assembly-part1d

So I think in general, this is something where we tried to balance concerns for safety, concerns across the municipality that we heard in comments, as well as improving access to this side of the Chugach and those trails.

Okay, I appreciate that. I think the takeaway from what I heard is that there was a genuine effort, as I understand it, to try and balance a broad range of concerns from a broad range of stakeholders across the community, um, in, in coming up with this design, and that it was not limited to just one voice in one neighborhood. Um, so I, I appreciate, uh, you sharing that with us. Um, you know, I mean, frankly, I wish that there was more time to dig a little deeper into some of the more specific factors that might determine, you know, things like the site distance, snow storage concerns. I mean, unfortunately, just with where we are with this resolution before us here on the addendum, not a lot of opportunity to dig into that.

But, you know, I will just say for my part that I have confidence that, that you were engaged in this in a thoughtful manner and that those aspects probably merit some consideration. I mean, personally, you know, me as an individual, I don't see a problem with a larger parking lot.

But I will say I have a serious issue with some of the statements in this resolution, which I think, one, make assertions that are not necessarily defensible. We say it is based on demonstrated demand. I know there are different models out there suggesting what the right number is, but I don't think any of them have fidelity to where we can say it's demonstrated. We simply don't know exactly what the usage will look like. I'll also say, you know, most importantly to me, I really have a strong issue with Section 3 in this resolution where we state our intent to not appropriate or reappropriate funds or not to approve contracts unless the final design demonstrates sufficient parking capacity.

Philosophically, I take an issue with that. For one, by sitting here tonight that we will not approve a contract unless it meets the goals of this body specifically We are effectively trying to tie the hands of members of the body who will not even— who are not even here yet, who haven't been seated yet, who will ultimately be in the position to make a determination when the contract comes before the body, which I find problematic when they are not afforded the opportunity to do so and exercise their own discretion as, as the individuals who will be here after we certify the election results. I also read this, and, and to me it effectively states that if the design is not what the assembly wants, we will kill the project. Like I said, personally, I don't have strong sense of whether 45 or 60 is the right number, but I certainly will not support taking a sledgehammer to a project simply because it doesn't conform to my individual preferences as an assembly member.

It also effectively states in my mind that the public process doesn't matter. Like, this has gone through robust public process. It has led to this conclusion, and now we on the assembly are essentially saying like, well, we are going to assert our authority to override that. I'll note that over 32,000 voters have already voted, voiced their support for the CASA bond, which included Basher Trailhead parking lot. Now, Member Vohland pointed out that, well, maybe some people were basing that decision on, on it being 60 spots.

Fair enough. But I also say that, you know, a great many people are supporting the bond because it includes the Basher Trailhead parking and perhaps they're not overly concerned with the size of it, but simply want— see it want to get built. So when the assembly states that we will not approve a contract for the construction, we will effectively try to stop this project, then that in my mind feels like the, the more likely to support the will of the voters, um, position for us to take. Finally, I'll just say that philosophically I take an issue with this idea, this notion I think we see come up from time to time that the solution to every problem is for the assembly to assert more authority. And I just frankly don't believe that is a sentiment that is widely supported in this community.

Maybe some do, but a lot of folks often see us, I think, as stepping outside of what our natural role is to insert ourselves into conversations and decision-making, which is not necessarily organic to our job, at least in my mind. I'll say that we on the assembly, we have a role. It is an important one, but is not to be the arbiter of all things. I would say that if this was a resolution sort of encouraging careful consideration for right-sizing, encouraging looking for ways to amend the design further to increase more spaces, I, I would probably get on board with that. But I think with this, this statement in here that, that we will kill any project that simply does not form to the will of this body, I, I find very problematic.

And so I, I will be opposed. I have myself in the queue. Mr. Constant. So I want to start with the feelings part.

CASA feels like sour milk to me. It feels like theft from ARTSA. It feels like padding of the comfortable places in the hillside with the infrastructure that they want in the way that they want it only. This is an echo chamber of the same discussion happening over and over again, and the part that really signaled that to me was the demand to reduce the parking to 45 spots from 80 or 60 and to tow and to put no parking signs up. The net outcome of that is less parking than we have now, but they have a better road, they have better infrastructure, and we paid for it.

This is damnable to me. This is sad and tragic that this is becoming the narrative of Casa every time this comes up. We thought we had finally come to a point where we could Make a plan work. With all of those major projects that were proposed, that very swift build our roads for us CIP that came up that we resisted and said, wait, let's pick one project that we can be successful at. Let's pick one.

Basher. And we did. In good faith, we came to the table and the study showed 80 to 100 was what was needed. Now, don't come at me with we don't have demonstrated demand. Every single access point to the Chugach State Park is drowning in cars.

That's why the neighbors are upset and feeling uncomfortable with the idea of more parking spaces. They feel like it's going to attract more people. That's not what it's going to do. What it's going to do is give the people who go there a place to park that's off your road. Now they want it so that we tow them when they're on the road.

That is so frustrating and so souring to all of this. Now, Why do we think the ASD bond and levy failed? I can tell you why. It was the Campbell STEM crew that came in here and cried for relief when they passed a bond with $12 million in it that's getting swept to pay for some other priority. Now this echoes that.

This echoes that to me. Let's shortchange this project so we can use the money that was just approved by the voters for some other priority. And I hate that. Now, the proposal that this— or the suggestion that this is right-sizing the scope is absolutely missing the mark. 60 was the compromise, and now we're at 45, and it came out of nowhere.

So the argument that the assembly is asserting its will— no, the assembly is coming to awareness that a process happened that literally changed the scope of the project, that throttled it down.

50%, 25%. It was first proposed to me, oh, we went from 60 to 45. That sounded reasonable. But then when we hear it was actually 80 to 100 to 45, that's less than half if you choose the 100 number. That's just half if you choose the 80 number.

What are we doing here?

Now, it was suggested to me we can just do this small one and come back to it. Another time. But the reality is there is no coming back to it. I tried to support just rebuilding the stairs at Flat Top in 2020, 2021, and we couldn't get it done because the state said it was in their priority some other day. Those stairs are still rotten.

Someone's going to die. We don't have the money to come back and redo projects that we did until 20 or 30 years from now. That's why these programs and proposals are scoped over time.

I wonder, in the context of if we're going to take the, the opinion of the loudest that say make it smaller, make it smaller, if we should just scrap any work on increasing housing density in this town. Because the simple reality we hear all the time from the loudest voices over and over and over is you can't build up, you can't build that around me, my sunshine. My rights are being violated. You can't build density near me. This is the same story.

It's just up on the hillside and I am paying for it.

I have so many questions about what we're going to do, why I am being made an anti-hero of the CASA program. I'm going to become its opponent in its future iterations, and I hate that. I voted to put it on the, the ballot the first time. I've supported every project that came forward. I voted yes for all of them, and yet here we are putting a cap on access to the Chugash State Park with threats of parking.

Now I know the administration has told me they won't do the parking. That's a non-starter. But that's only as good as this administration. The next administration in 6 years hopefully comes in and maybe it's different and maybe they have decided that it's better to have more restrictions for the people. I remember in 2015 when the Access Plan was killed and why.

This voice that we're hearing that says reduce these parking spaces is the same reason the Chugash Access Plan was killed in 2015. 11 years later, we now have money and we're going to just give in. To me, I think that that is a failure on our part. It is not— and to the point of the resolution says we won't fund the future projects, I think that Mr. Johnson kind of hit a reality of the situation, is it does not in fact bind a future assembly.

It is a resolution, and the language is crafted carefully. Our attorneys wouldn't let us say exactly as clear as we would have liked to have been. Instead, counsel advised language that you see there, which is still offensive to those who would like to see a smaller footprint, but it isn't a tie that binds. It is a statement that we support access to the Chugach State Park and we're willing to fund it, but not at 50 to 75%. We need to make it happen now.

That's the reality of this situation. And I don't know what the answer is in the end. It's a resolution, doesn't have all that much authority, but I have a lot of feelings and I wish, I wish we could get to a point where we we had harmony in CASA because it is, when the mayor presented it, a brilliant idea. It's just an idea that is stuck in the clay. Anyhow, Miss Brawley.

Thank you. I do have a couple questions for the folks at the podium. One is, um, so you mentioned snow storage. I imagine a portion of the parking lot would end up being covered by that snow storage. It wouldn't get hauled away.

So whether it's 45 or 60, do you have any sense of how much that, that snow, assuming it's a typical snow year, would cover up parking spaces in the winter? I'm trying to understand what is the actual winter capacity if, if we're factoring in snow storage. Through the chair to Member Brawley, the snow would largely be pushed into the— there's a ditch that surrounds the parking lot, so it would not obstruct parking in the winter. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER TREGONING] Okay. And then just in general, I'm wondering as well, what is the material difference between 45 spaces and 60 spaces in terms of traffic counts?

I mean, I'm doing the math. Maybe that's— if it's 15 car spaces, maybe 4 people use each space per day on a typical day. So that's 60 additional— so 120 additional car trips in and out. I guess I'm just trying to understand. Again, what is the material difference between 60 and 45?

And I understand that that is the crux of what we're talking about. But in terms of actual logistics or actual usage on the roads, is that going to have a significant negative impact? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER MAY] Through the chair, we did not do a traffic study on the project. So I can't answer that specifically. I think your numbers are probably relatively accurate, 120 trips a day, plus or minus.

Um, if I may, a couple of things on the snow storage. My comment that there is snow storage both from the roadside as well as the parking lot itself and visibility, and the presentation that we got from the project managers at the Parks and Rec Commission was very illuminating in terms of visibility and the importance both of line of sight as you're coming up and down Basher Road and the driveway into this parking area. So line of sight for safety for pedestrians and vehicles on the road. But then, as I mentioned, snow storage that affects line of sight into a parking lot and the depth of that parking lot. I also want to clarify, because it was raised by Member Johnson, there is within the 65% design a clear next step to add parking from the driveway that is designed now.

So it does not— the, the step A does have the 45 spaces, but there is in the 65% design planning for a step B if we meet capacity of this lot. And I also want to say We are talking a lot about a number of parking spaces, but we also are talking about listening to public process and the neighborhood. And while this is a neighborhood on the hillside, it is still a neighborhood in the municipality of Anchorage. And I think I can speak for this administration that we have a basic philosophy to listen to neighborhood comments. That does not mean that we give them everything they want, and like I said previously, we did not give them everything they wanted here.

There were many comments that said no parking lot at all, take it away. So I think we should also focus on how we want to proceed under CASA with the process and who we listen to when, and I think for the durability of CASA, we need to be very careful to stop listening to the comments and neighborhood comments. I also want to clarify, just for folks that have not been to this parking lot, it is one of 5 parking areas along Basher Road. There is access to the public lands, throughout Basher Road. There also is money that is going to fund trail improvements, the Lost Cabin Trail.

I am a fan of the Lost Cabin Trail. I think many people think it is a great way to increase access. So there's money going there. And also in this bond, there was money put into it for Stewart's Trail wayfinding. So this bond was not just about Basher.

Um, and then lastly, I'll just say we— I think we can— we do have the project manager here who can talk more about the scope of spaces if you want to talk about that full scope. But we did go back and look at the Chugach Access Plan and the definition and what Member Vohland read in terms of a large space. But let's remember, we're going from barely 16 spaces to 45 and other improvements that I think greatly improve access here beyond just the number of spaces.

Thanks. I have one more question, not for the folks up here, but just really a rhetorical one, and that is, um, who are our public lands for? Period. I mean, it is troubling to me that— and I understand the arguments, I understand that there is a complex, really dynamic network of interests in this town. And I think some of the problems that we have now inherited are from the legacy of maintaining that degree of separation, that degree of, I guess, regionalization, and saying Yeah, I guess the, the bottom line is everything seems to break down in this town when we say where, and when it has to do with people who do not live in an area who are accessing that area.

I think that is a common theme, and I appreciate Mr. Constant brought that up. Um, I guess I, I'm going to make one attempt to see if we can make this more palatable to folks. I'm going to move to strike Section 3. There's a motion to amend by Miss Brawley.

Second. Second, Mr. Johnson. Okay. Yeah, and the reason I'm doing that is I, I understand the concern about this, and so I wonder if the calculus for some members, uh, to vote on in favor of this would change if, if that particular section was gone.

I have, um, less concern about it. I understand where it's coming from, but I also understand why there would be concern. Thanks. Any discussion on the amendment?

Seeing hearing none, members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Member Martinez.

Sure. Okay, we take that as a yes, Mr. Martinez. That's a yes.

On a vote of 9 to 2, the amendment has passed.

You have the floor still, Miss Braly. Um, next I have Miss Baldwin-Day. Yeah, I think I have a couple of just fact-finding questions, um, if I might. Uh, I know that Mr. Culhace just sat down, but if you'd indulge me, um, do we actually know how many parking spots we need at Basher to meet current and anticipated demand.

I have an anecdotal picture in my head of the Basher trailhead on a really beautiful July day, and I know what that looks like. But do we have anything that's definitive? Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, we do not have any kind of a formal study that shows the demand and the need up there. We have, we have the documents that have been referenced by the body. We have the memo that Parks and Recreation is drafting that is based on a model from the lower 48.

We have some anecdotal, many anecdotal comments from both users who live in the bowl and residents up there, but we do not have a definitive study, no. Thank you. So in some ways, we're kind of throwing darts right now to— Okay. The 65% design, how many additional spots of capacity does that envision in like a Phase 2 build-out? Through the Chair again, I believe it's in the 15 to 20 range.

I do have the project manager available by phone, but I think it's in the 15 to 20 range.

And do we have any costing information as far as the difference between building a 45-spot lot and then later doing 15 additional spots versus building a 60-space parking lot from the outset?

I would say partly. We have— we know that increasing right now from 45 to 60 would be in the $200,000 to $300,000 range. I can say with some certainty that starting from scratch to build a new parking lot that would be 15 spaces would likely cost more than it would to expand now, just due to the nature of mobilization and the other things that happen in a construction project. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER TREGONING] Sure. Yeah.

So I think I might be asking the opposite. So do we know the difference between building 45 spots now and then later doing a Phase 2 expansion and what that would cost in totality versus building 60 spots now. Do we know what that delta is? Through the chair, I would say no, other than it would be in excess of $200,000 to $300,000. For the total build?

I'm referring to the delta between the two. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. So the delta would be an additional $200,000 to $300,000. Got it.

Um, okay.

And then I think my, I think my last question, I, I think I heard you respond to Member Brawley that we, we haven't done any sort of like traffic count or anything like that to understand what the traffic looks like going up and down Bashear at this moment. As part of this project, that's correct. Okay, helpful. All right, those are all of my questions for you. Thank you.

Um, I think, I think I would, I would just like to offer that Um, this item I think dovetails really neatly with, um, Member Brawley's later item in the 13s about who makes decisions regarding CASA.

I appreciate the need for public engagement and public investment and appropriate process and that neighborhoods that are impacted by these kinds of improvements are consulted. However, I think it's also important to recognize that all of Anchorage is paying for and hopefully expecting to be able to use these amenities. And I think that holding those two things in tension is no— it's no small feat. And I think, you know, a lot of times we get on this dais and we get into a conversation and we're talking about 15 parking spaces. But what we're really talking about is a larger question.

Of who gets to make decisions about public assets in public spaces and who gets to dictate who can be where and how. And, and I— this is a perennial question. And then in this municipality, and CASA is going to— only going to continue to highlight the fact that we don't have great mechanisms in place for making some of these choices and bringing people along in the process. And I think if we are going to take full advantage of CASA, of the, the bonds, the, the dollars from all of our property taxes that are paying for these upgrades, we need to be able to prove that small groups of people in neighborhoods that are impacted by the improvements are not in fact the ones that are calling the shots.

Because that, I believe, will fundamentally alienate folks in my district. That will alienate folks in Midtown who want to understand why folks who don't pay into ARDSA but drive to Costco can also leverage their influence to determine the size of a parking lot that is in their neighborhood. These are the things that we— I think we just need to have a really honest conversation about this, I think, is what I'm getting at. And as Member Brawley pointed out, this is an inherited thing. I think there's a lot of undercurrent of like LURSA versus ARTSA happening in this conversation.

And at some point, we are going to have to sort out how these decisions are made and who makes them and how it is equitable.

I can think of a lot of other infrastructure projects where the neighbors who weigh in are summarily ignored.

And that also is problematic. So I have mixed feelings. I have mixed feelings about this resolution. But at the same time, the text of the resolution is about 15 parking spots. And I think 15 parking spots is not something that I'm going to like, It's not something that I'm going to live or die over.

But I think that this is, this is an indicator of how this conversation might need to be managed differently in the future with a mechanism like a commission, with a mechanism that does actually include a wide variety of voices and establishes a process that makes sense for the investment of citywide public money. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair.

I hope you all can hear me, but talk about a curveball. Fundamentally, I respect why colleagues can bring items. I don't understand why this item is before us today. So let's take a step back and give you a little context to actual constituent concerns. Before we get into large philosophy that we're hearing a lot about.

So it has been described, Chair, I think you mentioned that a process happened that shrunk the number of spots. I think that was the quote, close enough. And I wanted to land on the idea that a process happened. I also wanted to flag that the difference between the 35% design mark and the 65% design mark didn't just happen with a whim or a dream. So here's the context of the story.

When my constituents, which this is a district, this is in my district, this area, and I'm grateful to my colleagues for supporting CASA and making sure that it got on the ballot, uh, this particular project as well. But when my constituents reached out with their concerns, my only retort to them was, follow the process, commit to getting all of your comments in, and if there's a way that because of your comments there's a change, then that's what we'll, we'll support. But if you get your comments in and the engineers and the company and it just doesn't seem that that's going to work, then you take the swallow with it. That was my encouragement to folks: follow the process and we'll see where it goes. Because the difference between following a process and then being heavy-handed is the difference between what this resolution is attempting to do in a very heavy-handed way versus recognizing that, that there was a process and there was a change as a result of the process.

Director Colhase described the number of results to the survey that members of the community, both locally, a little more broadly in East Anchorage, and then across the municipality had an opportunity to weigh in on. My question to Ken Colhase or to Fleet Green, if you're still around, is was that survey hacked like the survey that we had hacked around the SEAL. Was there a hacking or was there any indication of invalid responses and comments to the survey that we should be concerned about?

Through the Chair to Member Martinez, Suzanne Fleet Green. No, the process, the survey was not hacked. Thank you. I appreciate that. And so on the one hand, I hear my constituents saying to me, George, can you be heavy-handed?

'Can you weigh in on this?' And me saying to them, 'Trust the process. I don't know what the outcome of the process is, and if it's more than what you want, then that's what we'll all have to understand, but you had your opportunity to weigh in.' Now, I don't believe that any one individual voice carried the weight, but I do know that it is not a light feat to change a design from at the 35% mark to the 65% mark. It is not just whimsical thing. It takes actual thought, deliberation, and the ability to find a balance between what was originally maybe envisioned versus the, the feedback from the community. And so the feedback, it seems, worked with more than, more than half of the respondents calling for something less than the size of the 35% mark.

And if my colleagues recognize, I keep leaning in on the process. There was a 35% mark and a 65% mark, and there was a change across the way due to the feedback of the process that was brought to the community. So what are we doing today with respect to recognizing that process, highlighting issues? That's one thing. But with respect to recognizing that process, what are we doing today with respect to bigfooting a community, the community process that happened without traffic studies in the first place, So that we can't even go back to the community and inform or educate them on an actual traffic need or engineering study.

So these are like missed data points that have been articulated very, very strongly, like there's a right thing to do here, which is the bigger size, and then there's the wrong thing to do here, which is being responsive to the community. And I think that's missed the mark. I fundamentally don't agree with that. Additionally, um, when we think about the heavy-handedness and we think about the public, the public's trust, I think everyone can interpret poll and, and election results differently. I think it's— I think it was pretty clear is that from my vantage point, park bonds passed overwhelmingly.

This was very, very close, and it's very close because it's a new thing. It's very close because people may not have understood it like a park bond, but it's also something that, to what members have identified, gives us an opportunity to have fidelity to a vision and a process. And the melding of those visions and the process came to a number that is what is reflected in the 65% design. Not what I feel like is the best one. Not what I've— but what is reflected in the process that led to a design that, yeah, shrank the number according to that process, not according to others' aspirations or visions.

So I just wanted to be real clear about that today. I encourage my colleagues to vote this, to vote this down, to vote no. If they have additional questions, we're at the 65% process. I would love for anyone to tell us what's next. In the process at the 65% where we go in terms of the actual, the actual next steps.

Can Mr. Colhase, can you tell me what's next on after 65% if this doesn't pass today? What goes next?

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Oh, I'm sorry, did you ask a question? I didn't catch that. I asked the question to Mr.

Colhase. Go ahead. Through the chair to Member Martinez. The plans are currently out for review. The 65% plans are currently out for review.

I believe that review period runs through the 24th of April. At that point, the team will take those comments, distill them. They'll prepare responses to the comments. They'll glean the information from those comments and move the design towards 95% and then a full set of completed plans for bidding. Do you have a sense of the type of— do you have a sense of the percentage types of changes that happen between 65% and the next phase?

Are these really big changes, or are we at the big change phase now?

Through the Chair to Member Martinez, I would say in my experience, a typical project at 65%, you've generally set the framework for the project, and you're refining from 65 to 95. Right, I appreciate that. And then just to follow up, where— is there a plan in the bond, or is there a plan from the administration to follow the comments that people had to put no parking signs and to fund kind of, uh, more, um, uh, get out of my neighborhood, uh, kind of indicators? Uh, through the chair, Chairmember Martinez, I believe your question was about the no parking signs in general. The no parking signs are shown on the 65% plans now, and one reason for that is we will gather information from the traffic department.

They are reviewing those plans along with other agencies. If there are reasons why sections of Basher Road need to remain signed no parking, such as speeds, road width, sight distances, things like that, those signs would, may remain in place. If there are not reasons to sign it, then there are options available to the project team and to the municipality to sign one side of the road, sign both sides of the road, or if there are no restrictions, we could sign neither side of the road with no parking. I would also say that if— I can't speak for the police department, but I can say generally that if we receive reports of fake signs going up, that we send the traffic department up or we send other maintenance folks up to remove those.

So thank you. I just wanted to follow up. The idea of signs would essentially be as a result of safety and traffic studies at that point, not necessarily because people want them there.

Through the Chair to Member Martinez, yes, that is correct.

I encourage my colleagues to vote this down. My indica— my indica— My initial gut feeling is to push a motion to postpone this indefinitely, but I hope there's enough nos that we're not bigfooting this project, that we are learning from these projects, and that we— why are we taking this much time tonight when there's so much happened already is really beyond my mind, boggles me a little bit. But again, we are Savage Sovereigns. I respect my colleagues' ability to bring things forward. I hope that there's a no vote today.

Thank you. Mr. McCormick. Thank you. Yeah, I'm gonna briefly spend my time doing what I do a lot of up here, and that's agreeing with and echoing Member Constant and Chair Constant.

I'm a volunteer Constant, um, big proponent of public access, uh, to our public lands. We need more access to the Chugach State Park. Uh, like Chair Constant said, access to the Chugach State Park on, on a great recreating day in the winter or summer, and every parking lot is overloaded with people trying to enjoy these great outdoors and why so many of us live here. As Member Voland said, the, the bond was voted on and passed with the expectation of the 60 parking spots. The, uh, the numbers given were needed were 80 to 100.

The compromise was 60. I would like to see 60 there. I'd like to thank CASA for their work on this, and I'd ask to be added as a co-sponsor if I could. Thank you. Um, so we're going to let Mr.

Presverdia jump the queue.

Um, let's see, I'm, I'm frustrated also that we're spending so much time on this, this tonight. So it's my understanding that we went through a robust community process And that, that process led by the administration resulted in where we're at now, and that a resolution was brought forward because it doesn't agree with the results of that. And so we're here discussing that both on a very practical level and a big philosophical level. Who decides what in Anchorage? Yes, I think that's a big conversation to have.

Typically, if it does impact a part of the community, a neighborhood, then we include those votes quite a bit. But I think it's a good conversation to have. Do we all have a say in what happens in one part of Anchorage? What bothers me most about this, again, I agree with some of my colleagues in terms of the— it feels like an overstep of the assembly to weigh itself in at this point in the process and then also to threaten to not pass if it doesn't go this way. So the whole resolution, I think, bothers me because it feels like an overstep on our part.

And I tend to want to trust the administration in following through. It sounds like it was a good process. And that we're talking about 15 parking spaces, and so we're spending a lot of energy and time talking about something that that is relatively small, but apparently it's important to folks up here on the dais. So I would just say I am a no on this resolution. I think that the process sounds like it was done well, and it resulted in what it resulted in.

And I really don't like, because we have a particular interest in an issue, for us to weigh in at the end of a process and to to overturn it. So I'm a no vote. I think we can have a philosophical conversation about access and about public involvement and all of that, but I'd like to just trust the process as it happened, respect the administration's actions here, and move on. Thank you.

Mr. Walland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would submit that this is not just an issue of deep interest to this body on the dais.

This is an interest of deep issue to the CASA advisory group. Who wrote— the majority who wrote a letter of support. That is something that Member Constantine and I had to push for to even be created so that folks in ARTSA could have a voice. And they've spent a lot of time, a lot of meaningful work on this. And I think that we should take their input very seriously.

I also think that this is of deep interest to the Chugach State Park Citizen Advisory Board. When we talk about public process, I also have referenced past public process with the Chugach State Park Access Plan.

And this decision, this transition from 35% to 65%, violates the guidance of that park access plan.

Um, when Mr. Kohls answered Member Martinez's question, I believe he did not give a full answer. Um, there is a process to restrict parking that is apart from emergency vehicle access or safety issues. People can make a petition. 75% of the residents adjacent to a road can be used, or a community council resolution can initiate that request to the traffic engineer.

So it is not accurate to say that apart from safety issues, there cannot be a request seriously considered by the administration to restrict parking. Also on the issue of 5 other trailheads, there are restricted parking signs all up and down Aletha Way, and there are not developed access points.

I think we also heard tonight, you know, in terms of robust public process, I mean, we're talking about a lot of taxpayer money. It was just another bond just approved, and we're hearing now that we're not making decisions off of any demonstrated demand. Now we're considering a two-phase project that we just heard tonight will be more expensive to break up into two phases rather than to do this all at once.

I, I do have a question, um, for Mr. Culhace and, uh, Ms. Fleetgreen, if you don't mind coming back up.

You mentioned the Parks and Rec Commission. There was a handful of people who participated. Did the commission receive the letter from the CASA advisory group?

Through the chair to Member Voland, yes, they did. Before their deliberations? Yes, they did. Okay, thank you. Also, the survey responses— were the responses sorted so that we can know which comments supporting the reduction came from where?

Holly's saying yes, so we have a list we could know. Okay, I'll just take— our project manager is saying yes. Okay, so for the record, I think that would maybe be of interest to the assembly if you have that data sorted to know who from where provided that feedback advocating for the reduction. I would anticipate, but I can't speak with 100% confidence, that it would probably be the neighbors that are more proximal.

Um, can you explain to me how— okay, let's talk about the winter and snow storage. Explain to me how less pavement would accommodate less snow storage at a time when not as many people are hiking. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me. I would think if we had a larger pavement pad, you'd have more place to put snow. Through the chair to Member Voland, for the parking lot, the snow wouldn't— the snow would not be stored in the parking lot.

It would be snowed off, stored off the edge of the parking lot. In addition, Chief of Staff Lee Green referred to as the snow along the road and the concerns there with respect to visibility into the parking lot. So the parking lot is being designed at an elevation to provide that visibility because of safety concerns from users and others. And how does the second phase propose to mitigate that?

You mean second phase in terms of the additional parking space? Phase 2, if we expand, how would that mitigate? They are on the— let me think— they are on the other side of the driveway. So they do not— they're— the main parking lot, um, is on the upper side, the northeastern. The second lot is on the southwestern side, so different snow storage, and each would have their own snow storage capacity.

You're not pushing snow from 60 spaces all to one place. Okay, so now we're contemplating two parking lots instead of one parking lot, I guess. Yeah, well, it is, it is.

Okay, if it's okay, I'll move on from there. Appreciate the answers. Um, you know, I guess my final point will be we've heard tonight this was a very close bond. I think Member Martinez raised that point. Um, I'm going to be willing to guess that if we stay on this track for this project, the next one will be even closer.

I'm going to have a very hard time continuing to sell cost of projects to my constituents if this is going to be the pattern going forward. And that'll be my final comment on this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have myself in the queue.

Mr. Constant. Mr. Colhais, when I looked at the 65% design, it appeared that they removed the second parking lot and moved the access to the actual trail. Through that zone.

Through the chair, I'm not sure I fully understand the question. The— Miss Bautista, are you aware of the design and does it remove the second parking lot? Because when I looked at the 65% design, it looked very plain that they eliminate the second parking lot.

Hi there, my name is Lucy Barenko. Um, I live in Fairview. Uh, to the chair, um, the parking lot is designed closest to the CEA easement, which is closest to the Chewatchee Park boundary. There was a design study completed looking at what an accessory parking area could look like in the event that an expansion would be needed in the future, um, if trails were expanded in the area to provide more connectivity. That parking area was looked at being designed to the southwest of the, um, currently proposed parking area, or downhill.

The access would be off of the primary access driveway, so there would only be one access driveway to Campbell Airstrip Road. And that parking area, I believe, Mr. Colhays earlier had said it'd be around 15 parking spaces. I don't know the exact number, but I do believe it is more in the 30 parking space range. And that is again looking at future expansion if and when a trail is developed from the south.

Okay, I can hold you there. So in the 65% designs as they exist right now, there is no second parking lot. I don't know where that idea came from. And so there might be an overflow future idea to build another parking lot when there's more money in the will. But right now, the 65% design, as I understand it, is designed to build 45 parking lot spots.

Uh, to the chair, this— yes, the 65% parking lot right now is 45 spots, right? We have survey information, ground survey, not public survey. We have ground survey information and a conceptual design for a larger lot, which Miss Branco reminded me is about 30 spots, that is located as Miss Fleetgreen and Miss Branco described If you come in the driveway off of Basher Road, the main lot is to the left. But hold on, there's some future that may exist in some other reality when there is supposedly more money and more time, but the current design is a single parking lot design, correct? Correct.

Okay, so any discussion about a second parking lot is a red herring in my opinion. It's a distraction from the main point.

Please, your microphone is off. Your microphone is off.

A question was asked earlier in the discussion about whether or not the 65% design envisions an expansion area, and that's what we were referring to. And I, I will just say that there have been a lot of comments here tonight about the future, and so we too are talking about the future. We have talked about future demand in this area. We've talked about future demand across the Chugach and access. We've talked about parking lots being full today, and even— I have another question for you.

So, and I would just say, uh, if you look at Glen Alps and Upper Huffman and Upper O'Malley and Prospect and Bash— the 5 on Basher Road On a beautiful sunny day, several of those are full. Upper Huffman is not. Okay, hold on. Upper O'Malley is not. I understand.

I just— we are talking about the future, and so I want to clarify when— Miss Fleek, I have more questions. So, Miss Fleek-Green, um, you mentioned 5 access points above the Bashor parking lot, so— or maybe 5 including Bashor. Along the way. And so do you know, is there a community council approved position about what their desire is relating to access up Basher?

I do not know. I think that is outside what our project managers have looked at. I think that is a better question either for Chugach State Park or for the Bureau of Land Management or for Parks and Rec, because those parking lots cover 3 different jurisdictions of public land. There is an answer. So the answer that the community council has stated is that they prefer the primary access point to the Chugach State Park in that area is the Basher parking lot, that they want to ensure that that's the primary locus of investment because it will reduce impacts in those areas where there's less development.

And so I think you will find— I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read that— that there is in fact position of the Community Council, which they're now kind of equivocating on with their new position, but it's been adopted. Okay, that— there aren't really 5 major access points, there's 1, and that's what the community has told us that they desire. So now, and this isn't a question for you, this is more kind of on my kind of thoughts again on impacts. The impacts of the parking lot are intended to be reducing the conflicts that have historically existed. The historic conflicts are that the road gets parked up and down because people want to go there, and it is historically a nuisance to the people who want to drive, or a safety impact to the people who want to drive home and off of the hill.

And so if we are building a project that is intending to meet the problem then we need to have places for people to go. So we don't actually need a traffic study. The history tells us that the problem has been people parking on the road, making it hard to get in and out. So now we have an item later on the agenda that's very interesting to me. Um, it's the Subursa ordinance that would add community council representation, or maybe it's later, another meeting, maybe it's introduced, but the idea that on the subversive board, there should be representation of community council folks.

And so, um, there was some discussion about what would CASA look like if it had community council representation, right? What would it actually look like? We would have South Addition, we would have Mountain View, Fairview, downtown, we would have West Anchorage, we'd have Turnagain, we would have, we would have 36 community councils and coming in and having an opinion if we were to grant each what is their right. So I think about that when I think about how we consume information about public input. And, um, Ms.

Baldwin-Dase, we need a really honest conversation. This is Groundhog Day. I find myself to be having the same conversation Mr. Martinez says, I trust the process. I am baffled by the process, how we went from 60, which was a reduction from 80 to 100, to 45, from the point where we have the 35% to massive investment in the actual cost of design, right?

Because that's your, your, your point was well made, Mr. Colhais, that at 65%, most of it's cast. We're just sorting the details from there. And you can tell that by looking at the fine detailed drawings that now exist that moved from something that wasn't enough to meet the community need, but it was a reasonable amount of parking, to what now isn't. So to me, um, I think that what's baffling is how that change was made.

It doesn't add up to me how we went from a sufficient number, a reasonable number that was generally agreed upon, to clearly not enough according to a number of stakeholders. And now I am reminded of an experience that I had on this body, and this feels a whole lot like the Eklutna River restoration project, where we hear along the way, it's all going to work, it's going to be like this, it's going to be good, promise, promise. And then at the end, you get the proposal before you that actually has cut your knees off. Doesn't meet the goals, meets someone's interests but not what you set out to do and you were told it was going to do. So the argument that we're setting ourselves in the middle of this because we don't like what they've come up with, it's because something doesn't add up in what we've been told and what we funded and what we supported to what we now have.

And at 65%, this point, Mr. Martinez, is the point when it's too late after this point to make change meaningfully. So if the body sends back to the administration the request to really think deeply about what number we're landing at, and while some people minimize, we're talking about 15 spots, that's 100 people a day who may or may not have the right to access. Now, the final piece I'll say is, um, The no parking signs are in the designs, right? They could be moved, whatever, but they're in there.

Why? Because they're responding to the public concern. They weren't because of curves, they weren't because of safety, they weren't because— they were because the community wanted them there. That's the reality of the design and the drawing, is because they want it both ways. They want to reduce cars in their neighborhood.

So I have so many feelings about this. As I have said, can I make a motion to extend the debate by 5 minutes? Well, I'm done, and I think, um, okay, yeah, there is one person in the queue, Mr. Martinez. So you can make the motion.

Second. Oh, so there's a motion to extend the debate by Mr. Wall and seconded by Miss Brawley. 5 minutes.

Members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez. Somehow we're locked out.

Yes.

Member McCormick? Yes. Member Baldwin-Day? Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes. Chair Constant? No. Vice Chair Brawley? Yes.

Member Voland? Yes. Member Silvers? Member Rivera? Yes.

Member Gerger? No. Member Presverdia? Nope.

Of 8 to 3, the motion passes. Mr. Martinez? Thank you. So I wanted to just clarify some, some assertions by asking some factual questions, because when someone says things don't add up, but they base a lot of that adding up on the feelings, I think we have to get the subjective fact.

So it has been asserted tonight that people voted on a bond that had a larger parking lot. Can someone tell me, Mr. Colhase, or from the administration, when was the 65% plan published?

Member Martinez, if you will stand by, our consultant will get you that exact date.

Do you have another question though while we're waiting? Uh, no, that's the gist of the question. Another assertion, just to my colleagues, is, uh, I want the most amount of money, bond money, that folks voted on spent in my district. Of course, and I want to make sure that the maximum impact of the things that I envision for the bigger, the bigger pictures happen. But then it's finding the balance to the community input that little government listens to.

And when the feedback from community is different than what people imagine, that's kind of the politics of the moment. And we're listening to what? Our feelings, or are we listening to the data? Are we listening to the feedback from the community? And if, if again, I remind folks on this today as we're waiting for this, this, this information, and just flag me when you have it, I encouraged my constituents who raised their hands and started telling me about all the different concerns to follow the process.

The process has led us to the 65% design that is different than the 35% design, and I didn't think that was possible. Except that the feedback worked and it mattered to a process. And so that's the best that I can lean on with my feelings being knowing that I encourage folks to do that and I told them it's a long shot. So I don't— it worked in that way. I think it's been clearly identified, but if we can get a date, that'll be most helpful for me to close this.

If I may, Mr. Chair, uh, Mr. Martinez, Kent Cole is here. The 65% plans went out Monday, March 30th for review.

Okay, let me pull up my calendar, everybody. Just make sure that I'm not looking at the wrong calendar dates. All right, so that's at least, at least a week before the election happened, um, and the feedback had been happening from— how long was the survey opened for the feedback? Did you give a 1-week window, or was it enough time that you felt like there was a good amount of feedback? What was the window of feedback for the survey?

Through the Chair, Member Martinez, the survey was open for 1 month.

So you had a 30-day feedback that on purpose was supposed to inform the 65% design. It wasn't just a survey with no destination. Is that accurate?

Yes, that is accurate. So we have a 30-day survey, and so it's been, it's been expressed that voters were voting on something that is not demonstrable by the fact Now, voters vote on things all the time for different reasons, and I think it's a stretch for anybody to really try to put them hands on the mind of the electorate. But nevertheless, the process for the feedback to the change has been relatively described, pretty straightforward, and I think there are a lot of opinions about that. But I encourage my colleagues to follow the process as laid out and encourage folks to, uh, to look to vote no again. Thank you.

All right, with no one else in the queue, members may proceed to vote. Member Martinez? No.

On a vote of 5 to 6, and the youth member votes No. The item has failed. We'll now take our regularly scheduled dinner break.

I did something bad, never put me in the hand. They say if they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all. Say I'm not very lucky, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all.

And I know it's not like the earth is turning slow. I'm already gone, but we both know I can't sleep alone, or at least I won't.

I'm gonna go— I hope that you take me seriously! I hope that nobody stays mad at me! Oh oh oh... Ooh ooh ooh...

Oh, which way is up in your eyes? I hope I don't come down, 'cause we're dancing on the wall.

Words we didn't get to say. And now that you take me seriously, and now that nobody stays mad at me, and now Let you take me seriously. Oh, oh, sometimes the world moves too And I know it's not like the earth is turning, so I'm already gone, but we both know I can't sleep. Hello, let's go, let you take me Seriously, I know, I know that Ladi stays mad at me.

I know that you take me seriously. Oh.

Oh! Too good it'll do good, you know I'll do good too good it'll do good, you know I'll do good too good it'll do good At bay in the town of Fighting Gumball Bag. Yeah, seems nothing would stop him or last. Last, last, last.

On the summer days, the wind through the shade.

We for a cool place to watch your subtle ways. What do I really I'm not afraid to make it known. What if this were forgotten? I hope it was not.

What do I really care about? Nothing at all.

change while putting off the work, delaying, to just simply wait to be taught in some other way. What do I really care about?

What do I really care about? Am I afraid to make it known? Was this well forgotten?

I hope it was not. What do I really What do I really care about? Nothing at all.

I hope it was nice. What do I really care about? Nothing at all.

The sun is setting on our love.

Somehow you kept me.

Guess I haven't cried enough. Let me love you down. Let me love you I never came over. I hate when I'm sober.

Let me love you down. Let me love you down. I never came over.

I hate when I'm sober.

Let me love you down! Let me love you down! Love me— let's go again... [MUSIC] Let me love you down! Let me love you down!

Let me love you dead!

The leaves are turning faster with no sign of slowing down, and the birds fly south. So winter comes with the snow to blanket the town. The midday The skies are clear and blue with a cool breeze in the air. You bundle up all nice and snug with something that's warm to wear. And the midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors.

A time to think on memories of a time I used to know. All is quiet with no one around, but your voice is singing loud. So sing away, So all can hear, so the lost can all be found. And the midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors to show. A time to think on memories of a time I knew so long ago.

With the fog comes to show, a time to think on memories of a time I used to know.

Lightning strikes in diamond mines. A bloody stone adorn our mind. A morning wasted on trivial. An evening wasted on primitive things. Around here, everybody knows everybody.

Their past lives documented to the closest topic. At what time does the conversation start and end? Yeah, always the good guys coming to save us. Promise a good life, thank God that you came. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us.

Thank God you came, thank God you came, thank God you came.

Father, please, no chasing. Peace, I must chase. Scream, but honestly, I feel the breach.

We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God. Thank God, thank God, thank God. Oh, it's the good guys coming to save us.

Promised a good life, thank God that you came. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came, thank God you came, thank God you came. Be a friend till the end. We'll fight the good fight and And the lives you've changed, the effects you've made.

Is this the life you made for me? Always the good guys coming to save us. Promise a good life, thank God that you can. Always God, Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came, thank God you came, thank God you came.

Always the good guys coming to save us. Promised a good life, thank God that you came.

Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came, thank God you came, thank God you came. God, you can.

You know, I used to feel nothing.

Empty plane.

A highway memorial. The fill of some space. And maybe the moon's only pretty, cuz it's far away. She only wants me cuz I'm keeping his place. It's all the same.

It's all the same.

It's all the same. It's all the same.

Maybe I can find meaning if I look hard enough.

The reason you're here is the cause of your tears and a check every month called the loss.

Called the loss.

Just you, Watch. I'm better than this. Just you watch it. It's all the same. It's all the same.

It's all the same.

Grilled peaches with a little bit of char. Koopa vanell. But Bella didn't make it quite far before the juice starts dripping on down. It reaches my elbow and kisses the ground, just like a Tookie app running off tape. Shut up, shut up.

All the Kev, I got too much to say. Shut up, shut up. Oh my God, it happened again. Shut up, shut up. Wound up, I thought I lost me again.

Why don't you go visit the summertime? Does it miss you? Don't throw those freckles in the water. Why don't you go sipping on tea? Go get yourself some love.

Why don't you follow that dream? Grilled peaches, grilled peaches, how you doin'? There is a sweetness, a sweetness, a— When you have ambitions in your life, I know perfect moment to reach out and try. Grand Peaches, Grand Peaches, all you do is a sweetness, a sweetness, a— When life is auspicious, when you listen to So ready yourself to the message you're receiving.

Heartless, harmonious, you will never find it. But bet you a person tell you, go change your mind, go do things for fun. I know that it was stolen, but go be a child for once. I let out a laugh, I let it I licked it right off there with another bone. Life is too short, you're stressed out enough.

Let go of those chains that keep you so tight and tough. You know I love you, but what I want so bad is to see you grow, to see you laugh, fulfill your desires and Prove them all wrong, even yourself. Mama, make it and hurry along. Why don't you go visit the summertime, 'cause it miss you. A begging message from your daughter.

Why don't you start sipping on tea? Go get yourself some love. Why don't you follow that dream? Oh! Braille Beaches, all you deserve.

So witness, so witness. You have ambitions in your life. Time, no perfect moment to reach out and try. Braille Beaches, Braille Beaches, all you deserve. So witness, so witness.

Life is The air's so fresh where I'm from. Palm trees ready-made, good, so I'm frying. 'Cause you was on your own time coming. Don't stop running. Burning the leaves in the backyard summers.

Flower scented breeze keep warming me. Tired of the priest, keep wanted me. Seconds from Elisa's heartache. I'm too scared to breathe from my beliefs. The land of freedom, the land for me.

Too scared to seek, too scared to be my own, you see. But I know I just need some selfish time. I need my relics that give me truth to what I know. Give me ruthless weight. All these paperweights, all these secret faces, aces, laces, strangers wasted.

Flutter while you fall across the gap. No A bridge stood, no man could reach. I pray 3 times at night, hope you hear it. I'm nearing heights I dreamt of, heights I fear. And since nobody else can hear me, let my ears bleed, let my heartstrings rip.

Following the tide, never was assigned to align to the ceiling on the moon. My stride, low Gs, low weight.

I just need some selfish time. I need my relics back. Give me truth to what I know. Give me ruthless weight. All this paper weights, all these fakers, aces, aces placing, changers placing.

The air so fresh where I'm from! The air so fresh when I'm from— it's so fresh where I'm from! It's so fresh where I'm from!

Nothing's better than being home with your loved ones. You won't be alone when it's cold out. You'll be in warm in your own bed and from the storm. Home is calling when you feel adrift. It'll always be there and never miss.

Life has got you all around. You never feel you got your Feet on the ground. Home sweet home is where I want to be. Home sweet home, a place to find some peace. You are worried of what's to come, but you never know until it's all All said and done, you can stay home all night and day, resting your mind, keeping all bad thoughts away.

Home sweet home is where I wanna be. Home sweet home, a place to find some peace.

Home sweet home.

It's where I want to be. Home sweet home. A place to find some peace. Nothing's better than being home with your loved ones. You won't be alone when it's cold out.

You'll be in warm in your own bed and in front of the storm. Skip this bit. It's not the lack of your judgment makes you a kid. It's the lack of your substance that keeps you locked in.

Oh, and keeps them talking.

Oh, found out a way to spend your whole life holding hands with empty faces that you'll never see again. Search out a way to find a version of you you like. Why aren't you getting tired of me?

Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why don't you talk to me yet?

Why don't you talk— [MUSIC] —to me yet?

All right, we'll go ahead and get started, folks.

Miss Brawley, I can just move forward. Okay, she's very thin-skinned there. And Miss Fleetgreen, why are you even the one— why are you even the one here? Like, why? Why?

Why? Doesn't make sense, Ken. He would have gotten different treatment, um, like when Holly brought forward her— Chris, I'm not even trying to be like a shit stirrer, but I'm hearing from Aaron J., I'm hearing from Shannon Chrisley, I'm hearing from Chris and Daniel. They are all like, that's not true, that is fake. I feel— I just heard it from Fear of Retaliation, Johnny.

I mean, I didn't hear any specificity, but fuck, I would I was way hotter than you were. All right, Mr. Gerker, Mr. McCormick, Miss Brawley, let's come back together, please.

Mr. Martinez, are you on the phone?

I am, Chair. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright, we're all here.

So we'll go ahead and come back. Order. Next up on the agenda, we have Item 11A. Item 11A is AR 2026-52, Resolution of the Anchorage Assembly declaring intent to evaluate a wildfire interface service area to support long-term risk mitigation, fiscal, fiscal sustainability in high-risk wildland urban interface zones, and requesting administration several departments coordinate to evaluate geographic Traffic area.

This item was postponed from 3/3. I don't know if there's a motion pending. No motion. Okay, there's no motion pending. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Motion to approve by Dr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Martinez. Mr.

Johnson, uh, I would actually like to give Mr. Martinez the, the first opportunity to speak on this, if you'd like. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. Um, this item is a really intriguing item that, uh, came, uh, forward from as a result of the tremendous work done by AFD and, um, and the administration and other partners around the wildfire interface updated maps. And I'm really looking at kind of the broader questions of where these dangerous places are. And this item raises the idea of a deep exploration, calling on the administration to really look at what does it mean to actually develop through a resiliency lens that basically identifies the wildfire service areas that we've identified on the map, those interface areas, as a potential area for a service area of itself. Something that would give dedicated support for wildfire resources, wildfire services.

So I could envision that sort of thing around a dedicated support model for those interface areas where we do have sustained development patterns and future development prospects. So at this point, it really is a resolution calling for the exploration of feasibility and looking at whether or not that even makes sense considering the cost of the danger in these interface zones. So I'll leave it there for now as the initial comment. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution as it calls for, again, basically the exploration of a wildfire interface service area that would address those things that I identified. Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. Just two points I wanna make. First, I don't think this is a point of confusion for anyone on this body, but just for folks in the public who may have been following this, just to be clear, this is merely a request to the administration to investigate the feasibility and mechanisms by which something like a wildfire interface service area could be adopted.

This is not creating the service area. This is not necessarily stating our intent to do so. It is merely asking that we ask the questions to determine whether or not feasible, and then this body and the voters ultimately will have future opportunities to determine whether or not it makes sense. But I want to thank the administration and the AFD Wildland Division, OEM, and others who have already been involved in this process to consider this potentiality and engage with us in an earnest effort, I think, to try and figure out how do we manage the wildfire risk in this municipality. And I won't belabor it because it is point that has been made up here often by myself and others, but we know the big fire is coming.

I don't know if it's this year, next year, or when, but we, we know it is an eventuality for this city. And when that moment comes, um, we will all be asking ourselves if we did everything we could be to, to be prepared, uh, to protect our, our neighbors and our homes from that risk. And again, I, I am not here to say whether or not this is the best path forward, but I think it merits consideration and, um, as with many others, that we keep our focus on the risk, the danger that presents, that threatens so much of Anchorage. And I appreciate my colleagues being willing to consider investigating this as one option to pursue. Thank you.

Ms. Bradley. Yeah, thank you. I'm happy to support this. I just want to— I'm not going to propose an amendment or anything, but just want to put on the record a request that as part of this analysis, that it would also consider, obviously, the service area model is one that we have, and we have many examples of.

I would also request, and again, not amending, but in the analysis to look at potential for an area-wide, meaning the entire municipality, in addition to kind of looking at the different service areas. Thanks. Mr. Walland. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I want to thank Member Johnson and Member Martinez for bringing this forward. Um, who are the sponsors on this? Um, excuse me. Yeah, Martinez and Johnson.

Yeah, did I say that vice versa? Thank you both for bringing this forward. Um, I think the disaster preparedness is very important. Um, I certainly support the recent efforts of the Wildlife Division and some of the, um, I think great conversations that have been convened by the administration and the fire department on this very important topic. Um, I guess I'll just ask, because I am, after that last discussion that we just had, having a little bit of a heartburn over contemplating a new service area.

And so I'm just kind of wondering how you're envisioning maybe that this would be funded, um, and sort of like who's going to pay for it.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. I think the best answer at this point is we don't know. It's, it is complex, and we've had at this point just really one very preliminary conversation about it, but how do you define the service area, right?

How do you determine what the appropriate levy is? Is it based on the risk in the area? Is it somehow apportioned evenly across the municipality? What is the right level? You know, I think it is, it is complex, and to be honest with you, to be perfectly candid, I am— I hope that this resolution bears fruit, but I think there's also the possibility that we might go through this exercise and find that it is not a feasible proposal because of the complexities inherent there.

But I think in the circumstances we're in, given both the threat of the wildfire hazard and also the fiscal constraints we are facing, that I think it merits consideration. But I think, yeah, the best answer is we really don't know, and it is going to be complicated to determine. But obviously, you know, we expect to report back to this body. Certainly creating a new service area would be a significant undertaking. And so I think there should be ample opportunity for the rest of the assembly to understand it, consider it, and offer their own ideas.

But I think we have some more basic fact-finding to do before we really go too far down that road. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't see anyone else.

I'll just add, I also agree with Ms. Brawley that it is an area-wide concern, not because of the risk to one person's home or one neighborhood, but because the tax base If the tax base burns up, then our city is bankrupt. And so it's an area-wide concern in my opinion. It's not so complex. Seeing no one else, members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez. Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes Yes. Yes, AR 2026-52 has passed the body. Now we have item 13A, continued public hearing AO 2026-13, ordinance, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 4.60.090, 27.30.080, and 27.30.085 to establish a review and comment procedure by an advisory commission for capital improvement projects within the Chugach State Park Access Service Area. The public hearing is open again. Miss Brawley.

Move to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of June 9th. Second. Motion to continue to June 9th by Brawley, seconded by Walland. Want to speak to that? Yeah, um, there was a work session on this.

Members of the public should go, uh, watch that because it was discussed in, uh, more detail. And, um, I have been, uh, I know there's other members potentially working with the administration on another alternative proposal, so this gives ample time to bring something forward I support it. Thank you. Any further discussion? I think it's a great idea to move this to June.

Members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez? Yes.

11 to 0 in the youth member votes. Yes. Yes.

AO 2026-13 will be back before the next body on June 9th. Next, we have item 13. AO 2026-33, an ordinance repealing Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 10.75, inspection fees, repealing and reenacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapters 23.05, building regulations, 23.10, Anchorage Administrative Code 23.15, International Building Code 23.20, International Mechanical Code 23.25, Uniform Plumbing Code 23.30, National Electrical Code 23.45, International Fire Code 23.60, International Energy Conservation Code 23.65, International Existing Building Code 23.75, ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators, 23.76 ASME A18.1 Safety Standard for Platform Lifts and Stairway Chairlifts, 23.85 International Residential Code, and 23.110 International Fuel Gas Code. Public hearing on this item is now open again. Anyone wish to be heard, please come forward.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Good evening. My name is Will Walker. I live in Spinnard. I'm testifying in support of this. In particular, I want to point out the element of basically single stair, what is known as single stair, which basically allows for single stair construction and egress, which allows for type of development and construction called point access block.

This puts us in line with most of the Western world, including Europe, including Japan, and cities including Seattle, Honolulu, New York, and allows for a building type that is really helpful in a lot of urban contexts, especially on smaller infill lots, and can help us get to more multifamily development by helping more of it pencil out, because basically it allows for more usable area in buildings rather than requiring 2 stairs of egress. I really appreciate the work that the administration and the fire department have put into this to really evaluate kind of our building code and where it might be in excess for purposes of life and safety.

So very much support it. Also allows for kind of more and better human-centric design, allows kind of More units that have windows facing multiple directions rather than kind of the design that's typical with our two-stair developments. That's typically kind of hallway and more units with only one side facing windows. A few nitpicks moving forward. I would appreciate if this is kind of looked at moving forward to see where can it go a little bit further.

What is being kind of overly protective still? In particular, kind of under this proposal, it would require sprinklers for balconies regardless of the construction type of those balconies. That I don't know if that really adds much if it's non-combustible materials like concrete on those balconies. And so I— plus in a cold climate, having sprinkler systems outside like that, basically I think the result is we won't see balconies. And part of the benefits of this kind of point access block design type is that it can allow for more human-centric kind of units, and having the outdoor space can be really important for folks.

In addition, I think it'd be worth looking over time at the kind of required level of fire sprinkler system, and do we need the full commercial-scale sprinklers for this, or could the regular residential work for this, considering the other fire safety protection measures in this and other parts of the code. In sum, I do support this, but I want us to continue the work and continue to reevaluate our code and see how we can balance the kind of the economics of the development with the protections for life and safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Thank you for coming forward early. Mr. Lopez, please state your name, report of attendance, and you'll have 3 minutes.

Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage. Uh, less serious commentary, I just wanted to applaud you, sir, Mr. Constant, for saying all of that without a pause, and that is quite a feat. That's all I wanted to say. So I'm a professional talker.

Anyone else? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. Let's roll the body. Move to approve. Second.

Motion to approve by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Voland. Miss Brawley. Thanks. Yeah, this was a lot of work, most of which was not done by me or anyone on the assembly because it was over a year of— I don't know exactly, maybe it was a couple of years of process working with industry experts, their staff.

So thank you to everybody who really hashed out a lot of what I know were big conversations and kind of negotiations in a lot of places. So thank you for that. I'm going to move an amendment, and then that's probably all I'll say about this. So I'm going to move Brawley Amendment 1. There's a motion to amend by Ms.

Brawley. Second. Second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Ms.

Brawley. Yeah, thanks. And this is back to what was discussed in the work session, which was, I think, in March. So this is just changing the language from a mobile food unit. So imagining a Connex or something like that that's selling coffee.

I think it's important that our building code— it's important for people to to understand that our building code regulates structures. We have separate land use code and separate health code and other pieces of our laws that deal with that. So we're really talking about a structure. So this language really makes this section structure neutral. It doesn't— or use neutral about the structure.

It doesn't change the fact that you would need to go to the Anchorage Health Department for other permits. It doesn't change the actual policy. It really just makes sure that in our code, clear that, um, you can have a mobile vendor unit that is not specific to selling food. Thanks. Any on the amendment?

Mr. Voland? No, no, no. On the amendment? Ms.

Baldende? Anyone else on the amendment? Any objection to the amendment? Seeing, hearing no objection, the amendment is adopted. There's a second amendment in the packet.

Ms. Baldende? Yes, thank you. Um, I would like to move Baldwin-Day, uh, Brawley Amendment Number 2, please. Second.

There is a second motion to amend, moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Ms. Brawley. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, indeed. Thanks goes to Daniel King for the legwork on this. So this, this follows on comments from a member of the public who is talking about single stair egress, which would be a new feature in our building code allowing for construction that only has one stairwell as opposed to two, which is what our building code currently requires. Again, allows for more of the floor area to be used for livable space and invites a different type of construction where there are more possibilities for windows to the exterior. And, uh, this particular amendment, um, speaks to requirements that the state has asked us to put in place.

Uh, this, uh, in Title 13 of the Alaska Administrative Code, we are prohibited from having any other minimum standards that are less stringent than what the state requires, and the state does not yet have this in place. So in order for this to fit within the state paradigm, we need to include this language as requested by the State Fire Marshal. And this is technical language, does not change the, the availability of single stair egress in construction. It just puts additional parameters on it and that the state feels more comfortable with. And I urge my colleagues' support.

Any further discussion on the amendment?

Seeing and hearing no discussion on the amendment, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection to the amendment? Seeing and hearing no objection, the amendment is adopted. We're now back on the main motion as amended. Mr.

Bulent. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just want to extend a hearty thank you to the folks that worked on this very technical work— building department, planning department, And yeah, I guess just really recognize a lot of the work that they've been doing. Single Stair, I'm very supportive of, but also the work that you've done on the pre-approved ADUs.

There's just a lot of good work on housing going on right now, so I want to commend you for this and lend my hearty support. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't see anyone else in the queue seeing and hearing No other members. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez. Yes. On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes yes.

A0-2026-33 as amended has passed the body. Well, hopefully you'll have a few more opportunities to pass these, Ms. Baldwin-Day. They come every 3 years.

So, um, item 14A next is AO 2026-37, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Tables 21.06-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential Districts, and 21.10-6, Table of Dimensional Standards Chugiak/Eagle River Residential Districts to update the setback requirements in R-6 low-density residential, 1-acre district, and CER-6 low-density residential in Anchorage and Chugiak-Eagle River. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Are you coming forward?

Okay, good enough, sir. Thank you. Um, anyone else wish to be heard? Seeing, hearing none. Public hearing is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr.

Walland. Anyone wish to speak to this item?

I'll just briefly say that Mr. Myers told me he wanted to do this a long time ago. I think it's a little less aggressive than he said he wanted to be, but I think this is fine. I'll support. Ms.

Brawley. Yeah, I also support this item, and I appreciate being brought forward. Couple years ago when some of us were working on the HOME Initiative, I remember we were looking at all of the dimensional standards for all of the residential zones, all 10 or 12 or however many we have. And it was interesting because R-6 is a minimum 1-acre lot. And so I think that's for anybody who has skepticism about this 50-acre or reducing it, just keep in mind this is a 1-acre lot.

If you have a duplex, it's a 2-acre And so the idea that we are making those— the property that's that large, by a minimum moving it 50 feet away from the edge of the property, basically means that you're putting a house right in the middle of the property with a long driveway. And so just to say, I think this is where dimensional standards, lot sizes, all of those things really impact not only the physical or the geographic feasibility of where you build things, but also the economics. And so I looked around, at least in the Hillside area, a 1-acre lot, the land value is about $150,000. So basically this is the— this is saying that there is a floor for which you can live anywhere in this zone, even if your house is not worth that much. So I just wanted to put those on the record.

I'd certainly support this, but I think also it is part of the larger conversation of really looking at the choices that have been made in our zoning, in our dimensional standards, and the economic implications of those choices. Thanks. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you.

I think this is one of those really important pieces of, of, of red tape and code, de facto red tape and code. Uh, it's interesting to me that over 50% of the variance cases over the last 7 years would not have been required if this had already been in place. And I think I think it's important to note that a variance takes 3, 4, sometimes more months to complete. There's a minimum $710 non-refundable application fee. The application itself requires that you deliver 35 copies and an as-built study that's less than 2 years old.

All of this to ask the municipality if you can please put your own house closer to your property line than 50 feet. And that seems really silly. So I am extremely excited to see this come forward. I think we are saving property owners time, money. We're saving staff time, which is also money.

We are taking— we are speeding up construction timelines, which is also money. All of these things are so important in this particular building climate. So I'm very, very excited to support this. Thank you.

Don't see anyone else in the queue, so you can hear no one else. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez?

Yes. On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2026-37 has passed the body. Next we have Number 14B, AO 2026-36, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal of real property at less than fair market value legally described as Lots 1A and 23A, Justamere Ranch Subdivision Number 2, Plat P-186C, PIDs 005-042-01 and 005-042-23, to Habitat for Humanity Anchorage nonprofit for the purpose of housing development. The public hearing on this item is now open. Welcome.

Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. It's on. There you go. It's on.

It is on. Look at that. Uh, I'm Julia Roberts. I am from the Bear Valley area, but I am here as the development director for Habitat for Humanity. I have with me my lovely interim executive director, Steve Lindbeck.

Um, yeah, and we're just here to say, you know, Thank you to the assembly and to the mayor's staff for considering this proposal. This will help us continue to do housing development. Your partnership at the municipality always helps us continue to do housing development. I'm also here to answer any questions that you guys might have about what we plan to do with these two properties in particular, also to any members of the public who have questions about that. Yeah, thank you for considering it.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. Let's swell the body. Move to approve. Second.

Move to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Voland. Anyone wish to speak to the item? I just offer Steve, Alaskans never retire, they just serve on more and more boards and interim positions So the once and future— Mr.

Chair— yeah, the once and future. All right, um, I don't see any discussion. I don't have any amendments. Seeing, hearing no discussion, members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez? Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2026-36 is Pass the body. Please make more housing. Thank you. Next we have item 14C, which is Resolution AR2026-57, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating $1,240,969 from the Chugiak Fire Service Area Fund 104000 fund balance to the 2026 operating budget Chugiak Fire Service Area Fund 104000 0 as a transfer and appropriating said transfer to the Chugiak Fire Service Area Capital Improvement Project Fund 404 and Fire Department Fund, purchase of new fire apparatus, and amending the 2026 capital improvement budget. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Move to approve by Miss Brawley, second by Mr. Gerker. Anyone wish to speak to this item? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez? Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AR 2026-57 has passed the body. Next we have item 14D. 14D is AO 2026-38, an ordinance, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Municipal Code Section 7.15.070 to modify permitted amendments. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Boland. So, um, anyone wish to to speak to this item. I would like someone from the administration just to provide a brief description for the public since the title doesn't really achieve that goal.

Happy to do that, Mr. Chair. Yes, we've heard the feedback that the title could have been a little bit more fulsome. Right now, Title VII, the procurement code for the municipality, has a provision which specifies what kind of amendments you can make to a contract without having to start a competitive procurement all over again. Recently, some questions arose about what to do in the scenario where you know at the outset that you are going to amend a contract, but you can't at the outset know what the contours of that amendment are going to be.

The archetypical example is in streets. We often will say we have identified a problematic intersection, a roadway. We want to hire a design firm to tell us what the most cost-effective what the best physical solution would be. And then if we agree, we'll say, go ahead and design that for us. Traditionally, that's been by a contract amendment.

That's the way the state does it as well. But we realize that that anticipated and foreseen amendment, which at the outset contains requirements that we can't anticipate and can't foresee— we don't know if it's going to be a stop sign or a roundabout— is a little bit unaddressed in the code. So this is really a cleanup amendment to say that we can continue with the traditional practice sort of clean up any internal squabble that we were having on that question. All right. I should say also for the record that it doesn't change anything about what the assembly sees or approves.

It only is addressing the rule about when we would have to stop in the middle of a process and launch a new request for proposals or ITB process. Miss Sprawley. Thanks. Yeah, and I appreciate the explanation. I'm looking at page 2, the Item C, and I support the intent of this.

I just want to make sure that we have on the record it's clear. So it says provide incidental related project improvements that are generally contiguous to or adjacent to the project. So it sounds like, you know, I'm picturing a road project, something physical where you could be physically adjacent to something. But this also talks about professional services. I guess what I'm just wondering is like if you could briefly describe the intent and kind of the boundaries of this, because I could also see I could see someone, an unscrupulous person making the argument that, oh, we should add 3 other road projects to this, or we should add a scope of work that was very far outside of the original scope, right?

But someone could claim it's adjacent. So I just want to make sure before we move forward that there is some kind of clear intended boundaries on this, on the record. Thanks. Thank you for the question. To Vice Chair Brawley, the archetypical example that was surfaced by Project Management and Engineering on this one was there are times when they are rebuilding an intersection and then when they're out on the street and they're doing the construction work, they realize, oh, there is a section of sidewalk which is very near the project scope area, and with the additional change order authority of whatever small amount of money, you could address that too.

It's sort of an efficiency bang for the buck. So that was what was driving this, and it is a little bit beyond what was originally anticipated when the ITB were to be issued, but the notion would be that if there are funds available and that this is subsidiary, incidental, physically adjacent item, that could be added as well. [Speaker:MS. KELLY] Thanks. Yeah, and I'm not proposing any language changes. I just want to note, having worked a great deal in the soft services side, you know, there's this thing called scope creep and there's, you know, again, there is an opportunity somebody could take to basically amend this way outside of the intended scope.

So I just want to note, there's— I don't think there's a way to protect against that in the code. It is a matter of ethics and good practice, but just wanted to say that very clearly. Thank you. Any further discussion?

Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez. Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0 in the youth member votes, yes, AL2026-38 has passed the body. We're going to take a moment of privilege briefly. Um, in the fever dream that was the consent agenda, we missed a great opportunity to celebrate some of our Anchorage School District students, or maybe private school, I don't know. Uh, Mr. Rivera.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, the four of you, if y'all can come on up. So we have a tradition here where we ask students who are here for likely their government class, uh, to introduce themselves. So tell us what school you're with.

If you want to tell us your teacher, that's cool too. And introduce yourself.

Welcome. The microphone's on, so you're good to go. Thank you. Um, good evening. This is Ethan Bates.

We're part of Eagle River High School. This is a citizen action project for our government class, and I'll just let the others introduce themselves. I'm Michael Larson. I'm also in the same government class as Ethan Bates and, uh, Meilani.

Hi, I am Connor Booth, and I am also in their class, but I'm the only one in a different period. So I know them, but not as well as they know each other.

I'm Ailani Wilcox, and I'm part of their class too. Ms. Youdao is teaching us this year. So what was the name? Ms.

Youdao. Okay, thank you. Well, congratulations for coming to see your government in operation. You got a spicy one earlier today, so you never know. It can be pretty sleepy sometimes, but this was not that.

Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. All right, okay, next we'll get on to item 14F— oh, E, I'm sorry, 14E. 14E is AR 2026-61, Resolution of the Anchorage Assembly authorizing the disbursement of an amount not to exceed $5,200,000 from the Anchorage Regional Landfill Closure and Postclosure Investment Fund and depositing such funds in the Solid Waste Service Disposal Utility Operating Fund 562-000.

Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I, um, move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of April 22nd. Mr. Johnson has moved. I think Mr.

Bolland has seconded a motion to continue to April 22nd. I'll just note quickly, is that the request of the administration so that we can have a briefing on this at the upcoming Infrastructure, Enterprise, and Utility Oversight Committee of the Whole? Thank you. Is there any objection to that motion? I'm seeing and hearing no objection.

We'll consider the motion as passed. That item will be back before us at our special meeting next Wednesday. Now we are at 14F, AO 2026-39, an ordinance authorizing and providing for for the issuance of not to exceed $100 million in aggregate principal amount of tax anticipation notes, fixing certain details of said notes, providing for the form and manner of sale of said notes, pledging the receipts from ad valorem property taxes to be collected during year 2026 and the full faith and credit to the payment thereof, and delegating certain matters to the chief fiscal officer in connection with the sale or placement of the notes. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Ms. Brawley, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion on this matter? Ms.

Brawley. Yeah, um, briefly, this is something I mentioned earlier, uh, this evening. We're going to be talking about a Budget and Finance Committee. We do not need to hold it up, so it can certainly pass tonight. This is a very common thing that we don't do every year, but we often do in order to make sure that we have enough funds before we collect most of our tax revenue, which is property taxes, to pay our bills.

So more on that on Thursday if you are interested. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote. Member Martinez.

Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2026-39 has passed the body. Next we have item 14G, which is AO 2026-40, an ordinance, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 7.10.010 Chapter 7.20, to create a veteran-owned business preference program for specific contracting categories. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to continue public hearing to the meeting of May 12th at the request of the administration for a work session. Second. May 12th.

May 12th. There's a motion to continue the public hearing to May 12th by Mr. Gerker, seconded by Mr. Vohland. Mr.

Gerker, anything to add? I think I said it. Yeah. All right. Is there— oh, Miss Brey.

Miss— okay. Is there anyone who should speak to this item? Seeing and hearing none, I'm going to ask unanimous consent on the motion to continue the public hearing. Is there any objection to The motion. Seeing, hearing no objection, the motion carries 11 to 0.

Next we have item 14H, which is AO-2026-41, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 27.20.135 pertaining to Chugiak-Birchwood-Eagle River Rural Road Service Area Board of Supervisors to add criteria for community council representation on the board. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by Mr. Kirker, seconded by Ms.

Baldwin-Day. Mr. Kirker. Yeah, um, well gee, fun night talking about service areas. Um, so for those who might not know, out in Chugiak-Eagle River we have a road board that is already made up of local community councils.

The purpose of this board is to advise and assist the municipality in administering road services, uh, or services for the road area. They mostly work with Eagle River Street Maintenance. It's a very collaborative process.

Currently, membership is made up of any community council in the area. They nominate a primary and an alternate. Assembly confirms their appointments to a 3-year term. So like I said, right now there's, there's actually no requirements to have a seat at this, on this board, besides that you're a community council. This means that if any community councils break up or split apart, or there's any new ones, or there's any, regardless of size of the community council, how many people live in the area, how many actual miles of road are being serviced in that community council area, they have the, an automatic seat at the table with the exact same voting rights to everybody else.

And this does create a little bit of havoc because there's no way to actually manage the, this, the size and scope of this board, uh, where it can definitely grow out of, um, beyond what's, you know, effective. So the point of this AO is to create a threshold in order to have a seat on the board, uh, to keep this from growing beyond what is effective in managing the road board. It does set objective criteria: at least 600 taxable properties and 15 miles maintain roads. This was a process that the board itself took upon, uh, to study and review, and these were the, the criteria that they came back with, and they passed a resolution specifically requesting that criteria. So I do ask my colleagues to support this AO.

Thanks. I have a question, Mr. Conklin. What community councils will be removed from SBIRSA if this is passed? Yes, great question.

So right now there is the Eklutna Community Council area would be excluded from this because they do not meet this criteria. However, they also do not have a current member or alternate on the board itself either. So it's an automatic, it's an automatic ding against quorum because they've never— they don't nominate anybody. They actually don't even regularly meet. And I do also just want to clarify, this is Eklutna, the community council, not Eklutna the tribe or the corporation, just in case anybody's worried about that.

This is a community council area. So yeah, that— but they would be excluded by this. And a follow-up question to that: did the Eklutna community council speak or opine on this in the process as it went forward at all? Um, I believe they were offered ample opportunities. This is something that the road board worked on throughout the entire summer.

Any specific opportunities, I honestly don't know off the top of my head, but I believe through that process they were offered one. So there's no record though within what we received that they were consulted? Uh, then off the top of my head, I couldn't speak to that for sure. Thank you.

Anyone else? Miss Brawley.

Yeah, I think, um My question is, so as I understand it, LURSSAs, which are different, and not to get into that can of worms, but those essentially are for maintenance only. So is— does Suburba have— I guess, does Suburba have the ability to build a new road at any point, or is it truly only maintaining the roads that already exist? And maybe there's some nuance there. Yeah, they're maintaining, uh, they're maintaining what we have. Okay, but can they engage, I guess, in capital projects, which could be expansion or rebuilding an existing road?

Yes.

Okay, um, and I was just looking at the SBIRSA board membership, and I see this is obviously current information. It does look like there's 5 community councils listed here. So just to be clear, because I also looked at the bylaws, does the Klutna Community Council have a seat right now? Granted, that seat might be vacant, but do they currently have a seat? Yes, they have a seat that's currently vacant.

Yes. Okay, um, because I will just note that the roster online does not list them as a member. It only lists the other 5 because it's vacant. Yeah, okay, um, okay, thanks. That's my questions.

I have some concerns, um, but I don't see anyone else in the queue. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez?

Yes.

A vote of 9 to 2, and the youth member votes yes. Yes. AO 2026-41 has passed the body. Next we have 14I, AO 2026-42.

An ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly repealing and reenacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 1080, Licensing and Regulation of Marijuana Establishments, to incorporate certain provisions of applicable state law and future amendments to them for operation requirements and restrictions, update and clarify municipal marijuana license regulations, amending AMC Section 10.10.015 regarding records relating to the municipal license applications, and amending AMC Section 14 60.030, fine schedule accordingly, and related matters. There's also an AM and an AIM associated to it. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Miss Brawley, seconded by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, I guess I'll briefly speak to it and then I would turn it over to others who know. So this is a project that's been a long time in the making. Marijuana or cannabis was made legal in 2016, I believe, or I'm sorry, the commercial sale and distribution and so on was allowed as of 2016. So it's about 10 years after this body, the prior iteration of this body adopted the regulatory codes that set that into place in the muni. So this does not make massive changes, but what it does do is it recognizes that the state law has itself and regulations have changed, or I guess mostly regulations have changed over the last several years, and that there are additional— well, in the meantime, we also updated our alcohol code to be more streamlined.

And so I think that there was mutual benefit of how to treat both of those substances in our code. And just in general, this is something that I know will put us more in line with state statute and regulations. And I guess as far as particulars, I would point to the memo, which goes into detail. But beyond that, I would just urge passage.

Briefly speak to it. Mr. Constant. Thank you. As one of the authors, this is a project that spans multiple mayoral administrations.

At least two assemblies. Uh, the work was deep and long and slow, challenging to get the product across the line, but here it is. The primary effects: it does allow a transfer of location, creates efficiencies of operation, and also streamlines enforcement, and it eliminates the need for the assembly to come back and update the code when the state law changes, so we don't find ourselves having to kind of bifurcated legal standards, which the assembly could at any time in the future come back with a code change if the state did something that the assembly didn't appreciate, as long as it's allowable under the state law. And so this is basically a thorough cleanup. The licensing staff of the municipality, of the clerk's office, would be very grateful for you to pass this item.

It will make her life much easier. Here. So, Miss Brawley. Sorry, I did think of one more thing to say, um, on this point. So the, the transfer of location and the transfer of ownership— ownership was already allowed.

This also allows transfer of location. But just to be clear, because there's been a lot of discussion over the years over, uh, what's done in alcohol, which is limiting the number of licenses, which creates a secondary market, meaning that basically somebody needs to buy the right to have your license from you if you're a business that already has one as opposed to going to the state. So a lot of discussion was had at the time about not replicating that system, not replicating the problems with it. And so just to be super clear that even transferring ownership and location does not limit the number. It does not preclude somebody from getting a new license from the state versus paying for a license that somebody already has.

But it does make business sales and transactions, the sale of a business itself, easier. So there is a benefit to it, but just to be clear, this ordinance does not apply a number. I personally do not support limiting the number because I don't think that is good policy, but I also understand others may feel differently about that. But just to be very clear on the record, um, transfer of location is different than limiting the number. And so this simply is a way to make it easier for a business to sell to another business.

Thanks.

The industry has asked us to limit the number, but that's another story for another day.

If there's nobody else, members may proceed. Actually, Gwyneth, we're going to ask you not to participate on this one, but everyone else, members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez.

Yes.

Is there— this is unusual for us, but on a final action, I'm going to ask, is there any objection to this? We'll ask unanimous consent. The system is— oh, now it's popped up. Let's see if it's working.

Yeah, it's— we're getting to that time of the night.

I'm just going to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of this item? Seeing, hearing no objection, we'll count this as unanimous vote. And, uh, to our friends in IT, you can have a visit. So, um, on a vote of 11 to 0, AO 2026-42 has passed the body.

Gonna take a second.

I'm going to try to continue now. Um, next on the agenda we have item 14J, AO 2026-34, an ordinance to Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.30, Personnel Rules Part 2, and Chapter 6.10 to require the number and full-time equivalent positions for each municipal department, office, and agency to be included and approved in the annual general government operating budget. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing, hearing none, the public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to continue public hearing until the meeting of April 22nd. Second. There is a motion to continue the public hearing to April 22nd, moved by Mr.

Gerker, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion? Yeah, just real briefly, we're going to be hearing this item at the budget and finance meeting this week, so I just want to make sure that we had a chance to have a thorough discussion offline before bringing it back up to the floor. Thanks.

Ms. Brawley. Yeah, um, just a question, um, is why the meeting of the 22nd versus the 28th. Thanks. Yeah, my thought was just to give us a little bit more time.

Uh, if we have time on the 22nd, great. If not, I mean, if it, if it, if everybody else would prefer the 28th, I'm fine with that as well. I just didn't want to be doing it right up to the deadline. I can offer that there are a number of people who won't be in attendance on the 22nd, which just as a note to everybody, we need you all there who is here, just because there are a couple people who are gone. So 28th is maybe better.

Okay, well, I would amend my motion to the 28th then. All right, so yeah, we don't need to do any formal amendment. I don't think we're fine as long— yeah, so Miss Gerker, Miss Baldonday, we're good for the 28th. Any further discussion? I'd like to ask unanimous consent.

Any objection to the motion? Seeing, hearing no objection, this item will be back before us on the 28th.

All right, that concludes our, um, main agenda. We'll now have item 15A, which is an alcohol license or special land use permit issue. So thank you for being here tonight, Miss— you remember Eggleston. Next, last item on our agenda is item 15A, Resolution 2026-85, resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly approving an alcohol special land use permit for beverage dispensary license number 201 for Frontier Craft Connected Spirits Holding LLC, DBA Anchorage Distillery, in the I-1 Light Industrial District, located at 6310 A Street within C Street Industrial Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 5B, generally located south of West Allen Road, west of A Street, north of West 64th and east of B Street in Anchorage. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Hi, welcome, sir. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. It's on.

You're good. Okay. John Blasco, CEO of Anchorage Distillery, 63108 A Street. I just want to be here available for any questions if any came up. So I have a question for you.

It's kind of tangential, but the Supreme Court just ruled that people can start home distilling. Do you think that's going to start happening broadly here? I'm not— my head distiller was kind of excited about that, but I don't know what'll happen. I mean, I think it's already happening to a small extent, like homebrewing. But.

All right. Thank you. Sorry, it's kind of a sidebar. It's very interesting stuff to me. No, we saw it this week.

Yeah. Point of information, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hurd, I believe that was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah, that's not, not this jurisdiction. So don't, don't go, don't go crazy. That isn't advice to Alaskans.

Thank you, Mr. Hurd. Okay, we'll get to the matter. Thanks, sir. Does anyone else wish to be heard tonight on this item?

Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. Let's swell the body. To approve. Second. Moved by Miss Brawley, second by Walden Day.

Any discussion? Go forth and prosper. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez.

Yes. On a vote of 11 to 0, AR 2026-85 has passed the body. Congratulations. All right, that takes us to audience participation. Any member of the public wish to be heard, please come forward.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Oh, here we go.

You just turned it off. Am I on now, everyone? Okay, uh, assembly and mayor, so my name is Stephen Rydell. I'm from Spenard, a, um, since 1957, my Um, the issue here is to fulfill the mayor's goal of 10,000 units, living units, and I'm looking to do 1/100th of this and going to put 10 units in Spinard, but I'm having issue with the sewer, and so the matter is with municipal parkland in In the '70s, the municipality bought 10,000 square feet from my southern neighbor for $10. So I've been asking the municipality for $2 worth of this land to put a sewer easement under it.

And this land that you purchased has a real problem. It, um, it pukes human waste from an abandoned leach field on, on Muni parkland. And in contrast, I'm just looking for to build under, under, underground and something you would never see. And the park is giving me pushback on it. I don't think it's fair, especially given the light that you're dumping toxic waste upstream of me into my stream.

So it just doesn't seem to be something you can rectify.

I got 57 seconds. Okay, that was just one issue. I have about 4 or 5 issues that, that make it really difficult for a lower middle class person to develop property in Anchorage. And And the other issue I have is in 2007 Anchorage Wastewater replaced 75 feet of the 30-foot— 30-inch sewer pipe. It's 65 years old and it's in very corroded condition.

It's across the creek from me. It's the main line that runs across the creek. It's so corroded that when I plug into it, I'm not allowed to plug into it. AWU won't let me. They want me to plug into the manhole, which is not good practice.

You don't want to do that. But it's so corroded that I— they can't give me a choice. Well, if you— if AWU would have just come up 15 more feet from all the work they did to the north of me— thank you. Appreciate it. Any questions?

I don't have any questions. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Mr. Presverdia.

Yeah, just, um, if you— my name is Cameron Presverdia. If you would just send me an email. Oh yeah, can you do that? Yeah, if you can email me, I, I'd love to hear the rest of what you had to say. So, okay, we can set— this is set up time to talk over the phone.

If you can just send me an email. All right, I will go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard? Please come forward now.

All right, welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Kalosian, formerly homeless. Uh, sorry, I'm parched. So, uh, the great Costa controversy of 2026, I was there. Mikasa su casa, your house is my house. I don't know.

Yeah, where do we go with this thing? So what do I say? I sort of had a semi-improv routine. I think I'm gonna skip most of it, but so you have buildings around town and, you know, it seems like the focus was mostly on the no parking signs. But there are buildings being condemned, and one of them was just condemned in Mountain View this week.

And you had a woman in one of the apartments, 7 children, and they sent out code enforcement to basically condemn the building. The HOPE Team ladies came out, and she's going to be taken care of. But there are other people in this building. And more or less, a woman who is 14 weeks pregnant. And she's not getting any help.

There are others, and some are good people, and they don't have substance abuse issues or anything, but they were not tenants on a lease. And similar to a building called the Yellows that was on North Lane that had a fire, there were people that in that building that were subletting, and the Red Cross came out and they helped all the people on the leases and helped the rest of the ones, they end up out back on the streets. And so it's sad to me watching this play out. Is it a cost of fever? Is it cost of fervor?

I don't know. You know, the survey data is incomplete. Could make a mini Family Feud episode. We'll see how it goes. But what I would say to the body is, when the enforcement guys came out, I don't think they were too worried about AO 2025-93, which was, you know, obviously supposed to help you with first month's, last month's rent, and, you know, security deposit.

The meanie got the building because clearly the person signed it over, otherwise they faced a ton of fines. But, you know, I can go on about these things. There are endless people that are being displaced all over the place, and you don't see them. And obviously when the police approach, they don't obviously accept services much of the time. Two of the tenants in that building just would not take, you know, anything from The police say you were there and one did and then others don't.

But anyways, like I said, um, if you want to have a discussion, you know, on how to improve things, could offer some suggestions. But I think I'll leave it at that. And there's a gentleman behind me, he wants to talk. You want to get out here, it's going to be a long day tomorrow. You got 3 committee meetings.

And so I'll see them. Welcome, sir. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Thanks for waiting all night.

My name is Joseph Jones, and with humility and respect— sorry— for your native justice and magnanimity, we bring before you a grave concern.

We don't live here. We live at 99688 which is a valley zip code. Unfortunately, um, recently, and actually within really the last 30 years, but especially within the last 6, the militarization of the Alaska State Troopers has left our family torn and divided under false allegations with no material evidence. We were the subjects of vandalism, destruction of property, assault, battery, attempted abortion, deprivation of rights, intimidation, kidnap, unjustified use of fire and explosives, the staging of a justified shooting, or an attempted staging of a justified shooting. I dare say acts of terrorism and war are being committed against our people.

This includes gun grabbing, violations of privacy and HIPAA, uh, property invasion, the kidnapping and pornography, pornographing of our, of our children by government agencies, adoption for profit as provided by, uh, the 1997 act, the Safe Families and Adoptions Act, which allows Child Protective Services to take children without any kind of evidence, and in fact, in many cases, and in our case especially, in spite of evidence, er, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Currently, the only thing that this really boils down to, the only thing that's being held against us, is a single demonstrably false allegation of domestic abuse levied against me. And my accuser even admitted to the police during her interview that she had no proof, that there was no domestic abuse happening, and we were swatted anyway.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard tonight?

I welcome— please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Maybe pull that mic down a little bit. Thank you.

My name is Lisa Morgan.

I recently became a mother in the past 2 years, but my children have spent more time in foster placement than they have spent with me in my home. I have witnessed my husband assaulted and arrested wrongfully. I have been physically assaulted while pregnant with my second born.

And I come here to share my grievances because— because the people I attempted to share with before in FBI, AST, APD, WPD, PPV all ignored and hung up on us. And dismissed our concerns and grievances. Our children belong with us, and OCS has continuously failed to provide true justification for why they took our kids for the past 6 months.

And I have lost time with my children that I will never have back.

And I am incredibly infuriated at the lack of action.

And I— I need my children home with me.

And it saddens me to share that my story is not the only one out there, and it is incredibly unfair to all of the families that have been torn apart by OCS.

I believe they are overstepping their boundaries and exert— overexerting authority.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Amazing.

All right, anyone else wish to be heard tonight? Anyone at all? All right, that brings us to the final part of our agenda, which is assembly member comments. Mr. Pressford, you— no comments, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Kirker. No comments, thank you, Chair. Mr. Rivera.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, no comments. Miss Silvers. No comments, thank you. Mr.

Bond. No comments, thank you. Miss Brawley. No comments, thank Mr. Johnson?

No comments, Chair. Ms. Baldwin-Day? Nothing for me, Chair. Thank you.

Ms. Martinez? No additional comments. Thank you, Chair. Mr.

McCormick? No comments. Thank you. We stand adjourned.

anything at all? How does one love? How does one see? How does one be anything at all? How does one love?

But it is there, but it is there. How does Hey, to you students, it's rare that folks, the young people, stay through the whole meeting. You can tell your teacher you're one of the rare set who stayed all the way through. It could go to midnight.

How does one see? How does one be anything at all? How does one love? How does one see? How does one be anything at all?