes along on this conversation, and I simply don't believe that 3 weeks is sufficient for that.

Okay, next I have— so run through the queue. Mr. Perez-Fridia, do you want to speak to this motion to postpone to the 20th? Yes, I do. Go ahead. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. Yeah, I want to encourage my colleagues to support the motion to extend the postponement. I, I want to say a few things. I think that, um, I, I think we are, as a body and as a community and, and even the administration, are more aligned than I think what's being communicated. I don't think anybody wants mass surveillance.

I think everybody wants good policy, um, and, and I think most of us agree that it probably should be put into code. And, but I also want to say that I think some of the way that this is being characterized feels like it is creating more concern than is necessary in the moment. We're talking a lot about what could be, not what is. And so, I feel a sense of urgency as well, but I don't want to exaggerate the position we're in. We are not doing mass surveillance.

There is not an intention to do massive surveillance. And so I, I really want to make sure that we are slowing down a bit, um, creating good policy and working with the administration and with APD and making sure that we're communicating clearly with the community about what we're doing so that we can come forward with something in a responsible way and ensure that it passes. So I think we need more time. I think we need more time to be able to talk about this and to ensure that what we bring forward is really meeting the needs that we're all talking about, to make sure it's protecting all of us and it's ensuring that APD is still able to do its job and protecting all of us. So I would agree that we need more and more time.

I would really encourage my colleagues to approve the extension to the 20th. Thank you. Next, I have Ms. Scout on the postponement.

Yeah, um, I had originally put myself in the queue to support postponing to October 6th. That would still be my strong preference, um, but if my colleagues need a couple more weeks, I'm willing to compromise. I wish that this assembly had been more willing to compromise with those of us who had asked for more time to really understand the Real Time Crime Center, the implications for our community, and to put guardrails in place before approving $600,000 worth of funding to get that up and going. Um, those concerns— the, the system is being built out now, and I have real concerns about every second we wait and live without the protections that our community deserves. So for the sake of working together, um, yeah, I'm open to the 20th, but I hope that that will be reflected in future conversations and future partnerships on this work that we should have put guardrails in place first, and our community's concerns matter and should be the center of this conversation.

Thanks. Next, Ms. Silvers.

Yeah, I would, um, support postponement until the 20th. Um, honestly, I would support postponement probably even longer. Um, you know, this whole process has felt felt kind of reactionary and rushed with a lot of policy proposals and a lot of technology discussion that we don't really understand the implications of.

And so I think we need to really make sure that we put forward the right policy. And that we really understand the implications of it. And I think we also need to take the time to really understand the technology that we're looking at. And so I just— I don't think that it can be rushed. I looked at some of the other cities that have pretty strong privacy policies and what they went through to develop those policies.

You know, and so for example, Oakland had a privacy advisory commission that developed their policy over 18 months with collaboration from multiple city departments including their police department. Cambridge also went— underwent a long process that included city council, ACLU, city residents. Municipal staff, the city solicitor, city manager, IT, police, and other departments, you know, all involved in this. Seattle had years of prior surveillance legislation and then approximately an 8-month stakeholder development process with multiple committee hearings.

You know, and so I think this is something that municipalities are grappling with. Across the United States. I think that they're taking the time to really make sure that they're putting strong policies in place. And I think, you know, I understand we want to rush because the Real Time Crime Center was passed already a year ago, but we did pass that without coming forward with an ordinance alongside of that. But I think we need to make sure that we don't let one mistake become two mistakes in passing a rushed version of an ordinance that we don't really understand all the implications of.

So I would— I'll support, uh, postponement to the 20th. Honestly, I think we need to take a longer process. And I think we really need to understand the technology that we're discussing, because there's also been kind of a lot of misinformation. You know, I know a lot of people are talking about stationary flock cameras. We don't have stationary flock cameras.

We don't have stationary license plate readers. And so I think we really need to understand around the technology that we're talking about and the implications of the policy around it, making sure that the policy is strong, but that the policy also works and doesn't hamper law enforcement's ability to invest— investigate crime. Particularly, we don't want anything in here that hampers their ability to investigate crime utilizing technologies that they've been utilizing for decades, you know, that might accidentally get swept into this ordinance because we don't really understand what we're doing. Point of order. Thanks.

Uh, what's your point of order, Mr.—. Okay, none of that was on the motion to amend. Um, that was on the substance. It all was because I was saying why I think we need more time. Thanks.

I'll say again, I know it is an art, not a science, but I will remind most folks to keep your comments to the postponement. What I heard in those comments were about length of time, so I understand, but I know we're getting into this. Next on the queue, I have Mr. McCormick. Thank you. Yeah, on the motion to amend, I'm glad to hear people feel a sense of urgency.

They want to get this addressed. As people have said, that we've put the cart before the horse. Now is the time to move. I'm a little confused at the— we haven't had enough time. 2 Weeks is enough time time.

I've been talking about it and informing my constituents for 2 months, and I'm behind. We could have been— we should have been talking about this over a year ago. So with the urgency piece, we've had time. If you didn't want to engage in the conversation, that was your choice. Glad to hear that we're getting people engaged now and that it sounds like there is no motive to have mass surveillance.

Nobody wants it. Love it. Let's get this done. But for that, you know, I would love October 6th. If we need October 20th, with, so be it.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Gerker.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

To the amendment to postpone, yes, I think we need more time. This is a complicated— this is some complicated legislation. There's a lot of complicated factors that are going into this. To the argument that, well, we've had a lot of time. Well, no, this was introduced 2 meetings ago, then it had its first public hearing last week, or at the last meeting.

We're following normal process. You may have been talking about it online, spewing God knows what false information out there. Point of order. I heard a point of order from Mr. Bullock and Mr. McCormick. First, Mr. Mr. Bullock, would you point an order?

Yeah, I think that borders on a personal attack. Um, I would have the member direct his comments to the chair and also speaking to motive. Thanks. I think multiple points of order there. Okay, um, I am going to rule, uh, in favor of that point of order and just ask that you not speak to motive, Mr. Gerker.

So please restate your— yes, however you'd like to speak to it. We need more time because there is so much bad information on this topic out there right now. That's why we need more time. So the 20th, I think, gives us a little bit more time to have these conversations, have the work sessions. You know, you guys introduced something that, that is so incredibly broad and unworkable in the real world that it needs more time to really dive through it and make sure we all understand what we're talking about here.

And again, there's been so much bad information put out about this topic in our community. And look, you see this all over social media. It's not just happening in Anchorage, it's not just happening in Alaska, it's happening in states all across the country where people are having these conversations about surveillance, and it's really hard to get good, accurate information. I think more time to make sure that we're having these conversations based in truth and reality is a good thing for the, for the process, a good thing for the final product if something is passed. So yes, I absolutely think let's postpone this to the 20th.

If we need more time at that point too, you know what, it's going to be okay. We have policies in place already. There's not like it's— it's not like APD is running around right now just without any rules or regulations in place. There are already policies in place.

Thank you. Okay, next I'm going to go— we have our youth representative, Ali, in the the queue. Please go ahead. Sorry, that's Mr. Cochran. Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, just for clarification, this is, uh, Malachi, not, uh, Rakik. Um, I would just like to ask for some clarification, uh, about how many work sessions there would be, uh, on the 6th versus the 20th and how much time that would really give us to spend on the topic. Yeah, thank you. I can clarify. So the 6th and the 20th are our regular meetings.

Meetings. So there are certainly some items that have either been introduced for a public hearing or, you know, that are already scheduled to be on, on either of those agendas. And then in terms of work sessions, what's been proposed right now is we would have a work session on Friday, September 25th. We were waiting to schedule that until the outcome of this meeting, and so either— essentially either date would allow for that work session. And so I don't know if that clarifies the question.

And also note there are committee meetings, for example, we have a Public Safety Committee. I don't have in front of me what date they would meet, but presumably by the 20th they would certainly be able to meet. I don't remember how the timing would work on the 6th.

Okay, thank you. Next I have Mr. Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, you know, maybe we can, we can go to the 20th. I think I'm hearing the will of the body.

I'm thinking I'm hearing one of my co-sponsors try to find a path for compromise there.

I can appreciate the complexity of the topic. I just really hope that my colleagues will bring everything they can to bear when it comes to understanding this topic and seeking out the information.

In terms of there already being policies in place that protect us, I will I'll speak to the urgency of working on this topic because I will, I will quote former Chief Dahl, former APD Chief Dahl, who said that the policy and procedures manual is a living document that can be changed weekly or even daily. Policies that can be changed daily do not afford any surety of protection. For privacy of Anchorage residents.

So I think we need to continue at pace.

And then when I'm hearing the member from East Anchorage, Member Silvers, Madam Chair, talk about a longer process, 18 months, a process with multiple public hearings and stakeholder engagement so we can put strong policies in place, again, it makes me question her vote to support a second round of funding for the Real Time Crime Center before there was an opportunity to have the type of process that she just described. So let's not continue putting the cart before the horse. With that, I guess I will— as the mover, I will accept an amendment to my motion, or I will change my motion, and we can take this up at the regular meeting on 10/20. Thanks, Madam Chair. Okay, and does the second agree?

So—.

That's fine. That, you know, um, Madam Chair, let's just proceed with the amendment and I'll be in support.

Okay, sorry, there's a little back and forth procedure. Okay, so right now the motion, uh, to amend is on the floor. Uh, there's a couple more folks in the queue, so I'll go to Ms. Baldwin-Day, then Ms. Silvers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm looking at the schedule right now for September 25th, and we have work sessions already scheduled from 10:30 until 2 PM.

I would really appreciate the opportunity to have a work session that is longer than an hour on this item. I think we have a lot to cover, and so if that is not possible on the 25th, I, I would, I would request a second work session so that we have ample time to ask questions and, and to have really good dialogue. I also think it's important as we're talking about postponement that the public understands that beyond there being policy safeguards in place at APD, there are already very real limitations on the technology that currently exists in Anchorage. The traffic cameras that we have in Anchorage can only actually retain data between 3 and 7 days because the, the cameras themselves record data to an SD card that's internal to the camera. Does this have to do with—.

It does actually, because others have— one second, um, Mr. McCormick, what is your point of order, please? Talking about what the cameras can store does not have anything to do with the postponement.

So again, members have broad latitude, but I will ask Ms. Baldwin-Day, please bring your comments back to postponement. I'll also note that we are— still have a number of public hearing items and it's already 10 PM, so. Agreed.

It is germane because I do not wish for the public to leave this room believing that there is a— that they are being constantly surveilled until this body takes action. Takes action otherwise, and that, that is simply not the case. And so I, I do not want the public to be misled about what our actual technical capacities are and why it is appropriate and, and wise for us to take additional time with this item. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And would you like a response regarding timing of the work session? Would you like a response regarding timing of the work session? Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

So I'll note just very briefly, we had really sketched out time in the afternoon for this. Certainly we can accommodate more than an hour, but also I believe there would be time to schedule an additional one. I will also say though, work sessions are going— the time for work sessions is going to become more precious as we move into the budget season because a lot of those times are taken up. However, with our rescheduled committees, there are some other time slots that are available potentially. So happy to accommodate that.

Next, I have Ms. Silvers in the queue.

Yeah, I have a couple questions I would like to ask. Maybe the administration or maybe APD.

The first question is, does APD currently have in policy a 14-day retention limit?

So as those folks are conferring, um, I will also remind all members, um, please keep your questions germane to postponement. So if you can speak to how that is germane to postponement, that would be helpful. And then I see it looks like Ms. Gardner wanted to answer. Yeah, I mean, we've, we've talked a lot about the, the urgency and Through the chair to Member Silvers, yes, APD policy— there are currently detailed policies on both the use of automated license plate readers as well as the Real Time Crime Center that have mandatory policy-dictated, I believe, 14-day retention requirement, like storage limits for information that is not pulled and attached to a specific case or investigation as evidence. Okay.

Are these policies publicly available online for us as assembly members or the public available to see if there's changes? Yes, they are online. The Anchorage Police Department uses PowerDMS for its policy organization. Those policies are identified by, I think, name and number, but certainly there's a hyperlink in the version of the ordinance in the whereas clauses that can direct the public and members exactly directly to those policies where they can review them in their entirety. Okay, so the reason this is to me germane is because the point that I'm making here is that we have time to get this right.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue, um, so right now on the floor is a motion to amend. And, um, our motion to postpone to the meeting of October 20th. How does the youth member vote?

Yes. Okay, youth member votes yes. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Prosvadia? Yes. Member Martinez? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, um, the motion to amend has passed. Um, and I apologize, uh, so anyway, we're back on— one second. Okay, thank you. We're back on the motion to postpone, um, that has now been amended to the meeting of October 20th. And, um, I apologize to Mr. Martinez, I missed, um, your note.

So, uh, if you would like to be in the queue, please go ahead.

Hit. Point of information, Madam Chair. Uh, what's your point of information, Mr. Gerker? Didn't we just vote on this? Isn't this done?

We've postponed it to the meeting of October 20th. You go ahead.

So it was amended to the 20th. The original motion was to postpone it to October 6th. That date was amended to October 20th, and so now we have to vote on postponement, um, as amended. Okay, thank you. Thank you for clarifying.

Yeah, thank you. And I'll note on the screen it does say October 6th, but that's because that was the underlying motion. So this is as amended. Um, and I'll check one more time again. Uh, sorry to miss you earlier, Mr. Martinez.

Did you want to be in the queue?

Okay, uh, I don't see any other members in the queue, so, uh, the motion on the floor now as amended is, uh, to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th, 2026. Uh, how does the youth member vote?

Yes. Okay, and then members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez? Yes. Member Perez Verdia? Yes.

Okay, on a motion of 12 to 0, um, this item has been postponed to the meeting of October 20th. Um, so, uh, I'll— it is 10:15 at the moment. I'll note, um, generally speaking, for our youth representatives, um, we will note that you are excused at this time time, you are certainly welcome to stay until the end of the meeting. Um, and otherwise, we usually dismiss folks because we know that school is going to be early tomorrow. Um, so feel free to get up and leave if you would like to, or stick around.

And then I'm also going to ask if we can take just a 2-minute break. I understand we have a big public hearing item. I need to confer with the municipal manager and the vice chair and the clerk about a couple, uh, order of the agenda, and also discuss extending the meeting to make sure we have enough time. So just 2 minutes and then we'll be back at 10:17.

Okay, everyone, I'm going to call folks back to order. If members can come back up to the dais and get seated, and then I'll also ask folks, our next item is going to be testimony on number 14A. If you are here for AO 2026-85, the missing middle housing.

Folks, please, if you are going to have conversations, I'm going to ask you to take them outside. We are getting ready as soon as members come back up to the dais. And then also, as I just stated, if you are here to testify, we will be moving into our next public hearing item, which is 14A, AO 2026-85. So I will also ask folks, if you intend to testify, to please start lining up at the podium. I will also note that we do not have anyone on the phone this evening, so we will just be doing in-person testimony.

Person testimony, and then I'll speak in a second when members are back to the extending the meeting time as well.

Okay, I'll do one more call to members to please come back up so that we can start our public hearing. And again, if you would like would like to have additional conversations, I will ask you to please take them outside the chambers.

Okay. I am going to call our meeting back to order. So before I open our public hearing, I want to address— so it is— our meeting is scheduled to end at 11:00 PM. Of course, we have a number of folks to testify. So I'm going to ask for a motion to extend the meeting now before we start the public hearing.

Move to extend the meeting until 11:30 PM. Second. Okay, there's been a motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to extend to 11:30, a second by Ms. Scout. Ms. Baldwin-Day, do you want to speak to it?

Yeah, certainly want to be sure that all the folks who came tonight to share their opinion and weigh in on this item have the opportunity to do so. I will be keeping an eye on the time And if we approach 11:30 and we still have folks who are here to testify, we can certainly extend further. Again, want to, want to make sure that folks have the opportunity to speak tonight. Okay, thank you. Any other further discussion on that?

Not seeing any. Is there any objection to extending the meeting to 11:30?

Okay, seeing, hearing none, then we will proceed. And again, we will keep an eye on the time. I'll remind folks also, even if we extend again to midnight, our meeting must end at midnight per charter. So anybody who is still in line who has not testified, who would like to, if we get to that point, we'll address it at that time. So because then the hearing would be continued.

So next we have on our agenda item 14A, AO-2026-85, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, in order to create a new missing middle housing opportunity overlay, which will implement the transit supportive development corridors established by the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward. And I'll note the microphone is off, so turn it on. State your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. And again, if you're representing a community council, let me know and you'll have 5 minutes. Okay. As I mentioned earlier, my name is Bill Taylor. I'm the co-owner of Colonie Builders, and I'm here tonight representing the Anchorage Home Builders Association, and I am a member of— in the South Side.

So in short, Anchorage is currently in need of about 9,000 homes, and the shortage is simply driving up prices between 2019 and 2025. The share of Anchorage homes affordable to middle-income families dropped from 49% to 21%. That's a precipitous drop. The AO is beginning to help rid Title 21 of some of its— what I call pathogens— that make building difficult and expensive. It will open up possibilities for builders and developers that didn't exist before.

Uh, relaxing rezoning requirements and, uh, will allow projects to move quicker to groundbreaking. Uh, and the ordinance will help cut red tape, uh, and open parcels up to development that never existed before. Uh, and, uh, a lot of you have heard this statistic, but, uh, roughly a quarter of the cost of a house is directly attributed to red tape. So any, anything that we can do to minimize that is a huge help. The corridors proposed in this ordinance have water, sewer, and shallow utilities in place to lower the unit cost of each house.

This is an advantage to builders who can lower land costs by avoiding the expense of extending these services out upfront. The MOA Planning Department has had inquiries from individuals that would add approximately 200 more units by taking advantage of the benefits of shortening the time frame. Uh, they also aligns with the tax abatement currently on the book, so that's a big positive. One feature that caught my attention was possibility of subdividing on a 70 by 100-foot lot, you can cut that 70 by 100-foot lot into two and within the corridor, and those cost benefits are, you know, significant. And especially if you can get cooperation from AWWU to use for water and sewer connections connects to that 2 lots instead of the single lot.

Many individuals and couples have given up on homeownership. We need to lure these people back into the real estate market to avoid them renting, which I don't think is a positive. Also, supply-side economics tells us— thank you. Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Community Council, please. Yeah, thank you. So if you're on behalf of the Community Council, the clerk is resetting the timer. Okay, please proceed.

You have 5 minutes. Good evening, Jason Norris, President, Huffman O'Malley Community Council. We unanimously urge a yes vote. I'll start by taking a moment to remind everyone that MHOP began after HOME, where members of the public and members of the body who were opposed asked for a more targeted measure that was in areas where we had infrastructure, and that was in the comp plan. That's, that's what you see before you.

I can feel the tension asking why HOCC is weighing in when MHOP doesn't touch our boundaries, and the answer is simple. We recognize that our kids will not be able to afford a home within our border straight out of college, but that doesn't mean we don't care about them finding a place to live. We desperately do, and right now that's not likely. MHOP would change that. I'd also point out that the community councils most vociferously protesting, um, hop in the name of neighborhood character, were recently revealed to have the highest saturation of short-term rentals in the city.

So I'd just like to ask who exactly it is they're trying to preserve that neighborhood character for, because it certainly doesn't appear to be for us. If the choice is tourists or Anchorage's children, we choose to do right by our children 100 times out of 100. I'd like to quickly walk through our whereas clauses. And provide our rationale. The first set establishes that Anchorage has a worsening housing crisis.

The muni recognizes it. MOHOP's in alignment with the comp plan, and it'll be beneficial. The second set is meant to bring all 12 of you together by pointing out that politically there's something for everyone to love. If you're more libertarian, this gives property owners greater rights to do what they want with their land. If you're a pro-development fiscal conservative who wants an efficient government, the that's responsible with its assets.

We can do no better than by reasonably maximizing our land base, balancing the budget without raising taxes. And if you're more liberally minded, the housing crisis demonstrably hits our most disadvantaged communities hardest, and this will help. The third set is meant to explain our thinking. Steering development into the urban core in alignment with the Comp Plan is a good idea and has been for 25 years. We also think it's proper for people from District Districts 2 and 6 take knowledge that our areas are not proper for further density at this time due to a lack of infrastructure and high wildfire risk.

Additionally, we recognize our development pattern does not pay for itself. The urban core subsidizes all of us. The remaining clauses all speak to the fact that MHOP will be successful in providing benefits to the community and housing jobs and generational continuity by allowing our young adults and retiring seniors more opportunity to remain in the community they love instead of leaving. The resolve clauses ask you to pass this and to conduct a full examination of our dimensional standards. I could speak at length about the Comp Plan, Land Use Plan, Climate Action Plan, Long Range Transportation Strategy, recent resolutions, and even the current budget memo all calling for this.

I could mention how the University of Utah found walkable neighborhoods have 15 to 20% lower rates of diabetes and obesity obesity. Rice University found that children raised in these neighborhoods earn more as adults. I could even mention that Boston University found opposition to housing is usually centered in groups with vastly above-average wealth at the expense of everyone else. But this is more about people than science, so let's talk about people here tonight.

You'll find that those of us who support this will bring you a lot of we and our statements. We deserve a better Anchorage. Our children deserve deserve an opportunity to make Anchorage their home. As a fiscally responsible municipality, we should reasonably maximize our land base. Those opposed will bring you a lot of I, me, and my statements.

I don't want to live like that, so nobody should. My yard might get shaded, so my neighbor should remain homeless. My neighborhood character might be affected, so our young people need to go elsewhere. The one we statement they've brought you is, we have a housing crisis, so what?

Those of us in favor love Anchorage. We love it enough to want it to grow, prosper, and be the shining beacon of northern light it was always meant to be. And I'm sure those opposed would say they love it too. They seem to love it the way a person nearing the end of their life loves their spouse of 50 years, and that they can envision no better way way for things to end than for them to die together and let someone else deal with the ashes.

You know the expression Anchorage is in Alaska but you can see it from there? Never sat well with me. Anchorage is Alaska and is the Alaskan expression of the urban environment, and it's time we acted like it. Please vote yes.

Okay, next person. We're resetting the timer. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

All right, my name is Nithya Theru. I'm a resident of East Anchorage, and I have been a resident of Anchorage for over 30 years. I'm here today to testify as the Anchorage housing organizer for Anchorage Housing Club in support of the missing middle housing opportunity over Overlay Ordinance. Over the last few years since Housing Club formed, the club has worked to support initiatives that would make it possible for development to better support our housing needs. As we all know, Anchorage is facing a housing shortage and an affordability crisis.

According to census data from 2024, 33% of renters spend more than 30% of their income on rent in Anchorage. From young renters struggling on their own for the first time to find a place to live, to retirees who want to downsize, to our neighbors living on the street, so many residents do not have their housing needs met. Housing Club knows that building more housing that people can actually afford is an essential intervention in addressing the crisis we face. M-HOP provides an important pathway by making it possible to build a smaller home homes on smaller lots and build up, which will allow developers to put more units into the market and more single-family homes priced in a range that regular residents can actually afford instead of another McMansion. We all deserve access to the housing we need, and Housing Club looks forward to continuing this conversation, engaging in amendments and debate as we work towards a city that we can all be proud of.

Thank you so much for your time.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone's on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Colby McMichael.

I reside in Assembly District 4 in the Airport Heights Community Council area. I am a born and raised Anchorageite and a social work student at UAA. I'm speaking to you today in support of AO 2026-85. I've seen firsthand how young people all over Anchorage are leaving in droves. They represent the vitality and lifeblood of our city and our state.

Anchorage is suffering from an affordable housing crisis. If we continue to do nothing, we are essentially allowing our city and state to bleed out. I've personally heard from young people that the number one thing forcing them to move out of state is the cost of living, primarily the cost of housing. MHP represents the bare minimum of what needs to be done so that our city can grow and flourish. I hope you will vote in favor of AO 2026-85 and think beyond it.

We need affordable housing, walkable streets, accessible public transportation in order for our community to thrive. Thank you for your time.

Okay, next person please come forward, state your name, part of town, 3 minutes, and microphone's on. Hello, my name is Zayla Robert and I have recently moved to Airport Heights. I recently graduated from UAA with my bachelor's in social work and moved to Anchorage to have access to more job opportunities as I obtain my master's. Moving here has been an experience with my roommate and I now paying $1,600 a month to live in a 2-bed, 1-bath bath basement of a home converted to a duplex. As I dream to attain a home, it becomes more and more unrealistic, especially considering I have to work 3 jobs to not only take care of my current housing and responsibilities but to create a simple baseline for my savings for a future down payment.

This isn't a matter of me not working hard enough. This is a matter of inaccessibility that is making it not only difficult for young home buyers but for everyone and anyone who is considering owning a home, whether that be upgrading or downsizing. I believe that AO202685 is a great start to bridging this gap and making housing accessible for everyone, showing that owning a home should be something that everyone should have the opportunity to achieve, rather than a home being a rarity that young people such as myself can only dream of obtaining. By implementing MHOP, we are not only improving housing accessibility for all but improving Anchorage with young voices instead of maintaining the status quo. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward, state your name, part of town, microphone is on, you'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Oliver Tyrell, I'm Yup'ik and Inupiaq, and I'm represented by District 1 in Mountain View. My family is from Emonak, Alaska. My parents are Emily, Eden, Sean, Jake, Tirel. My family has lived on these lands for, for thousands of years.

That represents roughly 120 generations of my people living, caring for, and being connected to this land. I'm telling you that because I want you to understand something very simple. I want to stay here. Anchorage and Alaska is my home, my people's home. I remember when my mom bought our first house here in East Anchorage.

She was a single mother after losing my father, but she worked hard and eventually gave our family something incredibly important: a home of our own. I'm now going to school to become a social worker, and I'm proud of that path. It's meaningful work, and I want to spend my life serving the people in my community. But it's not a career that's going to make me wealthy. I expect to be a middle-class person for the rest of my life.

And I'm completely okay with that. What worries me is that being middle class may no longer be enough to afford a home in the community I call home. I want to be able to even have the possibility to raise a family here. I want to be able to build a life here. I want the next generation of my people in my community to have an opportunity to live in Anchorage, not because housing is cheap, or because life is easy, but because we made room for ordinary working people to thrive in our communities.

That's why I support AO 2026-85. I understand that this ordinance is not going to solve Anchorage's entire housing crisis. It will not by itself solve the cost of living, the cost of construction, houselessness, or any other challenge facing our city. But as previously mentioned tonight, housing problems do not get solved by waiting for one perfect solution. They get solved by taking meaningful steps in the right direction.

This ordinance is one of those many steps. By creating missing middle housing opportunity overlay along transit supportive corridors, it can give Anchorage more opportunities for the kinds of housing that working people and families could actually afford to live in. This is so much more than just zoning. It's about whether people my age will be able to build a future here. It's about whether a social worker, a teacher, a nurse, a mechanic, or a small business owner will be able to thrive here and have an opportunity to call this beautiful city home.

So for me personally, it's also about whether or not I'm going to be able to stay on the lands that my people have tended for thousands of years. I don't want to leave Alaska. I want to contribute to my community that helped raise me. So I respectfully ask the assembly to support this ordinance. Thank you.

Okay, next person, uh, please come forward.

Okay, next person, please come forward. Microphone's on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, my name is Ash Tyrell. Um, I'm from the House District 1, um, represented by Mountain View Community Council.

I'm here in support of AO-2685. I— some bit of background about me. I'm Inupiaq and Sugpiaq, so my family is from Bristol Bay and Shaktoolik area. My people have been on these lands for thousands of years, and I can hope to continue that legacy legacy. I love living here and the community I've built here, and I hope to continue to grow here in Anchorage.

However, as I've grown up here, I've watched rent prices rise. As someone who has worked in the social services, I have heard many of your constituents begged for help with rent or other expenses. I sat on the phone for an uncountable amount of times as I struggle to find them resources. And these are the people in our communities.

No one should struggle so much to keep a roof over their—. How—. Over their—. Over their heads. This isn't conducive to the health or safety of our community.

I believe that because of this, that Anchorage needs more affordable housing and more different types of structures. And I think that Anchorage Ordinance 2026-85 is the first step of many on the path to community where not only no one goes without a roof over their head, but us young people feel supported in our growth. And I urge members of the assembly to consider us youth and the most vulnerable of our population as we talk about housing. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Hello, I'm Levi Pearson from the Taku-Campbell area off of Diamond.

Um, I grew up in rural Alaska. And I graduated AvTech in December of 2025. As during graduation, shortly before, and even after, talking with my classmates, discussing where are you guys going after graduation, where are you going to invest these new skills that you have learned here in Seward, um, and so many of them, it surprised me, not Anchorage. So many of them going back to their hometowns where they're already established. And the ones who were coming to Anchorage were already having their family here.

They were going to move back with their parents. I never understood it. In my mind, Anchorage was always the path forward to take these skills. But in January of 2026, when I accepted a job offer and started browsing for just a place to rent here in Anchorage, I began to understand why so many of my classmates were hesitant. Um, it was rough.

It was rough finding a place to stay within even a relative budget of what I could afford at the time, even with that job offer. And seeing so many of these resources, these young men and women who go study the trades and have so much to give to Anchorage and to the state of Alaska in general either leave the state or go back to their hometown, not being able to really support the infrastructure of Anchorage, is disheartening. Um, and even when I was a tradesman here going to union meetings, I remember thinking distinctly, wow, what a lack of young tradesmen here. It seems like It seems like the resources that we are trying to cultivate for Anchorage and for the state in general are not coming here, and I think a lot of that is because of the struggle for housing. I know that's how I felt it, and I've seen it happen.

If it weren't for the kindness of one of my friends who was fresh off of a fisherman's paycheck from the Prince William Sound to help me establish myself here and cover my first month's rent, I would not have been able to accept that job offer and move here. And I've seen it too with people passing through my house needing a place to stay, just staying on an air mattress. Housing security is at a very low level for people my age, and I've seen it affect me personally and the people around me. So I implore you all to approve AO 2026-85. Thank you.

Hey, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Mark Zimmerman, um, West Anchorage, Turnagain. Kind of getting choked up thinking about what I want to say here, um, because it's very personal.

I've lived in Anchorage my whole life. I was born in Alaska Regional Hospital, and for the longest time I wanted to die here. I wanted to make this place my forever home. I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the banners that sit behind our assembly members right now. We should be proud of this.

Look at, look at what we did. Look at what we made room for, right? When, when we wanted more concerts or lecturers or comedians to visit our town, we built a performing arts center. When we wanted more people to make it big in an expanding oil industry, We built the ConocoPhillips building so that they could have an office to work in. When we— when more people were coming up here to just make it big, doing something that they didn't even know that they would survive doing, like going out on a fishing boat or working up on the North Slope, we built out to keep them here.

I keep thinking about some of my friends who live in San Francisco. San Francisco, skating culture completely dead there, because the skaters can't afford to live there anymore. Wanna know why? San Francisco, people became so protective of their painted lady houses and their Edwardian neighborhoods that they never built out to accommodate these crazy people with stupid ideas to make it big as a musician, to make it big as an artist. I am not trying to take away quiet suburban neighborhoods from anyone.

We don't wanna take away peace or big backyards or hydrangeas or anything from anyone. What we want to give people, what we want to give the next generation of the city, is a place to live. And we can't do that. We can't make room for the next 100 years of Anchorage when we're still operating on the last 50 years of housing. We need more room.

We need more space. We need more people to come up here with that stupid idea of being a musician or being a brewer or being a brunch waiter or being anything that they want to be. And we can only do that when housing is available for them. These square peg and round hole solutions where we keep trying to subsidize demand, they aren't working. They haven't worked, so we need to take action, and damn it, we need to be ambitious.

We need to be ambitious like the people who came here in 1915 putting up tents so that they could build a railroad. We need to be ambitious like the people who came here in the '60s, '70s, and '80s to make it big in a brand new oil industry. We need to be ambitious, and if we aren't, then I'm afraid that this This city is going to continue a spiral of decline. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone's on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Wow.

My name is Gil Krushwitz. I live in the Rogers Park Council area. I believe the most important task of government is the safety of its residents. MHOP, as written, is a predictable threat threat to safety within residential areas due to on-street parking. The increased number of vehicles resulting from higher densities will present major hazards, particularly for pedestrians, bikers, and children, and it will be especially bad in winter when sidewalks are unplowed, and year-round in neighborhoods which have no sidewalks, and forcing dog walkers, children riding bikes, children going to friends' homes homes or going to school to do so on the streets, which will be much less safe through the lines of cars and trucks.

Zoning standards for on-site parking were eliminated several years ago, and while I agree that there were and still are underutilized lots in commercial areas, I have not seen that within residential areas. In fact, in residential zones zones, there is already significant spillover into on-street parking. The tax abatement programs promote dense developments and MHOP encourages lots to be nearly covered by the new construction. I understand that some amount of on-street parking is inevitable. However, the tax abatement programs for dense developments and the push for much higher densities from MHOP will increase on-street parking, greatly increasing hazards and increasing existing problems in snow plowing, waste removal, and emergency services due to on-street parking.

Therefore, in light of the higher densities envisioned for MHOP and the resultant threats to safety, I believe MHOP should be amended to reinstitute suitable on-site parking standards in all residential zones zones within the proposed Emhock overlay?

Do you think there are neighborhoods which need more on-street parking? If so, how would you avoid its inconveniences, municipal costs, and how would you ensure the safety of Anchorage residents?

Thank you. Okay, next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is Good evening, assembly and officers of the administration.

Thank you for this opportunity this evening. I'll say real quickly, I'm envious of your stamina tonight.

It's not all doom and gloom, but the stories of doom and gloom remind me of a saying from the '80s: Please God, grant us another pipeline. We promise not to piss it away this time.

My name is David Long. I'm a homeowner residing in Rogers Park, and I'm opposed to ordinance number AO-2026-85 in its current construct. This ordinance amends— this ordinance amends the Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21 for the stated purpose of creating a new missing middle housing opportunity, affectionately referred to as MHOP. Not to be confused with the very good restaurant called IHOP.

To illustrate why I stand in opposition, I'll share a recent experience that I had while going through the TSA checkpoint at Anchorage Airport. I beg your indulgence. Having the approved 3-ounce size for carry-on liquids in a gallon-sized clear plastic zip-top bag, I pulled the bag from my backpack and handed it to the TSA agent for his visual inspection. Taking a quick glance at the bag, the agent, with a sort of satisfied look on his face, said, "Great idea, poor execution." What he didn't know then that I do know now was that TSA requires these 3-ounce containers to be in a quart-sized bag and not in a gallon-sized bag. I recognize that the assembly has identified a need for more housing within the Anchorage Bowl.

However, I feel that the specific measures included in the various TSDO and MHOP proposals of 2025 and 2026 are a poor fit for Rogers Park. I urge the assembly not to apply a gallon-sized missing middle housing opportunity solution to a court-sized Rogers Park citizenry. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Jody Olson, Rogers Park. I watched the work session on MHOP the other day, and I was glad to see that Ms. Baldwin-Day opened the meeting by saying let's start with problem statement.

I really like problem statements when we're working on projects. But when she showed the problem statement, it said housing. Housing is a word. It's a subject. It's not a problem statement.

You know, there are residents in this town, mostly the really wealthy ones or partially wealthy ones, that think that there's no housing problem at all, and that's because because they can build or buy anything they want. But you know, just this morning while I was at my PT appointment, physical therapy at United, there was a young intern there and he was observing the treatment. And it turns out he just bought a new condominium in Muldoon. He's a first-time homeowner. And I said, "Well, tell me about that.

How did it go?" And he said, "Well, you know, actually, as these guys were saying, it was really pretty tough." He said, "Every time I saw something decent, it was gone in a flash." And stuff was going before— as soon as it was posted, it would be gone, and anything below his price point was just junk. He had to make 5 offers, and finally, he was able to get it on his 5th offer. So now I'm starting to hear a problem statement, that there's not enough housing in a certain affordability range. These people can't afford to get in a reasonably priced home.

So that, that's a specific thing that we need to tackle. However, when I listened to more of the meeting the other day, I was really surprised to hear Ms. Baldwin-Day say, "MHOP is not about affordability. That is not its purpose." So she said that because there were concerns raised that in parts of the— parts of the program, like building in zones 4 and 5 seismic, which cause you to build very costly structures, a lot of engineering, a lot of seismic work. Those are going to be very expensive. Residences.

When you build in existing places like, say, Rogers Park, where maybe the land is slightly higher value and there's existing homes on there already, you got to tear it down, you got to build, you got to— those are more expensive places to build. When you build at scale in large open spaces, which we actually have in Anchorage in the town center where we want walkable spaces, where where we have problems that could be solved, there you can get economies of scale because you can build more units.

And so I, I would just urge you to reject MHOP without amending it to eliminate R-1. Thank you for your testimony. And I'll remind folks to— again, I know 3 minutes can go by, so if folks want want to send us in writing, if you have not already, please feel free to do that. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, my name is Reese James. I'm 19 and I'm from South Edition. So next month I'll be moving away to attend school, but I would really like the option to come home and live again in the place that I grew up. And I'm often told that I'll simply need to, like, pull myself up by my bootstraps and, you know, just work hard and everything will turn out. Out.

But the more I research and the longer I live in Anchorage, the more I see how unreasonable that claim is and how unrealistic the option of coming back will be.

I hear people talking about safety when it comes to street parking, and I, I heard that concern at the Mayor's 10,000 Houses in 10 Years meeting, and I was concerned with it too. But I've since talked and researched, and there, there was a consulting— Nelson Nygard consulted about street parking in the right-of-way, and they found that there's a public perception that there is not enough vehicle parking for private vehicles on public streets in Anchorage, but this belief is not supported by observations or data. Even at the busiest times, there is space on the public streets and existing off-street lots to meet driver demand for storing vehicles. It's a direct quote from the consultation that they did. So I think there are systems in place to ensure that parking is safe.

So yeah, I'll end by saying we need affordable housing, and I believe that MHOP is the start of that. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and the rest of the assembly for listening to testimony tonight. My name is Cole Lockard and I'm a resident of Rogers Park.

I'm here to ask you to vote yes on AO 2026-85, the Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Overlay Proposal, or MMHOP. MMHOP gives us the opportunity to provide housing options that are responsive to our community's needs. It addresses the housing needs for young adults who are disproportionately choosing or forced to leave Anchorage and the older adults who represent an increasing share of our population. Missing middle housing such as townhomes, fourplex units, and cottage-style homes are attractive to a variety of people. Nationwide trends indicate these missing middle housing options are especially popular with Gen Zers and millennials who are looking to live and raise their kids in walkable areas.

As Anchorage struggles with outmigration, particularly of young professionals and families, we should be considering what kinds of housing are within financial reach and attractive to the people Anchorage is currently struggling to keep. These kinds of smaller housing options also provide value for older adults looking to downsize. Having smaller units in R1 and R2 neighborhoods means an older adult could stay in their neighborhood neighborhood connected with the places and people they already know, while also enjoying a space that requires less upkeep and fewer stairs to navigate. It means a current resident of an R1 or R2 neighborhood could help their parent move in a few doors down, ensuring everyone in the family has their own space and privacy while gaining the peace of mind that they'd be able to reach them should, should they need help. Older adults looking for a smaller space, residents of R1 or R2 neighborhoods interested in their parents' safety and young adults trying to find a suitable living situation in Anchorage shouldn't have to feel boxed in by limited options.

M'hop paves the way for a greater variety of housing choices. Ultimately, M'hop isn't going to magically fix our housing situation tomorrow, or ever for that matter, because it's merely one tiny piece of a much larger puzzle. But I believe that infilling neighborhoods and areas near town centers is a great way to increase housing supply in Anchorage. M'hop creates more flexible housing options for both current and future residents of Anchorage. Please vote yes on the missing middle housing overlay proposal and work on creating more opportunities for affordable housing for the most vulnerable in our community.

Thank you.

Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Uh, microphone is on. Good evening, my name is Will Walker. I live in Spenard. I think it's undeniable that we're in a housing crisis right now.

I think even the opponents of this agree that we need more housing. And I think that's only going to be exacerbated with the expected kind of build-out of more units at Jay Bear that will increase kind of supply pressure and demand pressure in the rest of the bowl.

But I think the question before us is, are we up to the challenge and are we going— are we willing to take the steps commensurate to the scale of that challenge as we're seeing seeing young people leave Anchorage who grew up here, as we're seeing folks struggle with affordability due to the lack of available housing. And I believe that MHOP is a significant step towards addressing these challenges and towards addressing housing supply. First, by reducing some of the regulatory barriers, as the Home Builders Association spoke to earlier, the red tape and government-imposed barriers to producing housing is one of the biggest cost drivers to, to builders, to development. And so, and many of the kind of housing types that people like when they travel, especially to other countries that don't have such restrictive zoning laws, are illegal to build in much of Anchorage. And so allowing for a greater variety of housing types such as under MHOP, I think, would be a significant kind of improvement and allow for greater kind of options both for the development side and for people to move into.

Second, MHOP would allow for these changes in places where we already have existing infrastructure, where we already have transit routes, and those really coincide well, especially in landscape where we're really dealing with our fiscal situation and trying to invest where we already have infrastructure and don't have to build out additional infrastructure is a wise kind of return on investment kind of decision as a community to make. I hear concerns from neighbors about, about on-street parking and on changes to their neighborhood. And I would stress that there are, you know, that there can be changes with, due to the ordinance, but it doesn't happen overnight. It's going to be iterative changes in these places over time that kind of having the scale of the map allows for as vacant and abandoned properties get redeveloped, as someone wants to redevelop their own property, that something like MHOP can allow. But we do have developers who are ready to build, and so this is a housing solution that can get more housing soon that developers are ready to take advantage of.

So I urge your support today. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward, state your name, part of town, 3 minutes, and microphone is on. Hello, my name is Clara Estelle Lepke, and I own a home with my partner in the Northeast Community Council District, which I also share with 2 roommates. Um, I am here to support, uh, MHOP Because, well, for two reasons.

One, I think that it is an earnest attempt to address a very material problem in our community, which we've all heard about. The way I would define that problem statement is that our housing stock is less affordable and lower quality than it was 10 years ago, and especially 40 years ago when it was all being built, basically. The second reason why I support MHOP is because I see it as an actually exciting way for our community to operationalize, I think, a value that many people hold, that housing is a human right. We would like more people to have more roofs over their heads. But also, it's an exciting way to operationalize this sometimes very abstract idea that we need more housing or housing needs to be more affordable.

Um, I would really love for there to be more federal subsidies available for affordable housing in our community, and I would love for us all to go talk to people in DC about that. But as a municipality, assembly members, you don't have control over that. Um, I also would love for the cost of construction to be lower, and I would love for new construction to come onto the market at a price point that I could afford But that also is something that none of us have control over.

What we do have control over is how we conceptualize change in our communities and how we handle land use and zoning. And that is the piece that MHOP is really contemplating and I think is doing it quite well.

I've been thinking a lot about how we have high-income renters We have middle-income renters and we have low-income renters in our community, and they are all competing for the same deteriorating and aging housing stock. Because we live in a small metropolitan city in the United States of America, housing is a commodity, and that means that people can access the type and quantity of housing that their economic status allows them to purchase. M-HOP is trying to take that paradigm of housing as a commodity and to create a private market opportunity to relieve some of that stress and instability that middle and low-income renters are experiencing. The only way that MHOP is going to be successful at doing that is if it is designed and passed in a way that it can be scaled. It needs to create naturally affordable housing options as well as market rate higher-end options that can relieve relieve the downward pressure that middle and low-income renters are experiencing.

So I urge the body to pass MHOP, pass it in a way that's creative and scalable. Thank you for your time. Okay, next person please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on.

Hi, my name is Sharika Alahi and I live in Muldoon. I want to voice my support for the Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Ordinance When I first moved to Anchorage a few years ago, I was shocked to see how steep the rental prices in this town are. I came from my hometown of Chicago, and I was not expecting to navigate a housing scene where the average prices here are comparable to the third largest city in the U.S. and with significantly less of a range of options. As a young person with thousands in student debt and tons of bills, I've really struggled to afford housing here. I've had to move 5 times times in the past 3 years.

I want to keep living in Anchorage, but it's really not easy to afford housing as a new person with no family support here. Something I've noticed from my many housing searches is that a large portion of the options available are rooms in a single-family home, often with the property owner still living there as well. The situation always inevitably creates a power dynamic between the live-in landlord and the renter who has to move more carefully when sharing space with their landlord. The fact that this is such a common rental situation I've encountered really shows how some policy shifts are needed to allow renters to access a greater diversity of housing options. We need more multi-unit homes and apartment buildings to be able to support and house all types of income levels, not just people who can afford the down payment to buy a house and then like often help pay for their house by having renters.

I know of entire families with young kids living in this type of situation where they are renting a room or a basement from their live-in landlord, who of course has more power in the roommate dynamic. This is not what a sustainable housing market looks like. Any policy that helps to increase the supply of diverse housing options and help alleviate the growing stressors of finding housing in this time of skyrocketing costs should be seriously considered. This policy feels like a no-brainer, especially as it is a basic urban planning thing to overlay new housing on transit corridors and to allow more types of housing to be built to increase supply, affordability, and options. Um, yeah, thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Paul Kirschak. I'm in the Sand Lake District.

Near Campbell Lake, Jewel Lake, Diamond Area. I'm in opposition to this MHOP, formerly TSDO, ordinance, and I encourage you to vote no. And here's some of the reasons why. The negative impacts of high-density housing, and these are quality of life issues: traffic congestion, snow plowing, snow storage including snowmelt, Runoff affecting adjacent properties. Reduction of outdoor spaces, green belts around how high— around high-density housing.

Increasing human interaction conflicts resulting in police having to handle more conflicts. Noise pollution, loud cars, busy streets, constant background noise disrupting sleep and causing stress. CROWDING AND LACK OF PRIVACY REDUCES PERSONAL QUIET TIME. HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS: CONCENTRATED POLLUTION, HIGH NUMBER OF PEOPLE, VEHICLE EXHAUST, LOWERING AIR QUALITY, SPREADING OF ILLNESSES IN HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING. INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY STRAIN: INCREASED TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS.

Overburdened public services, local schools, public transit, crowded medical facilities, accessibility challenges, reduces adjacent surrounding homes' property values. And I right now am getting affected by this myself. There's a 50-unit complex next to my house, and they're going to be putting in 36 to 40 more units. Do you think that that's going to cause any extra noise problems? Already now where I live, the police are over there a lot handling conflicts between either renting people that live next to one another or people having conflict.

Then the deal is, is I've been here in this town since 1981, in the state since '73, and what I've noticed over time, a lot of these projects, the guys that engineer all this stuff don't really think about all the pro— all these problems. So that's something for you to consider, and I I am totally opposed to this. And personally, this project that's going on next to me, I personally believe it's going to drop my property values, but yet you guys will still charge me more taxes and you'll increase my taxes down the road. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Good evening, my name is Marilyn Maxwell.

I am a lifelong resident of Anchorage, growing up in Rabbit Creek in a log house, and was— became a property owner when I was 24. My first home was 600 square feet. I have submitted written comments on this ordinance, which should be included in your packet tonight. I agree that Anchorage needs more affordable housing, but I question whether this ordinance is the right direction. It's painted with a very broad brush.

Yes, it will provide higher density housing and much needed higher density housing, but it's also looking at completely changing the city that, that we all are standing here talking about we love and, and taking away neighborhoods where— and changing, changing zoning by taking away the neighborhoods that we love, the characteristics of the neighborhoods that we love.

Last year, this assembly and the administration eliminated the need for public notice for changes to affected property owners. Then they pushed in the TSDO and that was postponed, and now MHOP has come in its place. We are— I'm going to get back to my script.

We often hear that Anchorage should become a more walkable city, yet the assembly has already eliminated off-street parking requirements for new residential construction. Single and two-family zoning has been eliminated altogether, allowing for three units on these lower-density properties. Adding higher density housing without parking or infrastructure improvements will put more cars on narrow neighborhood streets, many without sidewalks. Most neighborhoods do not have sidewalks, forcing pedestrians into a roadway and making winter emergency access even harder. And I'm not even talking about trash pickup day.

The on-site parking requirement has already been repealed, and single-family zoning in Anchorage is a thing of the past. Why do we keep making changes that undermine our shared community goals? The ordinance before us is moving forward without adequate notice to affected property owners, and that's because the requirement was removed last year without any notice to property owners that this was taking place. So now we have no say. I have no say of of who, who is, um, what's going to happen on the property next to me.

I have only have no notice until they start construction.

I am opposed to NMHOP. I am a member of the Turnagain Community Council, and I encourage you to take into consideration the resolution that we passed.

Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone's on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. All right.

Hi, I'm Esther Perman. I'm the co-facilitator of the Anchorage Housing Working Group, and I'm one of the authors of the amendments to MHOP. I'm also a resident of North Star. I'm going to introduce 5 people behind me who will speak to you on some critical challenges in the MHOP proposal as it is now. We do want to give you some better ideas and some suggestions on a path forward on each of those.

First, Judy Bittner will speak to how we achieve Anchorage's 10K housing goal through targeted density as laid out in the 2040 Land Use Plan, which I'm just going to call the LUP. She'll explain how we get to higher growth through density in underdeveloped corridors like Fireweed and Muldoon rather than blanketing infill everywhere. Second, you'll hear from David Wigglesworth about why we should discourage density in areas of high seismic risk and why ground failures are a fundamental land use issue, not just a building code fix. This is hardly an earth-shaking idea. Thanks.

Okay, third, you'll hear from another David. David Hanson is an architect, and he'll explain why adding building height increases cost without adding additional homes. Neighborhood affordability and height do not go hand in hand. Height limits of 40 feet are more than what's necessary and really only needed for commercial buildings, as he'll explain. Fourth, Christine will talk about neighborhood compatibility and building sizes.

Per Goal 7 of the Land Use Plan, new development must respect the valued characteristics of surrounding properties and neighborhoods. That same document says that form and scale of new buildings matter. The physical appearance, sizes, and shadowing effects of new buildings matter. Yards and room for play— for kids to play in the street matter. Welcoming new neighbors through infill also matters.

Luckily, the LEP addresses how to do both of those at the same time. We can add density while respecting what people love about their neighborhoods. We can use lot dimensions that allow duplexes, ADUs, cottage courts, and more other small starter home sizes while avoiding the type of housing that is a better fit for existing higher density zones. The way that we do this is by sitting down together and talking through what people care about and what amount of green space and sunlight works for us, not what setbacks work for developers on larger R3 lots. Thoughts.

Uh, finally, Mara, my co-facilitator, will summarize. She'll tie our recommendations back to the specific amendments that you have in front of you. She'll ask that you remove R1 and R2 from the map for now so that we can focus on housing growth where builders actually want to build and return to R1, R2 later. She'll also repeat our request to you, which is to use the LUP as a guiding document and not just to use it to justify— just to justify development with transportation-supported growth growth, but also to read the goals and the great detail in there about how Anchorage should grow in ways that are compatible with what people love about living in our existing neighborhoods. I've also given you a visual that really explains the differences between those and goes into detail about the land use plan details.

With that, I will hand it over to Judy. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Uh, next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Judy Bittner. I'm a 45-year resident of Huntington Park subdivision.

My testimony focuses on targeted high-density development. I urge the assembly to remove R-1 and R-2 from the MHOP map. An alternative to the current expansive overlay is to target areas for high-density housing along arterial roads such as Fireweed Lane, that are zoned for multifamily and multi-use, have sidewalks and bus routes, have land and buildings available for development or rehab, and have utility infrastructure in place. I envision a vibrant rehabilitated Fireweed Lane as a walkable area with new and rehabbed housing and small commercial establishments with housing above. Targeted density provides an economy of scale.

It concentrates improvements like utilities and shared costs. Areas should be identified for pilot projects for density development. A focused approach is more likely to happen and more likely to attract developers. The city can learn from these pilot projects and apply lessons learned to later projects. The 2040 Land Use Plan identifies strategies and actions that support this approach.

Strategy 1, Phasing of Growth and Investment, calls for phasing of new development and public infrastructure. Strategy 2, Investment Focus Areas, identify RFAs as an important phasing mechanism. Strategy 6, Targeted Area Rezonings, targets rezoning for specific areas. The land use plan identifies specific areas in Anchorage during the planning process, and those areas should be the focus of attention. They include downtown, central Spenard, Fairview, Boniface, McGrath, Fireweed, Dowling, Lake Otis, Tudor, and U-Mid.

The land use plan does not target established Anchorage neighborhoods such as Rogers Park, Turnagain, and Huntington In fact, the plan finds single-family neighborhoods as important for the viability of Anchorage. Comments that residents in established neighborhoods should have known the proposed rezoning was already agreed to is erroneous. The plan states that fewer changes are anticipated for existing single-family neighborhoods. The plan states that changes in these neighborhoods may focus on improving improving connectivity, pedestrian and bike safety, neighborhood character, housing choice, and buffering transitions to more intensive land uses. Also, the plan states that changes in zoning and Title 21 use regulations that are separate processes that include community input.

I encourage the city to identify areas for high development and implement pilot projects. Thank you. Before I invite up the next testifier, I'm going to note, um, we have— it's a few minutes before 11:30, and so I'm going to ask if there's a motion to extend. Move to extend till midnight. Second.

Okay, a motion to extend by Mr. Handlin to midnight, a second by Mr. Bolland. Is there any objection? Okay, I know it's a late one, um, and I'll also state the intent is to hear the folks who are here I think there are some remaining items on our agenda. Depending on how much time we have, we can get to that later, but we'll continue with the hearing for now. So, okay, thank you.

So we are extended. So state your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Great. Go ahead. Good evening.

My name is David Wigglesworth. I live in the North Star area, and the Anchorage Housing Workgroup requests that MHOP be amended to exclude hazard zones 4 and 5 and retain the existing density and dimensional standards in this area. Area. This is not an anti-housing request. This is more about protecting life and property.

Lanier's policy itself should not be deliberately increasing development in these high-density, high-hazard areas and zones. Safer areas exist in the community to encourage additional housing intensity. During the— contrary to what was implied in the work session, the actual Anchorage Seismic Map is still quite useful. It's not a theoretical map at all. It's actually based on empirical data to actual observations of ground conditions.

And the 24 LUP specifically tells us to use the hazard map to avoid increasing concentrations of people and employment in hazard areas. And building codes are only part of the solution. They can help a building withstand shaking, but they cannot eliminate the ground failure risk beneath the building itself. And in 2018, the 7.1 magnitude earthquake that affected our community provides a good distinction or a reason why this distinction matters. The post-earthquake report cautioned against public perception that buildings did well because Alaska has strict codes.

It noted that the documented damage was primarily caused by geotechnical failures and the large depth of the quake was likely the main factor in minimizing damage. So maybe we can build resilient high-density buildings, but we have to put them them on the ground in stable areas. Fortunately, some city and state planners have not ignored these facts. In the 2040 LUP, staff said no to a proposed increase in residential density in the Hazard Zone 5 area, citing seismic risks, building code limitations, and the fact that there are safer areas to develop in Anchorage. The State of Alaska's recovery plan for the 2000 2018 earthquake, recommended that city— city consider land use decisions— consider land use decisions restricting development in Zones 4 and 5.

Yes, there are already homes and schools and other developments in these areas, but that doesn't change the underlying geology and doesn't necessarily justify denser housing. We can't undo those past decisions, but we can make smarter choices about where we develop in the future. And our amendment is not without precedent. The public record indicates that Hillside was excluded from the TSDO overlay in part because of wildfire risk. The same public safety justification supports excluding Hazard Zones 4 and 5 from the MHOP overlay.

In conclusion, the '20 Comp Plan establishes the principle of directing growth out of harm's way. The LUP says growth and intensity above zone levels should be consistent with the Comp existing safety principle. So without a doubt, the land use plan justifies our desire to see the amendments carried forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes, and microphone is on. All right.

Oh, excuse me. Good evening, Anchorage Assembly. Thank you for your time. Uh, also thank you, David, Good evening, David. I am also David, David Hanson, Spenard Community Council.

And I'm here to talk about affordability of what the current proposed MHOP. As a licensed architect here in town, my work often, more often than not, looks at the economy of a building. So to go back to basics, buildings are made from materials. As you increase square footage, costs go up. As you increase volume, costs also go up.

No surprise here. A residential structure can reasonably have 8-foot floor-to-ceiling heights with about a foot of structure between floors. Starting at the foundation, you have 4— you have a footing, then 4 feet of concrete slab, and then 9 feet of structure and living space. Times that by 3, we get 27 feet. Add an additional 3 feet for roof insulation and parapets, and and you can comfortably build a 3-story residential structure within a 30-foot height limit.

MHOP currently proposes a height limit of 40 feet. That extra 10 feet does a lot. You can increase ceilings to about 10 feet, add more space for structure and HVAC. None of these make sense— make a house more affordable. The additional height is better suited for high-end residential or commercial commercial spaces ultimately.

In my pocket of Spenard, this month there have been 2 single-family homes for sale, one around $300,000 and one around $440,000. These are turnkey homes ready for new neighbors. Compared with new construction, this is the affordable existing— this is the affordable housing stock. We don't want to incentivize developers to purchase these existing homes, knock them down, rebuild new, and ultimately taking its opportunities away from future homeowners looking for safe— future homeowners looking for safe, affordable homes. Rezoning my neighborhood to 40 feet changes the economics towards higher-end residential or commercial development, companies and developers with deeper pockets than people simply looking for an affordable home.

That means more expensive development and ultimately undercutting the thing that we all are trying to solve here: greater housing availability and a more livable workable Anchorage. I urge the Assembly to adopt a plan that scales allowable building footprint, lot coverage, and height to existing neighborhoods, concentrate taller buildings around major traffic and transit corridors, allow new housing at the scale that fits the existing neighborhood. In these financially uncertain times, I urge the Anchorage Assembly to think creatively about what we can do with the housing we already have rather than look— looking for something new. I submitted written testimony as well, and and I'm happy to talk further about this idea to leverage our existing stock without trying to race this timer here. And thank you again for your time and your work towards Anchorage's future.

Okay, next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on.

Thank you. I'm Christine Dietrich. I live in Spenard. I'm a 30-plus-year resident of Anchorage, the last 19 in Spenard. 19 Years ago, I was looking for a house to be a first-time home buyer, in part because I wanted the predictability of knowing what my housing costs were going to be.

I didn't want to be at the whim of a landlord who might suddenly decide to chase that high-dollar short-term rental. I found a home in a neighborhood of little starter homes and duplexes in Spinard. Some of them are rented, some of them are owned. You might call it a starter home neighborhood. It's diverse in character.

Folks from many backgrounds, all different ages, ethnicities, and viewpoints live here. My particular block has lots of kids on it. There are a dozen kids on my street riding their bikes and their Razors up and down the street every day, every day. I kind of love it. I can sit on my front porch and watch these kids at play.

There's birthday parties in the front yards, there's backyard barbecues, there's fire pits everywhere. It's a great little neighborhood.

It's a neighborhood of working folks who keep this city running. My neighbor across the street's an electrician. He might have fixed your lights last week. His next-door neighbor is a guy with his sons who have a small fencing company. They might have fixed your fence when it blew down last year.

My neighbor next door to me is a postman. Might be the postman for your neighborhood.

I got a couple city employees on my block. I got a couple state employees. You or your family members might have been my patient at the hospital in the past. We're not fancy in my neighborhood. Our houses are the single greatest investment we've ever made.

And we're proud of them. We value that investment. We value the character and the flavor of our neighborhood. We welcome the addition of more affordable housing to Anchorage. We welcome having more neighbors.

But we do have some concerns about MHOP as it is written today. There are some amendments that we'd like to to see passed to make MHOP better for all of us. Reducing setbacks and increasing lot coverage to, to 70% would really squeeze the little houses in my block. Increased height allowances create deeper shadows. We already have 7 months of winter.

We don't need any more darkness in our lives. We don't need to add to the depression that so many people suffer in the winter here. You keep our, keep our height allowances to that 30-foot limit that's already established. We can live with that. 7 Months of winter is a long time.

Working folk in Anchorage deserve to see the sunlight. It's a quality of life and a mental health issue.

We also have concerns about increasing housing units without adding increased parking. High Street is one of the many streets in Anchorage that has no sidewalks. With winter snow removal, it's even harder to get down the street. That's a public safety issue. I urge you to pass MHP with amendments that retain neighborhood character.

Thank you. Thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Uh, good evening, assembly members. Uh, my name is Mara Rosenthal And I'm also on the Spenard Community Council with Christine. I'm a co-facilitator of the Anchorage Housing Workgroup, and I'm generally a lover of all things Anchorage. I was born and raised here, and I'm proud to be raising my daughter here. I'm proud to have worked with the Anchorage Housing Workgroup.

Our email list has grown over 100 people, and we've only been working together for less than a year. And we continue to grow as more people are actually finding out about MHOP as it's happening right now. Each meeting we have about 30 to 40 participants come, and they're smart, they're dedicated, they're passionate people who have come together to engage on housing discussions. Our workgroup originated by citizens coming together who wanted to be a part of the housing solution, but they have genuine, real concerns about how we accomplish this goal. And honestly, it's been great meeting us, like, a bunch of new people in our community.

We didn't know each other before, and it's, it's very cool that we've all come together. We want you as our elected officials to hear and consider our asks. So first, you heard Judy talking about targeted density, focusing high-rise and multi-use buildings along underused corridors. She mentioned a bunch of them that the LUP states. Having density near commercial hubs and amenities is how successful cities grow.

Then you heard from David, who was talking about discouraging high density in earthquake zones. Ground failure is unpredictable, and even building codes can't guarantee safety. After that, we heard from another David, and he urged you to retain appropriate appropriate scale within neighborhoods. 30 Feet is sufficient for building a 3-story home. The shorter the height, the cheaper and safer the building is and has neighborhood compatibility.

We need to consider green space, sunlight, and snow removal in our northern city. And then finally, we heard from Christine, who urged growth to be led by the neighborhoods. Compatibility infill should be requested by residents not driven by developers. The amendments from the work session are a path forward to compromise. The simplest option is a modified map that removes R-1, R-2, and seismic zones 4 and 5, which are already permitted for duplex and ADUs.

Let's amend the map, then have a more conversation about how we do fill in R-1 and R-2 in responsible ways. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. Thank you for your time and working towards a solution that fits Anchorage and our northern design needs. Thank you.

Before you step away, Ms. Rosenthal, Mr. Voland has a question for you. Hi there. Thank you for your testimony. So you're, you're a co-facilitator of this working group. I think you called it the Anchorage Housing Working Group.

Do I have that correct? Correct. Um, we've heard some testimony here tonight from folks, um, who I'm not sure if they're part of your group or not, but also one of them who was in the group that was put forward mentioned the, the parking, the lack of parking requirements. And I'm wondering, did your group do any analysis or work with the Planning Planning Department at all to establish as a fact that there's been any housing development since the repeal of parking minimums that has not included on-site parking? Um, I think we recognize that so far it has been not an issue, but we are concerned in the future as we talk more density that this isn't a requirement, because just because it hasn't been an issue doesn't mean it won't be an issue in the future.

So that is our— it is a valid concern of ours. Thank you. Also, I'm wondering, did your group look at the recently published parking and right-of-way management study which identified that there is not a parking capacity problem anywhere in Anchorage except for in a few places downtown? Were you able to look at that analysis? I have looked at it a very tiny bit, but—.

Okay, okay. All right, um, thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for being here. Okay, thank you. Uh, no further questions.

Um, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Jade Powell and I am speaking on behalf of myself and I live in Northstar. Um, we're almost done, almost midnight.

Um, what can I say that hasn't really been said already? I really appreciate the testimony of everyone who's spoken before me. I hope you have the stamina tonight to listen carefully and carefully consider what you've heard, and more importantly, perhaps carefully consider who is speaking, what their position is in society, and what they have to lose depending on how you vote yes or no. And also carefully consider the imagined future that both sides construct. And I think that speaks volumes in terms of, you know, what we might imagine our neighborhoods to look like if the worst case comes comes to pass in both.

As we all know, and I'm happy to have heard, this isn't going to fix everything, but it probably won't hurt the housing issue. And I forgot to mention, as I always try to, I'm a homeowner, and boy, this housing crisis is doing gangbusters for my home value. It has gone up almost $100,000 since I purchased my home about 5 years ago, which is a lot considering I purchased it for $250,000. And on the flip side of that, I have multiple friends who've left and that sucks. A few miscellaneous notes.

I really appreciate and want to commend and recognize the work that the Anchorage Housing Working Group has done and generally the work that everyone has done on this issue, and maybe especially the folks that are opposed to this. While I might not agree with them, I really love to hear the serious, reasoned, well-developed amendments and specific considerations. And it's not just a, hey, Hey, we don't want any of this. It's a real considerate— considered thing, and I really appreciate that. It's been almost a year since I testified here in planning zoning, maybe more than a year.

I don't really remember. And back then, a lot of the opposition was, you know, delay this, we don't want this, please get rid of this, I don't want any of this. And I really appreciate how far folks have come and how the conversation has changed and become more nuanced. And I really hope that regardless of how you all vote on this, we can all continue to work on these issues of housing I hope that, you know, I know this is like the driving issue, like this, the fear around this has been driving a lot of the energy around housing solutions, and I hope that whether this passes or not, that fear doesn't turn into bitterness, or that fear doesn't dissipate and then folks lose interest. So I'm hoping to see, and I'm excited to continue to engage on discussions related to housing.

I also want I want to recognize that this isn't going to solve the problem, and I'm happy to hear folks on both sides acknowledge that. It's also probably not going to destroy our neighborhoods either way. I think the answer is going to be somewhere in the middle, no pun intended. And I think that that is an important thing to think about in terms of how you vote and which side you're going to be on of that. And yeah, it's been a long year.

I am excited to continue to work on housing with all of you and keep these conversations going. And thank you for being here so late. Have a good evening.

Thanks. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Uh, Francis Cedar, and I live in, um, U Med, Lagos, Tudor area. My family first came here during the Nome Gold Rush.

My grandfather and great uncle stowed away on a vessel from Seattle. So anyway, lived here a long time. Um, I have a background in educational and healthcare administration, and I'd like to pick on your leadership a little bit. Um, when you're trying to affect a change and people start breaking out shouting at town hall after a meeting, that's a pretty good indication they have change saturation, which means they're feeling a lack of control. Out of control.

And that's not the place they need to be in to accept change and then also assist you in that change. And I think you're hearing a lot of people saying they feel out of control. And this feels like the TSDO shuffle because basically we've had TSDO rolled right into MHOP. And I think people don't necessarily like that very well. They want to have a voice in zoning.

They have concerns about parking. They have concerns about safety, noise, and all of that jazz. And I think they need to be informed when we're having zoning changes. All of those things are not helping your cause. Do we need housing?

Oh yeah, you better believe it. Do we have a lot of space in my area for it? Yep, we sure do. Um, and I'm really interested to participate in that, but one of the ways you make this go more effectively is you don't make them have less input. You actually give them the opportunity to have more input, more power, more— you could task them saying, we need to put 3,000 people in your area, how do we do it?

And you might be surprised what you will get. How do I know? My mother worked with Rogers Park for 20 or more years, and she got on really well with all those guys, and that's one of the ways she did it. Um, and then beyond that, uh, I look forward to this. I absolutely I love 42nd Mare.

It's so great. My daughter and I walk there every day. That is what walkability is about. I can see this working, but we have to do it together because there's no way you know what I know about the Walgreens on Tudor and Lake Otis. They have theft 4 times a day at least.

You need to know that if you're going to put a little city center in my area because we need more police presence. There. We have a lot of problems with crime, and those types of insights are what will make this successful. Can we do this? Yeah, I think we can, but we've got to do it the right way.

And I think what we're missing is the input from people, and they are feeling powerless. And hey, if Rogers Park doesn't want this, you can bring some more over my way. So thanks. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 Hello, my name is Carol Howarth.

I'm from the West Side, and the real reason I'm here— so, um, I want to acknowledge we have a daughter who's 22 who's challenged in finding housing. Our neighbors are seniors and saying we all are wondering where do we move next to open up our homes for that generation that wants to move in. I moved back to Alaska at the turn of the century and I had that challenge of finding up an apartment as my first place coming in. My challenge here is with process. It's not with regards to NIMBY or, um, YIMBY, whatever it's called.

We've got 21.03-160L, which allows the reduction of public notice to being the, the online and the community council notification. It eliminates the mark— the mailed notice and the posting. In order to do that, the assembly— the assembly can approve changes in zoning and zoning maps with 160L if it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. And when we talk about the comprehensive plan, we're talking about the Comp Plan 2020, the Land Use Plan, and the neighborhood and the district plans. We can look at the, the actual line items, the objectives and the targets, which is what's being pulled.

But when you go and read these plans, they're really exciting. It's what people want. And you can go specifically, for example, to the 2018 Spinard Plan which has 3 transit— transit-supported development overlays in it already specified. You can look at North Mountain View's neighborhood plan. It has specified its elements of where it wants its high density.

This is through community input, and this is the process. What we can say is yes, The Department of Law probably can figure out a way of saying we can pass a change in a zoning map and change this at the same time and then be consistent with the comp plan. But this plan, as is TSDO, are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. That requires a change in the zoning map, and any change in the zoning map is a change in the comprehensive plan. Whether it's the neighborhood plan, the district plan, the land use plan, or the Comp Plan 2020.

So my challenge is, is yes, we have a community. The last time you did the 2020 plan, the Comp Plan, the city was awarded a planning award because of the community engagement. We don't have that now. You don't have the public notice that's required by law.

Thank you. Next person please come forward, state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Mack Bowden. I am from the Spinard area and I'm here to testify in favor of the Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Project, simply known as MHOP. It's no surprise if you'd go on Zillow, the housing market in Anchorage is unaffordable, and I believe part of that is due to the fact that demand is much higher than the supply.

When I was working full-time last year, my old apartment was roughly 60% of my full-time paycheck, and I had to take out a student loan to cover what I couldn't make during the school year just so I could have stable housing. And many of my peers at UAA have also moved back to campus simply because rent is unaffordable. Anchorage does— has become near impossible to live in without financial support. For it, and that's something that not many people have.

Um, I encourage you to vote, um, yes within this act. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Okay, thank you.

I'm John Isaacs. I live in West Anchorage. I will be speaking on behalf of the Turnagain Community Council Board of Directors. I'm co-chair of the Land Use Committee. Thank you.

We're resetting the timer so you have 5 minutes. Say it again. Resetting the timer so you have 5 minutes. Perfect. Okay.

TCC supports efforts to provide more diverse, equitable, and attainable housing. We agree with increasing density and infill in areas where existing infrastructure can support it, but we think implementation can be done intelligently, collaboratively with all the affected stakeholders, and it doesn't have to harm neighborhood integrity. We have some concerns about the ordinance, but we support it with specific amendments. I'm going to speak about 3 areas of concerns. The first is public process.

There are over 30,000 parcels affected by MHOP and the overlay. One-third are R-1, R-2 single-family, another 30% R-2M. Those folks got no written notice. You hear people here tonight because mostly their community councils reached out to them to let them know this was happening. You know, despite the best efforts of the the sponsors, presentations, one-on-one meetings are not collaborative engagement.

All you have to do is look at the recent public meetings that the municipality had on housing in August, and with the stakeholders there, the roundtables, that was collaborative agreement. It had sharing of ideas. It was a great way to go.

Planning doesn't work unless you meaningfully engage the people you're planning for. It doesn't work if you're planning, imposing planning on them. Uh, the second issue is the ordinance is not really routine implementation of the 2020 and 2040 plans. You know, the citations supporting it are incomplete and erroneous. It's a broadly geographic upzoning, again with no written notice to stakeholders.

You've heard from a lot of people that the 2020 and the 2040 plans have a lot of things that support neighborhood-compatible development, supporting valuing the scale and character of existing neighborhoods, neighborhoods. There's goals like Goal 7, which talks about compatible infill development with value characteristics supporting properties and neighborhoods. You even look at the action plan, and it says include a series of code amendments to foster innovative infill housing projects that can be fit into the neighborhood context. It also says this plan intends that a series of reforms include a public planning process. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened.

It could have happened with TSDO and NHOP. It hasn't happened yet. Get. The third area of concern is that there is avoidable harm that changes in dimensional standards and uses will create in single and two-family neighborhoods. If you look at R2D, for example, MHUB will increase the building height by a third.

It will increase lost coverage by 75%. This is well beyond neighborhood scale. You have height limits that increase— that will affect access to sunlight. We're a winter city. Energy, people want to put in solar panels, it affects building massing and scale.

Elimination of front setbacks can create a safety issue with onsite parking accessing the street. It impedes pedestrian and bicycle line of sight. Maximal lot coverage from 40 to 70% is extreme. 50 Is what Seattle has gone with, and that's what Turnigan suggests. 70% Puts more strain on drainage and stormwater, onsite snow storage, it reduces onsite car and recreational vehicle parking.

And issues with aforementioned masses, building masses and scale. And then the minimum lot size, you know, going from 6,000 square feet to 2,100 square feet seems a bit extreme. Again, maybe there's some compromise in the middle. And then finally, you've heard about the changes and increases on street parking. No matter what people say, I've read the right-of-way management study.

It's a flawed study. It had no public involvement, and I'd be glad to answer our questions about about the shortfalls with it if Assemblymember Bolden has it. In many neighborhoods, this is going to interfere with snow storage and removal, trash pickup, mail delivery, and create vehicular and traffic pedestrian safety issues. We have some concerns about the broad undefined terms regarding multiple uses and multiple structures on a single lot, and we do think that use by right for relocatable communities and large multifamily development is not necessarily appropriate. It.

But these are things that can be solved, you know. So if you look at solutions, you still have time to provide written public notice to affected property owners before the next meeting. I know there's concerns about cost, but think about the tax breaks that are being handed out and what the cost of that is. You've also heard you could pull the R1, R2 neighborhoods from MOP until meaningful consultation happens per the 2040 Plan. But you could also modify the proposed dimensional standards to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods.

Maintain the R1, R2 30-foot height limits, 20-foot front setbacks, increase your lot coverage to 50%, and reduce lot size to 4,000 square feet. Take care of the undefined terms, um, look at conditional use for relocatable unit communities and large multi-unit developments, and then remove seismic Zone 4 and Zone 5. So again, we need to get to a solution where all stakeholders can participate, and MHOP will get more support, you might consider setting up a working group. Thank you very much. I'd be glad to answer questions.

Thank you. I don't see any questions at this time. Um, I'll just briefly note it is 11:54. We're going to continue to midnight. I will just briefly note for members in the public, um, if we are still in the middle of a hearing, that hearing will automatically continue to the next meeting, so there's no further action needed.

And then the remaining items on our agenda will be carried forward, um, if we did not— if if we do not take them up tonight. So also note that I know we have more people in line than we will be able to hear, and so I apologize for that, but the charter says we have to end at midnight. So I would encourage folks to come back next time, or if you haven't already emailed us, to do that as well. So with those housekeeping items out of the way, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Elizabeth Berry and I live in the Turnagain area. Anchorage needs more housing. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but that housing needs to be safe, it needs to be healthy to live in, and it needs to be affordable. MHOP does not meet those criteria, and I oppose it in its current form.

Zero front and rear setbacks, 40-foot heights, 70% lot coverage— all of these things on smaller lots with no sidewalks, no off-street parking will block sunlight, eliminate green space, impede snow and garbage removal, and they'll make our neighborhoods unpleasant and less safe for everybody. One of government's main functions is the safety of its citizens, and MHOP is failing in that regard as currently drafted. There are many areas in Anchorage that are ripe for targeted and denser development without adopting the extreme measures first proposed as TSDO and now MHOP. The city should work with residents residents, developers, planners, and others to choose a few areas where we concentrate efforts to improve our housing stock and see what works rather than making such sweeping changes with little input from the public. We should also see if the recent changes to allow ADUs and triplex— or duplexes in all residential zones is working.

If you do pursue MHOP, the amended map provided by the Anchorage Housing Workgroup group should be adopted, as well as the other amendments that are also endorsed by the Turnagain Community Council. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We have time for one more person, so please come forward, state your name, what part of town you all choose. Hi, I'm Marcy Custer.

I live in a townhouse in East Anchorage, and tonight we've heard a lot of people talk about parking on the streets, and I see it, I get it, I know that people are sharing housing, they need cars to get to work and so forth. But one problem that I see every summer are RVs that park on the street all summer. And it really is a safety hazard. I mean, I don't mind if they park in their own driveway or their yard, but it blocks the view of people. On my street, there's been an RV that this is at least the second summer that they've been there all summer.

I walk in my neighborhood, and earlier in the summer I saw an elderly man riding a bike out of his condo down on Lunar, and there was a camper trailer that was parked there, had the block under the trailer. It was there, it was living there, and a truck almost hit him. Um, so I would encourage you to look at the RV situation in the summertime. That could relieve some of the parking situation. And I really hope that we can get more housing.

Thank you for your work. Thank you for your testimony. Um, I will note, uh, my clock, it is 11:58, and so I don't want to shortchange somebody's testimony opportunity. So again, I will note I guess I'll see if there's a motion to continue this hearing.

Move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 6th. Second. Thank you. There's a motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 6th by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Boland. Is there any objection to continuing the hearing?

Not seeing any, that I will note. It is nominally before midnight, but there is no further business this before the body at this time. I will note that the, uh, remaining public hearing items 14B through 14F are, are carried over to our next meeting of October 6th, and I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.

Okay, second, and we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Fourth.