Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - June 23, 2026 - 2026-06-23 17:00:00

Hey everyone, we'll get started in just a couple minutes.

Okay everyone, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Uh, tonight is, uh, Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026, for our regular meeting. We will start with our, uh, roll call. Madam Clerk.

Member Handeland. Present. Member Martinez. Present. Member Gruver.

Member Silver? Here. Member Presverdia? Here. Chair Brawley?

Here. Vice Chair Dott-Volland? Happy to be here. Member Baldwin-Day? Present.

Member Scout? Present. Member McCormick? Present. Member Park?

Present. Member Johnson? Here. Chair Brawley, you have a quorum. Thank you.

Next, we will move to our, uh, Pledge of Allegiance. Uh, Miss Baldwin-Day, will you lead us in the pledge?

Thank you. Ms. Park, will you please read the land acknowledgement?

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

It is with gratitude and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. Thank you. Next, we have minutes of previous meetings. We have one item today, that is the regular meeting of June 9th, 2026. May I have a motion?

Move to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of June 9th, 2026. Second. Motion by, uh, Vice Chair Vohland to adopt the minutes, second by Member Baldwin-Day. Is there any objection to adopting the minutes?

Hearing and seeing no objection, the minutes are now adopted. Next, we will turn to the mayor's report. Madam Mayor. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening everyone. Before we dive into the agenda, I want to I want to start by taking a moment to look back on the incredible weekend we had here in Anchorage.

Our downtown was absolutely buzzing. Tens of thousands of neighbors and visitors came together to celebrate our community, our culture, and our summer solstice. On Friday, I had a great time attending the first day of the 3-day Juneteenth celebration at the Park Strip. Juneteenth is such an important time to reflect on our nation's history on freedom, resilience, and joy. And it reminds us how deeply Anchorage is shaped by the immense contributions of our Black community.

From business leaders and educators to artists and public servants, members of our Black community continue to drive our community forward. It was a privilege and an honor to be a part of celebrating that legacy On Saturday morning, we kicked off the Mayor's Marathon, bringing runners through our beautiful trail system to a finish line right in the heart of downtown. Shout out to the team called You Can Beat City Hall, the 4 members of the administration who ran in the relay. Nice job, team. Combined with the concerts and Summer Solstice festivities, the energy downtown was unmatched.

I mean, I gotta say, it stretched on for blocks There were two bands, snakes, basketball in the street, aerial acrobatics, I mean everything. So I want to also highlight the Showdown Alaska block party shows on F Street, which have been a fantastic success. And I want to extend a big thank you to the Showdown team for their close collaboration with the municipality to make this series happen and for generously providing free entry for Muni employees last week. Week. Between these block parties, the Anchorage Downtown Partnership's Live After Five Thursday night concerts, and the Anchorage Concert Association's summer concert series in our parks, it has been incredible to see our community vibrant, thriving, and alive with music and people.

And the excitement continues this week. We have another Live After Five to look forward to, along with the Pride Parade and Festival on Saturday. My team and I will be out there celebrating, and I hope to see many of you there as well. Turning to tonight's agenda, this evening I'm introducing two new proposals for property tax incentives that are designed to address our housing shortage. As proposed, these tax breaks will help encourage the construction of lower-cost starter homes, promote vibrant mixed-use developments, and incentivize the rehabilitation of vacant vacant or underused commercial buildings.

We must make housing more affordable and accessible in Anchorage. I thank the Assembly for their partnership in this. Quality attainable housing is the foundation of a strong community and a healthy economy. When families have safe, modern, and reliable places to live, it stabilizes our workforce, helps our local businesses thrive, and allows our neighborhoods to grow. These proposed tax incentives will give us a way to reward the kind of development our community desperately needs right now while making the resulting housing a little less expensive.

Lastly, tonight I want to address the recent Anchorage Police Department officer-involved shooting. Last week, two APD officers were shot and a third was injured while responding to what should have been a routine transport for a low-level shoplifting case. Thank God they're all safe, because we all know it could have had a very different ending. I am incredibly grateful to our dedicated police officers for the work they do every single day to keep us all safe. This incident is a stark reminder that every call comes with inherent risk.

Our officers cannot know exactly what situation they're walking into. And while the underlying call for service was related to shoplifting, the escalation to violence underscores why public safety remains our highest priority. My administration is fully committed to giving our officers the tools they need. We will continue to ensure they are equipped with the technology, training, and resources necessary to face unpredictable situations safely safely and return home to their families. So please, when you see our officers out and about, thank them for their service.

Thank you all. I look forward to our work tonight.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next— we're sorry, Madam— sorry, Madam Mayor. Next, we'll move— Madam Prior Chair.

Next, we'll move on to the chair's report. So I will say good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regular business meeting. Happy belated solstice. As the mayor said, there was a lot of great events downtown, and we're officially in high summer, which means lots of community events and celebrations happening this month and into the Independence Day weekend.

I'll share just a few. First, last week and over the weekend, I and others had the opportunity to attend several events celebrating Juneteenth. From hanging the Juneteenth flag at City Hall to enjoying the community event downtown this, this past long weekend. And we'll have another brief opportunity to honor this holiday this evening with tonight's resolution. We'll take it up shortly.

Also, we'll say the month of June is Pride Month. We'll be recognizing that this evening as well. And we were able to raise the Pride flag just yesterday at City Hall with a number of elders. So thank you to everybody who participated in that. There's community events all month, but the headline event is going to be the Pride Parade this Saturday, followed by the festival on the Seleny Park Strip with music, food, and booths open for everyone in the community to attend.

And again, we'll hear about that in a little bit. Other events happening this Saturday is the Korea Alaska Friendship Festival. It will happen at the Diamond Center parking lot down at the Diamond Mall. This annual event is hosted by the Korean American community of Anchorage in partnership with the Consulate of the Republic of Korea in Anchorage to celebrate the friendship and cooperation between Korea and Alaska and deepening ties between our two communities. And the, the big anniversary that we'll all be celebrating, uh, next week coming up quickly is, uh, 4th of July and the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

And it's just around the corner, a big event, big anniversary for our nation. I know there's been a lot of activity around that, so it's an opportunity to reflect on the freedoms we enjoy, the responsibilities of citizenship, and our nation's founding ideals. While celebrating the community spirit that makes Anchorage such a special place to call home. So if you're looking for a way to celebrate Independence Day, there's a few different events you can enjoy. First is on Saturday, July 4th itself.

You can go downtown to the Delaney Park Strip for Anchorage's annual, annual Fourth of July celebration. The festivities will kick off at 10 AM with the parade starts at 11, activities throughout the day. Celebrate with our community under the hopefully summer sunshine, but in all weather we will be celebrating on the 4th. If you're in Eagle River, the celebration will start a day early on Friday, July 3rd, with food, games, entertainment, and a midnight fireworks show at the Eagle River Lions Park. In Girdwood, the Forest Fair will be running from July 3rd through 5th, also this, uh, next weekend, with music, food, local artists, handcrafted goods, and a community parade.

Um, so lots of great ways to celebrate our community and to again celebrate our, our great, uh, nation. The state of Alaska will also be officially celebrating the 250th anniversary with Alaska's Week of Dreams, a full week of events from June July 4th. You can find that full schedule at America250, the number is 250.alaska.gov. And we will also hear briefly some of that in a little bit as another recognition resolution. So with that, I'll move on to, to move us through tonight's agenda so that we may conclude at the most reasonable hour possible.

So just the usual reminders. This is a business meeting. We are here to do the work of the municipality. Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers. Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing.

Please keep any signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Please keep the aisle clear unless you're lining up to testify on an item. Please do not approach the dais, but if you have something you'd like to share with members, you can hand it to the clerk table down there for distribution. If there is a point of order called, I'll ask folks to please stop speaking so that I may rule on the point of order so that the record is clear. Here.

If the rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance. If compliance with the rules does not occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption, I will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens repeatedly, the person will be asked to leave. And then I'll just remind folks now, if you are here to testify on a public hearing item, please come forward and state your name. I will ask what part of the municipality you live in or what community council you're representing.

I'll ask folks to stay on topic and direct comments to me or folks on the dais, and, and you may be interrupted if you were off topic. It's helpful if testifiers provide comments on proposed amendments or on items. You'll have 3 minutes, community council members have 5 minutes.

And also remind folks, assembly members do not typically answer questions during public testimony. That is the public's time to speak, but those questions may be addressed or, or answered during debate on an item. So with that, I believe that's the report. So we will next move on to to our committee and liaison reports. So I will start with Mr. Handlin.

Go ahead. Nothing to report, Madam Chair. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee will be held on Thursday, July 9th.

So making sure everybody knows we're skipping for the holiday week and pushing it to the second week of the month. At that meeting, we'll have an update from the Anchorage Downtown Partnership and we'll also have an update report that I'll be presenting on the 18-hour city, how we extend economic activity beyond the 9-to-5 of our normal city's flow. Also wanted to note, Chair, that similar to the mayor's experience, we had a wonderful economically vibrant and culturally enthusiastic weekend here in all different ways, and so a note on the Juneteenth celebration just so much commerce and economic, small businesses really doing work, and it was just vibrant, a lot of energy. You went all the way down to the Solstice, you saw the streets activated with more energy, cultural groups. And I do want to take one victory lap on the basketball in the streets.

The initial idea behind that was I was a special assistant for the Berkowitz administration, and the founder of that event came to us and said, "I want to do something, and I'm a basketball guy." And as an urban kid, I'm like, "Don't you play basketball in the streets?" And he's like, "I would, but I don't think we do that here." And the answer was, "We can use the municipal parking lot to start it off." That was a decade ago. The 3-on-3 basketball tournament, a staple now of the Solstice, and that just goes to show kind of how we can open the door and create some opportunities for people who are willing to do that work. And then when the community partners come together, great things happen. It's a staple event and lots of activity there. And also, Chair, I just wanted to note, we passed Father's Day, and I know there's a lot of celebration on Father's Day, but I wanted to go retro, say happy Father's Day to everybody, and thank the Juneteenth Committee for allowing me to host the Father's Day prayer at Juneteenth.

That's all I have, Chair. Thanks. Thank you. Next, Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Nothing to report. Thank you. Next, Ms. Silvers. Nothing to report. Thank you.

Mr. Perez-Fordia. Thank you, Chair. A couple of items. We had a meeting of the Assembly Housing and Homeless Committee on June 17th. At that meeting, we had an update on coordinated shelter operations and learned about what's working well and what still needs to be improved in our shelter system here in Anchorage.

We also had an update update from the Health Department about the Housing and Urban Development grant funding. Specifically, we, we talked about the Supportive Housing Recommended Awardees, which is on our agenda tonight. We also had a pretty robust discussion about the True North Recovery Center, which is also on our agenda tonight. So the next item is the Public Health and Safety meeting, which is going to be on July 1st at 11:00 AM. If you can, please join us.

Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have anything upcoming as far as committees go, but I did want to address one thing. On this past Wednesday, June 17th, the assembly held a work session on the Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Overlay Ordinance.

In that meeting, which I chaired, I stated the planning department had declined to participate. I now understand that that was a misunderstanding on my part. Part. And so I'd like to make a mea culpa and help correct the record. Um, it appears that there was a miscommunication.

They were not explicitly invited, but after dialogue with the administration, the administration indicates that they are— they remain willing to engage with the assembly on this ordinance and others. So I look forward to continued collaboration and communication on shared housing goals. Chair Brawley and I remain committed to helping facilitate good communication between the branches as well. And then, Madam Chair, I would also like to ask for a moment of personal privilege. Yes, that is granted.

Okay, thank you. Normally I try to keep my, my two jobs separate, but this week they are going to very interestingly collide. There is going to be an event in my district at the Fairview Rec Center is called Eyes of Hope, June 24th through June 27th from 10 to 3.

There are going to be volunteer optometrists providing free eye exams for uninsured folks and free glasses as well. I myself will be volunteering on Saturday. So if folks are in need of eye care and, and may not be able to afford that themselves, please feel free to email me and I can pass on more information to you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sure. Okay, we're also going to do a budget and finance update. So that committee met Thursday, June 18th. We reviewed funds and deficit including workers' comp, the BSSA, or the Building Safety Service Area, Downtown Improvement District, and a couple others. So, um, solutions are going to be forthcoming, different approaches.

We are working with the administration on that. We also discussed a resolution on assembly budget priorities for fiscal year '27, um, and have some initial ideas in a draft. Um, we've also put it out there to our colleagues. Um, we're seeking members' priorities and proposed amendments at the July 16th meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. That will save the chair a separate committee update. Um, next, Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Um, I, I would like to add to the mea culpa for the missing middle housing opportunity work session that was held last Wednesday.

So I omitted inclusion in the packet for that meeting an excellent technical memo from our planning department, which, thanks to the absolute chaos of my inbox, escaped my notice and inclusion that. So I did want to notify the public that that memo is going to be on the Assembly's Housing Action page, and I will also circulate that technical memo from Planning to the clerk— or ask the clerk, rather, to circulate that memo to members so that it is very apparent. And gratitude to the Planning Department for producing that memo. Again, it is very well done. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Miss Scout. Nothing to No report, thank you. And Mr. McCormick? Nothing to report, thank you.

Ms. Park? Nothing to report. Mr. Johnson? Yeah, thank you, Chair. The Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee met on June 18th, covered a lot of ground.

First, we had a presentation from Alaska Water and Wastewater Utility titled Pipes Hate Wipes. This was in regards to flushable wipes that people procure and then flush down the toilet but are in fact not that flushable. They clog pipes and they jam equipment, which translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs for labor and disposal fees on an annual basis, costs that get passed on to ratepayers. So good awareness raised there. Also from AWU, we had an update on the levy upon connection rate.

This is what property owner pay— property owners pay a fee when they connect their sewer and water to the main. This is something that gets updated regularly. It is up for introduction tonight, and if it is passed by the assembly, it will go to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. This is part of our regular course of business on an annual basis. Also from, uh, Eklutna, we had a presentation on the pumped hydro storage project.

Several alternatives were presented which would involve building a dam on West Hunter Creek. If that dam is built, if this alternative ultimately is the one selected, if selected, it would increase the amount of water in Lake Oklutna by around 30%, as well as increase power generation by roughly 50%. We're anticipating public and stakeholder meetings this fall, and also a more detailed cost estimate and economic analysis for this alternative here soon. Separate but related, we had a discussion on the Oklutna Lake water boundary study. The intent is to explore other ways to achieve our stated goals, which include river restoration, protecting our water supply and power generation.

A contract or an appropriation to fund this work is on the consent agenda for tonight. That's item 10D11. And if approved, we would expect the deliverables in 6 to 9 months. And this would be considered complementary to the pumped hydro storage work that's also taking place. On the Port of Alaska modernization projects, we got an update regarding Terminal 1.

Construction is underway. The temporary pilings are going in and the permanent pilings are being staged for installation later this summer. We also covered the bubble curtains which go around the pilings as they're being driven in, which is to mitigate noise with the intent of protecting marine mammals. And then also regarding Terminal 2, we are anticipating a 35% design to be ready for review at the end of September. Finally, for the Port of Alaska, uh, on the agenda tonight we have two EPA grant awards.

Both are related to the Port Energy Transition Plan, and then also two contracts for construction project management for work at the port that is separate from the modernization project. That is all, Chair. Thank you. And I will briefly turn back to Mr. Perez-Fredia for an additional report. Thank you.

I have to make a brief, um, correction that the True North item that's on the agenda tonight, um, um, is actually with APD for the pre-arrest, um, deflection. The item— that we discussed in committee will not be on the agenda until July 7th. Thanks. Thank you. And I believe we'll get to that item tonight.

Okay, that concludes our reports. So next we will move to the addendum to the agenda. And before we do that, of course, we will take care of our late on the table items. So we have a few of them today. I will read them out.

Most of them are supplemental. I will do those first, and then there's one that will require a vote for introduction as it's it's a proposed item for action. So the items that I'll read that are supplemental, the first one is unnumbered AIM that will be associated with 10C2. It is an A version, a corrected version of the attachment for AM 419-2026, a recommendation of award to an— for— of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, IDIQ contract to Agpro to furnish asphalt concrete hot mix. So it's an additional corrected item.

Next, we have two supplemental items in information reports. The first is information memo, unnumbered public testimony for June 9th and June 23rd, 2026 meetings. That will be 10F4. 10F5 will be unnumbered AIM, uh, 2026 answers to assembly questions information memorandum. And additionally, we have a S2 version, so 11B This will be item 11B6, AO 2026-40 S2, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 7.10.010 and Chapter 7.20 to create a veteran-owned business preference program for specific contracting categories, which is again 11B.

Um, so the last item to mention at this point is an item for, um, essentially for introduction and action. It would be 10C5. It is Assembly Memorandum AM Unnumbered, a recommendation of award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, IDIQ contract with McKenna Brothers Paving or McKenna for asphalt paving services 2026 for the Chugiak-Birchwood Eagle River Rural Road Service Area or SEBERSA for the Municipality of Anchorage Maintenance and Operations Department, not to exceed $700,000. So that item is— needs to be laid on the table with a majority vote, and then it would go into the consent agenda. And so if a member would like to pull it, then they can then pull it at that time.

So the vote, I believe, is to introduce— vote is to lay on the table.

Move to lay on the table. Second. Motion by Vice Chair Volland to lay this item on the table. Second by Ms. Baldwin. Um, any discussion on this item?

Okay, not seeing any, then I will ask members to vote and we'll go ahead and do our, um, voting on the screen.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, this item is laid on the table. And again, it will be 10C5, and then a member may pull this from the consent agenda if they wish. Um, so now that we have taken care of that, then we will move on to the addendum to the agenda, um, with all of the laid on the table items incorporated.

Um, so I'm seeking a motion to incorporate, um, the addendum to the agenda including the laid on the table items. So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Bullen, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Any discussion on this motion?

Any objection?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the addendum and laid on the table items are incorporated into the agenda. Agenda. Next, we'll move on to appearance request. We have one appearance request tonight, um, Miss Mara Hill, and I believe folks from the Unitarian Universalist Church. So please come forward, anybody who's here for that item.

And then our usual reminders, uh, please turn on the microphone, and, uh, there's a green button in front of you. I believe it's green. Go ahead and press that. Yeah, thank you. And then you will have 3 minutes to speak, uh, Miss Hill, and, um, we have the timer going, so please go ahead.

All right, thank you. Uh, my name is Mara Hill, and I'm a longtime member of the Anchorage Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, or AUUF, a small fellowship located in the Airport Heights neighborhood. We appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and would like to thank each one of you for your dedicated service to our community. AUUF is a welcoming community of people who gather to grow ethically, spiritually, and intellectually community, and to help create a just, safe, and caring community. One of our traditions is to donate half of our Sunday collections to a social organization or to a cause to further our mission.

Our members annually select 12 recipient organizations, one for each month of the year. Each year, one of our chosen recipients for the half portion program is the Municipality of Anchorage. AUUF, like other churches, is a tax-exempt organization. We are not are not legally required to pay taxes. However, we believe that religious organizations do have a responsibility to help support the services that benefit us directly as congregations, like emergency services, transportation systems, snow removal, road maintenance, Anchorage's extensive trail system, and public parks.

Therefore, I am here this evening to, to present our annual voluntary payment in lieu of taxes, which we call PILAT for short. We have collected pilot and presented it to the municipality every year for the past 59 years. This year, our pilot payment—. Can I get a drum roll, please— is $2,077.29.

Um, Unitarian Universalism is founded on 7 principles. Our 5th principle is the right of conscience conscious and use of democratic process within our congregations and in society at large. In support of this principle, in affirmation of the separation of church and state which protects religious freedom in America, and in gratitude for our city, we are pleased to present our pilot donation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, and I will note, and we do have one person in the queue with a question, but I will also note, um, I am still learning my role as chair, and so it is difficult when people are celebrating to say please stop clapping. So, um, so, but I just want to also acknowledge, I know that our— we have to enforce our rules. So, um, so thank you for everybody for celebrating, but also as a reminder, we do need to not use clapping during testimony because that can— it can go badly. I will turn to Mr.

Voland in the queue. Thank you for your generosity and support for our community. Much appreciated.

Okay, thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so thank you again for being here.

Oh yeah, and I believe, um, presentation of the check, I believe that needs to be either the, uh, someone who is not one of us. Um, so it looks like, it looks like Mr. Fawzy is coming down. Yeah, yeah, there are rules as far as who can officially take municipal funds, and I believe Mr. Fawzy is one of them, so Yes, thank you again for being here. So that was our one appearance request. So next we will move on to the consent agenda.

And so the consent agenda is a number of routine items. Make sure that I get my notes here, um, numbered 10A through 10G, typically routine items such as bid awards, new business information and reports, ordinances and resolutions for introduction. And so items can be approved by the assembly in a single vote to approve the entire consent agenda consent agenda, but prior to the approval, items may be and often are pulled by an assembly member for discussion or separate vote. And so we will also— anything that is being introduced for public hearing will be heard at a future date as noted. So we will move down the dais and pull our consent agenda items.

I will start with Mr. Johnson. 10A2, that is it.

Okay, thank you. 10A2, one second, my paperwork has gotten lost.

Okay, 10E2— 10A2, I'm sorry. Uh, next, Miss Park.

Nothing, Chair, thank you. Okay, Mr. McCormick. No items, thank you. Miss Scout. Yeah, I'd like to pull 10D17 and 10D18.

Okay, I have 10 Delta 17 and 10 Delta 18. Any other items? Okay, next, Miss Baldwin-Dick. Yes, thank you, Chair. 10 Alpha 1, 10 Bravo 3, 10 Golf 8.

Okay, so I have, uh, 10 A 1, 10 B 3, and 10 G 8. Correct. Okay, next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. 10 Delta 20.

D, and that'll be it. Okay, I have 10D, 20. Okay, uh, and next, uh, Mr. Perez-Vedia. Uh, 10D, 4, and 10D, 5.

Okay, I have 10, delta, 4, and 5. Okay, next, Miss Silvers. No items, thank you. Mr. Gertman. All items are pulled.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Martinez. Just to confirm that 10B3 was pulled? Yes, by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Excellent.

And I'll pull 10A3. Thank you.

Okay, so 10A3 added to the list. Uh, next, Mr. Handeland. Uh, 10 Delta 15 and 10 Golf 11.

Okay, we have a 10D 15 and 10G 11. Mm-hmm.

Okay, so I will read back the list. We have 10A1, 2, and 3. Or since I will read the individual members, uh, 10A1, Miss Baldwin-Day. 10A2, Mr. Johnson. 10A3, Mr. Martinez.

10B3, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Sorry, nothing in the 10Cs. 10D4 and 5, Mr. Perez Verdia. 10D15, Mr. Handlin. 10D17 and 18, Ms. Scout.

10D20, Mr. Voland. And then 10G8, Ms. Baldwin-Day, and 10G11, Mr. Handlin.

One second.

Madam Chair. Yes, go ahead. Thanks. Um, at the request of the administration, um, for items 10G3 and 10G7, um, we'd like to set the public hearing for August 4th. Thank you.

Then yes, it's so directed to the clerk to set the public hearing on 10G3 and 10G7 to August 4th, June 26th. Okay, any other items? I think we read off the list.

Seeing and hearing none, then I will entertain a motion to approve the rest of the consent agenda minus the pulled items. So moved.

Second.

So moved by Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Park. Any discussion on the items? I guess I will also note that because there was a late on the table corrected version of a supplemental item to 10C2. Just to note that, um, I will ask, does the motion include that corrected version? Yes, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. Any discussion on approval of the consent agenda?

Any objection to adoption of the consent agenda?

Seeing and hearing none, the consent agenda is now adopted. So if anybody is here for any of the items besides those that were polled, those items have just been unanimously adopted by consent. So we will move on to our polled items. We have 3 recognition resolutions tonight. The first one is AR 2026.163, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and supporting the America 250 Alaska commemoration of the 250th birthday of the United States and Alaska's Week of Dreams celebration..

I believe this item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second. Uh, moved by Miss Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Gerker.

Um, any objection to adoption of this resolution? Seeing and hearing none, uh, this resolution is approved. And I believe we have Miss Baldwin-Day reading and Mr. Gerker presenting. So anybody who is here, uh, for the America 250 resolution, please come A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and supporting the America 250 Alaska commemoration of the 250th birthday of the United States and Alaska's Week of Dreams celebration. Whereas the year 2026 will mark the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States of America, and whereas America 250 is a nonpartisan initiative working to engage every American in commemorating and celebrating this historic milestone through education, civic engagement, history, culture, and community participation, and whereas the guiding principle of America 250 Alaska is history for tomorrow, inspired by the Alaska Constitutional Convention delegates' 1956 message to Alaska's youth Youth, quote, we ask you to take tomorrow and dream.

And whereas the Alaska Initiative seeks to illuminate Alaska's unique role in the American story, involve communities throughout the state, inspire future generations, and invest in civic pride and historical understanding. And whereas America 250 Alaska highlights Alaska's rich history, diverse cultures, and enduring contributions to the nation while encouraging Alaskans to reflect on the, past and envision the future of our communities and democracy. And whereas, a marquee component of Alaska's commemoration is the Week of Dreams, scheduled for June 26th through July 4th, 2026, which will celebrate Alaska's historic connection to baseball and the role sports play in bringing communities together across generations and cultures. And whereas, the Week of Dreams will feature youth clinics, community celebrations, historic exhibits, baseball games, cultural events and opportunities to recognize Alaska's longstanding contributions to America's pastime, including the legacy of Alaska Baseball Leagues and athletes. And whereas the Week of Dreams also seeks to create lasting benefits for Alaska communities through youth engagement, storytelling, preservation of history, and investments in recreational and community spaces.

And whereas Civic Season 2026, observed from Juneteenth through July April 24th encourages organizations, local governments, and community groups to promote civic participation, historical understanding, and community engagement through public events and educational programming. And whereas Youth 250 and related Civic Season initiatives encourage youth participation in shaping the nation's future and provide resources including the Youth 250 Toolkit and Gen Z Scorecard to help organizations and communities elevate youth civic learning, and leadership opportunities. Now therefore be it resolved that the Anchorage Assembly recognizes and supports the America 250 Alaska commemoration of the 250th birthday of the United States and encourages Anchorage residents and organizations to participate in educational, cultural, historic, and civic activities associated with the celebration. Residents are encouraged to learn more about upcoming events, programs, and opportunities for involvement at america250.alaska.gov. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly on this 23rd day of June, 2026.

Thank you. Yeah, and if I invite you to say a few words, uh, make sure the microphone is on, uh, there's a button on the front there. Yeah, please go ahead. All right, thank you very much. Thank you, uh, Madam Mayor, it's nice to be here.

Assembly members, my name is Katie Ringsmith. I am your Alaska State Historian. This July 4th, as America celebrates its 250th birthday, Alaska is honoring the historic milestone through the power of youth sports. Alaska's Week of Dreams, supported by a strong coalition of partners and financial supporters, is a statewide celebration inspired by athletes, coaches, teams, Alaskans and dreamers who have carried Alaska onto the world stage. From the Super Bowl to the summer, winter Paralympic Games, from Alaska baseball legends to basketball superstars, to the— ah, shoot— to the Arctic Winter Games and of course the FIFA World Cup.

Obed Vargas, right? Incredible. So from June 26th through June— July 4th, we offer Alaskans an array of activities centered on America's game, baseball. On Saturday morning, thanks to Jamar Hill and RBI Alaska, we are offering free MLB Play Ball clinics to up to 200 youth participants. Then during the Glacier Pilots-Matsu Miners pregame show We're going to launch the Week of Dreams with an America 250 opening ceremony featuring MLB ambassadors, Alaska Native Heritage dancers, two— not one, but two— 60-foot flags, and Olympic champion and mentor Keegan Randall and her two beautiful children tossing out the first pitch.

So another highlight is the Week of Dreams reception at the Alaska Native Heritage Center on Monday, June 29th, which celebrates Alaska Native contributions traditions to the national game. And again, you can check all the full schedule out on our website, but I do want to highlight a few legacy projects that will extend way past the Fourth of July and of course this historic year. We're going to be working with the Aleut community of St. Paul on a nomination to list its ball field on the Pribilof Islands to the National Register of Historic Places. Thanks to an NEA grant, we have commissioned Supiak artist Andrew Abayo to carve in a luthuk plank mask, which will celebrate Alaska's full story of indigenous and American baseball. The artwork will be delivered at the end of the America 250 celebration in December.

But finally, I want to thank the Rasmussen Foundation because I am here today and all quite honored to present to the Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage, a permanent exhibit. This is a 9-paneled, 7-foot permanent exhibit, each panel sharing a story of Alaska baseball history from the whalers at Herschel Island to indigenous baseball to the miners and military to even when Satchel Paige played here in Anchorage, Alaska. So, uh, That exhibit will be installed in our very own storied ballpark, Mulcahy Stadium, so that all players and fans, residents and visitors can learn, be inspired about our extraordinary baseball history for years to come. So with that said, whether you can join us at the ballpark on Saturday or whether you're going to be doing your own thing, hopefully playing somewhere with lots of people, I hope each of you see the America 250 as we do, an opportunity to celebrate those who believe in dreams, those who have achieved them, and those who continue to inspire the next generation. So thank you all very much, and happy Fourth of July and America 250.

Oh, and by the way, each one of you will receive a copy of this book, which, thanks to Lisa Murkowski, was delivered to every single member of Congress. So we're getting our story story out there and sharing it with the whole darn country. So thank you very much. Thank you. You have a couple of members in the queue for, I think, questions or comments.

First, Mr. Martinez. Hey, Katie. Nice to meet you in person. I think we were introduced by Mr. Hill, Jamar, online. So I'm happy that you were able to put all the pieces together.

I'm looking forward to the event, and I just wanted to say thank you for the work that you to do. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, hope, hope you come on down. We just heard the Seattle Mariners are coming too, so absolutely. Well, we are a play ball city, and, uh, just want to make sure that the administration knows I'm appreciative for all of the collaboration to make sure our young people have good places to play.

Thank you. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. And next we have Miss Baldwin-Day. Yeah, just a quick personal note.

So when I was, um, when I was little, my dad was the sports editor for the Anchorage Times, and that meant that Thanksgiving was the Alaska Shootout, the Great Alaska Shootout, and summertimes were always spent at the ballpark. So I spent a lot of hours with my bare feet hanging out of the press box at Mulcahy Stadium, spitting sunflower seeds. And I'm really delighted that this is the direction that we're going with, with this particular celebration. So thank you for all the work that you've done to pull this together and to make this an event for the community to really be proud of. Appreciate your time.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I don't have additional members in the queue. Thank you so much for being here, and I'll encourage the public also to check out the display panels outside and that will be at Mulcahy Stadium.

So thank you again. Thank you very much. Okay, next we will move on to 10A2, our next resolution. Resolution AR-2026-160, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating June 19th as Juneteenth in Anchorage. That's it.

Sorry. So this item was pulled by Mr. Johnson. Move to approve. Second. Moved by, uh, Member Johnson, seconded by Vice Chair Voland.

Any discussion on this item?

Any objection to adoption of this resolution? Okay, seeing and hearing none, this item is now adopted. And I believe we have Mr. Johnson reading and Mr. Perez-Fordilla presenting. And so folks who are here for the Juneteenth resolution, please come forward. Whereas Juneteenth is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States, recognizing June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, to announce the Civil War had ended and that all enslaved persons were free in accordance with the executive order of President Abraham Lincoln, and throughout history has been known by many, many names, including Jubilee Day, Freedom Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day.

And whereas it took nearly 2.5 years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation for word to reach the last group of enslaved persons in Texas that they were free men and women. And whereas Juneteenth has special significance for millions of African Americans whose ancestors as enslaved persons were excluded from the Declaration of Independence's ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And whereas the red, white, and blue Juneteenth flag is a symbol that gives all Americans the opportunity to acknowledge African American history. The flag represents the Star of Texas bursting with the promise of freedom over a new horizon, a promise that our nation has not yet fully achieved. And whereas Juneteenth was established as a national federal holiday in 2021.

In 2023, the Municipality of Anchorage established it as a municipal holiday. And whereas Anchorage residents are commemorating Juneteenth through a variety of educational, cultural, and community events throughout June, including the Juneteenth Anchorage HBCU Band Camp and Directors Retreat that began June 15th, the Juneteenth Anchorage citywide celebration at Delaney Park Strip that took place June 19 to 21, and other programs, performances, and gatherings that honor the history of emancipation and celebrate the resilience, achievements, and ongoing contributions of Black Americans in Alaska and across the nation. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes June 19, 2026, as Juneteenth in Anchorage and encourages the community to participate in local events to celebrate African American freedom, heritage, and contributions to our community, state, and nation. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 23rd day of June, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. So I'm going to keep my remarks to the minimum. I think I yelled a little bit too much last weekend, so I don't have a voice. Just wanted to tell everybody thank you on behalf of Juneteenth Anchorage for this resolution., and also give a shout out to the other organizations and groups that celebrated Juneteenth as well. Souls to the Polls, thank you, Darryl and crew for that.

Celeste Alaska Black Caucus for the Make It Monday Juneteenth Lunch Forum, and of course everybody who supported and attended the citywide Juneteenth celebration this past weekend and the HBCU band camp, and just giving a thanks and a shout out to the colleges that came this year. This year. We had Howard University came this year. We also had Alabama A&M and Battle of the Bands from Atlanta. So thank you.

My name is Shanay Williams, president and CEO of Charlotte Community Housing. I had the opportunity to celebrate with Jasmine and the group that Jasmine Smith— I want to publicly say thank you to Jasmine for putting on a wonderful celebration.. I want to thank the assembly for recognizing this celebration. Also, I would like to also recognize the mayor that was there in person to read the proclamation. So I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here and celebrate this.

And good evening to everyone, to the mayor, to assembly chair, and to all of you. I am Reverend Dr. Andre Parker, senior pastor, Charlotte Missionary Baptist Church. I do want to take an opportunity to say thank you publicly to Jasmine for her hard work, diligence, perseverance, and continued consistency in making sure this celebration stays in Anchorage, Alaska. And then I thank you for acknowledging the work and the remembrance and the freedom that our ancestors, my ancestors, had to endure so many years ago. And we remember that today.

And if I may add, Juneteenth is not just a celebration for Black Americans. It is a celebration for all Americans. And I would hope in the future that all of us would take opportunities to participate and show our support for where our nation has come from and where our nation is going. So thank you so much, and blessings be upon you. Thank you.

One moment before you walk away. We have one member in the queue, Mr. Martinez. Hey, Jasmine, come on back now. I want to just congratulate you. I'm not speed walking.

Jasmine, yes, me in the queue.

I want to thank you publicly, and I want everyone to understand that these events take a lot of hands and a lot of organizations you mentioned, a lot of work, a lot of volunteer hours, but it also takes a visionary to hold the course, to stay the path. And I remember almost a decade ago as well, a reset, a vision to bring back Juneteenth the way people remembered it. And I got to tell you, it was so great this weekend. It was absolute love. It was a total wonderful event.

And I highlighted earlier the economic impact that this event also had for small businesses. Thank you for the work that you're doing for the community and for the Juneteenth event. Thank you. And thank you to the committee. It wouldn't be possible without everybody who helped make it happen.

So from Cassandra, Sophia, Erica, Ariel, Keith, there's a whole bunch of people that made it happen. So I'm thankful to have a good team that works together to get things done. Teamwork makes the dream work. Thank you. Thank you.

We actually have one more member in the queue. Sorry, Jasmine, keep making you walk back. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah. Oh, that's all right.

This is just a general note. So I, I do, I do want— I think it's important that when, when the Muni misses the mark, that we say so and that we do so publicly. And so I, I just want to own that, you know, this is a resolution that we, we should have done prior to the Juneteenth celebration this year. This should have been something that we took up at the beginning of June. And in fact, in many communities, the Juneteenth celebration begins on the first day of June.

And so I just want to own that we did not do our part in the celebration this year, and I want to commit publicly that we will do better next year. So thank you again, Jasmine, for all of the incredible work you do in this community, Juneteenth and far, far, far beyond.

Thank you, Ms. Baldamonde. And yeah, I was— we were noting earlier in the week preparing for this meeting, realizing that we we should mark this one to do the first meeting in June. I think sometimes probably the second meeting would have happened before the 19th, but I think it's better for us to do that. So thank you, Miss Baldwin-Day, for saying that. And then we will work with the staff to, to make sure that we take this one up earlier in the month next year.

So thank you again. And then lastly, we have our third recognition resolution, AR 2026-170, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating 2026 as Pride Month in Anchorage. Um, so I will ask folks, uh, that are here for that one to come forward. And then in the meantime, um, uh, this one was pulled by Mr. Martinez.

Yes, move to approve. Second. Second. Moved by Mr. Martinez, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Um, any objection to or any discussion on this resolution?

Any objection to adoption of this resolution?

Seeing and hearing none, this resolution is now approved or adopted. And I believe we have Mr. Martinez reading and Ms. Park presenting. A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating June 2026 as Pride Month in Anchorage. Whereas Pride Month originated from the gay rights movements of the early 1900s with the foundation of gay and lesbian organizations such as Society for Human Rights and and the Mattachine Society, who published gay and lesbian positive newsletters, protested discrimination, and in New York City held sippins, ordering drinks at a bar after announcing they were gay, which was against the law. And whereas, despite slow progress, basic civil rights were largely denied to LGBTQIA2S+ until June 1969, when New York City police conducted two raids on the Stonewall Inn, a bar known to be a gathering space for gay and lesbian individuals.

And whereas at the second raid several people fought back against the police, drawing a crowd and escalating into 6 days of protests and clashes with NYPD, this became known as the Stonewall Riots. It made the gay rights movement front page news and turning point for the gay rights Whereas on the first anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the first NYC Gay Pride Week was kicked off by a liberation march that gathered hundreds of people along the way and in time became known as the first Gay Pride Parade. And whereas over the years Pride events have spread across the United States, with President Clinton first officially designating June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month in 2000. And President Obama establishing a more inclusive designation as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month in 2009, and whereas federal designation was further updated by President Biden to fully encompass the community as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month, while at the local level the Anchorage Assembly reached a historic decade-long milestone passing AO 2015-9S1 in 2015, which firmly established sexual orientation and gender rights as protected classes under Anchorage Title V Equal Rights. And whereas today LGBTQIA2S+ rights and pride celebrations occur across the globe and right here in Anchorage, organizations like Alaskans Together Foundation continue to advance the community through vital advocacy, educational initiatives, and youth programming.

And whereas community events including the Anchorage Pride Parade and Pride Fest on the Delaney Park Strip on June 27, 2026, alongside a week-long series of local community gatherings and celebrations, serve to recognize the diverse members of our community, honor the historic struggles that advance legal equity equality and address the challenges that are still being endured today. And now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly celebrates Pride Month and the LGBTQIA2S+ community and encourages Anchorage residents to participate in local events and support our LGBTQIA2S+ residents of our city. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 23rd the 23rd day of June.

Thank you. And anyone who would like to make remarks, microphone is already on, so please go ahead. My name is Gail Shue. My wife and I live in Eagle River. We are representatives this year of the Alaska Rainbow Elders who have been designated as the official grand marshals for the parade.

It is a great honor. I want to thank the assembly and the administration for the support that we feel for our entire community, and we wish to share on these gray days and in these gray times, we want to share our rainbows with you. And if you haven't been to any of our events, for next year you can start planning well in advance. Because on the Sunday before Pride Fest, we start with a memorial program in the cemetery. We have a kickoff barbecue at the Raven.

Yesterday there was the flag-raising ceremony at City Hall and movies at the Beartooth. Tonight, if you wrap up your business very, very early, you could get to the Park Strip for the Rainbow Run. Later in the week, if you don't have it on your schedule, there's lube wrestling, and then there's drag queen bingo, followed by the Diva Show on Friday night, of course, at Myrna's. Saturday, be sure to join us and over 60 groups marching in the Pride Parade, where we will get to be the grand marshals, our entire organization. And then, of course, there's the festival on the Park Strip where, again, we get to share our rainbows with the entire community, and we get to celebrate loving who we are.

Thank you. That was good.

Thank you for being here.

OK, that concludes our recognition resolutions tonight. So next we'll move on to the remaining consent agenda items. Also note for members that I know we're moving, going a little long. If we have time, we may take up 11A before we break for dinner because I anticipate that to be a short item, but we'll see how things go. So next item 10B3, I will read it.

It is Resolution AR-2023-1. 26, 171, A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly affirming the importance of government-to-government partnership, indigenous self-determination, and community-based approaches to safety, healing, and well-being. Um, this item was pulled by, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day, I believe. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Move to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, a motion to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Ms. Scout.

Do you want to speak to the item? Yes, I would. Um, so I, I wanted to note that we have a really important existing government-to-government partnership with the Native Village of Eklutna, and I would, I would love to see us take this item up at our next meeting, our next joint meeting with the Native Village of Eklutna. I would really like for this to be a conversation that we have in collaboration with them and really in keeping with the spirit of this resolution. So with, with the motion to approve on the table, I'd like to further move that we postpone this item until the meeting following our next Native Village of Eklutna joint meeting.

I don't believe we have that meeting set on the calendar yet, so I'm not quite clear if that counts as postponing to a date certain. I'm happy to pick a date on the calendar if that would be more helpful to the clerk, and I will await her instruction. Uh, yeah, one sec while I confirm.

So the clerk does confirm that it's in order, that we can say, um, even if we don't know the calendar date, that it would happen at that joint meeting. Um, so motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to postpone to discuss at the joint meeting of the Native Village of Eklutna. Is there a second? Second. Second.

Okay, a second by Mr. Martinez. Um, do you want to speak to it further? No, I'm pretty— I think pretty self-evident. Okay, thanks. And there's two other folks in the queue, so Mr. Perez-Fortea.

Thank you. I actually had the— I was actually the same thing that Miss Baldwin-Day was, was saying. I just would just add that, that, um, I appreciate this being brought forward, and I think it would be really appropriate to do this in coordination, collaboration with the, with the, the, um, the Eklutna Tribe, and, um, and would like to see it on that agenda as well. So I was in the queue for the exact same reason. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, and I see the sponsor saying good. So, um, okay, so, um, any objection to postponement of this item to, um, a date that is currently unknown but will be certain for the joint meeting of Native Village of Eklutna Okay, seeing and hearing no objection, then this item will be postponed and we will, of course, get that meeting scheduled. For members' awareness and the public, that is something that we work closely with the Native Village and the tribal administrator to schedule. So finding a date that works for all of us is critical.

It's not a set date and time, but we will work on that. Okay, next item we have is 10D. 4, And so that was pulled by Mr. Perez-Fredia. I will read it and then we will move, um, decide what we do with that one. So this is Assembly Memorandum AM-400-2026, Sole Source Contract with Launch Alaska for the Execution of Environmental Protection Agency EPA Clean Grants, uh, Clean Ports Grant Program.

Uh, this item was pulled by Mr. Perez-Fredia. Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by Mr. Perez-Fredia, second by Mr. Johnson, thank you.

Mr. Furst, would you like to—. Thank you. Actually, the question I have on this item is the same for, um, 4 and 5, D4 and D5, for the administration, specifically surrounding the question of sole source. Um, both are very similar in terms of the justification for the sole source, and speak to the reason that the sole source is that they, um, were involved in the original writing of this and that in one case they're located in Alaska and that they have, you know, awareness of this project. My understanding of a sole source is that it really needs to be— there's a justification that there really is only one choice.

And so I'd like to hear from the administration as to whether this justification does meet really the sole source criteria that we would normally have have, or whether this should be actually going out for bid. Thank you.

Yeah, I'll invite— looks like Ms. Wynne Pearson, go ahead. Yeah, through the chair, I was just going to ask Mr. Amitabh to come down and speak to it operationally. And if we want to talk a little bit more about the legal standard, I would call upon either probably our legal team to talk about that, but I want to ask the Port first to speak to the justification for the use of the sole source process for these two. Yeah, that's the first piece for sure, is understanding what is that sort of like legal criteria that we must pass in order for it to qualify as a sole source, and whether this meets that or not.

Apologies, just to clarify, would you like the attorneys then to start by opining on—. Yeah, I want to first, I want to understand what is that mark that we need to meet for it to actually legally be justified as, as a sole source and whether the language in this does actually meet that or not. I think that's not a question for the Port itself, then I would look to our municipal attorney to speak to that.

Through the chair, if you could give me one moment to pull up the code language, I will be right back with you.

While we have that pause, I think Mr. Alfalzi can also speak to purchasing's approach to this as well as, um, the chief administrative officer. So I'll turn to him first and then we'll go to Ms. Gardner, and then back to the port. Round robin.

I'm, I'm particularly interested in this first line. They are uniquely qualified to conduct the work because they planned the work, assisted in writing the grant, and are based in Alaska. Yeah, thank you, Member Presverdia, and to the body. The Title VII requirement is that contracts where the purchasing officer determines in writing that the municipality's reasonably limit the source to supplies, services, professional services, or construction to one person. Here, it is my understanding that we applied for a grant from the federal EPA listing these as the partners who would perform the work, and that we were then awarded that grant, and now we are more or less administrating that grant by passing the award back through to the partners that the federal government awarded the work to.

If I've got any of that garbled, then I will enlist the capable assistance of Port Director Amtam to clean it up. Uh, do I say through the chair? Just Member Perez Vardia? You can say through the chair. Uh, thankfully the Deputy Director showed this to me earlier.

Through AM 209-2025, it states that the grant will fund a baseline emissions inventory assessment of clean energy alternatives, development of an energy transition plan, evaluation of technology technology deployment scenario, stakeholder engagement, workforce development. The EPA grant agreement and subsequent revised project narrative and budget change support reflect updated subaward allocations under which Launch Alaska and GTI Energy are the two proposed subrecipients. So that was in the AM, and I'd have to go back on the date, 2/09/2025, that you guys passed. Yeah, I think that's helpful. I guess my, my simple question is maybe just, just back to that, you're saying that, that we already had planned on giving them— the funds had already been allocated in this way through the grant, but it's a sole source justification that in my mind doesn't really meet a sole source justification.

So that's why I'm just wanting to make sure that we're following our own policies.

To the extent that I tracked that, and I apologize having a little sidebar here with council, I think that we are comfortable that we meet the Title VII requirements here, in part because the money that we received was conditioned upon working with these entities. And I'm seeing head shaking from the board. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you very much.

Okay, any further discussion on that, Mr. Peres? Ready? Nope, thank you. Okay, thank you.

Um, and I don't see anyone else in the queue, um, so members may, uh, proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AM400-2026 passes the body. Next we have 10, uh, D5 Sole source. This is AM 401-2026, sole source contract with GTI Energy for the execution of Environmental Protection Agency EPA Clean Ports Grant Program for the Municipality of Anchorage Dong Yang Port of Alaska, not to exceed $732,640. What is— this one is pulled by Mr. Perez-Fredia as well. Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Perez-Fredia to approve, second by Mr. Johnson. Any further discussion on this? No. Okay, yeah, I understand this is the same, uh, justification for the prior item.

Um, so without any discussion, no one in the queue, uh, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AM401-2026 passes the body unanimously. Um, next we have Let's see, item 10D15. So I'll read it. AM 416-2026, Amendment Number 5 to Contract with Professional Watershed Monitoring and Water Quality Services with HDR Alaska, HDR for the Municipality of Anchorage. This item was pulled by Mr. Handeland.

Yes, Madam Chair, I have a conflict of interest. I was recently employed by HDR Alaska. My employment ended on April 28th of this year, but I'm currently a stockholder in the parent company of HDR.

Thank you. So you have disclosed a personal interest that is a potential conflict of interest. Just one question. So when you say stakeholder, that means at least a small ownership stake in the company? Correct.

Okay. And, but you're not any— you're not employed by them any longer? No. Okay. So I will rule that you do have a personal interest and a conflict.

I will also note in matters of prior employment because this question has come up before. We do not require disclosure if you worked somewhere 20 years ago, but generally what we've said is within the past year or so. And of course it would depend on the nature of that relationship, but generally that, that if you've worked somewhere in the past year that you need to disclose that interest. So that's just for members' awareness. So we'll wait for Mr. Hanlon to move.

And so because obviously he cannot participate in this item, we need a motion to Move to approve to proceed. Move to approve. Second. Second. Moved by Mr. Volland, seconded by Mr. Gerker.

Any discussion on this item?

Okay, seeing no one in the queue, the members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AM— sorry, I just lost it, um, AM 416-2026 passes the body unanimously. Uh, next we'll move on to item, um And I guess I will also note, so we have two items that are similar, so members have two options. One is to move them together. It is possible to package together items provided that the intent is to— that the same action is taken, or we can take them up individually. So I'll read both of those items.

They are 10D17 AM421/2026, recommendation of award of contract with Anchorage Community ICE Management Services, uh, ACIM, to provide operation management services for the Ben Boeke and Dempsey Anderson Ice Arenas. That's the first item. 10D18 is AM422-2026, recommendation of award of contract with All In 49 LLC to provide operation management services for the George M. Sullivan, or Sullivan Arena. Um, these items were both pulled by, uh, Miss Ms. Scout.

Thank you. I'd like to move to postpone both items to a special meeting of the assembly on Friday, June 26th at noon. Second. Thank you. There's been a motion to postpone both of these items to a special meeting, uh, on Friday, June 26th at noon.

Um, that was a motion by Ms. Scout, second by Mr. Bullen. Do you want to speak to that further? Yeah, so So both of these contracts are very exciting. I would like to thank the administration for moving these.

We did not have very much time to review them, and I think they are pretty high stakes given the history and importance of these facilities. So I am simply hoping to give my colleagues and I more time to review the contracts to ensure that we are set up for success with both of the— or all three of these facilities moving forward and have a special meeting this Friday.

Thank you. And next in the queue, I have Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to understand, uh, to the, to the mover of the motion, um, what are we expecting to have happen between Tuesday and Friday on this contract? Or, well, what information is outstanding, I suppose?

Yeah, so I have requested from the chief administrative officer, um, the full language of both contracts, um, current and the past ones as well. And, um, I received those, I believe, yesterday and just have not had enough time to do a full review. So personally, I'm not ready to vote on them given their importance.

Okay, thank you. Mr. McCormick, is there a reason this can't go till next meeting? Why special meeting? Yeah, so the contractors and administration expressed a desire to have these approved by July 1st so that there is enough time to get the contracts in motion and the maintenance work, everything going, so that we're set up for the hockey season in the fall.

And I think, I think it would also be appropriate to have the chief administrative officer speak to that question, if that is helpful. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is correct. Both of the contracts are presently anticipating a July 1st handoff, which is next Wednesday, which makes sooner rather than later far more ideal in terms of the operators both being able to staff up and begin scheduling for the hockey season. We surfaced some of those operational concerns in the work session last week.

I do understand that we are moving quickly here. Here. So I am trying to balance all the various interests.

Anything further, Mr. McCormick? Okay. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair.

I was under the impression at the work session that the— both the prior and the current or currently proposed contracts were going to be distributed to assembly members. Did that in fact happen?

My understanding at the work session was that they were available if anyone asked for them, and we only received a question from Member Scout. So that can happen, but it hasn't happened yet. Excellent. Okay, well, um, I would like to, um, request both of those, uh, then. And I just want to remind folks that, um, we, we had a rather robust Audit Committee meeting about this particular topic and a follow-up work session.

So, uh, this, this is something that I think merits our attention, and in, in more than just a cursory fashion, um, especially since we are ultimately accountable for these purse strings. So, um, I encourage my colleagues' support Thank you, Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not inclined to support this motion because I think that we have the information that we need, and, you know, respectfully, being prepared to vote when it comes up is members' responsibility.

So I will not be supporting this motion. I'm ready to dispatch this item tonight.

Thank you. Next, the Thank you. Member Brawley. Thank you. I just wanted to provide some additional information and context for this.

So this was discussed actually in advance by myself and Mr. Bolland when setting the work session with Mr. Fawzy. We offered multiple options. We discussed potentially scheduling a special meeting proactively. The desire was to have that work session, so we did schedule it. It is unusual to have a work session on a Thursday afternoon and of course it was before a holiday, and so, and so that was, I think, part of the, the timing issue.

And I know folks do need time to read significantly large contracts. I will also note that, that this was discussed as a possibility in the work session last Thursday. I encourage folks to go back and watch that if you're interested in this item. But also, I did have a sidebar conversation with a couple of the folks representing these organizations, just saying that this may be a possibility. Facility, again, given the history with this particular— these, well, mostly one facility but then multiple facilities, um, and the history with these contracts.

And so I just wanted to provide that information to members. So of course it is up to the body if we, if we take that step, but this was anticipated and discussed last week. Thank you. Next, Mr. Boland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Member Scout, if you could, could you repeat when you got the language of the contract?— that you requested?

I believe it was yesterday evening. Okay. So for my part, I don't think it's a reasonable expectation for a member of this body to have to do an in-depth review given just a day before the meeting of substantial contract language. As well as have to do all the other preparation for the meeting. So I just want to voice my appreciation for the administration helping unpack some of this stuff, recognizing that we are moving on a timeline here, but appreciate the opportunity for the work session and the discussion.

Appreciate, frankly, Mr. Fawlesy's assistance in reviewing the prior contract and the, um, the problems with the contractor executing on that contract. One of these facilities is in my district, the Sullivan Arena. It's a major asset to this community, and I think we have seen in times past when we rush too fast on contracts, we actually set ourselves up, not for success.

And so I think the, the extra time that is being requested is well within order. I don't see this as a lack of any assembly members' duty to do their homework. I think it's a little bit of extra vigilance and detail that is, at least for my part, much appreciated. So I do hope that we can support this and that we can take this up in a special meeting on Friday. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Miss Baldwin-Day for a second time.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I, I just wanted to provide maybe a bit of context for members of the public who are unclear as to why this is generating such a conversation. So the part of what is different about the contract for these venues, the Ben Bokey, Dempsey Anderson, and also for the Sullivan Arena, is that these contracts are actually going to cost the municipality money. So we are, we are intentionally offering operational subsidies and capital subsidies of various types to the proposed operators of these facilities. And they are municipally owned, but they will be operated by a contractor.

And that is why we're having this conversation, because one of these will cost the municipality about $2.8 million, $2.9 million over the next 5 years, and one will be approximately half a million dollars. And so because of that, because these are, these are contracts that are going to cost us something, in excess of what we would have otherwise contemplated. That is part of the reason that we are talking about this, at such length. Thanks. Thank you.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I just really have a question to the Chair. Maybe it's a point of information. What, uh, technically, what is our quorum on the special meeting so that we can know in advance, like, who needs to show up?

How many? Yeah, I'll answer and then ask the clerk to elaborate if needed. Um, so So a special meeting is, is considered the same as a regular meeting in the sense that we would need to have 7 members in person. Other members would be welcome to join on the phone or remotely if needed. And of course, we have a history of scheduling special meetings.

I was looking back on my calendar a couple years ago, there's a lot of them. They do have shorter notice requirements, and then there is a limit on what can be added to the agenda. And so when the agenda is published, it is not like our agenda where we simply amend things in, um, for clarity. And so, so at least from my part, the intent with a special meeting of this type would be similar to what we've done before— an hour maximum. I don't anticipate long debate on this, but of course that would be up to the body.

Thank you, appreciate that. And Mr. McCormick? I'll just say for my part, I'm ready to vote on this tonight. I'll be a no on moving to a special meeting.

3 Days notice midday is not practical for those of us with jobs. I have a clinic. I have scheduled patients. I cannot abandon my patients with 3 days' notice for this timeline. So I'll just be a no on a special meeting.

Thank you.

Member Brawley. Thank you. Just want to address also, I understand those concerns. I think one thing we are doing as a body is looking again at our schedule and making our schedule more predictable. Um, but I will also say that, um, the special meeting, uh, can be scheduled with a much shorter notice.

We certainly try not to do that. And I think Fridays historically have been days of assembly business. And so it's been unusual that we've had some work sessions scheduled on other days. Some of that is scheduling around the folks who have been involved. Um, but those of us who have been up here a few years know that we have been in many special meetings on Fridays.

Um, and so I appreciate the, um, concern about scheduling. As I said, I do intend that this would be brief. This is a significant item and that it is pretty typical for us to have most of our Fridays full historically. And so I would also encourage members to consider keeping at least parts of your Fridays full unless they are marked as no meeting Friday on the calendar. Thank you.

I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. And again, the item before— the motion before us is to postpone to a special meeting on Friday, June 26th for both D17 and D18.

Okay, on a vote of 7 to 5, uh, that motion passes. So both of these items are now postponed to a special meeting. The clerk will be sending out a notice, uh, shortly. And again, I will remind members, if you have a hardship participating in in person, please let us know as soon as possible so that we can make sure that we have quorum. Thank you.

Next we have item 10D20, so that is AM426-2026, recommendation of award of a contract to True North Recovery Inc. for deflection navigation services. And this was pulled by one member, but I'm actually going to turn to a different member. Mr. Gerker, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I believe I may I have a conflict of interest to declare here. My brother-in-law works for True North Recovery.

There's obviously no financial interest for me personally, but it is a, it is a family relationship. Okay, thank you. So you have declared that you have a substantial personal interest in this item. I will ask, um, is your brother-in-law a member of your household? No.— but is a member of your family?

Correct. And does this individual work or would be anticipated to work on this contract in Anchorage? I don't know. Honestly, truly, I don't know. I kind of keep a firewall on that kind of stuff.

Sure. Understood. Okay. Then I will— I guess I will briefly turn to counsel and just ask, is someone's brother-in-law— would that be considered family for the purposes of this, um, this item. And I will say generally, of course, we have a duty to disclose potential conflicts of interest and not participate in those things where we have a conflict, but also we have a duty to vote.

And so that's why we need to make sure that we are not unduly excusing folks from voting.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The short answer is yes. I think an in-law is considered the same as a brother, brother-in-law, at least to err on the side of caution in interpreting the ethics code. Thank you. So at this time, and I'll remind members also, the chair rules on conflicts.

There is an opportunity for the body to overrule that ruling if you don't agree. So I will rule at this time that you do have a substantial personal conflict on this item, so if you don't mind leaving the room for a few minutes.

And then, um, and then this item was— I'll wait just a second.

I believe this item was pulled by, uh, Mr. Vohland, so one second before he leaves the room.

Go ahead, Mr. Voland. Thank you. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Voland to approve this item, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, I believe, uh, Member Perez Verdia touched on this during our committee reports, but just for my constituents in Fairview who may be watching tonight and looking at this, I want I sort of disambiguate it from, um, the conversation around a, a, the same organization potentially having a location for services in Fairview. And so, um, if it's okay, I'd like to invite Chief Case up and just ask about this.

Um, this is for deflection navigation services, um, and with, with the Anchorage Police Department. So if you could just maybe speak to what are what are the services that we're talking about and give us some, some basic background.

Through the Chair, Member Vohland, this RFP is for deflection navigation services, not deflection services themselves. So just, uh, very practically, how this would work is when an officer comes in contact that meets the requirement for a deflection service, we would be contracting with this vendor to do a warm handoff, and they would not only determine what type of service that this person would go to— so for instance, you know, it could be a counseling service provided by somebody, it could be, you know, substance abuse counseling, there's a whole host of things that they would essentially deflect the individual to— and then they would manage whether or not that individual people successfully completed that program and do all the administrative paperwork, or let the police department know if they did not successfully complete the program, and then we would move forward with our typical prosecution. So again, this organization isn't providing the actual service, they're just navigating people through the system so they can be directed to those services. Great. And is that— that's work that's kind of already sort of happening?

I know there's been some partnership with True True North? Uh, the current partnership that we have with True North is they're providing peer support. So when our HOPE team goes out into the field and has contact with individuals in the community, primarily focus on those are experiencing homelessness, True North provides peer support. So those who have lived experience in that environment to try to also connect them to services. So it's very similar to what we're doing, but, but different, okay, because currently it's not replacing an arrest.

The new service will add us, or add our ability to deflect people out of the criminal justice system when they've committed a crime. So it's not focused directly for the homeless population like the peer support is now. Got it. And then finally, I guess, just to be like really on the nose, I think what I hear you saying is these navigation services are connecting folks to services sort of all over Anchorage, different locations. There's not one specific location where these, you know, where we would be navigating folks to with this contract.

That is correct. Okay. There are services throughout the municipality that they will be navigating to. Correct. Great.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Next I have Madam Mayor. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. And I want to emphasize that this contract would not bring people into Fairview.

True North is doing amazing work. They are an incredible partner with us and, as you've heard, are already working with APD. I hear from from community members, assembly members, all the time about, you know, what are we doing to address the behavioral health needs in our community that we see play out oftentimes in very public ways. And we need True North in our community because they would help us with this issue to address these behavioral health issues that we're and I just want to emphasize again that they are an incredible partner, and this is how we are going to continue to make progress. So thank you.

Okay, thank you. Apologies for that. Um, I don't have any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member McCormick.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, AM426/2026 passes the body. Uh, the next item— there's two items for introduction that were, um, pulled hold. The first one, my understanding from the sponsors is so 10G8, the intent is not to introduce that item and we should— the public should expect to see a different version or new version of that item in the future. So we're not going to take action on that one. I'll set it aside.

And then lastly, we have 10G11. So this item was listed for introduction AR 2026-177, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, ENG 302AA 20-602 between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Union of Operating Engineers, IUE Local 302, regarding a change to collective bargaining agreement language. This item was pulled by Mr. Handlin. Go ahead. Uh, once again, my father has a pension through the Local 302.

He has never been employed by the Municipality of Anchorage, but I have a conflict of interest. Thank you. To clarify, so you have a personal interest, and so I am asked as chair to rule on whether it is a conflict. As discussed last time, there is not a clear and direct connection between the current municipal employees under this union and your family member, and so I'm going to rule that you do not have a conflict. But again, members are welcome to override the ruling of the chair.

Chair or overrule the, the chair if, if desired. Thank you. Okay, uh, so yeah, you will participate in this item. And so, uh, this one is of course just for introduction, and so unless there's a change to the public hearing, then all we need is a motion to introduce, and we'll need a first, second, and third. Move to introduce.

Second. Third. Do you need me to set the public hearing on the record, or we're already good there? One moment.

Okay, so that was a motion to introduce, uh, by Mr. Bolland, second by Miss Baldenday, and I believe third by— was it Mr. Gerker? No, Mr. Handlin? No, Mr. Gerker. Sorry. Thank you.

Um, and I'll just note, so this item has been introduced. There's no further action needed in the public hearing as was written on the agenda. It will be on July May 1st, 2026. Okay, so that concludes our consent agenda. As noted, I'm hoping we can take up one more brief item, Item 11A, and dispatch with that item, and then we will break for dinner.

So that is Assembly AM 351/2026, 2026 Economic Development Grant to the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, AEDC, for the purpose of operational fees. This item was postponed from the meeting of May 6, and there's no motion pending. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Um, can you clarify, uh, Mr. Martinez, are you moving the A version or the original version? The correct one. That would be the A version. Yes, ma'am. Yes, thank you.

Um, so motion, uh, to approve the A version of this, uh, memorandum by Mr. Martinez, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Martinez. Uh, thank you. I just encourage my colleagues to support this. Um, we asked this to come before the CEDC, and Mr. Bittner came before us, uh, the committee.

We had a presentation. Um, if you weren't able to tune into that, I would encourage you go back to the website and you can see the recording of that presentation. And one of the things that I did ask for the director, Mr. Bittner, to consider our AR 2025-159, our Four Pillars of Economic Development framework. And, uh, and he agreed to kind of utilize that and begin to use that framework as a bridge for us. I'm satisfied that they do great work, um, that he is building his new team there, and that we'll be able to get, uh, moving forward with some important projects that move the economic development needle with them.

So they have my full support, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this today.

Thank you. There's no other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a motion of 12 to 0, AM351/2026 passes the body unanimously. With that, we will break for dinner and be back approximately about 7:05 or so for the remainder of our agenda. Thank you.

Simply wait to be taught in some other way. What do I really care about?

What do I really care about my free to make it known.

Uh, just confirming, Mr. Perez-Vidia, can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you. Okay, thank you. And I'll just note Mr. Perez-Vidia will be joining us on the phone for the rest of the meeting.

Okay, let's go ahead and get started. We'll call back to order. So we are now on 11B, 11B AO 2026-40, an Anchorage ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 7.10.010 and Chapter 7.20 to create a veteran-owned business preference program for specific contracting categories. I will note there is an S1, there was a late-on-the-table S2, there's a couple of amendments, and where we left off on June 9th was that there was a motion to approve the S1 version on the floor. So I'll also note for members, just for clarity, because I know this has come up a couple of times, if there is desire to take up a different version, then either the sponsors of the original motion would need to withdraw and then there would be no motion on the floor and a different version can be moved, or there is an option to move to substitute with a new version, which would be the S2, and then that is considered an amendment.

So we would only be able to go one, one deep on amendments. We would not be able to do amendments to amendments. So just so everybody is understanding that, because we are all learning our roles. So with that, there's, as I said, there's a motion to approve on the floor. And I guess I will first turn to Mr. Gerker, as there's no one in the queue, since you moved it last.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Correct, yeah, our intent is to move the S-1 for approval. I will, I guess, briefly speak to some of the history that's happened on this in the last month. We met with the administration, came and did a work session with us where we had a couple of different PowerPoint presentations from the administration presentation talking about the S2, and we talked about our S1, and we went through some of the differences really between these, between these proposals. After that work session, it became apparent to my co-sponsor and I that one of the, one of the things that we do, we did need to make a change in our version, uh, was regarding the Alaska, uh, residency requirement.

So we do have an amendment for that. I'll to that in just a moment. But the rest of the terms from the administration's proposals for the S-2, uh, remains, um, not, not agreeable, I guess, to myself and the sponsor or my co-sponsor. And so we are not intending, uh, to accept those. Obviously, power of 7, we'll see what happens here in a little bit.

But that's kind of the history on it. I appreciate everyone's indulgence as we've extended this process a couple times. Just want to make sure that we engage in as much conversation as, as, as necessary and appropriate to get to a good product. I think we are there. Um, consequently, I will then move Gerker-Baldwin-Day Amendment Number 1.

Second. Okay, a motion by Mr. Gerker, second by Miss Baldwin-Day, uh, to amend— or sorry, no, Amendment 1. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment does, like I said, is in responsive to the, the feedback that we received from colleagues in the administration after the work sessions and more conversation.

It just adds the veteran, the Alaska residency requirement, uh, to receive this for— so it's Alaska veterans that we don't have, you know, veterans from out of state stepping in. And then the other portion of this is a reporting requirement from the, for the administration to report back on how this is being utilized. This is being, uh, is this working? Is this doing what we're intending it to do? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Johnson on the main motion. Oh, on the main, I'm sorry. Um, if you can put yourself back in the queue, I won't clear you at the time.

Um, there are no additional members in the queue for this amendment, so members may proceed to vote on the Amendment Number 1.

Member Presverdia? Yes.

OK, on a motion of 12 to 0, that amendment passes unanimously. We are back on the main motion. Currently there's no one in the queue. Oh yes, I'm sorry. No, it's all right, Chair.

Now you're back in the queue, Mr. Johnson. I seem to be locked out of the queue. For debate, I would make a motion to amend by substitution motion version S2. Second.

Okay, there's a motion to substitute with the S2 version, um, motion by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Bolland. Mr. Johnson? Yeah, thank you. I certainly appreciate and support the spirit of this proposal, and to be perfectly candid, I am not necessarily in favor of the S2 myself, or that I've necessarily been convinced it is a better path forward. However, I think simply for the sake of making sure that we have a fulsome debate, I would invite the administration to present their argument in favor of the S2 without necessarily signaling my support at this point.

Go ahead, Mr. Fawzi. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the mover. Appreciate this. We learned yesterday that we were not going to meet to try to come up to a consensus S2, and now we're reacting in real time to the amended version of the S1. I think that we are now tracing that there are 5 differences between the amended S1 and the potential S2.

So if I could beg the body's indulgence, I will walk through those 5, and hopefully that gives us some grounds to drive towards a conclusion here. The first difference between the S1 as amended and the S2 is the amount of the preference. The S1 version is far more generous and therefore much more expensive. It is $50,000 for the Alaska veteran, which could stack on top of the local veteran of $50,000. The S2 version proposes to use the sliding scale that is currently in code for local preference, which caps out at $20,000 and which is also more generous than what is in state code.

So the first difference is just how generous of a preference are we looking to to make on the invitation to bid side. The second is that we had proposed and discussed in the work session that one concern that we have as an administration is whether we are going to reward outcomes that we were going to get already. We don't know which of our usual municipal contractors are veteran-owned right now. I don't know if Roger Hickle or Spurnack or QAP or any of the others are. And one way that we thought that we get ahead of that was by saying if the idea is to help veteran-owned businesses become established in Anchorage, that we would have a time limit on when the preference would last, for how long it would last after someone has actually discharged from the services, and then ultimately a lifetime cumulative cap.

So if you have received the benefit of half a million dollars, the cap would turn off at that point. There is no similar version in the S-1 S-1, as amended, before the body. If you're looking to track that difference, the S-2 version encodes those in Section 40. The third challenge is an operational challenge, and I think probably a little bit less of a policy question. In the S-1 version, there is a provision that provides that if you are in a joint venture with a veteran-owned business, you get a pro rata portion of the preference.

So if you're a 63% veteran-owned joint venture, you get 63% of the 5% preference. And then it further says that in order to remain eligible for the preference, you have to maintain your veteran-owned status. Candidly, as we mentioned in the work session, we are not sure how to operationalize that. If a stock-owned corporation is selling its stock and those proportions are changing, we are not sure ensure how in real time over the course of a contract we will administer that. The alternative version, we had proposed a simpler arrangement in the S-2, which is in Section 40, where we say, as long as you are majority-owned veteran in whatever form, then you qualify.

We are not going to do the pro rata attempt. And that we will assess that at the time of contract award or the time of option execution. So there's a clear moment. Again, that's really more of an operational concern than a policy concern, I think, because we're not sure how we're going to monitor or receive reporting of veteran-owned status in real time. And again, we're not sure how we would change the price that we are paying in real time unless we're involving new kind of contract provisions in our ITBs, which we have never developed so far.

Number 4, we discussed how that there is a difference between RFPs and ITBs in the work session, and that our penny understanding was that if you apply a preference in the invitation to bid setting, you are saying, "I'm willing to pay a little more to give this to a veteran-owned business." If you apply a preference in the request for proposal setting, you're willing to say, "I will take my second or third best option in order to award this to a veteran-owned business." And you may get something very different. Instead of buying gravel a little more expensively, typically you will get a different financial advisor who's testifying in front of the, uh, the RCA, or a different website vendor who's selling you a different product. We prefer not to extend the preference to the RFP setting. Our local preference is only ITB. That is a ripe policy question for the assembly to decide.

And finally, the effective date, because this conversation has extended. In the S2 version, we would like a little bit more time to implement whatever comes way. And so we had proposed September 1st. The current S1 version still has an effective date of July 1st. So with those as the 5 differences, we'd be happy to field any questions.

I don't know how the assembly would like to engage in this, but that is our best understanding of what is the difference between the 2 versions now.

Thank you. Anything further, Mr. Johnson? Not at this time, Chair. Okay, thank you. So currently we have the motion to substitute the S2 version, motion to amend by substitution, on the table.

There's no one in the queue, so members— oh, is there someone?

No? Okay, sorry, sorry, sorry, Chair. I was trying to get back in the queue. I, I might need IT to take a look to look at what's going on here. Okay.

Yeah, thank you. And in the meantime, Mr. Johnson, if you want to speak. Yeah, thank you. I will say I appreciate the administration for presenting those arguments.

I think my inclination would be to continue to support the S-1. However, I think some of the things, without taking— feeling like compelled to accept the entirety of the S-2, some of the operational challenges relating to the pro rata apportionment and the implementation of that, I mean, I think does raise some questions in my mind. I think it would be preferable to amend this one perhaps to achieve those goals as opposed to an outright substitution, but I'm not sure how to achieve that today. Or frankly, I would also invite the sponsors to respond to some of these questions that were raised if they have ways that they have contemplated and addressed those concerns. So that's all I have at this point.

Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day on the amendment. On the amend by substitution? Yes. Okay, great.

Yes. So I think I want to speak briefly to a couple of the things that have been raised. So our intent, my co-sponsor and I's intent, was to try to make this as straightforward as possible, which is one of the reasons that we eliminated the existing sliding scale that was currently in code and were reluctant to think about, you know, something like tracking a time limit and a lifetime cumulative cap on awarding of preferences. I think with respect to the pro rata eligibility, that feels like something that makes a lot of sense in terms of operationalizing this ordinance, that it would be much more straightforward to have qualification be qualification and to have specific points in time where that requalification modification would need to occur. We looked into the questions around utilizing this in an RFP model and looked at some other codes and other places where this type of preference is, in fact, incorporated into RFPs and felt that there were sufficient safeguards or guardrails, I should say, in the RFP process and in the way that RFPs, or requests for proposal, can be constructed, that the inclusion of a veteran preference would in the end have only a very minimal impact, and that at this point, from our understanding of data we've received from purchasing, only about a quarter of the RFPs that are awarded are awarded within a 5% tolerance.

And so that was sufficient enough to convince us that the impact would be relatively minimal. And the administration and the assembly, of course, retain the ability to, to reject all bids if in fact there was a situation that emerged where a secondary bidder in an RFP was somehow not the product that we were in fact looking for. There would be the option to, to go that route and to retool the RFP in its entirety. With respect to an effective date for implementation, I think that's extremely reasonable, and we are asking for some additional processes to be incorporated. And so I think my, my co-sponsor and I would be very open to changing the effective date for implementation, but otherwise we, we believe that our S-1 should stand as is and would be happy to amend.

Thank you.

Thank you. I currently have no other members in the queue.

So members may proceed to vote on the motion to amend by substitution and picking up the S2.

Member Presverdia. No.

Okay, on a vote of 3 to 9, um, that motion has failed to pass. Motion to amend, Mr. Johnson. Thank you. So I would like to propose an amendment after this discussion. I would like to— this is in regard to the language on page 4 starting at line 25, paragraph B. I think my amendment would be to substitute that language with just that paragraph from the S2, which on the S2 is also on Page 4, starting at line 7.

And this is just simply related to rather than having the apportion value based on the percent ownership by veterans, to simply say that it must be a majority-owned veteran business. Okay. There is a motion to amend striking language on page 4, starting at line 25, the paragraph essentially removing reference to joint venture. Is there a second to that motion?

May I ask a clarifying question? Yeah, point of information. Point of information. So this would not be removal of the joint venture, it would simply be— okay, I'm sorry, I'm tracking now. Apologies.

Yeah, it would be substituting that paragraph from the S-2. So rather than delineating, you know, what percentage the preferences based based on the percentage of veteran ownership, just as was presented by the administration, say if it's a majority-owned veteran business, it qualifies. If it isn't, it doesn't. Second. Okay.

So there's an amendment by Mr. Johnson— moved by Mr. Johnson, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day to— and I'll restate and make sure the clerk has it as well. So for the portion of on page 4, starting line 25,— that would be 7.20.0402D, to substitute that language starting on line 25 with the similar language in the S2 in the same place, removing that— making it a straight up or down.

So I have Mr. Fawzy in the queue. Go ahead, Mr. Fawzy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to state for clarification that if the intent of the mover was to address the third operational concern, C, if I'm also putting the two documents side by side, was the other half of our concern, which is when you assess whether a business is majority veteran-owned.

In the original S-1, the C there says you have to continue to meet the definition for the duration of the contract. Contract. And we don't know what really happens if you stop being a veteran-owned business there. Our attempt, as in the alternative in C2, was that provision you see as the C there, which is that we are going to assess it at the time of contract execution and when the options happen. So that may be a package.

That may be another item for the Assembly to consider. But that was the item I was intending— that was the issue I was intending to express.

Madam Chair? One second, I'm conferring with the clerk. And I believe I misspoke. Just for clarity, I was looking at the S2 and I said page 4, line 25 was under D, but I was looking at the wrong version. So just to be very clear, page 4, line 25, so the subsection B in the S1 version.— so just to be clear about that.

And then just to, again, make sure that the clerk can make this or contract this properly, then, Mr. Fawzy, you were saying that in the S-1, subsection C would also need to be addressed. Is that correct?

I am trying to think formally if it has to travel as a pair, but it would certainly be our preference that both would be changed. Okay. C. So, uh, Mr. Johnson, go ahead. If it's amenable to the, the second, I would like to, um, revise my amendment to incorporate paragraphs B and C.

That is— yes, I am amenable to that. Thank you. So it would be wholesale substitution of B and C from the S2 version to the S1 version in that section, correct?

Okay, thank you. So again, just so everybody can follow, so we're talking about about taking the language— we're looking at the S-1, page 4, line 25, subsection B, and then subsection C that starts on line 32 and ends on line 36, removing that language and swapping in the equivalent language in the S-2 version, which appears to be page 4, line 7 of the S-2, and then page 4, line 13 of the S-2, lines 6 and 13.

And please confirm. I believe the clerk has that correct on the screen. Okay, I'm seeing nods. Okay, so now that that's sorted, um, Mr. Johnson, I think you were in the queue. You want to speak further?

Miss Baldwin-Day? Okay, uh, no one else in the queue at this time, so members may proceed to vote on this amendment, um, to change these two subsections.

Member Presverdia? Yes.

Okay, on a motion of 12 to 0, that amendment passes as stated. Again, swapping out those two paragraphs from the S2 into the S1. So next I have Miss Baldwin-Day in the queue. Yes, thank you, Chair. I'd like to move to amend in the S1 version page 2.

Page 9, Section 3, the effective date. I would like to change the effective date from July 1st, 2026 to September 1st, 2026. Second. Okay, motion to— uh, this one's much simpler, thank you. Um, motion to change the effective date from July 1st to September 1st, 2026.

Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Gerker. Any further discussion on that?

Okay, seeing and hearing, uh, none on that one, uh, members may proceed to vote again on the amendment to change the effective date from July 1st to September 1st.

Member Presverdia? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, the amendment to change the effective date, uh, That passes the body. We are back on the main motion. I also note there's a couple other amendments, so I don't know if other members intend to move those, um, to the S1. Mr. Handeland, go ahead. I'd like to move Handeland Amendment Number 3.

Okay, motion, uh, to move Handeland Amendment 3, um, motion by Mr. Handeland. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. McCormick. Go ahead, Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, um, My proposal keeps the veteran-owned business preference, but structures in a way that protects taxpayers from higher costs. So instead of automatically awarding a contract to a veteran-owned business at a higher bid amount, the preference would create the right to match. So a veteran-owned business is within the 5% percentage range and has the lowest effective bid, it would be given the opportunity to accept the contract at the lowest actual bid price. So for example, if a veteran-owned business bids $100,000 and a non-veteran bid— non-veteran business bids $99,000, the veteran-owned business would have the option to perform the work for $99,000. If it accepts, the veteran-owned business receives the contract.

If it declines, the contract goes to the actual lowest bidder. This keeps the preference meaningful while ensuring the municipality is always still paying the lowest price.

Okay, Mr. Gerker, go ahead. At the risk of kicking off the great Eagle River civil war, I am not inclined to support this amendment. I appreciate the spirit of where it's coming from, but I do think this adds a layer of complexity that we don't— that doesn't currently exist in this process and that isn't really needed. So I will not be supporting supporting this. I do urge my colleagues to vote no on this.

A large part of what we are trying to do here is to just graft this into existing processes as much as possible so we are not reinventing the wheel for the administration. So I won't be supporting this, and I urge my colleagues to vote no as well. But I do very much appreciate where my colleague is coming from.

Thank you. Now I have a number of folks in the queue. Next, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I see this as a, a good balance, um, of still giving veterans a preference but still being financially responsible for the city and getting the best that, that we can for our tax dollars. So for those reasons, I'll be supporting it.

Thank you.

Next, Miss Scout. Yeah, I have a question for the amendment sponsor, I guess is the language. Um, which is whether there is precedent for this language and other bidder preference programs at the municipality. Go ahead, Mr. Sorry, so yes, it would actually also apply— the way that the language is structured would also apply to the local preference as, as well.

And this only applies to the ITBs, and it does not apply anything to RFPs. I guess, do we have this kind of process for bidding preferences, for other types of bidding preferences that exist already?

I'm not sure about, I guess, currently, I mean, I found this preference in other municipalities, and so it's not nothing, it's not something brand new. It's called a right to match, and so it's not super common., but, um, it's not brand new. Okay, thank you. And I'll also ask, um, opportunity for the administration if, um, you want— I know you're looking at it in real time— if you want to comment if this exists currently in any of our other, uh, preferences. Uh, to the chair, uh, this we were able to review last week.

We don't believe it exists anywhere else in Anchorage code, but I think this right-to-match and something like a right of refusal process exists in many other settings.

Okay, any other, uh, discussion? Miss Scout? Okay, thank you. Uh, next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you.

Following along that line, Mr. Fawzy, uh, with respect to implementation, does this make it much more difficult? Where does this land with respect to our ability to do it? In fact, great ideas are one thing, but then the implementation aspect is what Mr. Goc was talking about, is another thing. Where does this land with respect to the ability to do it? Through the Chair to Member Martinez, I think that is a great question and one that I think we tossed about internally, and the candid answer is we don't really know because we've not done this before, but it doesn't seem like an impossible lift.

I think we were actually, if I can totally confess, sort of impressed with how clever this is because it really does protect the municipality's fisc. I think I think if there is an offsetting consideration, it may be that there are occasions for us to fumble this ball, that if we don't implement the process, certainly that could draw some bid protests. And it probably would introduce a bit of a delay in some ITB settings, because we would newly have to do this process after bid opening in some, but not all, of our ITBs. But of course, that delay would be buying you the fact that you are now being able to steer business toward veteran and local businesses at no additional cost. So, um, we didn't take an administrative position on the amendment, but I think that's how we're viewing it.

Thank you, that's helpful. Thank you. Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to be supporting this.

Um, you know, I, I don't know that I can support the underlying item without an like this. I think, you know, I've gone back and forth on this. You know, my own brother actually is in the process of— he's going to become a veteran. He's getting out of the Navy. I don't have a conflict because he doesn't live here in Alaska, but, you know, I certainly want to support our veterans, but I also am cognizant of the fiscal picture that we are facing facing as a municipality.

You know, to me, we're having conversations around potential cuts in services and, you know, trying to balance resident expectations with revenues and be able to have those honest conversations with our constituents. And so I I think when I contemplate paying tens of thousands, you know, more dollars for, for a contract, um, I, I just think that potentially sets us up in a tough spot that may not be fully fiscally responsible. So I like that this kind of gets us into a place where there is preference for those who have served our country admirably, but maybe ameliorates the impact to the municipality's fiscal picture. So I will be in support. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And it looks like there's no further members in the queue at this time, so members may proceed to vote on this amendment. Handle an amendment number 3.

Member Presverdia. Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 2, um, this amendment, Hindlen Amendment Number 3, passes.

And we are back on the main motion again. We are on the S1 as amended. Ms. Scout, go ahead. Yeah, I'd like to introduce my amendment, Amendment Number 2.

Um, my— I will second. Oh, thank you. Motion by Ms. Scout to introduce Scout Amendment Number 2, seconded by Mr. Bolland. Go ahead, Ms.

Scout. So my intention with this amendment was to recognize that veterans and those currently serving obviously our very mobile population. And so, um, through the work sessions and discussions about this policy, I thought it would make more sense to open this up to anybody in— who has been a resident of Alaska at any time in their life and not require current residency. So that is the purpose of this amendment. Very— I'm very eager to hear the sponsors' and other colleagues' reactions, but just trying to open this up to folks who may not currently reside in Alaska but have lived here before, and hopefully encourage veterans to come back to Alaska who may have moved away.

Thank you.

Mr. McCormick, on the amendment. Yeah, I'd say, uh, when Member Scott brought this up at the work session, I thought it was a very interesting and fair point of that we do have a transient population. People that move up here are stationed up here, are then stationed elsewhere. And I think this is a fair point of allowing veteran business owners to come back to Alaska, come back, be contributing members to, to our economy.

So I'll be in support this. Thank you. Next, I have myself in the queue. Member Brawley. Yeah, I have a couple questions, not specifically for the sponsor, but the— I guess two things on my mind about this, just to understand, is one, what would the definition of a legal resident be?

And I'll give one example without naming the person. I know I know of at least one, um, uh, person who is not currently a veteran but, but will be someday and has resided in Alaska but not registered to vote in Alaska and, and maintained. So I just want to make sure, um, I guess looking at Assembly Council generally, you know, how might we define legal resident? Does that require voting registration? Does it require just having physical residency, having these, you know, is there any kind of just existing language about that?

Sorry, somebody cut my mic. It's not the first time this has happened, but— so under the rules of construction for the code, and this is just, um, the first definition I found. A resident means a person whose habitual physical dwelling place is within the area in question and who intends to maintain his or her dwelling place in that area. Okay, thanks. So it's not tied to voting or, or that sort of registration?

Um, it's not a hard and fast requirement. That is what you would use to determine, um, as evidence that a person intends to remain in the area. So if we were trying to determine whether someone was a resident of Alaska, that would be something that they could present and you could consider, but it's not like you have a hard and fast requirement that says like, no, you have to be this and you have to be that. Okay, thank you. And then my other question, I don't know if this would be for our attorneys or perhaps Mr. Falzy, just in terms of purchasing, is Practically speaking, I know it is easier to determine current residency.

What might this look like in terms of documentation? And I am asking these questions because I just want to understand. I think it is an interesting idea for sure. To the chair, that is a pressing question. We were just having a sidebar about that here.

In real time, the answer is we don't know. And if we were to add any time— the preferences extends to someone who has a veteran who lived in ask at any time. I think we would need a corresponding amendment to A2 so that the bidder is submitting some kind of proof, because I'm not otherwise sure how we are practically going to pull that information other than someone submits an affidavit.

Okay, thank you. Um, I'll yield the floor and then we can move on, but that's helpful information. Information. So next I have Mr. Hanlon on the amendment. Sorry, you had the same question as me.

Oh, okay, okay. Uh, Mr. Buland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seconded the amendment for purposes of discussion. I think I'm actually disinclined to support it because I'm not sure that it— I guess in my mind does achieve that stated goal by, by Member Scout to sort of entice people to come back, to me this seems to say that you could move out of state and you'd still be eligible for this preference.

Whereas in the more— I think in the amendment that we passed already, veteran means a current legal resident of the state of Alaska, that to me means if you want this preference, well, you're going to be part of our community as well as having served our country. And I think that, that, yeah, that's just where I'm more inclined to go on this. But I do appreciate the opportunity for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I don't see any other members, so I'm just checking to make sure I do not exclude Mr. Perez-Vedia. Okay, not Oh, sorry, Miss Scout, go ahead. Yeah, I appreciate the discussion about this, and I think, um, I will also be disinclined to support it after learning more information. Um, but yeah, appreciate the discussion, and the spirit of the policy, it sounds like, achieves, um, the objectives that I was set out to do. So thanks everyone.

Thank you. So then I will note, just procedurally, um, the mover of the amendment has two options. You request that folks vote on it, and it's always a good experience to vote on your own amendment. But also, so we can move forward to the vote, or you're welcome to withdraw the amendment. Okay, yeah, I'm happy to withdraw the amendment.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. And the second did agree. So, okay, so we are back on the main motion as amended, and we've gone through multiple amendments at this point.

Um, and, uh, yeah, I know it's— this is a good, good exercise of some, uh, procedural gymnastics here. So, um, any other discussion on this item? I don't see anybody in the queue. So again, we're— oh, Mr. Martinez, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

Now we're— this is on the main motion, the main item, right? Well, I wanted to start off by saying I deeply respect our veterans and the sacrifices they've made, uh, and their families we make every day to our community. And I do believe that I like the idea behind this. I just wanted to flag that I appreciate the, uh, the amendment with respect to the limitations, uh, the Handlin Amendment, because I think I would have been difficult as well getting to a place where we don't have a control over the amount of dollars that are going to be spent behind this contract. But I also wanted to flag something else though, because the conversation The question of preferences is an interesting one with respect to the municipality and procurement.

And from a historic perspective, there are two particular tracks, as I spoke to a few veterans, that I heard two different tracks. One, folks believe complete down the line meritocracy. The best person for the job should get the job, full stop. Who's going to do the better job? Just being a veteran doesn't necessarily mean you are going to do a better job, right?

And so that's one of the things. The other side is how do we reduce the barriers for entry? So just, just creating a procurement opportunity is one thing, but what about the technical assistance to get into our contract work? So reducing the barriers is another aspect I think that I don't want us to miss, uh, to misinterpret in terms of the ability to actually implement this. And although I'll be supporting this today, I also wanted to flag that preferences in this community have been long debated when it comes to Black folk, people of color, and others, um, historically marginalized communities who have not had economic opportunities to participate in procurement.

And I recognize that there's a difference between the immutable nature of one one's race and identity in that and the voluntary nature of service through military. But I wanted to flag that if we're moving in a direction where we're trying to find the ability to lower barriers so that more of our folks in our community and our diverse community can participate in economic development, that that should also include things like language access and other things that may be beyond the scope of this particular conversation, but I don't think I don't think it's something that we should forget even as we advance this agenda item today. So I'll be supporting this today, but I wanted to recognize that there are other levers that we can do to reduce the barriers for folks to get involved in our economic engine of the procurement process. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, I have Mr. Perez-Fordia in the queue. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to just share a few thoughts. The idea and the spirit behind this of creating opportunities for veterans and veteran-owned businesses is something I'm 100% behind, and signaling to the community and to organizations that we support veterans is a really important message for us to be sending. And I agree with Mr. Martinez thinking about how do we create pathways for for organizations and people who have historically struggled to have access to contracting services.

And so, I think this is a really important conversation to be having, and I think the idea of creating an incentive and creating opportunities for veteran-owned businesses is something I'm 100% behind. I'm troubled by the implementation of this. I'm troubled by the— the concerns voiced by the administration about the potential cost of this, even with the Hamlin Amendment in place, this feels like we're walking into something that could be really complicated and challenging. So that's, that's where I'm at, is the spirit of it, the, the desire to support veterans, the desire to create opportunities for the businesses that we and something that is potentially financially and logistically really complex and challenging. So I'll just share that and that I'm struggling to figure how I'm going to vote on this.

But I want us to just walk into this with our eyes wide open that this may turn into something that's very difficult to implement and doesn't necessarily do what we want it to do. So it may be back before us relatively soon. Soon with some changes that need to be made. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Next, Miss Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So I, I want to, I want to reinforce that, you know, part of, part of this ordinance intends to create a feedback loop whereby we will understand on an annual basis exactly how the municipality is being impacted financially by the, the veteran preference Veteran preference, the exercise of veteran preference in our contracting work. And so that feedback loop exists, and I hope that what that does is it gives this assembly and future assemblies the opportunity to review whether or not we are actually getting the outcomes that we are hoping for. And in the event that this does become a rather expensive proposition, even with the addition of Member Handeland's amendment, that we can make those adjustments in real time.

And, you know, it's difficult to forecast anytime you're doing a new thing exactly how the new thing is going to impact operations. And so I think it's important for us to recognize that that feedback loop exists and we ought to utilize it. We ought to not just shuffle those reports aside when they come our way, but really cast a critical eye to understand whether we've gotten the outcomes that we're hoping for. And then secondly, with respect to comments made by Member Member Martinez and Member Perez-Verdia, I hope that this is an opening salvo in a much broader conversation about how the municipality becomes a really great business partner and invites new folks to be in business partnership with the MOA. I think there's, there's more work yet to be done.

This, this we could envision as a first step in saying, hey, the muni is open for business, and, and not just to the usual folks, to the usual contractors. And, and I, I hope that there are other projects brought forward by colleagues that treat this similarly and that, that give us new pathways for folks to be involved with muni contracting. And so I don't believe that this is the end of the discussion. I hope that it's the beginning of a much larger one. And I want to express my appreciation both to my co-sponsor and to the folks in the Administration who have spent a lot of time on this particular item, really trying to hash out, you know, what is the balance, what is the balance of tools that we're going to bring to bear here.

And I appreciate the, the discussion here on the dais tonight, and I hope that this is something that we can move forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I don't have any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. Again, this is the S1 version, AO 2026-40. To the body as amended.

Member Perez-Rodilla.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-40 S1 as amended passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to our other item. This is again an item that does not have a public hearing tonight. It is a— let me find my notes.

It is a piece of AO-2026-78. That is an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan to change the future land use designation. Here it says of 36 lots, but I will note rather than— I guess I should read that full title. I'll read it and then I'll clarify what we're actually voting on. To change the future land use designation for 36 lots from University or Medical Center community facility or institution, compact mixed residential low, compact mixed residential medium, and neighborhood center to urban residential high, Main Street corridor, and town center.

And then I will note, um, specifically this question was divided at our last meeting, and so the question of approving the strip commercial development at Tudor Road and Patterson, property ID 007201-86000, 007201 -97000 and 00720-162000 is on the floor. And so just to note, this question was divided. The rest of this had already been approved at our last meeting. And so the, the vote to approve this site location 6 that I just described was postponed to this meeting. So I believe that is the, the motion on the floor right now.

So, uh, I see Mr. Voland in the queue. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, well, I want to take an opportunity to thank the planning department for putting together this very helpful memo that we have, which is responsive to a lot of the public input and feedback that was heard. It— I think it's just really great to get this level of information as a policymaker when there are things that we're grappling with.

So yeah, just stating my gratitude. And also, given the opportunity to digest a lot of that information, I feel comfortable moving forward with this and will be a yes vote, and hope my colleagues can also support this as well. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Next, Miss Silvers.

Yeah, I would like to move amendment number 1. Second. Motion to approve, uh, Silvers-Baldwin Day Amendment Number 1. A motion by Miss Silvers, second by Mr. Martinez. Miss Silvers, go ahead.

Um, this amendment removes the substation parcel that was added, uh, to this package accidentally, and it's being removed according to the recommendation of the planning department. Thanks. So I request your support.

Okay, uh, not seeing any members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this amendment.

Member Presrudia? Yes.

Okay, and— oh, sorry, Mr. Martinez, we already started. Okay. On a vote of 12 to 0, the amendment to remove that parcel passes the body unanimously. So I will note that we are down to 2 lots. Next, Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair.

After talking with folks here and getting additional information from the community members, I think this is an opportunity for us to refer this back to PZ for additional process and analysis and really community engagement. And I wanted to just highlight what that meant. I received really good communication from some of the residents in the area who had some of the concerns that Member Silva flagged for us and kind of felt like there were some questions that they wanted answered, especially with respect to future development. And, and then on the other hand, There are some great ideas that South Central has and that we were able to kind of get a communication from Dow today with giving us some sense of the opportunities that we have in that corridor. So I think it's a really good opportunity to not necessarily advance this tonight and rush this, but to pause a little bit, bring the community a little closer to a better understanding, and then advance from that perspective.

So my encouragement today would be to refer this back to PCC until— and then come back to us at a time certain. It's a motion.

Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Martinez to remand this or send this back to Planning and Zoning Commission, second by Miss Silvers. Do you want to speak to that further, Mr. Martinez? I do not. Okay, uh, Miss Silvers, on that amendment or on that motion? Yeah, so I think I'm happy to see these changes being made, you know, kind of quickly and coming in these packages.

But I think that when you have a community that wants— Yeah, if you could lift your mic up a little bit. Thank you. Sorry. So I think having these packages is it's a good way to move through things really quickly, you know, and get stuff done fast. And I think that's a really good thing.

But I do think that when you have a community that has questions and that wants more process, I think that you need to step back a little bit and I think you need to allow the community that. Because these big omnibus packages like this really do kind of abbreviate and shortcut the public process. And, you know, I think generally as long as it's not controversial, that's fine. Um, but when you have the controversy and you have the questions and you have the people saying, you know, we need more public process on this, we want to understand what's happening, you haven't met with our community council, we didn't have adequate notice on this. I do really think that you need to step back a little bit, take a little more time, and do it right.

Thanks.

And before I move to the next person, I'll just clarify. I believe the motion was to, uh, remand these— this item, meaning these two specific lots, and not because the rest of it has already passed. And I see agreement from the sponsors. Uh, next, uh, Ms. Baldwin-Day, go ahead.

Yeah, I have a, I think, some questions for administration about the process that's been followed to date, if anyone would like to field those.

This is Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. Thank you, Mr. McKenna-Foster. So this, this entire omnibus went to PCC, am I correct about that? Yeah, the omnibus—. This case went to PCC in March, and, and this particular parcel was incorporated in that conversation.

We did mention this, the error of including that Chugach Electric is mine, but in, in the presentation to PCC we showed this area and it was discussed. Discussed, and PCC did mention in their findings that they discussed this area.

Could you maybe summarize for us briefly, were the concerns from the community heard at the PCC meeting itself? There was similar testimony at the PCC meeting, similar to what we heard last week from the same member of the public.

Yeah, I think, I think that's helpful. If PCC were to review this this again, what precisely would they be reconsidering, or what would they have the ability to reconsider? Would there be new parameters or new filters that may— they might perhaps bring to bear on this recommendation?

Through the chair, I think from our perspective, the substance hasn't changed, and from our perspective, we conveyed the substance of the issue. There are— you know, it's tough. This is an area that the sort of expectations have been different over time. But generally speaking, from our perspective, it does make sense, and with— especially with the feedback from South Central Foundation in particular. So from our perspective, we'd probably make the same recommendation.

And, you know, it's up to PCC how they would decide that. But we would say probably nothing has substantively changed. So in—.

Was there, was there an outreach effort to this community council? Was there an invitation made to discuss this with the Scenic Foothills folks? Through the chair, so when we, we started this process kind of last summer with a smaller group, and then as we, it became clear that there were maybe more parties that would be interested, and so we did contact the community councils and We tried to meet with them. We wrote to— first of all, I guess I'll say, for this type of process, the code requires notifying the community councils and posting it. So we followed those pieces of it.

But we also did want to talk to the community councils as well. We emailed the Scenic Foothills Community Council. I believe it was on December— it was before the case went out. So we went, we emailed all of those, and we asked to get on on their agenda. Let me see if I can just find it here.

And they— let's see, uh, December 20th, December 1st, 2025: The Planning Department is looking at updating 2040 Land Use Plan for several properties in your area. This would update the land use plan but would not change any existing zoning. Would it be possible for me to get a few minutes on the agenda of your next CC meeting in case anyone has any questions? That was to the [email protected]. And they responded: Yes, absolutely.

I'm glad the Planning Department has taken interest in these properties with an eye to making them more developer-friendly. This is very welcome news. We only meet a few times a year. Our next meeting will not be until February 5th. I'll put you on the agenda.

Unfortunately, I think that, you know, that was in December and the holidays, so we didn't end up getting on the agenda. But we did contact the Scenic Foothills Community Council in advance. This was posted, I think, the notice of public hearing was posted Excuse me for a second. It was post-noticed on February 9th and noticed until March 3rd. Okay, thank you.

Um, I don't have any additional questions, uh, just a couple of comments, I think. So I think first, um, one of the things that I've noticed in some of the testimony that we've gotten from members of the community is a, a real misunderstanding around the difference between a change to our, our land use map map and a rezone, and these are not the same. And so the— it seems to me that what's needed here is not necessarily more— not necessarily more public process or a return of this item to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but perhaps more clear communication with the affected folks, with this community council, to help them understand the difference between a land use map update and a rezone, that these are, these are distinct moves, and that a land use map change does not in fact create the scaffolding with which, you know, some of the more fear-based messages that we've received could in fact invite. So I think that would be my suggestion, I think, and why I'm disinclined to support a return of this item to PCC, not the least of which is the fact that the PCC calendar is quite booked up, as far as I understand, and it might take a bit for this to actually go back to them. I, I don't see anything substantive, as Mr. McKenna Foster pointed out, that would lead to a different designation in the land use map for this corridor.

Everything about this stretch of Tudor and the adjacent properties indicates that it is in fact currently being used in this fashion, and that's what the land use map does. It tells us how land is being used and how it might be used in the future. Structure. And quite honestly, the implementing zones for a Main Street corridor are what is appropriate for South Central Foundation and for business activation in this area. And I'm actually— I'm actually a little bit concerned at the way that misinformation has been shared in the community, quite honestly, by folks who should know better.

And so I'm disinclined to remand this to PCC for all of those reasons. And to encourage the planning department or whomever else might take this up to have a longer conversation with the, with the Scenic Foothills Community Council folks to address some of their fears, which really are not germane to the conversation at hand. They might be appropriate if there was an active rezone in process, but with a land use map change and a change to designation, I don't feel feel that that's appropriate. So I think that's all my comments. Thank you, Chair.

Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm aligned with Member Baldwin-Day. I think this did go through the correct process, as we've heard tonight. Um, I don't think that that was short-circuited, and there was, uh, you know, this was taken up in a, a substantive way in the Planning and Zoning Commission process.

And I think the— again, the memo that we have before us prepared by the Planning Department captures a lot of that. You know, folks did participate and weigh in, and now we've received the advice. This is coming before us now. We already have the advice of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I think that that is well captured here in one of the comments. You know, this should, this should require a full public review with the surrounding property owners having the right to weigh in.

And then the Planning Department response: this case went through the full PCC process with the president of the HOA providing testimony on behalf of the association. At the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 2, 2026. So for me, uh, there— it's time to take this off the hamster wheel, not keep going round and round. Um, and it's our decision point tonight, so I will not be supporting the motion to remand it back. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Uh, next, for the second time on this item, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate the feedback from my colleagues as well.

Um, I just wanted to reiterate the difference between a land use map change that folks described from the PZZ versus an omnibus package that didn't have each individual, uh, parcel vetted on their own raised concerns from community members because it was, it was originally reported to us that that there wasn't really— I think we asked the question very directly to planning staff— that there wasn't necessarily a— planning staff described it, and they can correct me if I'm wrong— there wasn't— I think the question was, what are the future plans on the site? And there wasn't really a strong response from our department with respect to any awareness of what was going to happen on the site. And that was true for community members. So community members are concerned what's going to happen on the site. I think, uh, members mentioned that this was an area that has had kind of maybe a slower development arc, so they're not necessarily used to, um, the same type of development, uh, pushes on them.

But nevertheless, I just recall it being that there wasn't really a clear what do they plan to do what to do in the future with these sites from our folks. But we received a very good email describing a vision that was bold and bringing economic development to the corridor from folks outside of the municipality. So from my vantage point, if there is any additional opportunity to have a commitment to being able to to bring the community along, not just looking at land map— land use maps, but also bringing the community along with respect to what does the future economic development patterns look like? Because that's the real question, right? And so, when people are thinking, when they buy their property and their forever homes, and then there's a potential change on the map, they don't really know what that means, except if we do have a sense of what the development patterns could mean after that, then map changes may be less volatile as a conversation.

And really what folks want to know is what's going to happen in the future. And so I just don't think that was clearly communicated at the start, and that's why I would encourage folks to find some mechanism to go back into a clearer deliberative space for that conversation. And PCZ seems to be the space, but maybe it's not according to my colleagues, but I want us to hold that space open. And if anyone from the administration wants to speak to that, that'd be helpful. Yeah, I think, uh, through the chair, Graham Downey, Deputy Director of Community Economic Development, and I'll hand it over to planning staff to get in more of the weeds, but, uh, before any development happens on this property, there would be a rezone process that would itself be a public process in which the neighbors would be inevitably involved, and there'd be all the requirements of that process before any designation change.

In my view, what this change does is it lets South Central start planning for the future. Because with the current designation, with the special limitation, they basically were saying you can't develop on this parcel. So we're freeing them to start to make the plans that then would go through a public process at a later date. I appreciate that. And I think that's the standardization— the standard way of approaching it.

But I think from my vantage point, it misses something in there in that the community today concerns themselves with development of the future when they don't know what that looks like. So signaling that development is coming because they're changing land use maps signals a fear to folks when they don't know what that future looks what it looks like. So if we're saying we're going to— these changes help South Central Foundation into their visioning, I would suggest that there's a mis— the rub back to the community and what looks like nimbyism will continue to emerge when folks are thinking this means change in the future and because we don't know what it means, we're resistant to the change today. And I think that that may not necessarily be a rub that we have to have if we can figure out a way to connect the vision to the decisions today. If I could add through the chair, Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning.

Another piece of this is with the Planning Department, some, you know, the South Central story isn't really our story to tell, so we can't— if they tell us information during a pre-application meeting, we can't really share that. Yes. So we sort of have to make the decision and also make the proposal based on what makes sense in terms in terms of the location, for example, what kind of street is it on, how's it designed, how do things look around it. So I do agree, I think it's helpful for South Central to provide that, and there are many instances where we would have loved to share that, but we can't really share that information unless they share it first. So, and that's with a lot of things, even the rezone, like we need to look at rezones or any sort of change just on the merits in terms of the plan and the policies, but not in terms of whether that particular project is good or not, because then it gets into a fairness issue.

So unfortunately, I think the Planning Department will always try to keep— if an applicant or either side wants to provide more detail, that's wonderful, and that helps, you know, explain a little bit more what's going on. But there are certain things that I think the department simply wouldn't be able to do just to keep that information the sort of proprietary to the applicant. Sure. And my conclusion would be, but if you all continue to run into the rub of the community not understanding, then maybe there I think there's a conversation that you all should have about how to bring that information a little more forward, not putting this on South Central, but on the entirety of the municipality and all of the potential development starts that maybe there's a communication gap that we can close to decrease the amount of community pushback when something good is happening. Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you. And I will note, obviously, public testimony was closed on this a while ago, but I do believe there's a representative of the property owner present if there are additional questions along those lines. But at this point, I don't see anybody else in the queue. Again, the motion currently is to remand this item, these two parcels, back to Planning and Zoning Commission for further discussion. So I don't see— check one more time.

One second.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this motion.

Member Presidentia, no.

On a vote of, uh, 4 to 8, this motion has failed to pass. So we, I believe, are back on the main motion Motion with no one currently in the queue.

Okay, I don't see anyone further in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. Again, this is on the underlying item, which is— there's 3 properties listed, but again, we amended to remove one of them. So, um, uh, so back on the main motion for this item.

And members may proceed to vote to approve when it comes up on the screen.

Member Proserdía?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, um, this remaining portion of AO 2026-78 passes the body unanimously.

Next, we will move on to— now we are moving into our public hearing items. You know, that one took a little bit longer to finish up some unfinished business. So first, we are going to pick back up with continued public hearing on AO-2020-669, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 16.55, Anchorage Child Care Licensing Code, to reduce burdens on licensed child care providers by repealing Sections 16.55.100, 16.55.150, 16.55.220, and 16.55.300, and amending Sections 16.55.030, 16.55.140, and 16.55.210. So would anyone— public hearing on this item is still open. Would anyone wish to testify?

Please come forward if Anyone at all?

Okay, and then I will also note I don't believe we have anyone on the phone to testify, so just in the room. Go ahead, the microphone needs to be turned on, and please state your name, what part of town you're from, and you have 3 minutes. Yeah, Jamie Lupus, East Anchorage. Um, so I haven't read everything regarding this, but, uh, I was asked to join an organization presentation recently, and I said, sure. And somebody sort of pitched a thing belonging to a place downtown, and they are about to try to open a— increase their space there for a childcare facility.

And so this apparently will help them. And during that presentation, more or less, they made— well, they basically made a statement that it costs $1,900 a month, apparently, to provide childcare. Healthcare, who can afford that? Unless you're making $100,000 a year, that is insane. And so, yeah, all I can say is I support whatever efforts to make it more affordable for the simple reason most people cannot afford that money, not any way.

And especially the people that I know that are trying to lift themselves out of poverty every single day. If you can't go, you know, to a place and get a job because you have dependents, um, it impacts your stability, let alone your ability to improve your quality of life. So, um, please support this, and thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, a public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Moved— motion to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Miss Baldwin-Day. I really appreciate the work that has been done by the Health Department in terms of outreach to, to child care operations and providers to try to reduce burdens and code. This is— I think we've seen a couple of iterations now of ways that we are trying to make it easier for folks to to start and maintain childcare operations in Anchorage, which are sorely needed.

And I, I want to thank Director Rash and her team for doing an incredible job, I think, of pulling together these changes. I urge my colleagues' support. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just echo those, those comments. Director Rash and team, thank you guys very much. Did have an opportunity to meet with them a couple weeks ago.

There's more work to do, and it's going to happen at the state level. So I'm looking forward to potentially attacking the state together— metaphorically, everybody calm down— and seeing what we can do to bring some more sanity to a very, very archaic process. And so very much appreciate the work you guys have done here on the ground, here at the local level. The next fight is with the state.

Okay, I don't see anyone No one else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item to approve AO 2026-69.

Member Presverdia?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-69 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to our new public hearing items. So the next item is 14A, AO 2026-70.

26.75. Um, let me turn the page. An ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Sections 4.60.105, Chugiak/Eagle River Advisory Board, and 21.10.030, Administration Review Procedures, to resolve conflicting notification requirements in the zoning code to the Chugiak/Eagle River Advisory Board. Public hearing on this item is now open. Would anyone wish to testify?

Please come forward?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, uh, public testimony on this item is now— or public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Handlin, second by Mr. Gerker. Um, Mr. Handlin, would you like to speak to it? I don't have anything to add to it.

Okay, um, anyone else in the queue? I think this item may speak for itself. Um, okay, so there's no one in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Presrudia?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, that item, uh, AO 2020-02, AO 2026-75 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 14B, AO 2026-76, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezone for 23 parcels containing approximately 90.8 acres from TR Transition District, B-4, B-4SL, and D-2, and those are under old code, old Title 21, to R-1 Single Family Residential District, I-1 Light Industrial District B3, R2M, and R3 for the parcels with a legal description of Southwood Park Block 1 Lots 1 through 12, Catacroft Lot 1, Beacon Park Block 2 Lot 1A, T12N R3W Section 20, Northwest 4 Southwest, uh, Northeast 4 Southwest 4 Parcel 17, Lucky Huffman Tract C1, Lucky Huffman Block 1 Lot 2, Huffman Business Park Tracts S1A and S1B, Totem Tract 1 and 2, Penland Park Tract 8, and Penland Park Tracts A1, A2, and B1A. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if anybody would like to testify, anyone at all.

Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, the public hearing on this item is closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Voland, uh, to approve.

Uh, Miss Baldwin-Day. Yeah, I— well, I guess I'll just comment briefly, um, that, uh, we have some archaic designations in our zoning code that we've inherited and that we don't actually use anymore, but they're still hanging around. And so it's, it's great to see that we're, we're cleaning some of those up. Simply subsuming them into zoning designations that we actually use. And I would welcome any comments from the administration about what this process has looked like and, and why this is important.

Okay, I'll invite anyone from the administration. Looks like we have a representative from the planning department coming forward. Go ahead.

Uh, Daniel McCan foster, Long Range Planning. Yeah, this is really a cleanup ordinance. It's kind of been something we should have probably done 10 years ago when we got to the new code. So some of the old zones like B-4, that was the old, I think, rural commercial zone, D-2, TR, and this is really just getting those into modern zoning so if somebody comes in we don't have to push them through the process of going back to old code, or the TR is really confusing and goes to their surrounding area. So this is— for the most part, aligning things with what's on the ground.

There's one case on DeBar where it was simply aligning the zoning from D-2 to R-3, which is what the Landes Plan called for. So the process was just sort of looking at this, looking at what the modern analog would be, and going through the process to update.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And I think my follow-up comment to that would be that for those of you who are listening to the clerk talk about how our new code software does not like the fact that we have two versions essentially of Title 21. This is why, and we're working on it.

So thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Presverdia? Yes.

Member Martinez.

Mr. Martinez votes yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-76 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 14C, Ordinance AO 2026-79, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 21.05 to add adult care as a permitted use in the I-1 zoning district, waiving planning and zoning review. Public hearing on this item is now open. Open. If you'd like to testify, please come forward.

And I'll also note, I don't believe we have anyone on the phone, so we'll, we'll be in person only.

And I'll remind you to, uh, please turn on the microphone there with the button in the front, um, and then state your name, a part of town you're from, and just press it down there once the green light turns on.

You go. Okay, so state your name, uh, what part of town you're in. You have 3 My name is Dennis Dolan, and I own the company called Lifeworks, which is an adult day company here in Anchorage and the valley. My wife and I started this business about 26 years ago, and we have a facility over on International Airport Road called Lifeworks Lodge, and we've been there for 8 years. And we've been good neighbors, and I, as far as I know, we've never had any complaints about our, our services over there.

And I, I wanted to point out that the services we do are not actually medical. We do get paid through Medicaid and the Veterans Administration for some of our work. We are a daytime-only operation education, helping folks that, yeah, need assistance with daily living, those kind of things, and take them on field trips. And I wanted to point out that we, we do not bring a lot of extra traffic into the area because we're not a retail space. We, we have our own vans and a couple of anchor rides.

Vans come by there, and I think we fit pretty well in there. We've got restaurants and furniture stores and auto repair shops around us, so we would very much like to stay there. And again, we've been good neighbors.

And what else did I have here?

Yeah, I think that's about it. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your testimony. Uh, would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no further testimony or testifiers, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Volland. Um, Miss Baldwin-Day. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So the genesis of this ordinance, this actually came to my attention as a result of Lifeworks Alaska, which again provides adult day services in our community, that we actually have several adult day service providers operating on the International Airport Road corridor, and 3 of them, in fact.

And so we find ourselves in this interesting conundrum that we have critical services operating in a zoning designation where technically they do not belong. And so we have a couple of options as an assembly as to how we respond to this. So for, for everyone's reference, I think it's important to note that there are in the I-1, which is light industrial district, there are some similar uses that are also permitted, and those uses include a club or a hall or a meeting similar to like the Moose Lodge or something like that. Health services are a permitted use, so are religious assemblies. And so there are some, some similar uses that, that are permissible in this zone.

And in fact, the allowance of health services below 1,500 square feet was added in the I-1 District in 2016. That, that proposal worked itself through the Planning and Zoning Commission. And the PCC found that allowing that use in I-1 was not anticipated to significantly impact industrial lands or the consumption of industrial lands in Anchorage, which was a concern and kind of continues to be a concern based on a report that was done in 2015. We did an industrial land assessment update and there was some conversation, there's some language in that assessment that said, you know, we need to be very careful and make sure that industrial spaces get protected for industrial uses. However, we have the facts on the ground, which is that some of these services are operating in light industrial spaces, adult daycares operating in industrial spaces, and their certification, both with the state and the federal government, um, is tied to the location, tied to the address, not necessarily to the provider and the provider's name.

So every individual site has to be licensed licensed separately, which means that they're not terribly portable— portable, excuse me. So we, again, we have a couple of choices here. One of the things we can do is add adult— adult care as a permitted use in the I-1 zoning district, which we have some precedent for based on the planning and zoning resolution from 2016 that indicated that there wasn't a lot of concern around this taking up industrial space in a way way that would make it difficult to revert to industrial use in the future. And also that, you know, neighborhood-scale medical practices wouldn't have a significant commercial impact on the industrial uses nearby. So that is our first choice.

The other choice would be to do what we've done elsewhere, and we've actually done it already tonight, and that is redesignate the corridor along International to reflect the fact that it is a commercial corridor, because that's what it is, that's how it's operating right now, and then ask our adult daycare providers to rezone to B-3. And then we have a related sort of third option, or I guess it's a 1B and 2B option, and that is to refer this entire question back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and ask them to opine, as they did in 2016, about whether adult daycare services belong in the I-1 district, or alternatively, whether that entire corridor along International should be redesignated as a commercial corridor. And as our testifier pointed out, if you've driven down that strip, we do have in fact restaurants and furniture stores, and we have a, a packaging store, and we have a bilingual services, bilingual education storefront, and there's a Guido's Pizza. And so there are all sorts of uses along along this corridor that aren't necessarily industrial in nature, but they are sort of coexisting. So I want to put it to my colleagues.

You know, we have a couple of different ways that we can go, I think, to rectify this land use question. And all roads lead to Rome, as it were. The question is, which road would we like to take as a body? So I put it to my colleagues to discuss and would love to hear your thoughts and your feedback. Thank you.

Thanks. Next, Mr. Vohlen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, I think this is a really interesting one, and it's a conversation about, you know, are— do we get really, um, are we guided by ideas of how we want our community to grow, or are we guided by the organic growth that is happening and has happened in our community, or some amalgamation of the the two. For my part, I think this one is ready to go because of the conditions on the ground that Member Baldwin-Day has described, the fact that these operators are sort of already in place.

But I, I think I want to telegraph something to my colleagues and to the administration as well. I think there's a broader conversation to be had about the Venn diagram of industrial and commercial uses.

I don't want to give anybody palpitations and suggest that we should, we should consolidate any zones, but I do think it's worth taking a look, a close look at the use tables. I remember when we updated the downtown plan and code, we actually made light manufacturing a permitted use in some of the downtown. I think, I think it's B-2B and B-2C, which was not allowed before. And yeah, You know, I supported that. To me, it's appropriate.

I think we should be able to have, you know, artisanal makers and some level of manufacturing downtown. I think that's a really positive business use. And so, yeah, I think that there's— yeah, there's a conversation to be had there, you know. Can we allow more light manufacturing, or at least types of manufacturing in our commercial zones? Can we allow more commercial activity in our industrial zones.

So this could be maybe a first foray into that. But all that being said, I will be in support of this ordinance tonight. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks. I have myself in the queue next.

Member Brawley. Thank you. Okay, I can't let this moment go by without having a zoning nerd moment. So, so I'll just briefly note for, for members' awareness, I am not acting in the capacity as a planner for the city, but I will note as a practicing planner, generally there's an interesting thing about zoning. Historically, industrial— if you think of on one end industrial zoning, typically the least restrictive allows for the most kind of noisy, noxious, you know, all of those types of uses.

And then on the other end is residential zoning, which says, okay, if you're living somewhere with, you know, a house, that there should not be a lot of other encroachments or nuisances around on that. Historically, that's the way zoning was kind of constructed with business in the middle. It usually meant historically that you can't build industrial in residential. But in theory, the industrial zone is the most flexible zone. And so you can actually build residential there.

It doesn't mean people did. And so it's a stacking kind of more restrictions the more closer you get to someone's house. Here, our zoning code has been constructed more to be mutually racially exclusive categories to say you can't have industrial in residential, but you also cannot have residential in industrial, or in this case, I think what we consider a commercial use in industrial. So I think I just want to note there are different ways to write a zoning code. Ours has been written more restrictive than the kind of classic, what they call Euclidean zoning.

I will also note, I believe part of that is because cities have dealt with for a long time the issue of what you do with legacy residential. Do you allow it to be turned into residential? Do you allow it to become condos, things like that, or do you preserve it because industrial uses take up a lot of space, they're often less value, right? So there's pros and cons to doing it that way. But all of that to say, I think in our city at this time, I certainly support this, I'm going to be voting for it.

But also I would say there's, in addition to the broad conversation of what goes where, there's also a big conversation to have about the use table, defining each use and what zones it can be in., as well as what is the right mix of uses within each zoning district. You know, we've seen B-3. There's scenarios where you could have industrial next to residential. If you've been to Spenard, you've seen that many times, and Midtown as well. So anyway, all of that to say, I think it's important to understand that there are different ways to look at zoning code.

There are different theories behind how you separate and restrict uses, and that is certainly a bigger conversation. But, um, again, I wanted to take that moment to share that about zoning and my intent in the future to really take another look at our use table broadly as well. So thank you. I will yield back the floor. And I don't see any other members in the queue at this time, and so members may proceed to vote.

Member Preser-Díaz. Yes. Member Martinez.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, um, item AO-2026-79 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to item 14D, AO-2026-80, authorizing a 5-year sublease between the Municipality of Anchorage, the tenant, and Acting through the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility and Bob's Services, the sublessor. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Would anyone in the room wish to testify?

Okay, not seeing anyone approach for in-person, and then I will note there's no one on the phone. So public hearing— or seeing no one wishing to testify, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Volland to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Uh, do you wish to speak to it further? No, thank you.

Okay, okay. Uh, seeing, uh, no one else in the queue, then members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Perez-Arriaga. Yes. Member Martinez.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, this item, AO 2026-79— or sorry, AO 2026-80— passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to item 14E, AO 2026-86, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal by perpetual non-exclusive telecommunications and electrical easement to Chugach Electric Association Association, Inc., to replace existing overhead infrastructures with underground systems on municipal property legally described as the SE 4th Section 15, T13N R3W SM Alaska, Parcel ID 00514101, located within Russian Jack Springs Park. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

And I'll note we don't have anyone signed up phone for this.

So thank you. Microphone is on. You'll have 3 minutes. State your name and 3 minutes. All right, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage.

That's a mouthful. Um, so, uh, you seem to be in the zone tonight, uh, whether it's, you know, members of the dais or Mr. Dole or everybody else. It's a dimension of sight, of sound, of mind. Uh, maybe not quite the Twilight Zone, but some members in here in their twilights. Um, so So I'm still ready to discuss other members of the NIMBY zoning going on.

Maybe we can have a broader discussion over that. All right, moving on to this thing. So Russian Jack, yeah, I was wondering if this was pertaining to the Chalet. Obviously it's not. But there is something interesting in here.

It's talking about non-exclusive telecommunications and electrical easement to install facilities, et cetera, et cetera. So one of the things, On the broader topic of trying to build up the city and encourage growth, encourage investment, telecommunications. So basically deploying fiber optic infrastructure is very expensive. Once it's in the ground, the only thing you have to change is the switching equipment on either side. And so at one time, Chugach Electric was looking to put down telecommunications in this town and offer fiber to the home, and it sort of just didn't happen.

I think somebody there sort of regrets it now. I had a discussion about this one point in time, but one thing you should probably be looking at is creating sort of incentives for people to want to deploy fiber optics in this town, because once you do, you will get a lot more investment, whether it's just people moving here because they know that you have fiber optics and you can higher speeds, cheaper internet, or even the businesses that come along. It happened in Kansas City. It happened in other places, you know, where Google sort of did their fiber, fiber to the home thing there because there were sort of incentives. So with that said, yeah, this is probably going to pass because you want to get rid of light poles.

But I would say look around this town, see where you can make it to where people can make it easier to deploy fiber optics. Either in the sewer, uh, or, um, other things. So anyways, for another time.

Okay, would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by, uh, Mr. Bolland to approve, uh, second by Miss Scout. Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Bolland?

Yeah, sure. I'll just say I'm a big fan a fan of utility undergrounding. I think this will be great for the park. Urge support. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, and I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Perez-Rodilla? Yes. Member Martinez? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO-2026-87— or sorry, uh, 86— passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 14F, AO-2026-87, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal of Anchorage authorizing the disposal by perpetual non-exclusive telecommunications and electrical easement of the Chugach Electric Association, Inc., to replace overhead infrastructures with underground systems on municipal property property legally described as Tract A1, Towne East Subdivision, addition number 1, plat 7396, parcel ID 00608301, located within Ira Walker Park. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify. Anyone at all?

And I'll note we don't have anyone signed up on the phone to testify. So seeing and hearing no one, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by, uh, Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve this item, second by Mr. Volland. Would you like to speak to it?

No, I have no other comment other than Member Volland's comment that I'm a big fan of undergrounding, so I urge support. Thank you. Um, and I don't see anyone else in the queue at this time, um, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

14F. Member Presverdia? Yes. Member Martinez?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, item AO-2026-87, uh, passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to item 14G, Resolution AR-2026-159, a resolution of the Anchorage Anchorage Municipal Assembly appropriating lapsed 2025 lapsed budget as fund balance within the Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service Area Arts of Fund. Public hearing item— sorry, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Ms. Scout. Would you like to speak to it, Ms. Baldwin-Day?

I believe we should direct opening comments on this to members of the administration. Thank you. Yeah, so I'll invite if anybody from the administration would like to speak to this.

Um, yeah, Ms. Wood-Pearson, go ahead. Through the chair, I'm happy to speak to this. So This is a transfer of funds that was— partially, this is a transfer of funds from the last calendar year, acknowledging the fact that the snow season essentially, you know, is its own calendar that spans two different fiscal years. And so that was the motivation for looking at how to even out the budget by engaging in this transfer. This transfer also enables us to address some other— some operational questions within the within the department, including meeting the new contract we have with the operators within the department, and also transferring some funds between—.

Not labor, sorry, from non-labor to labor in order to enable us to expand some of the focus, some operator capacity without— and in that respect, repurposing dollars as opposed to, you know, using new dollars in order to hopefully improve the delivery time time of our snow removal efforts. So it's overall a move of money designed to continue to commit resources to enhancing our snow removal operations within the maintenance and operations team.

Uh, thank you. I have myself in the queue. Just briefly, Member Brawley. Thank you. Um, just one question.

Um, uh, so This is— and I appreciate the overview of this. So this does say lapsed budget within the Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service Area, ARDSA. So just to be clear, certainly there may be lapsed funds generally from fund balance, but any lapsed funding here that is being reappropriated is still with— was originally collected within ARDSA. Is that correct? That's correct, Chair.

Thank you. And I'll yield back the floor. So I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this on this item.

Member Martinez.

And I'll note that Mr. Perez Verde is excused from the rest of the, of the meeting for personal business.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 0, AR 2026-159.

Let the record reflect that Mr. Martinez did vote yes.

As the clerk is updating that, so the vote is 11 to 0. Um, AR 2026-159 passes the body. Um, we will move on to our last public hearing item tonight. So AR 2026— or sorry, AO O20268814H, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 8.25.030 regarding the unlawful use of air rifles and air pistols to add an exception for persons possessing a valid nuisance wild animal control license. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all wish to testify? To testify. Okay, seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Johnson to approve, second by Mr. Gerker. Uh, Mr. Johnson, go ahead. Yeah, briefly, I'll just say I, I hope my colleagues will see this ordinance as being fairly non-controversial. This is simply expanding the means by which licensed professionals may remove nuisance wild wildlife.

To be clear, this is not expanding the scope of what animals qualify removal. Any animals that might be removed using air rifle, if this passes, could already be removed today by other means. This is just recognizing that in some circumstances an air rifle might be the most practical means to achieve this goal that already exists. I also want to just clarify that existing standards and state code relating to removal of nuisance animals by licensed professionals still apply in regards to the necessity and when it is appropriate to do so. That is to say, it still must be shown that the animal is causing property damage or is an immediate threat to health, safety, or property before it's removed, and that also that all other means, reasonable means, must be exhausted prior to resorting to removal of the animal.

So I just want to be clear that this, I think, is a a fairly highly regulated space already and simply adding another, I would argue, reasonable tool to the tool bag for people to do the work that's already taking place. With that, I will move Johnson Amendment Number 2. Motion to amend by Mr. Johnson, second by Ms. Silvers. Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. This is purely technical.

It's not changing anything substantive about it. This is just what happens when different lawyers take a look at the same thing and decide that this language would fit a little bit better in a slightly different section of code than where it was first contemplated. So again, nothing substantive here, just a clarification in terms of how it's applied or where it's put into code. Okay. Any further discussion?

Not seeing anyone in the queue, members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Member Martinez.

Yes. On a vote of 11 to 0, that amendment passes the body. We're back on the main motion, and I believe we have one additional amendment. I don't know if the sponsor intends to move that. Okay, sounds like the sponsor is not intending to move Amendment 1.

So next I have Mr. Gates in the queue.

Um, uh, thank you. I just wanted to speak about procedurally here how we, uh, passed Floor Amendment Number 2. This Floor Amendment Number 1 is amending Subsection D that was deleted recently by Amendment Number 2. So, uh, I did prepare for Mr. McCormick, who was sponsoring Amendment Number 1, an alternative to Amendment A to Amendment Number 2 to get his proposed language in along with Amendment Number 2. But that vote just occurred, so I guess to effectuate getting Mr.

McCormick's language before the body, that a motion to reconsider the recent vote would be in order, and then having Amendment A to Amendment Number 2, which has Mr. McCormick's language. And I just propped it in writing and going to distribute it in a minute. I mean, if Mr. McCormick wanted to do so. Okay, thank you.

So just to restate, I think if there is an interest in moving the, the content of this, uh, we could move to reconsider the amendment and then still take that up. Mr. McCormick, go ahead. Sorry, you're in the queue. I think just looking at, uh, this ordinance, uh, what I was looking to, um, achieve would be best done in a new ordinance rather than amending. So I'll pass on the amendment for now.

Thank you.

Thanks for that clarification. Um, okay, I don't see any other members in the queue at this moment. Let me check one more time. Okay, then members may proceed to vote on the main motion as amended.

Member Martinez.

Member Martinez, was that a yes?

That was a yes. Thank you.

Okay, on a motion of 10 to 1, that item passes the body. That was AO 2026-88. So that takes care of our Public hearings. So our— we will move through the rest of our agenda at this time. So next we have— we don't have any items in the quasi-judicial public hearings or licenses.

So next we have audience participation. So we do have 2 folks on the phone. I think we'll go to those first, and then if anybody would like to participate in person, we'll ask you to invite up after that. So if we can call the first person, Ms. Gilbert.

Hello? Hi, is this Miss Gilbert? Hello? Hi, is this Miss Gilbert? Yes.

Hi, uh, this is Assembly Chair Brawley, uh, with the Anchorage Assembly. Calling. It is time for audience participation if you'd like to begin, and you would have 3 minutes. If you can state your name, what part of town you're on, then we'll have 3 minutes. Okay, thank you.

Uh, my name is Florence Gilbert and I'm calling, uh, to protest anchor rides. I had scheduled on Sunday to go to, um, the rest of Juneteenth celebration and the solstice and Sandy budget, and the park was— the town park was mistakenly labeled as someplace there's going to be activity at. So I asked to be dropped off there, and it turned out it was closed for repairs, and they refused to drop me off. And they said because the park was closed, and I said, then drop me off someplace nearby, and the supervisor wouldn't let the driver drop And I'm disabled. I'm in a power wheelchair.

There aren't too many activities I can go to. And I think that the disabled need to be treated a whole lot better. And I'd like this investigated because there's quite a few times that AnchorRides or the bus service has fallen down in terms of disability. Buildings. Another time that I had complained about was when the regular bus refused to pick me up.

They let other people board first. It was one of the AnchorRide size buses, but it was being used on the regular bus route. So, they let a couple people board, and then they said there wasn't any space for me. And, you know, there's handholds people can stand up and take the bus. But I'm in a wheelchair.

I can't do that. So, I just think there needs to be a lot more consideration about the disabled. And thank you for listening.

Thank you for participating.

Okay. Next, we'll move to our second person on the phone. Mr. Asher, if you can call them.

Hi, this is Claire. Hi, is this Taylor Asher? It is, yes. Hi, this is Chair Brawley on the Anchorage Assembly. I'm calling We are up to audience participation, and it is your turn.

So if you can state your name again and then what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes to speak, and you can start when you like. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, hi everyone, my name is Taylor Asher, and I'm a resident and homeowner on Seaview Street, which is near Sand Lake Road. Um, I'll just go ahead and get started.

So thanks for allowing me the time to speak. I'm calling in today regarding city water and sewer planning and priorities. Right now, Sea View Street is not connected to public water or sewer. We are on septic systems and our street shares 4 community wells. The arsenic levels in our water exceeds the allowable limits, making it unsafe to drink water from our homes.

I chose to purchase— I choose to purchase water, but I know some of my neighbors drink the water water despite the arsenic. This is a public health and safety issue for our neighborhood. I'm aware that there are options for us to vote as a street and to request to be connected to water. However, our street hasn't come to that consensus yet. We want clean water, um, for drinking, but most of us cannot afford the cost of connection.

For those of us that can afford it, um, there are many that are hesitant to vote for it and potentially be putting our neighbors in a situation where they are either forced to connect or postpone and then be required to connect if they were to ever sell their homes. I've started to do a little bit of research and found that the cost is estimated at about $40,000 for many of the lots on our street. To put that into perspective, uh, I bought my home for $255,000.

A $40,000 connection to city water would be 15% of the value of my home, and I barely even have 15% equity in my home after 5 years. Years. Asking residents to pay more than 15% of their entire home's value to access clean water is an impossible financial barrier, um, and that's only the cost of water, and that doesn't include the cost of connecting the sewer. As I've started to look into this, I've been told that the municipality has received federal— a federal grant for water improvements, but the specific street allocations haven't been finalized. I'm strongly advocating that the committee, um, and the assembly prioritize subsidize Seaview Street for any grant funds.

Using this funding to subsidize or cover the main extension and connection costs would directly help solve a critical health issue for our neighborhood that simply those cannot— in our— on our street cannot afford to shoulder the cost to connect. I also additionally urge that the city ensure water and sewer planning are fully synchronized, as I'm sure you all do already. But it comes to mind that many subject systems on our street are at least 20 years old, and it would be just a devastating financial blow for any homeowner on our street to spend $15,000 to $20,000 replacing a failing septic system only to have the city come in and tear up the road and install public sewer soon after. So in closing, thank you so much for your time. I would like to advocate on behalf of my street and ask the Assembly So please consider the demographics of Seaview Street, look at our water quality data, and direct any grant or funds that you have available that could make a meaningful impact on public health and housing affordability in our area.

Thank you for your time and service to our community. Thanks. Thank you for your participation. One just clarifying question: can you confirm the name of your street? It was hard to hear.

It's Seaview, is that right? Yes, S-E-A-V-I-E-W. Okay, thank you. Thank you for participating. Yeah, thank you.

Okay, that concludes folks who have signed up on the phone, so I'll invite if anybody else in the room would like to participate in audience participation, please come forward.

And then just like any other public testimony, the microphone is not on, so So please push the button to turn it on, and then I'll ask if you state your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. Okay. Hi, my name is Tammy Smith and I'm from District 1, and I'm speaking tonight regarding Assemblymember George Martinez misusing campaign money during his 2026 reelection bid. Elected officials have a responsibility to be fully transparent with campaign funds because the money belongs to donors.

Taxpayers and serves the public interest. You owe them all a full and honest accounting of how every dollar is spent and are subject to public scrutiny. Assemblymember Martinez is, in my view, an example of how the municipality of Anchorage often serves the interests of a few rather than the many. While he frequently uses movement-oriented language to present self as an advocate for ordinary people, his actions suggest otherwise. The use of campaign funds for travel expenses to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has raised serious concerns about his judgment and accountability.

As a result, he has lost the public's trust and should either resign from office or face removal immediately. The fact that Martinez left this meeting not wanting to face the public erodes even more of a loss of the public trust. Thank you. Thanks for participating. Next person, please come forward.

Turn the microphone back on, please, and then state your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Alexia Serrat. I live in District 4, and I want to testify about the Martinez, about the donations today. I want to say 63 minutes in Florida.

He spent 63 in Florida, really, to use campaign donations? That's how much time he was in Florida? That's, that's just crazy to me. He's fully lost the public's respect, and right now and tonight, he's not even here to face people. That's called, called a coward in my opinion.

And thank you for having me.

Thanks for participating. Next person, please come forward. Turn the microphone on, feel free to adjust it. State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes.

Thank you, and thank you for having the public testimony. My name is Sandy Blomfield. I'm in District 11, and I emailed you, but I only heard back from a few, so I'm going to go ahead and read my email. The long flight that Assemblymember George Martinez took at the end of 2025— he booked the trip and then purchased carbon credits, both with campaign funds. We as Alaskans understand the value of airline staff status, but Alaskans don't use other people's money to do that.

It's clear Mr. Martinez's attempt was to increase his atmo status on Alaska Airlines at the expense of donors, fully knowing that this was unlawful. Um, if you choose not to discipline Mr. Martinez, the assembly is quietly approving and acknowledging judging, that morality nor ethics do not matter. Your choice in this matter can change the public's assessment of the assembly as a whole. Making the correct decision in this matter will provide trustworthiness for the remaining assembly members. Do you want trust while you govern, or do you want cover-ups, deceit, and lack of moral character?

I thank you for this time. Time, and I hope you make the right decision. Thank you. Thank you for participating. Next person, please come forward.

Microphone's already on. Please state your name, what part of town you're in. You have 3 minutes. My name is Lauren Baxter. I'm in District 5.

I'm also talking about the removal or resignation of George Martinez. We count on each and every one of you on the assembly for your integrity. You know, tonight we heard a couple examples of people that identify identified a potential conflict of interest that removed themselves. And if you do not take action either to remove or have encouraged resigning, you're losing the trust of the people that you represent. So I strongly encourage you to take action and show your integrity as a group.

Thank you. Thank you for participating. Next person, please come forward. Microphone's already on. State your name, what part of town you're in.

You'll have 3 minutes. Hello, I am Mari Mahana and I vote in East Anchorage District 1. I too want to talk about trust. Trust is a foundation of our community interaction and interaction with each other. Once it is broken, it's hard to win back.

Trust is also important when charging someone with the stewardship of our hard-earned tax dollars. Mr. Martinez has broken that trust, both in his actions by inappropriate using of funds and by how he communicated, by lying under oath.

I do not— I do not doubt that he will—. I doubt that he will step down voluntarily. Voluntarily. He has already demonstrated a lack of honor. By his actions and his comments.

Do you want this behavior to be associated with this assembly or with the city in general? We understand what—. We are judged by the company we keep. I encourage the rest of the assembly to hold him accountable and let the public know that this behavior will not be tolerated. Thank you.

Thank you for participating. Next person, please come forward, turn the microphone on, state your name, what part of town you're in. The microphone button is on the bottom of the, the base there. Yes, when the light's on, it's good to go. So state your name, what part of town you're in, and you have 3 minutes.

Absolutely. District 4, my name is, uh, Frances Cedar. It is so nice to meet all of you, um, today. I represent 4 generations generations of people from Anchorage. My maternal and paternal grandparents have all been on Wright Street, and so is my daughter.

I absolutely love this community. Uh, I am here taking time away from my business to ask you to please invite me, invite our community council. Let's get together, let's do some education and figure out how we can make this community thrive. I agree with that, but I also agree with Miss Silvers, we must maintain open communications. I'm a grassroots person.

I have recently taken on Chugach Electric when they tried to cut down the trees of my veteran family members, World War I and World War II, and I want to say that I prevailed and we were able to come to an I am the daughter of a Local 302. My dad was 56 years in the union. I hold a degree in Alaska Native languages. I am a cross-cultural specialist. I'm also a reading specialist, and the list goes on.

But none of that matters. I'm just an average person here to help with planning and zoning. And 20 years ago, my neighborhood was threatened, and I worked with Elvie Gray Jackson and Dan to make sure that didn't happen. And we saw safety for a bunch of children in my neighborhood. I was so proud to do that.

It cost me my job. I had to quit my job at Providence as a result due to politics. Every single day I look at that road and the children playing in my neighborhood, and let me tell you folks, that was 110% worth it. And I want to see Anchorage prosper, but I do not want to see changes be detrimental. And so I am going to leap into that process.

And Ms. Baldwin-Day, if you would open up some more appointments, I would love to have an appointment with you. I've got a lot of history, and I am picking up the gauntlet from my beloved neighbor Barbara Garner, who is in now in her 8th decade, and it's time someone younger took up that responsibility of planning and zoning the U Med and Tudor. So I am here to do that tonight. Tonight. And one of the things that strikes me is that the penalty for not bringing honor to my family name is severe.

The public takes that very seriously, and I sure don't want to be on the other side of that. So I will hope that you will help me to do a good job in this volunteer position. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, assembly.

Thank you. And I'll just note, um, if you would like to leave your contact information with the Clerk, I think he could provide that to members if you're interested. Um, thank you. Next person, please come forward. Uh, microphone's on.

State your name and part of town you're in, and you have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Gerard Farkas, and I'm in District 20 here in Anchorage, and I am here to see that George either resigns or is removed from office. It's a fact that he was convicted convicted or found guilty by APOC for campaign finance abuse. Period. That's what it is.

They also said that his excuses were less than credible for the reason that he took the trip to Florida. They found that he gained personally by using campaign finance funds to fly to Florida, had a short stayover, and came— returned back to Alaska. Alaska, supposedly for the airline miles and the carbon credits. So I think it would be a disgrace to continue to have this man who has shown such a flagrant and intentional violation of campaign finance law continue to sit on the Anchorage Assembly. It says a lot about this city.

Are we going to let people away with this? Is that the new status quo. He's not even here tonight to face the public testimony. He was earlier, but he excused himself before this came up. So I for one stand for integrity and honesty, especially in our public officials.

And the fact that he tried to cover this up with a flimsy excuse, uh, to APOC, and they found that excuse less than credible, a lot basically, um, says it all. The decision is really black and white. Thank you very much. Thank you for participating. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, microphone's already on, and what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. All right. Hello, my name is Wyatt Nelson, and this is my first time testifying to the City Assembly, and I live in East Anchorage in District 5, and my representatives happen to be Martinez, and Silver's right here, but Martinez is gone because he had decided to basically drop out because he didn't want to, like, obviously face the facts with the pressure of the public. And I was utterly disgusted from learning the truth when APOC had investigated and found him responsible for none other than— excuse me, I'm trying to, like, process my mind.

Mind and with my speech. Yeah, yeah. APOC had like found him responsible for misusing campaign funds for paying for a trip in Florida, then later came back and received benefits for none other than Alaska Airlines. And APOC had even like made him testify, and he had committed perjury. And lied under oath.

And I even had written an email to the City Assembly, and I got a nice response from Perez Verdina here, but he is gone now. Oh, oh, and yeah, so regardless of political affiliation, I'm asking for the City Assembly to have George Martinez removed from office or have him voluntarily step down from office. And I believe in accountability and us in the city. Yeah, regardless of all that. So, um, thank you.

Thank you for participating. Would anybody else wish to provide audience participation? Please come forward.

Microphone is on. Please state your name, what part of town you're in, uh, 3 minutes. Okay, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition, formerly homeless. So, uh, the George Martin is OnlyFans fan club. Uh, looks like they want a refund.

Um, yeah. All right, uh, so I'm not here for the procedural gymnastics, I'm here for the homeless gymnastics. And currently, uh, there are homeless downtown that are doing improvised cartwheels around Town Square, uh, around the perimeter fence, and they're being chased by police. Uh, whether or not they have gotten to the point of doing somersaults and backflips to get inside that congregation area. I don't know.

So, uh, where am I going to go from here? From the free books cart, what do we have? Me of little faith. Where can I go with this? Um, so the good neighbor.

I got 2 minutes to try and do a story. So, uh, June 2024, I'm fresh out of a car, spent over $8,500 on a rental car including gas, insurance, all that stuff to take food to people. And somewhere the last 150 people in this town stopped getting fed at least twice a week when I was doing it. And Kenny Peterson sort of showed up on Fairbank Street and pitched his stake in the ground with 2 chairs and a 5-gallon bucket of water. And I sort of talked to him.

3 Weeks into this— I told that story once before— where once I went down there and somebody said, "Here's a card for a pastor." Okay, second time, same thing. Third time, "Okay, who is this guy?" So yeah, talked to him 3 hours, tried to coordinate with him, and Did it once, but yeah, he was doing his thing. And so July 2024, the Housing Homelessness Committee meeting, there's a story there, met Bob, sort of. And then you get to the August Housing Homelessness Committee meeting, more or less what ends up happening is Mr. Peterson goes up there and he says, yeah, I'm a business owner in the area. I have a business 3 blocks away and I came to be aware that the abatement on 33rd Street Street was placed, and I just want to thank you for that.

Thank you very much. And I looked at him and I was like, are you kidding me? Those people that were at Fairbank Street got evicted. They had nowhere to go. They go over to 33rd, and more or less what ends up happening is they had nowhere to go.

And he threw them right under the bus. I stopped talking to him for 6 months after that. And so where I'm going forward with this is last week there was a housing Homelessness Committee meeting. More or less what happened at that thing was you had two people that came in, Elias and Michaela Robinson, fresh to homelessness. Really, there's more that could go into the story, but the short of it is at the end of that meeting, they were there.

A woman named Emily was there, has access to Good Neighbor Fund, and Kenny came in and he said something, he walked out. But more or less, they would not pay to put them into a hotel for 3 days because they they thought it was too expensive. And so literally, they were left with nothing. I tried to take them up to the mayor's office. Again, almost no help.

And then you get to the end, 4 hours later, where there is a celebration of Kenny event. It's like a wake, but with more journalists and publicists. And it was a true staged photo op in that fashion. And I came to find out effectively that they could not help them. They could not extend their estate centennial.

And so literally, they were asking for money. 4 Hours after not willing to pay for somebody to stabilize them, and they are still out there right now. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Please help them. Thank you for participating.

Would anyone else wish to participate?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then we will move on to assembly comments, and I'll start with Mr. Handeland. Thanks. Um, just want to state that, uh, I mean, addressing members' conduct was not why I ran for office, but when behavior rises to the level of willfully lying under oath, something has to be done. I stood about 10 feet away from Member Martinez when we both took our oath of office. Later, he took another oath, this time at an APOC hearing, and the results show that he lied under that oath.

This is not about the underlying APOC issue. As egregious as those violations are, those— they have their own remedy. This is about accountability, honesty, and the public trust.

The lying under oath is the central issue of this request. Even now, there is no apology. The only statement that was put out was titled Transparency from the Start. I ask every member of this body to listen to that 40-minute hearing and ask the question, listen to the responses, and ask yourself whether that conduct reflects the standards that we should be— we should, uh, the example that we should be setting as members of the assembly. If Member Martinez does not resign, then we'll bring forward an accusation document to initiate an investigation process for the potential for removal from office.

This is the first step, not removal, the first step in finding truth. We owe the public full and honest account. We should hold ourselves accountable, and I urge my colleagues to support that process. Thank you. Thanks.

And just for members to note, um, I'm going to go through the folks in person, then I'll move to the phone, and then I have some comments at the end. So next, Mr. Uh, Gerger. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So as you have probably all seen and just literally heard, uh, Member Handeland and I have called for Member Martinez's resignation.

This is an extraordinary step and is not one that I take lightly in the slightest. However, this is not an ordinary APOC violation either. Many candidates and elected officials have made reporting mistakes that have gotten them sideways with APOC. It's not uncommon to make mistakes. It's a very complicated system.

What makes this case different is that APOC found Assemblymember Martinez Mr. Martinez willfully used campaign funds for personal benefit, and then he misled, um, regulators and investigators and lied under oath about it. APOC described the violation here as particularly egregious and imposed the maximum penalty available. Public trust is not partisan. It is not geographic, uh, nor is it ideological. If these same findings and fact patterns had been made against me, me, I would hope and expect my colleagues would do the same and hold me to the same standard I am holding here.

The remaining question is whether the public can have confidence in an elected official who has been found to have misused campaign funds for personal benefit and who, according to APOC's findings, misled investigators about that conduct. At a time when trust in public institutions is already declining, we should be setting a higher standard, not a lower everyone. For these reasons, I do continue to believe that Member Martinez should resign, and, uh, and like Mr. Handeland said, I'm prepared to initiate those proceedings under municipal code if he does not. Thank you.

Next, Miss Silvers.

No comments, thank you. Um, uh, next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, no additional comments.

Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair.

There were a couple of things that happened tonight that I think are germane to point out right this moment. Uh, there were a number of times over the course of the evening that, uh, starting from the very beginning, that members were willing to own up to mistakes and were willing to say publicly that things did not go as they should have.

And there were also moments this evening where members changed their mind with the provision of new information or new insight or just good discussion on, on the dais. And I, for one, believe that that is what good leadership looks like. I believe that that is what trustworthy leadership looks like, which is something— we've tossed around a lot this evening, um, is, is the word trust. And so, uh, it is my sincere hope that the testimony that's been heard tonight, the public comments that have been made tonight, and really the, the arc of this meeting tonight is an encouragement to my colleague, Member Martinez, to reconsider his course of action. To reconsider the way that he's responded to the APOC violation that he clearly committed, and that he takes steps to repair the trust that's been broken.

I, I think, um, well, I appreciate the, the comments that members Gerker and Handeland have made. I would love to see Member Martinez make a full accounting for his choices. I think that that's appropriate. I think that's appropriate as a public official. I think it's appropriate as a leader.

And, and I hope that he takes those steps. Um, there are very few mechanisms that we as assembly members have to actively remove our colleagues from office. That is why we have elections every 3 and that is why recall petitions exist, because when an individual member has broken trust with their district and has broken trust with their voters, there ought to be mechanisms in place for the people who have been wronged to do something about that. And so I want to be clear that I think that there are many paths toward accountability, toward repair, and that resignation does not have to be the first stop on that journey. In fact, I hope it is not.

Is not the first stop on that journey. So I think that's all I have to say, Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to make comments here at the end. Thank you. Next, Ms. Scout.

Thank you. I also have some comments to share tonight. I think we did great work this evening. Um, much of it was tedious and boring conversations, and that's what I love about local government, is, um, that a lot of it is not glamorous and a lot of it is not dramatic. But obviously we don't always have that privilege.

I want to thank the folks who commented for showing up tonight and sharing their perspective This situation has been heavy on my heart, and I will continue to meditate on it, on how we lead our community with principle and integrity. And I echo Member Baldwin-Day's call to Member Martinez to think about what that looks like for him. I also hope that those who attended tonight I took an opportunity to learn as well and to see another thing that I love about local government is that we work together across difference to get things done.

This is not currently an arena for partisan fights and conflicts, and that's really something that I cherish about this current assembly is that our votes are not completely predictable, and we work together on places where we agree.

So I believe, um, yeah, I'm grateful to everybody for the comments, to my colleagues for their honesty and bravery in a difficult topic that may face us, and I look forward to continuing this good work with you all.

Thank you. Next, Mr. McCormick. No comments, thank you. Ms. Park. No comments, thank you, Chair.

Mr. Johnson. No comments, thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I see Madam Mayor in the queue. I'll go to you next.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. I wanted to take an opportunity— I wanted to take the opportunity, thank you, to acknowledge acknowledge that this is likely the last assembly meeting for Municipal Manager Becky Wint Pearson, as she'll be moving on to a new role. And, um, you know, Becky is an exceptional leader and manager, a rigorous problem solver, um, and a really great person to work with. I think that you all have experienced that as well And her list of accomplishments— and keeping in mind this is her second time here at the municipality, she formerly served as the municipal attorney and had a tremendous role in the sale of ML&P— but, um, this time around, Snow Solutions, sanding trucks, Healthy Spaces, Town Square Park, the port, the downtown library, sidewalks, public restrooms, diving boards, maybe a few rabbits thrown in. There's nothing that doesn't come across the municipal manager's desk, and we have all been so fortunate, Becky, to have you in this role, and our our community is better off, we are all better off for your service.

And you know, this is her last meeting maybe this go around, right? And so let's hope for all of us and for our community that her deep devotion to public service reignites in this way again and she comes back because her professionalism, dedication, responsiveness, and doing everything with flair is something that is truly remarkable. And just, I'm so grateful to you, Becky, for being in this role. Thank you.

Um, if I might, Madam Chair, may I have a moment of personal privilege? Yes, thank you. And then we'll finish your comments after that. Thank you. And I, I feel like I can't say too much because it's been emotional for me to leave this role.

I want to—. I would say just, it has really been an incredible honor and a privilege, um, to serve in this role. It's been an honor privilege to to serve the mayor, to serve you and your vision for our community, for continuing to move Anchorage forward as the community that I know we all love. And it's that love that gets us all here to come to these meetings and continue to serve in these roles day in and day out. And I do, in that vein, want to thank all of you for the work that you do.

I share Member Scout's feelings about local government. I've said to people, you know, local government is your government of first and last resort. When there is a challenge, many, many challenges, your federal government is like, which is not answering the phone. But we are always the government that is here to try and help when, um, you know, problems, you know, right off the bat, and problems when there's no other government that's willing to step in. And that's because of the work that you all do in service to your district.

So thank you for allowing me to work alongside you these past 2 years. And again, thank you, Mayor, for the incredible privilege of serving in your administration. Thank you.

Thank you, and I will echo the thanks and appreciation. And we have you for one more week, so, um, so, uh, just, just for order, I want to note, um, I do have— I, I am going to share some information specific to what was raised this evening, but first, Mr. Martinez is on the phone and I believe would like to provide comments. So go ahead, Mr. Martinez. Yeah, thank you.

Just closing comments. Appreciate the opportunity to hear from my colleagues. Appreciate the opportunity to hear from members of the public today. We always, I often close out meetings by saying we do complicated work with imperfect tools and we try the best we can. And so I appreciate the opportunity to hear folks and I really don't have anything additional to add, Chair, at this time.

I appreciate the privilege to continue to serve. Thank you. Oh, and just lastly, Chair, just for the record, I have been on the call the entire time listening. I had to leave for family reasons. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Martinez. So lastly, I want to share some information, and I will preface by saying I know there has been— there is a lot of public interest in this matter following the decision on an APOC complaint related to a campaign. And I know today and prior we saw in the media that two members have raised the intent or the possibility of invoking a process that is in our charter, in our code, regarding removal of a member. So that's what I'm going to be speaking to. And I know also per the Open Meetings Act, I imagine members have been wondering kind of what is happening, what does this look like.

We— most of us are new up here and also the process that is being invoked has never been used. And so I think that is one general theme of comments is I want to provide what we know, what we don't know right now, and that we are looking into it. So first I'll say certainly as chair, I do want to and do take seriously the stewardship of our public trust in upholding our laws and our policies. I want that to be clear. Clear.

That includes also understanding the processes we have, basing our decisions or any deliberation that comes before the body on facts, and adhering to due process. I am not commenting tonight specifically on the conduct of any other members at this point, but I do want to provide information, and I'll share— first, I'll share some of the steps that I've already taken in consultation with the vice chair, with, uh, counsel, the clerk, and others First, I want to clarify that the matter being raised here is over a campaign expenditure, which I know the members in question have also stated, and so has the public. That is an item that is regulated by APOC and muni code. So in terms of the scope of any of our campaign activity when we are not acting in capacity as an assembly member is outside the scope of the municipality. So that isn't to say that, that people cannot raise questions of public trust.

I understand that's what's being raised, but I also want to be clear, I have seen some communications stating concern about taxpayer funds, and campaigns by definition are not taxpayer funds. And so I just want to be clear, I know that has been confusing for some folks, at least that we have heard from in the last few days. Second, I do understand that there may be some questions tangentially because of the nature of that APOC complaint about the use of public funds for travel in our capacity as assembly members. Again, separate issue, but that is one that is squarely within our purview. So I've already been working with the clerk the last week or so to review the existing records of assembly member travel, particularly the approval process that's used for travel expenditures.

People may not be aware that there is a clear process. We have a policy. Our travel is dealt with through, uh, staff staff and, and through approval of the chair. And so, um, and so those records are available. Um, to date we have not identified an issue.

However, I do also believe that we need transparency, and it is helpful to have third parties look at that. And so I've also spoken with our internal auditor, um, and we have already initiated a small project, uh, through the internal audit department to request a review of our travel processes, recent expenditures of assembly members members, and, and really making sure that we are following the processes we have, identifying any issues. So I look forward to addressing any findings that they bring forward that need to be addressed, whether that is individual action or a policy change. And that item will be briefly discussed at the July 1st Audit Committee meeting. It has been noticed on the agenda for anyone who is noticing that.

So a little more discussion specifically about that review. Next. Um, third, I will note, uh, we do not currently have an item before us utilizing this process that is outlined in AMC 270.030, but in the event that we do, um, and I remind members that we all need to be mindful of Open Meetings Act, um, which is a very broad interpretation, which is why I'm sharing this information now in public because that is the opportunity I have. Um, I am working to understand that process, including the estimated estimated time and cost associated with engaging in that process, assuming that it proceeds forward, so that if we do have an item before us, that members and the public have a clear understanding before any further action is contemplated. I'll note for anyone who's interested, I took a trip back in time and I rewatched the hours of public testimony and debate on the ordinance that put that process into place.

Again, it's been in the charter since 1975, but it was never fully actuated. Actualized as a process. So I watched that to understand both the legislative intent of the folks who came before us and also the public opinion expressed at that time on that process. The short version is, as I said, this has been in the charter since 1975. It's only 4 years ago around this time that it was put into code as a process, and it's never been used to our knowledge.

And so, and of course, the process didn't exist until 4 years ago. Ago. So I also learned from that, that the public testimony at that time really showed a strong aversion to the Assembly exercising this power against another elected official. There was a lot of concerns raised about due process, about when and how the Assembly might take action on this, and essentially really raising the big question of at what point would the Assembly essentially overturn the will of voters by removing somebody from office who is elected. So I think that is a, that is a question we should all grapple with.

And, and, and I'm asking to set aside the specific facts of the case and just think about that, because I think that is something that caused a lot of consternation 4 years ago in this room. And again, this is not tested, so I, um, that is something that I'm really wanting to do due diligence. What does that look like? If anyone is interested in going back and watching that, again, it was AO 2022-60S. There was substitute version.

That's the one that passed. It was discussed, or the public hearing was opened at the meeting of May 24th, 2022. There was a special meeting with 4 hours of testimony on June 1st, 2022, and then eventually there was debate and a final vote on the meeting of July 12th, 2022. And I will also note that only 2 members, um, on this body were actually on the body when that served, so 10 of us were not involved in that debate. So if you were interested and you want to go back and and look, I recommend you do that.

Lastly, I will wrap up by saying that it is any member's prerogative to add an item to our agenda through our, our notice and introduction process, and that we will conduct our business according to that agenda and our rules of procedure. So my intent as chair is that we follow the Open Meetings Act, that we adhere to our rules of procedure, that we maintain order, and that we deliberate before any decision is made. And so what we are doing in the meantime, I am working closely with with our attorney and our legal counsel to again outline that process, to make that information about the process available to all members. And then if and when we do see an item before us in the future, I imagine we will have more— we will need and will have more legal guidance on this process to make sure that we are clearly following from beginning to end both the intent of the charter and what is now in our code. And in any areas that are not resolved in our code, we will need to address with our attorneys.

So, so I will wrap up by saying, um, if you have questions in the meantime about procedure, I encourage you to reach out to the clerk staff. If you have questions, uh, legal questions, I encourage you to reach out to our municipal attorney and assembly council. And also, I again will remind members that, um, the Open Meetings Act is broadly interpreted. It can also include things that have been stated that may come forward to us that may not exist yet. And so please proceed with caution, um, talking with any of members on this item.

So with that, um, I guess I'll just see if there's any clarifying questions of what I said, but otherwise we will wrap up. I know that was a lot, um, and this is a big item that may come before us, so we are again proceeding with caution. So with that, um, I don't believe we have any other business, so I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second.

All right, thank you. We are adjourned.