Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - July 21, 2026

Mic check, 1, 2.

We'll get started in a few minutes. I know there's still folks filing in.

We will get started in a few moments as folks are filing in.

Ham, salami, pepperoni with provolone, banana peppers, pesto, aioli, and organic white bread. That sounds good.

Listen, you can open up the bag like the whole— oh, a new world. I might have to get one.

How's it going? I feel like you haven't been here. No, it's been great. Then the roulette wheel turned and it was my turn to come. Have you been okay?

Everything's good.

There was like 2 hours of sunshine today. I know, I could see it coming, so I took a walk with the dog this morning before work. Good idea.

My wife's lunch was a little earlier today, so it was like 11, so I had to leave the house at like 10:30 to like pick her up, take lunch, and then press to swap the car. Yeah. And then I'm like, okay, well, I'll just take the company car home, you know, do what I normally do. She texts me like, actually, I'm gonna be off at 1 PM today. And I'm like, let's take the company car back.

I'm like, all right, well, I've got the car.

What does she do again? Normally she's a family advocate for the Kikimilidate Head Start, but they're often in the summer, so she's working over at this place called the Imagination Station. Okay, that's—. It's right, like, right next to St. Mike's too.

Okay, I thought she was coming to rescue you.

Okay everyone, uh, let's call this meeting to order.

Tonight is Tuesday, uh, June— July 21st. Uh, first we will start with roll call, then we'll move into the rest of our agenda. Madam Clerk.

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

Present. Member Silvers? Present. Member Presverdia? Here.

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

Present. Member Scout? Present. Member McCormick? Here.

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

Thank you. And I'll note a technical note. I'm hearing an echo, so I don't know if there's anyone on the phone. I know all of our members are present. If there's anyone else on the phone, if you could mute your line.

And we'll make sure that we're muting in the room as well. There's some, a little bit of feedback. Okay, so next we'll move on to our Pledge of Allegiance and land acknowledgments. So Mr. Handlin, will you please lead us in the pledge?

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

Thank you. Mr. Presverdia, will you lead us in the land acknowledgment? I'm sorry, read the land acknowledgment.

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

It is with gratitude and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina.

Thank you. And I'll note I'm still hearing some residual audio. So again, if there's anyone on the phone who's listening, please mute your line., or we will attempt to do that for you. Um, next we'll move on. We have, uh, one set of previous minutes, so that's the special meeting of June 26th.

Um, is there a motion to approve these minutes? Move to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 26th. Second. Motion by Mr. Bowen, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion on the minutes?

Any objection to approval of these minutes? Hearing and seeing none, um, with no objection, these minutes are approved. Next we'll turn to the mayor's report. Madam Mayor. Thank you, Chair Brawley.

Good evening, everyone. I hope you all enjoyed the weekend despite the rainy weather that we've been having. A few things before we get down to the business of the municipality tonight. We are making steady progress on housing, and so far this year we're seeing encouraging increases in residential construction permits compared to previous years. However, there's much more work to do to meet our goal of building and rehabilitating 10,000 homes in 10 years.

With J-Bear's multi-billion dollar recapitalization project on the horizon, we also know we'll need another 2,000 homes in the next 5 years to support our military partners as they expand. Shifting to tonight's agenda, there has been a lot of discussion about the framework for a new Public Safety Advisory Commission. Public safety is the most critical mission of local government It is the absolute core of what we do. It's also an area of tremendous interest to the people who live here. A Public Safety Advisory Commission isn't a new idea.

We've had such a commission before, and it can help engage residents. We support community input, and we always want to be responsive to the community we serve. I want to thank our first responders because you all carry out this critical mission of public safety oftentimes putting yourselves in harm's way to keep us safe. I especially want to express gratitude to our police officers whose jobs put themselves at risk every single day. This was recently highlighted when two of our officers were shot and another injured in the line of duty in what should have been a routine, low-level shoplifting arrest.

Thank you all for your dedication, your bravery, and your willingness to carry this tremendous responsibility. Thankfully, those 3 police officers survived. And thank you, Chief Case, for leading your department through modernization, restaffing, and a renewed effort to engage community. You may have seen him at pretty much every community event. There's always room for more collaboration.

However, to be clear, I will not support a commission with subpoena power or the authority to access personnel files. That said, I'm confident we can find a path forward for this commission, one that strengthens lines of communication with all corners of our community, fosters understanding, and helps us all work together and support each other in making a safer, more resilient community. Finally, before I close, I want to share a quick reminder that we are looking for new members to join the Youth Advisory Commission. This is a great opportunity for young leaders to get involved, especially as we stand up our Bloomberg grant-funded youth climate initiatives. And speaking of our community's incredible youth, I'm going to turn now to those here representing the municipality's Youth Employment in Parks program.

Through this fantastic partnership between the Anchorage Park Foundation and Anchorage Parks and Recreation, these young people gain vital job experience, learn hands-on outdoor skills, and make a visible impact on the parks and trails our community loves. And I have seen that firsthand. These guys are strong, hardworking, and, um, boy, you, you have done a lot. So I'm going to invite them up now to share a little bit about their experiences this summer. Thank you, and I look forward to our work tonight.

Yeah, thank you. So I see Miss Nordlund coming up. Uh, make sure the microphone is on, there's a green button there. Um, and yep, and please proceed. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Beth Nordlund. I'm executive director of the Anchorage Park Foundation, and I'm here to introduce you to the class of 2026 for Youth Employment in Parks. This is our 20th season of Youth Employment in Parks, so we are excited to be with you here tonight. Uh, Youth Employment in Parks is a program— it's a project of the Anchorage Park Foundation and the Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department, and we hire teens for 10 weeks every summer, ages 16 to 19. These are the best jobs you can get So next year you'll get an opportunity to help recruit for Anchorage Teens around the city.

If you want to open your brochures that you were given to page 5, you will see that we reflect Anchorage here, our Anchorage Teens. We have, we have employed 26 teens this summer. And they represent 9 high schools. They speak 5 different languages. 38% Of the teens is— this is their very first job.

And we have 5 returning crew members. They're called senior crew members. And those are the ones in the bright orange shirts. So they have one extra year and season of experience. If you take a look at the map, you will see that we have a project.

Those projects are numbered. Most of the— all of those projects are in different districts. So you will see your own district. And we, um, we did a trail rehabilitation project at Cheney Lake this summer in East Anchorage. And there is a great before and after, um, amazing trail rehabilitation.

They had a very popular project in Girdwood where they worked on the Middle Iditarod Trail. They worked for 2 weeks in Davis Park in Mountain View working on the disc golf expansion. And that project I think is in the district that represents Chugiak/Eagle River, but it's also Mountain View. So it was a great project, and they got to meet with the community council there as well.

Romig Hill Trail rehabilitation happened in West Anchorage. Great. Oh gosh, those trails look gorgeous now, and they are not muddy at all. Even though it was a very rainy summer, they really made a big difference on those trails. And this week they've been planting trees in the Greenbelt.

So they've done a lot of work. If you turn the page to page 6, it shows all the kinds of impact that we've had, including planting 50,900 native plants, 5,671 tons of gravel moved. It's been a lot of combined work over 20 years of service in Anchorage. But as you can see, we're making a difference in every single neighborhood, and we are hiring teens. The teens on the map represent, um, those little green dots.

So you will see that there are several teenagers employed in your own district. So now we're going to have to hear from every teen about what their favorite project is, and they're also going to tell you what district they live in. So, um, listen up for whether they all think that Girdwood project was the best. Okay, here they come, and we're going to have the first row stand up. Ready, guys?

We're going to try to be orderly and just stand in a line. Line up, and we'll— and we will be out of here quickly. Thanks so much, everyone.

Good afternoon, my name is Javan Jardette. I live in District 3, and my favorite project was the Middle Iditarod Trail in Girdwood, partly because of the views. I mean, we all like Girdwood, but also partially because of the history and the significance of the trail. It's, I believe, a nationally recognized trail, very important to Alaska's history, and I enjoyed being a part of that.

Hello, my name is Gunnar Raspuko. I'm from District 2, Eagle River, and my favorite place to work at was Gerdwood. On the middle, I did Raw Trail. It was really beautiful there, and I just really loved the hard work that we were doing.

Hi, my name is Oliver Rozier. I'm going to break the chain. I am from District 6. And my favorite project was the Davis Disc Golf expansion, um, just because of how dynamic the work was. There was a lot of variety over the 2 weeks we were there, and I got to try a lot of new things that I don't really do that often.

Hi, my name is Mason Malore. I'm from District 4. I really particularly enjoyed the West Hills project. It was a great challenge, and there was a lot of beautiful, uh, waterfowl there.

My name is Nathan Kautry and I am from District 6. My favorite project was the Davis Park project.

Hi, I'm Daisy and I'm from District 4. My favorite project was Girdwood.

Hello, my name is Adeline Bernier. I'm from District 6 and my favorite project was the mini project in downtown Anchorage helping redistribute and collect the bricks in Town Square.

Hello everybody, my name is Peng. I'm from District 1. My favorite project was the Davis Park disc golf course.

Good day, good day. My name is Samisi Salala. I'm from District 5, and my favorite project by far was the Roaming Sewer project, simply due to the sheer difficulty and challenge it provided our program, and how we were all able to persevere as a whole through grit and determination, showing that even through the toughest of challenges, we're also able to complete the most excellent of work and be of service to our community.

Hi, my name is Ava Lindsay. Uh, I'm from District 6, and my favorite project was the Girdwood Middle Lighted Rod Trail.

Hello, my name is Marin Van Omren. I'm from District 5, and my favorite My favorite project was the Davis, uh, disc golf expansion, mostly because I showed the most growth in that project, and I'm really proud of myself for that.

Hi, my name is Cordelia McCarthy. I'm from District 3, and my favorite project was the work that we did at Cheney Lake.

Hi, my name is Sage Price. I'm from District 4, and my favorite project was the Cheney Lake stream bank rehabilitation project. Hi, my name is Annika Lindstedt. I'm from District 2, and my favorite project was the Middle Iditarod Trail in Girdwood. Hello, my name is Sherman, and I'm from District 5.

My favorite project was the Iditarod Trail. We were able to greatly benefit Girdwood, um, and their community, and I'm so glad we were able to do that.

Hey, my name is Pia McCarthy, and my favorite project— I'm from District 3, and my favorite project was the Middle Iditarod Trail in Girdwood.

Hello, my name is Haven Dahlgren. I am from District 1, and my favorite project was the Romig Hill restoration because it is right in front of my high school, and I thought it was really important for the community.

My name is Aiden Fry. I'm from District 1, and my favorite project was the Davis Park, uh, disc golf expansion.

Hello, my name is Aluk. I'm just a— my paper project is planting trees. Planting trees, all right. Hello, my name is Shiraka. I'm from District 5.

My first project is cleaning lake. Hi, I'm August Kaufman, and I'm from the 5th— 5th District, sorry. Um, and my favorite project was working on the West Hills.

Hello, my name is Elias Bigley. I'm from District 6. My favorite project was the Davis disc golf expansion because that's when I started feeling really physically in shape from the work that we've been doing this summer, and the cottonwoods were also blooming, and I'm not allergic, so it's just really beautiful in the air.

Hi, I'm Maddie Eldridge. I'm from District 2, and my favorite project this summer was the Romey Trail rehabilitation.

So that was Youth Employment in Parks Class of 2026. Thanks everyone.

If you have any questions, we will give it a shot.

Okay, any questions for members? I don't see anyone in the queue at this moment.

Okay, Mr. Bond, I don't have a question, but I would just say thank you for all of your hard work in making our community a better place.

Thanks everyone.

Yeah, thank everyone for being here and encourage folks to take a look at the report.

Yeah, I will try to speak closer. Okay, next on our agenda, so I believe— I'll just check— uh, don't believe there's anything else from the mayor's report, so we will move on to the chair's report. So One second as folks are filing out and I'm going to find my other piece of paper.

Okay. Please note for the record the mayor was giving high fives. To the youth as they were passing out or passing out of the room. Okay, so next is the chair's report. So good evening everyone.

Welcome to our regular business meeting. I'm going to use my time tonight to give a few brief updates and address some process matters, some of which we'll take up when we're taking— when we're making decisions about the agenda order today. First on the budget. So you'll see on the agenda under item 10B6 under our consent agenda, the assembly is working to set our policy priorities for the FY27 municipal budget, which was discussed last week in our budget and finance committee meeting. We will likely be discussing this further in the consent agenda, but I think big picture wanted to reiterate a few points— thank you— about our budget and what we know today.

So as many of you know, the municipality continues to face challenges in meeting public expectations for service levels due to the ongoing strain from limited income sources and rising costs. We also know that after years of building outwards, we have billions of dollars in deferred maintenance liability and will be increasingly unable to keep up with basic service levels. If nothing changes. Additionally, the municipality will soon be confronted with a decision to potentially cut local services or reduce our local funding to the school district because of the local and state formulas have essentially created a zero-sum situation for our community. That is not the final answer to that, but it is a question that we anticipate having to deal with and will be discussing this fall in our budget cycle.

All that said, we are making progress. The municipality has made major strides in the last few years to get our financial house in order. We filled many staff vacancies, improved our fiscal systems, and are working to close long-term structural deficits. And we're almost caught up with our financial audit cycle with the publication of the most recent ACFR. And again, thank you very much to the folks in the administration and the assembly and, and all the folks who have been really working hard to make that happen.

So the next big question before us is what steps we can and will take, or could take, to achieve a better future than the status quo has laid out for us now. I really encourage the community to follow along in our budget process to learn more about our fiscal issues and engage in the discussions we're going to have to help us chart the new fiscal future for Anchorage. Next, I'll address short-term rental registration. So if you're not aware, the municipality has implemented a short-term rental registration ordinance earlier this spring that went live on May 1st, and the deadline put in code for that was for short-term rental operators to register their units basically within that 90 days. So next week, Thursday, July 30th, 2026, registration is free.

The application is fairly simple. So if you've been putting it off, now is the time to do it. Clerk staff have helped about 1,100 or over 1,100 operators complete this process so far for over 1,900 units. And that's the numbers we had last week. And the staff are certainly happy to assist.

In the last week, the Assembly has also received requests for more time for operators— or by— sorry, received requests for more time for operators to complete registration because this date, this deadline, is in the middle of our summer season when a lot of those folks are at their most busy. This deadline was set in code, and so to change it would require passing a new ordinance. That is certainly possible, but not something that we take lightly. So consulting with staff and council in this last week or so, and we don't have the item before us tonight, but we anticipate potentially taking up a resolution that would need to be laid on the table to request a short time-limited delay in that enforcement of the registration requirement. So essentially meaning that the deadline still is there, but the penalty for not having registered by the next day would not result in direct enforcement until later in the fall.

So more on that if members wish to take action on that tonight, if and when we have that item before us. We can talk more about it then. But in the meantime, information about the new registration requirement, including frequently asked questions and step-by-step how-to instructions, is on the website at muni.org/str. And again, I encourage contacting clerk staff if you are having issues registering or if you have questions about that, if you are subject to that requirement. In terms of agenda items, regarding the order of tonight's agenda, assembly leadership's intent this evening is to ask the body to re- reorder a few portions of our agenda to take up some of the time-sensitive and labor agreement items before reopening the public hearing on item 13A, the proposed Public Safety Commission, and to take up the two items that are in Section 12 at the end of this meeting.

I understand there's significant public interest in all three of these items, but also there are Muni staff and other people present to address essentially 13 other public hearing items on our agenda tonight, most of which are very likely to bring little little testimony or debate, uh, before passage. So we will, uh, address the order of the agenda during the consent agenda process, um, but wanted to preview that request now. Um, and then the last kind of substantive update is when testing the meeting software, meeting management software on Monday, our OnBase system, it was discovered there was an unknown issue with the media server. Uh, so the IT department has been working with the clerk staff on this issue for several hours yesterday and have been continuing to work today., but we're not able to resolve the issue in time for the meeting. Um, so to be clear, uh, we are streaming live on YouTube.

Um, we are recording this meeting. We are doing all the things that we normally do. Um, but the live stream can be accessed tonight only on the YouTube channel directly instead of through our meeting management software OnBase. Uh, so it will— it is available and it will be available online through that platform, uh, just not simultaneously connected. I'm sorry, it's available through the YouTube platform It's not simultaneously connected in with our agenda platform at this time.

So as always, we are keeping a close eye on the technology, aware of this particular issue and any others that may arise during this meeting. Um, the meeting is still streaming online. And, uh, in terms of addressing this on-base issue, on Wednesday, clerk staff will manually upload the recording to the meeting management software so that it will be linked as normal after the fact. So I know, uh, our periodic technology issues are frustrating to the public watching. Certainly they're frustrating to the the staff who have to manage our systems, but we are addressing it as best we can.

So with that, I'll read our usual meeting announcements so that we can conduct our business and conclude at the most reasonable hour possible. Our usual reminders: this is a business meeting. We're 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, particularly during public testimony.

Please keep signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Please keep the aisle clear except when lined up to testify. Please do not approach the dais. If you do have something you'd like to share with members, please hand it to the clerk for distribution. If there is a point of order called, please everyone, I will ask to stop speaking so that I may rule on the point of order so our record is clear.

If the rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance. If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption, I will give a warning. And if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. And, uh, lastly, I'll read off our public hearing item, um, uh, procedures.

Uh, when you come forward, uh, and you're testifying on any public hearing item, please state your name. Please, uh, share the community council or area of the municipality or district in which you live. Please stay on topic. Direct comments to me or other people on the dais, and I'll, uh, interrupt you if you're off topic. Uh, you'll have 3 minutes.

Community council representatives have 5 minutes if they're speaking in that capacity, and assembly members don't typically answer questions during the public hearings, uh, but they may address your questions or, or seek more information during debate. Public testimony is the public's time to speak. So with that, that concludes, uh, our report. So next we'll move on to committee and liaison reports, and I'll start down the line with, um, Mr. Handlin today. Nothing to report.

Thank you. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Just one thing to report from the CEDC's perspective. We did some work on youth transit, and I got some preliminary information back on that, and so I don't want to steal the thunder for our Transportation Committee, but year to— over date, youth transit ridership on PeopleMover is up 34%, which is pretty significant.

And more to have on that report hopefully at the next CEDC meeting. As it relates to economic mobility and how we can use PeopleMover for getting our young people to jobs and etc. So that's good news on that front. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Gerker. No, I don't, um, nothing to report. Thank you, Chair. Miss Silvers. Nothing to report.

Thank you. Mr. Presverdia. Thank you, Chair. No report tonight. Uh, Mr. Bollands.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Budget and Finance Committee met on Thursday, July 16th. One of the big topics of discussion was a resolution that will be before us tonight on our budget priorities as the assembly, and that sort of kicks off the budget process. The next, uh, as part of that normal sequence, the next piece would be receiving the 120-day memo from the administration. So that was, uh, in addition to the normal reports, uh, the majority of the discussion.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, uh, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Uh, the Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee met last Thursday, and we got an update on the rather explosive situation at the Anchorage Regional Landfill that came to light last February, where there was a buildup of methane gas in a building that actually could have ignited., and, uh, we, as a result of that, um, our Solid Waste Services folks, uh, did a fantastic job of intervening in that situation. We have a new methane flare now, additional, um, links of pipe, and a lot of monitoring that's going on, and very pleased to report that the methane levels are back to zero, which is exactly what you want in public buildings.

Uh, they're also exploring some options for reuse of that methane gas, which is also, um, a, a great step forward. Uh, we also received an update on the waste-to-energy project with a preferred site at the Anchorage Regional Landfill. And this is— you will see 4 different public information sessions coming forward in both August and September and 2 open houses to discuss this project. Lots of upsides for the municipality here. This is an energy generator, would extend the life of the landfill by making the volume of trash that goes into the landfill much smaller, and would also generate revenue.

We would have the ability to dispose of toxic materials and contaminated soils here in Alaska without having to ship them out of state, which is what we currently have to do. And then finally, we received an update from Anchorage Water and Wastewater, who is in the process of renewing a really important permit on pollutant discharge. It's called the NPDES system permit— our NPDES permit— and it is for our wastewater treatment facility. We already exceed the very stringent criteria that are in place for for our treated wastewater, and we are working on re-upping a permit that is part of the Clean Water Act of 1978. So all of that is good work happening in our utilities.

And, uh, the other thing I have to report is that the Municipal Audit Committee meets tomorrow at 12:30. That will be at City Hall, also streaming online, and we will be discussing the purchasing card audit that came forward a couple of months back. You may recall some conversation on the dais, so we'll be digging into that at that committee. I hope some of you can make it. Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Ms. Scott. Nothing to report. Thank you. Mr. McCormick.

Nothing to report. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Park. Nothing to report, Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Johnson. The Assembly Legislative Committee meeting scheduled for July 22nd has been postponed to August 6th. That'll be at 11 AM at City Hall, and the topics will include an update on the progress the legislature has made during the special sessions, wherever we happen to be on August 6th, and then also an update regarding federal legislation, um, recently passed regarding housing.

That is all, Chair.

Thank you. Um, that concludes our Committee on Liaison reports at this time. Next, we will take up the addendum to the agenda, and before we do that, we will take up our late on the table items. As a reminder, Laid on the table items need to be read into the record. There are multiple categories of those, so as I am sorting through which ones are informational or supplemental, I will read those, and then we do have, I believe, one for action, and I will make sure that I have covered all the supplementals.

One moment.

Okay, and, and before I read those items into the record, I'll just note, um, this is not an item before us, um, but this is regarding AR 2026-189, which we took up at our last meeting. Uh, it was introduced and we at that time had set the public hearing for, uh, August 18th, our regular meeting. So again, AR 2026-189, um, that is a resolution of the assembly approving an administrative agreement between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302. So just to be clear for the record, um, the direction that I'm about to give the clerk is, uh, that instead of having that public hearing on August 18th, um, we discovered that, that, uh, it is more prudent and it is possible to have that hearing at the regular meeting of August 4th, 2026. Um, and so that would move the public hearing up from the meeting where we originally put it, uh, one meeting sooner to our next meeting.

So I'm directing the clerk to make that change.

Is there any objection to changing that public hearing date?

Um, yeah, and, and the clerk reminds me as well that this was a code change that we made regarding how to count the required, uh, notice period for these administrative agreements, um, for these unions. So we were able to, um, make that happen more quickly. So next, I'll read a few laid on the table items that are supplemental or informational. Then we'll take up items for action. The first one will be 10F11.

It is Information Memorandum Unnumbered 2026, Answers to Assembly Questions. The next one is Information Memorandum Unnumbered, Information Relating to the Status and Location of Behavioral Health Facilities in the Municipality of Anchorage.

Oh wait, one second.

Okay, I apologize. The clerk has advised me that we, that we do need to treat the item that's currently labeled as 10F12 as for action, so I will come back to that one.

Yeah, sorry, the one that I just read, so I'm not reading that in the record. We'll come back to that one. The next two items that I have to read are supplemental. The first one is for 13A, it will become 13A6, AIM Unnumbered 2026, an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 4.50 to enact a new section for the Anchorage Public Safety Commission. That one specifically, if I can turn to it briefly, one moment.

There are two informational ones, so I just want to be clear. So the first one is essentially, um, answers to questions that were received, uh, after— from staff after the July 14th, 2026 work session on this ordinance. They have the same title, so I'm just being clear that was the first one that was read into the record. And then there's a second one with an identical title that will become 13A7. That one is an ordinance, same ordinance, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 4.50 to enact a new section establishing Public Safety Commission.

That one is, um, uh, it contains, um, 3 letters of support for the S-1 version of that ordinance. So just to be clear, those 2 items have been read into the record as supplemental. I believe we have a few other items to read in that are supplemental. One second.

One second as I confer with the clerk.

Okay, thank you. There's— yeah, so two other supplemental items at this time. Uh, one of them is an S2 version for AR 2026-192.

A resolution. This— the title of that one is a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly directing the municipal attorney to arrange for an independent investigation into allegations of breach of the public trust set out in Assembly Information Memorandum 96-2026 and report factual findings and any recommendations for action. The other one is an AIM unnumbered attached to the S-1 version of the AR 2026-192, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly directing the municipal attorney to conduct further investigation into Assemblymember Travels, submit a public report, and if warranted, draft accusations. So those two items are now read in as supplemental. Next, so next we will turn back to our— sorry, a lot of paperwork, folks.

We'll turn back to our lay on the table items for action.

The first one is proposed as item 10C3. It is Assembly Memorandum Unnumbered AM-2026, recommendation of an award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, IDIQ contract to Granite Construction Company, uh, to furnish asphalt concrete hot mix. Um, one moment.

I'm seeking a motion to lay this on the table, so it needs a first and second, and then I will ask for justification from the administration. So moved. Second. Motion to lay this memorandum on the table by, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Miss Scout. And this one does take a majority vote— or no, I'm sorry, this takes a majority vote to lay on the table.

Um, so ask asking for justification from the administration for this. Mr. Fawzy. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the grounds to lay an item on the table is that it is necessary to enable construction on municipal property before the construction season ends. That is our justification for this item.

The further background is that we competed the procurement of asphalt and the lowest bidder won, but then recently informed us they were unable to deliver small quantities or large quantities on the timelines that we need. So we are now proposing to award the contract instead to the second-place bidder, and that will enable us to get through the remainder of this summer.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Fauzi. Um, any further discussion on this item?

Okay, then I'll ask— uh, members may proceed to vote to lay this this item on the table.

Thank you. At a motion of 12 to 0, this item has been laid on the table. It will be 10C3 in the consent agenda. If a member wishes to pull it, um, it can be discussed at that time. Um, the next item, uh, I will read and then, um, seek a motion to lay on the table.

It's unnumbered AAM 2026, um, and it would be potentially item 10F12, uh, information relating to the status and location of behavioral health facilities in the Municipality of Anchorage. Um, I'm seeking a motion and second to lay this on the table. We— that this will also take discussion, um, and then we can hear a justification. So is there a motion? So moved.

Sorry, motion by Mayor LaFrance to lay this item on the table. Is there a second? Second. Second from Mr. Presverdia. Um, so I'll turn to, uh, the sponsor, the mayor's office, to make a justification.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. This AIM contains information relevant to the assembly's consideration of an addendum item for tonight, 10F9. It includes a statement from me, GAS map of behavioral health services located in the muni, with a link to the map as well as a list of those locations. And because this aim pertains to that item that is under consideration tonight, I've submitted this aim as a laid on the table item.

Yes, Madam Clerk, can you— Mayor LaFrance, you said that was, um, on the addendum. Can you remind me which item you said? Uh, 10F9. Thanks.

Okay, yeah, just for— so the record is clear, um, the— there was mention of a different informational item. Um, the clerk has indicated this is a separate item. Uh, so next I have in the queue Mr. Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to speak against the motion to lay this on the table.

I don't think it's appropriate. First of all, it's not time sensitive as it pertains to an item that has already been taken action on, a grant that has already been awarded. So I don't, I don't think there's any justifiable, justifiable argument that this is time sensitive.

If it is in response to item 10F9, I will note that the sponsors, one of which is myself, did that in a timely fashion and were able to get that on the addendum. Lastly, I will say I feel that this continues a pattern by this administration when it comes to the conversation around Fairview. Last minute. All of this stuff comes in last minute. So what I would encourage my colleagues to do is to vote down the motion to lay this on the table.

And what I would encourage the administration to do is bring this back on timely on the agenda or on the addendum for our next regular meeting. Thank you.

Okay, next I have Miss Scout.

I'll echo Vice Chair Boland's, um, statement here. I'll be voting no on this motion. It's frankly inappropriate, um, at this time, and I hope to have this conversation in the future and think it, it would have been timely a couple of weeks ago, but right now I think we need to move forward. The grant has been approved. We submitted an informational memo in time, and I don't know why we are dragging this out.

Thanks.

Next, Mr. Perez-Vedia. Thank you, Chair. I think I may have not fully heard the administration speak to the reason this is being laid on the table and the timeliness of it. So I would just like maybe to hear that again about why it's necessary in their— from their perspective to lay this on the table. Thanks.

Please respond if you have a— Thank you. Through the chair to Member Presverdia, this information isn't new. It's been shared with the assembly before and with the public in different forms, and As I mentioned in moving to lay this on the table or speaking to that motion, it's information relevant to the body's consideration of another item on the agenda. Seemed helpful to provide it. Happy to submit it again next week if that is, of course, the body's preference.

Again, it's not new information, but a relevant map and a list showing how behavioral health facilities are located in the— throughout the municipality. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, uh, next. Sorry, I see the mayor in the queue. I think that was to respond. Um, so next, Mr. McCormick. Uh, just make a disclosure as I'm going through the late on the table item.

My company is listed, um, uh, as a resource here, Alpen Well, Behavioral Health. I have financial benefit from being employed there.

Okay, thank you. I understand you're— it's a disclosure because your employer essentially is named in this item. It is an informational item, and so I'm not going to determine that there is a benefit that you would receive from what is already true, essentially. Um, so, so thank you. So I'm not going to rule in this moment that you don't have a conflict on this item.

Thank you.

Okay, um, I don't see any other members in the queue. One second, one as I confer with the clerk.

Chair, point of information. Yes, Mr. Braswell. I'm looking on the screen, it says mover Chair Brawley. Is that correct? I don't have a spot for the mayor.

So we indicate that it's chair, and then in the notes I indicate that it's the chair on behalf of the mayor. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah, thanks for the question. So yeah, just to be clear, that was moved by Mayor LaFrance, um, seconded by Mr. Presverdia.

We will correct, uh, or make sure that the minutes are correct. Um, okay, so after conferring with the clerk just to make sure, so this is an informational item. The vote here is to lay this on the table. It does require a majority vote, so members may We can proceed to vote. There's no one less in the queue.

Okay, on a vote of 5 to 7, this item has failed to be laid on the table. And just to be clear, that does not mean, um, that does not mean that this item cannot be submitted for a future agenda. It just can't be laid on the table tonight.

Okay, I believe— let me one second as I make sure we got all of our laid on the table items before we proceed.

Okay, I think we have addressed all of the pieces of paper that we have at this moment. Um, if we did miss one, um, if it— I can read it into the record at a later time, especially if it is supplemental. So we will address that, uh, if and when we need to. And as I said, there may be one additional late on the table item regarding short short-term rental registration that we will take up if and when we have it. So with that, I believe we have dealt with our late on the table items.

So the next thing is to take a vote to incorporate the addendum to the agenda into our agenda, including the late on the table items. Is there a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Vohland to incorporate the laid on the table and— laid on the— sorry, incorporate the addendum including laid on the table items, seconded by Mr. Perez-Fortea.

Any objection to that motion?

Okay, seeing and hearing no discussion and no objection, the addendum including laid on the table items have now been incorporated into our agenda. And we will come back to that when we deal with our consent agenda. So next we have our appearance requests. There is one this evening. We have Mr. Michael Patterson.

So please come forward, and I will reiterate that you have 3 minutes to speak on the record on the topic that you have provided, and you may begin when you're ready. Hello. My name is Michael Patterson, and I'm an organizer of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Assemblymember Martinez should resign.

Many times I have seen Member Martinez use his official title, Honorable. Martinez has not conducted himself in an honorable manner, from his misuse of campaign funds to his combativeness to APOC's investigation into his misuse of campaign funds. Martinez has demonstrated a hostility towards transparency and accountability. Moreover, it has also come to light that it is likely Member Martinez is misusing municipal funds. George, you should resign.

I want to say that Member Martinez is not a— is not a problem. He is a product of a system that puts the interests of the few over the many. The same system that creates George is the same system that allows APD to get away with murdering a 16-year-old girl. It's the same system that allows landlords to have short-term rentals while there's a housing crisis that's killing Anchorage. It is the same system that is failing the people.

The system is the problem. George is a product of it. Not only should George be held accountable, but the whole system needs to be ruthlessly scrutinized and held accountable. Member Martinez resigning would be a good start, but clearly there is a lot of work that needs to be done to make Anchorage a place where the government serves the people, not the other way around. This is part of a larger problem of why we can't solve fundamental issues in this city is because we have a status quo that does not care about regular working people, but we have politicians special interest groups and others that take advantage of this system of government that we have.

It is getting old and we are getting tired. You should resign. Save the city the money of the recall that is inevitably going to happen and do the actual honorable thing. Resign.

Okay, okay, um, next we have our consent agenda, so we will move down the dais and contemplate which items to pull, and then we will go from there. So I will start this evening with Mr. Johnson. Any items to pull? Uh, yeah, tenem— excuse me, items. 10B4, B5, and B7.

Okay, I have 10B4, 10B5, 10B7 by Mr. Johnson. Uh, any other items?

Okay, okay, now hearing— next, Miss Park.

Sorry, resetting the public testimony. There we go. Uh, Miss Park, any items to bring? Nothing, thank you. Mr. McCormick?

No items, thank you. Ms. Scott? Pull 10F1, thank you.

Okay, 10F1. Uh, any other items? No, thanks. Okay, Ms. Baldwin-Day?

10B6. Okay, 10B6. Um, any other items? Okay, Mr. Voland?

No items, thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Peres-Fedia. Just clarification, is it B4, 5, 7, and B6 or D? I have 10B4 through 7 pulled at this point by multiple members. B, not D?

Yes. Correct. Okay, thank you. There are no D items pulled at this time. Thank you.

I have no items to pull. Thank you. Next, Miss Silvers. No items, thank you. Mr. Gerker.

Yeah, 10 Alpha 1.

10A1. Any other items? Okay, next, Mr. Martinez. No items. And Mr. Handeland.

No additional items. Okay, so I will read them back out. We have 10A1, 10B as in Bravo, uh, 4, 5, and 7 pulled by Mr. Johnson, 6 by Miss Baldwin-Day, And then we have 10F1 pulled by Ms. Scout, and I've not heard any additional items. One second.

Madam Chair, just a quick point of information. Yes, Mr. Gertler. I don't know if it's a microphone problem. I'm having a really hard time hearing you down here, or maybe it's just my age. I'm getting older.

I don't know if it's that or what, but it's really, really low over here, just FYI. Same. Okay. Thank you. I will really try to speak into the microphone, and we can try to get that corrected during the dinner break.

Thank you for letting me know.

Okay. I don't believe we have additional items to pull at this time. So I'll read them one back out. 10A1, 10B4, 5, 6, and 7. 10F1, and I believe that's it.

Um, so now I am seeking a motion to approve the consent agenda minus those pulled items. So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Vohland to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Second by Mr. Gerker.

Any discussion?

Any objection? Okay, seeing and hearing, uh, no objection, then the consent agenda, um, minus the pulled items that were already named has been unanimously passed passed by the body. So next we'll move on to our first item, uh, which is 10 Alpha 1. So I'll read it into the record. Resolution AR-2026-198, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing Chugiak High School as the 2025-2026 ASAA Division I Softball State Champions.

Uh, this item was pulled by Mr. Gerker. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Gerker to approve, second by Mr. Handeland.

Any additional discussion?

Any objection to adoption?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, this resolution is unanimously adopted. And I believe we have Mr. Gerker reading and then Mr. Handeland presenting. So if anyone is here for 10A1, recognizing Chugiak High School, please come forward.

Whereas the Chugiak High School Mustang softball program has produced championship-caliber teams over the last 5 years. In the years 2021, 2022, 2024, and 2025, the Mustangs were runners-up, and in 2023 and 2026, they were crowned the ASAA Division I state champions. And whereas this season was cut short due to how long the winter weather affected the softball fields. The Mustangs were only able to play 7 conference games and 4 non-conference for the season. Despite this adversity, the Mustangs pushed through their games with sturdy defense and solid hitting.

More than half the Mustangs had a batting average of over 0.4, and even more of the team with a higher on-base percentage. The Mustangs' total hits for the season were an impressive 230, with a total of 21 games to finish the season, which includes the games played both in regions and in state. Whereas this year's championship team consisted of 15 student athletes: Tess Buddy, Allison Craig, Emery Drake, Riley Green, Tori Jolin, Abigail Lainhart, Brooklyn McCormick, Samantha McCulloch, Emily Swain, Aubrey Sim, Alyssa Silva, Isabelle Shostrand, Peyton Smith, Shelby Strange, and Rachel Wood. The team was led by head coach Michelle Strange and assistant coaches Sam Strange, Andy Dorflinger, and Kim Stoltz. And now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly commends the Chugiak High School Mustangs pushing through adversity early this season and becoming the 2026 ASAA Division I Softball State Champions.

Thank you, and I know folks have just sat down. If you would like to say something on the record, you're welcome to. Otherwise, we can pass.

So anybody who would like to come say hello, please come forward.

You can turn the microphone on with the green button. Just state your name and your affiliation, and then please feel free to speak. Michelle Strange, I'm the head coach at Chugiak High School. I'm actually a Chugiak High School alumni, so go Mustangs! Um, thank you for this opportunity to recognize our young student athletes, our female student athletes.

We had stayed in Fairbanks this year, so usually when we actually travel for our sports, we don't get the recognition that we sometimes get here in our hometown. So I just would like to thank everyone for the opportunity to recognize all the hard work that these athletes have done throughout the year. So thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much. I see we have some athletes. Please feel free to come forward if you'd also like to make some remarks. And, uh, yeah, just turn on the microphone before you speak. Thank you.

My name is Isabel Shostrom. My name is Aubrey Sims. And I'm Abigail Lienhardt. And road show! Turn it off!

Thank you. Chair Brawley? Chair Brawley? Yes, Miss— uh, Madam Mayor, go ahead. May I be added as a co-sponsor, please?

Yes, thank you. Um, we— I neglected to ask about that. Um, uh, yeah, please direct that the mayor be added as a co-sponsor. Um, and I guess I'll ask— I will ask if anybody objects to being added as a co-sponsor.

Okay, then we'll add, um, all members to that one. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. And I'll just note, I know the audio, uh, that's the thing we will figure out if we can increase the volume or, uh, figure out whatever's going on. Uh, but in the meantime, I will stay to this as close as possible. Uh, so next we have item 10B4. Let me find my papers really briefly.

I pulled it, Chair, if that's what you're looking for.

Okay, yeah, I want to make sure I can read them into the record. Um, so the first one is item 10B4, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly adopting a policy promoting the social growth— social growth, social capital in our community through legislation incentivizing volunteerism and strengthening communal bonds throughout the municipality and establishing the Anchorage Community Opportunity and Municipal Measures Optimizing Neighborhood Social Capital, or Anchorage Commons Initiative. This item was pulled by, uh, Mr. Johnson. If I may, Chair, I would defer to the sponsor to make a motion first.

Okay, what's the will of the body on this one?

Move to approve. Okay, motion by Mr. Martinez to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second by Miss Silvers.

Mr. Martinez, would you like to speak to it?

I would defer to the member who pulled it.

Uh, Mr. Johnson, go ahead. I see you're in the cube. Yeah, thank you. So I, I pulled 3 of these resolutions tonight, and while I— point of information. Uh, what is your question, Mr.

Martinez? Are we talking about one item or multiple items? I think it was presented multiple items. Right now we are on this item, but I think we generally give members leeway to speak to broadly their intent. So I will ask Mr. Johnson to make sure your comments are relevant to this item.

Thank you. It's about this item but also pertains to the other items I pulled. Uh, we as a body have taken up quite a few of these resolutions that direct staff, either administrative from the administration or the legislative branch, to prepare reports or to adopt new frameworks for decision-making, um, etc. And, and while I think they are generally well-intentioned, I've certainly supported a number of them in the past, I am just— there's a growing concern in my mind that there are enough of these currently outstanding that as we continue to add more resolutions and more requests onto this, this pile of work, that there's one of two outcomes that I can see happening. One, either we cumulatively start to consume a great deal of staff time, which is a limited resource, or we get to a point where these resolutions, because there are so many of them pending at any given time, lose their value as a direction to the administration.

And I am generally of a position that I think before we adopt these, at least for my part, I believe it behooves us to consider each individually, you know, possibly through a committee meeting or other structure where we may ask questions, where we may ask staff what time They will have to commit to follow through on the requests we are making and more carefully consider whether or not we want to approve these moving forward. As is noted in a later item in this body, a resolution that we passed relating to tax exemptions has the potential to eat up hundreds of hours of staff time. And I don't think we fully contemplated that at the time we adopted the resolution. It was a resolution I supported, but I think we need to be considerate of that before we take these actions. So that is my question relating to all 3 of the items I pulled.

So if there was a motion to postpone, I'd be willing to wait and hear consideration or argumentation at a committee meeting, but I'm not prepared to support these items tonight. I will say there is an exception here for 10B6, and I would note that we did discuss that in a work session. We did have an opportunity to hear from staff on the impacts of that. So that is why I accepted that one.

Okay, next I have Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, actually, first I have a question just on the tail end of Member Johnson's comments. Did you say 10B6 was the one that you supported, or was there a different one? 10B6.

Um, thank you. I share Member Johnson's concerns, um, on this item 10B4, uh, and I think as well on, on 10B5 in terms of the staff time and resources and essentially this— an initiative without any actual work product of an initiative so I'm going to go ahead I think I would rather, if this were to be an initiative like the HOME Initiative or other legislative projects we've called initiatives, I'd rather see the actual, the actual work product, the actual proposal. What is it that we're hoping to put into effect? What— and can I see that in a legislative draft? And so I think that, I think it would be a big project, a sizable one, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

And perhaps one that the Community and Economic Development Committee could work on collaboratively with the administration. So I think for that reason, I will not be in support of this particular item. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ru, uh, working together on things that are important to our community matter, but volunteerism isn't enough. Identifying what social capital means and how we honor it in our community, knowing that We're all we have.

We rely on each other even beyond municipal resources. Just think of the month of cleanup month in the municipality, working with the Chamber of Commerce, working with people all across our community. We can't clean up Anchorage without each other. And so this is an attempt to go back to some of our work around building community resilience, and the hope is that this is a strongly worded intentionality that we are identifying something. To member of Baldwin's— uh, Voland's point, administration to do more things.

I don't think this is necessarily new. I think this helps us codify some of the investments in volunteerism we already have in our community. So on that front, I hope that folks can move on this, or there is a destination point if this is postponed, that there is a commitment to continuing to work on recognizing social capital investments in our community as important.

That's it, Chair. Okay, next, Mr. Peresverdia. Thank you, Chair. Um, um, in, in such a way that it's not, it's not asking them to prioritize, it's not asking them to, to consider, it's directing them to, to take actions, which is, um, uh, not what I believe we should be doing with resolutions.

I've, I've been pretty consistent about that for many years. So I think what I would suggest is that, um, I would suggest that, uh, we, we vote to postpone indefinitely and that this concentration of certain uses. And I'll just say, I think for multiple reasons on this one, this is an assembly-led project, not an administration-led project, because I haven't seen proof in concept of those things always being carefully considered.

Frankly. So this is another one where instead of assigning something to the administration, I think this becomes an AO. I think this becomes a public outreach project. I think this is a Zuleid project.

I, I think I support the intent but not the way to, to get there. So I'll be a no on this resolution, but I would be very interested in seeing a project come forward that addresses Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, next I have Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, very similar things. I think it's an interesting concept and it will be a conversation worth having. I can guarantee you it'll be a very vigorous conversation for my community. Um, I do think that I would like to move to postpone this item indefinitely.

Second. Okay, there was a motion by Mr. Gerker to postpone this item indefinitely, a second by Miss Scout. And I see there's a few folks in the queue, so I'll turn to Mr. Gerker, then I'll work through the queue. Any further comments on that? Yeah, I was just going to say, look, this, this is an interesting concept.

I agree with Mr. uh, Mr. Wall, and this should be an assembly-led project. And if there is an AO to come from this, then I would encourage the sponsor of this resolution to do that and, and bring us an AO, and we'll go through that regular process instead of going through this route. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, Ms. Baldwin-Day on the motion. Yeah, thank you.

This seems to me to be a project that is really ripe for research and review by Legislative Services, but also by the Clerk's Office, which is the licensing arm of the legislative branch. And I think, you know, conducting this work in consultation, of course, with the Planning Department is really important. However, it seems to me that really analyzing The results of that research and creating a policy for addressing any inequity is our work. And so, um, I, I think it, it would be fascinating to see what comes of something like this. Um, again, I agree, agree with colleagues that this is a legislative project and, uh, something that I would be excited to see come forward as an evaluation of our land use patterns, uh, particularly with respect to cannabis establishments.

So I would— I am in support of the motion to postpone indefinitely, but very eager to see this actually become a legislative project. Thank you.

Thank you. One second.

Okay, just to be clear, so because this is a new motion, then Mr. Martinez has spoken before, but he can speak next, and then I have Mr. Perez Verdia. Go ahead, Mr. Martinez. All right.

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues.

We are a political body, and there are politics behind why things are the way they are today in terms of— in land use decisions. The body has policy— has made policy choices in the past. And so is this the body that's going to analyze that? We talked about staff time and legislative time. We have a very limited amount of legislative staff, Assembly staff.

And so I thought it was more important— and I don't— unless someone can point out the language where I missed the mark— I thought it was more important that we step away from our political function of— as the policymakers, ask for a straight-up review of land use policies that we currently have today through the lens of the policies that we've established already. So we'll be doing the review, but to be able to give the administration and the city, the land use folks, give us the cold raw data without the political spin on it, I think that that's a better approach at this point. And so I hope that we can take that. I think this is a wonderful and a very important project that some folks might find vigorous. I find it timely.

I think it's important that we have this conversation, but that we don't make predetermined judgments that often come from the political spaces that we're operating. So I'd rather have stepped back and say, is this even a problem? It seems that way on a map. And if this is a challenge, then how can we, um, begin to make those policy adjustments? We will still always make the policy adjustments.

My hope is that we can have some degree of a, a neutral framework to give us a sense that according to the municipality data, there is some equity challenges that we now can begin to advance with AOs changing some of the code. But I don't know what those particular challenges are yet, and I don't know that we have the resources beyond the professionals in land use to just tell us what those land use things are, and then we get to evaluate whether they are meeting up to our standard of equity or not. So I encourage folks to advance this because I don't think it does— I think if it's a strong project, it can continue to be a strong project. And if we need to pick up some of the work ourselves as it relates to a complementary internal assembly project, then I think that's also valuable. But my encouragement to folks would be, don't miss the opportunity.

We have the land use folks all around already, and they can just give us high-level analysis, and we can still make the determinations of the policies to come. That's my encouragement. Thank you.

Mr. Presverdia, on the motion. Yeah, I'm, I'm processing this. I'm thinking about this from a process perspective as well and how this should unfold. I think it's an important conversation topic. It's certainly important for the, the businesses and the, and the, and the residents on the west side that I represent.

It's a, it's been a conversation we've had for years. And so, um, but I am, I think, in agreement that, that I'd like to see this come through the assembly. I'd like to see 2 or 3 assembly members working together in collaboration with the, the administration to begin to really flesh this out, do some research, uh, develop a baseline for, for, you know, what, what we're talking about here, and develop some potential strategies of how to move forward and bring this back for, for something that's a little bit more informed. So I'm going to be, um, in supporting of postponing it. But again, important conversation to have.

I just think that the process in terms of of going through resolution and tasking the administration with developing a framework for me is the wrong process. So I'm going to be in support of postponement. But again, appreciate bringing it forward. Appreciate the topic.

Yeah. Yeah. I'll note the door closing was unrelated.

Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day on the motion. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to say that, you know, Midtown is another place where there have been questions from constituents about the concentration of cannabis businesses, and I would be very open to working alongside members from the East Side and the West Side to work on this project behind the scenes and then bring it back in a different form. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

Okay, there's no one else in the queue. Um, members may proceed to vote. The motion on the floor is to, uh, motion to postpone indefinitely.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 2, the motion to, uh, postpone AR 2026-210 indefinitely passes. The body. Next, we'll take up item, uh, 10B6, uh, so that is AR 2026-211, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly requesting fiscal information and analysis and setting initial policy priorities for the fiscal year 2027 municipal budget.

Um, this item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to approve, second by Miss Silvers.

Miss Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you. I wanted to bring this particular draft to the attention of my colleagues and also to the public, because this, this resolution looks a bit different than similar resolutions in years past. And I hope that folks will take the time to read through this AR because it, it provides what we hope is a level set in terms of the lay of the land, in terms of Anchorage's fiscal present. Like what is our actual financial reality together as a municipality.

So one thing I wanted to point out that came up in our work session was the request from the assembly that there be an accounting essentially of the total amount of deferred maintenance that we have in Anchorage, whether that's on our roads, our stormwater system, municipal facilities and buildings, and recognizing that, that doing that in a, in a a line-by-line way would be a significant lift. Our OMB director, Ms. Brouse, pointed that out to us. That would be a lot of work to do that comprehensively. I just wanted to be sure that my colleagues and the public were aware that this is, this is really a request for a high-level, sort of 30,000-foot view of what is, what is that dollar amount attached to the deferred maintenance and anchorage. Much like you would take an inventory of your own house to understand when your boiler might be ready to go out or when your heating system might need need maintenance.

That is what we are asking for, but we're asking for that on a municipal— on a municipal-wide level. So for, for clarity, this is not intended to be lines upon lines of spreadsheet, but hopefully something that's digestible both for us as the assembly and also for the public as we think about what our future commitments are in terms of the buildings we need to maintain, the roads we need to repair, the drainage that needs our attention, and other capital projects. And I think that's all my comments. Thank you. Okay, next I have Mr. Boland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to highlight one piece in this that is important to me, and that's in Section 3. And I, I believe it was, uh, Member Baldwin-Day who helped finesse some of the language here, um, but it calls for when developing the capital improvement program, the CIP, and the 2027 capital improvement Budget, the CIB, for the administration to make a thorough review and consider reprioritizing projects in terms of urgency, severity of need, and population density, such as projects to prevent future catastrophic infrastructure failures and deprioritizing projects that increase future maintenance liabilities or contribute to more diffuse infrastructure. And particularly that population density piece. That is consistent with prior guidance, policy guidance that was approved by the assembly, that was brought forward by myself and former Vice Chair Meg Zolotow.

That was AR 2024-323, the S version, as amended. And what that did was to to call for the— our scoring criteria for capital improvement, the program and the budget, to consider population density as, as one of those criteria, that it is important to consider in ensuring the greatest benefit possible to the most people possible. And I think that's important because on a lot of the, the swirling issues right now of equity, of zoning, of use types, right, we have limited certain areas of town. We have said this is where you can have dense multi-family housing, can't have it over here, you can have it here. This is where you can have your cannabis stores, you can have them here, can't have them over here.

This is where you can have your homeless shelters. You can have them here, can't have them over here. And I think it's really important to consider housing density, population density. If we're going to say this is where you can live and also you have to put up with these use types, those areas of town should get the best sidewalks, they should get the cleanest and the safest parks, they should get the investment that often they do not. Mountain View and Fairview should have their alleyways paved.

And so I'm going to be asking questions when we have our assembly budget work sessions. How are we prioritizing population density? How are we prioritizing bringing up our multi-family neighborhoods when the capital budget is presented to us? And I really hope that that is a strong part of the criteria that is used to inform this budget coming before us. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And Member Brawley. Thank you. Been recognized in the queue. So I appreciate my colleagues commenting on this and everybody's participation in this process. I'll just note that we discussed this resolution, a very rough draft version of it, at our June Budget and Finance Committee.

We brought back a more refined draft of it and entertained um, at least one amendment, um, at our July 16th meeting. I'll just note that I know that the original amendment sponsors, uh, wanted to, to have that information in the preliminary budget memo, the 120-day memo from August 31st. Um, uh, when we submitted this, we opted to put it in the requirements for the October budget just to note, um, what was realistic based on what we heard from the, uh, administration, but also knowing that that level level of detail, and I think with some additional commentary as has been requested, would be where that, that lies in the budget book. And then lastly, I'll say, returning to comments I made back in March regarding school funding, the decision that we had before us, or at least most of us had before us, on the school budget in March is not the hardest budget decision we are going to make, and certainly not the hardest one that will come up this year or in a future year. So I would encourage folks to consider not just what your budget priorities are as individual members in addition to what's here, but also what time and what commitment and what energy you want to put into this budget process this year.

I think one option is to essentially adopt a continuation budget with whatever policy choices the mayor makes, and another one is going to be to actively dig into whatever areas you are interested in and then work basically starting now until November to figure that out. I think we always underestimate how much time things will take, and it is a precious resource in this job. And so I very much encourage folks— this doesn't mean that we agree on, on what all those outcomes are going to be, and this resolution does not pretend to say that. It is asking for information that we need to make these decisions, and it is laying out some of the big issues that we know we need to address regardless of what the answer to those things are. So anyway, again, I would encourage folks to really actively participate in this budget season and consider that it has basically started now as opposed to when you get your budget book in October.

So I'll take back the gavel then. So there's no one else in the queue. Members may proceed to vote on this item, and the motion is to approve.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, item AR 2026-11 passes the body unanimously. One update to note on tech issues— that is one of the things taking some of my time— it appears that our audio was cutting in and out on YouTube. It appears that it is back. I have a streaming version of YouTube on my computer that I can monitor, but I also note there are some issues with the closed captioning service. So at this point, we believe Google is the problem and not us, or whoever owns YouTube these days.

And I will also note there are challenges when you have public infrastructure or public records requirements that are based on a private— privately owned platform. But that is the world that we live in today. So, um, we'll keep monitoring the audio issues. And again, if we really run into a serious problem, we will pause the meeting, but we confident that it is still being recorded, and such as it is, it is being streamed to YouTube. Next we have item 10B7, AR 2026-212, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly recognizing that areas accommodating additional housing growth should receive priority consideration for supporting public infrastructure and community investments, and requesting an implementation framework for equitable growth-related capital prioritization.

This item was pulled by Mr. Johnson. I respectfully defer to the sponsor. Okay, what is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Voland, second by Mr. Martinez to approve. Uh, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to support this item, but I do have an amendment first that I'd like to make.

It's a floor amendment that would strike Section 3.

Okay, there's a motion to amend by striking, uh, the entirety of Section 3. That's page 2, lines 13 through 27. Second for purposes of discussion. Uh, and then a second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Um, go ahead, Mr. Bolland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think without Section 3, which again requests work product from the administration, um, that this one is of value. Uh, Sections 1 and 2 I think are squarely within our wheelhouse, and I think this is complementary to the budget resolution that we just passed. Um, it talks about that we should have priority consideration for infrastructure and community investments in neighborhoods where we have housing growth. It also calls for equitable prioritization on those same issues.

I also think the policy guidance that was previously adopted that I read prior, AR 2024-323, the S version, speaks to that. And so I So with these Sections 1 and 2 passing, I would actually see that as complementary to our budget priorities and something that we can look at when we're examining, um, uh, different budget matters, whether that's the, the CIP or if it's the bond proposals that we put before voters. I think that this can be a a little bit of a guiding star. And I think, again, you know, if we're going to allow housing growth in certain parts of town, we should really match that with infrastructure that can support that housing growth and with amenities that can make quality of life better for all those folks that are going to live in that area. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, Mr. Martinez.

I consider that a friendly amendment. I don't have a problem with that amendment. And I just wanted to also say to that amendment, um, yes to everything Member Walden just described, but the term that we use in our 2025-159 is stackable return on investments, and we want to be able to concentrate those investments there. And, and I would just say I don't have a problem with the— with the amendment, but I do want the skin in the game from the administration And from my understanding, this particular item is something that they don't see a problem with as well. And so I think that there's alignment to the interest that we have in terms of making sure that investments go where the work is going to happen as well.

So I don't have a problem with the amendment being removed, but I just wanted to flag for the administration that doesn't get you off the hook. Thank you.

Okay, any additional— Ms. Baldenday on the amendment? Yes, I actually would be curious to hear someone from the administration speak to whether or not there are any portions of Section 3 that are already in development.

Through the chair to Member Baldwin Day, I will have to pull Section 3 back up because once you eliminate it, I said the rest of this doesn't apply to us. So just a moment.

So the proposed to be deleted Section 3 has a looking at a framework to incorporate housing growth, infrastructure need, and equity considerations into the prioritization of municipal capital and related neighborhood investments. I would say we have not given it a framework designation, but certainly that informs our considerations when we are building capital budgets in general. Beyond that, if there's more particular information that anyone wants to add from the administration, I would defer to those who may be in the audience.

Okay. Yeah. I'm not seeing any additional folks coming up. So I will turn back to Ms. Baldwin-Day.

There are no takers on Mr. Fawcett's invitation. I think I'm particularly interested in whether we have put Item A under the microscope, which is areas accommodating or expecting to accommodate additional housing growth. Under adopted municipal plans or housing reforms? Is, is that something that has been kicked around in our Community and Economic Development Department?

Yeah, I see we have Chief of Staff Ms. Lee Green. Please proceed. Yes, um, through the chair, to answer the previous question as laid out, I would say One thing that we certainly do consider when we're looking at capital investments, both for roads but frankly for park improvements, for libraries, for other municipal assets that we know either need work or expansion, we absolutely do look at the usage of those facilities. Frankly, I recall when I was here 2 mayors ago and we put substantial investment into the Mountain View Library. One of the key questions was, what is the usage at that library that was at that point in time within Clark Middle School and the demand for a standalone public library and how that library would be developed.

I think as we move forward, as the mayor said in her opening remarks, especially right now when we are looking at potential growth with the Jay Bear/Fightertown recapitalization and the huge potential growth that, that has in population and where that housing might be within the municipality to look at the potential needs coming from that growth. So that's just one example, but again, to reiterate, when we are looking at capital investments, we do look at demand and future demand.

Uh, Mr. Bond, on the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question. I think it's probably best for Ms. Brouse if she's willing to come up, and this was not a, a pre— it's going to be an easy one.

Had I known that I was going to make this floor amendment, I would have given you this question in advance, so apologies, but Um, my question is, when we have our budget work sessions and we work through, um, the CIP and the CIB, can your department work with PM&E, Parks and Rec to present to the assembly how population density and housing growth can be part of prioritization and scoring criteria for the projects that are moved forward? Through the chair to Member Voland, yes, we can. I also think that we will be having, um, ongoing conversations about additional information that will help sort of draw the story of how and why the decisions are made and how we could be making them into the future by sort of changing our current timing and process and things that we have seen succeed or fail from the past. Okay, wonderful. Thank you.

I think that would be very helpful. Appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, and I have myself in the queue on the amendment. Chair Brawley.

Thank you. I just want to remind— so this is on the amendment. I support the amendment. I do believe, one, that there are structures in place that we should be slotting these priorities into rather than creating an additional framework. And the second thing I want to remind members in, in context of kind of the interplay between in the budget and our capital budget in particular, our CIP B, our 1-year budget, and our program, which is a 6-year, um, outlook.

Both of those are items that we bring every year through our budget process for amendment, um, and it— last year, I want to remind members, I know 3 of you were not here, but for the, um, 9 of us who were, uh, the administration basically brought a capital improvement budget that removed all individual projects other than basically programmed, uh, traffic calming, things like that that are not specific to a location and, and basically asked members to bring amendments or to prioritize among ourselves collectively through our budget process where we should be putting those investments. Um, I believe there was— I don't remember the total, but there was maybe less than half of us who brought amendments. And of course, they were all serving our individual districts and priority projects in those areas. And I think there was a couple others that were brought, um, because there weren't— they were priorities and they were not not brought forward by members, but I want to remind folks that, that this is an active participation process. And I think at the end of the day, the way that we make these prioritizations, we can ask the administration to do that in their budget.

They make the first draft of the budget, we make the last draft of the budget, and we approve it. And so I also really encourage folks to take a hard look at the CIB and the CIP. That rolling 6-year list has been in our book since last year.. And we'll be getting a new book, but it is available online. And to really ask folks to take a look and also to bring your priorities, each of us, to the table to have that discussion.

Because at the end of the day, we do have constrained resources and it requires having a list to start from. And so that was my— that'd be my recommendation. And I would support this general principle without this amendment there. Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Gerker on the amendment.

Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Just a really quick, I guess, clarifying question to the sponsor of the amendment. If we take out Section 3, who is then responsible for developing this, this criteria? Is that something that we're going to do separately?

Because that was one of the sections in there, is that they're, they're developing the scoring matrix, is how I read it, for deciding where these projects are going to go. Um, is that something we're going to do separately? So this resolution, uh, as I understand it, the Through the chair, um, sections 1 and 2 have to do with how projects are given priority consideration, and I think that that is something that we can do in our own decision-making process as a body when it comes to, as Chair Brawley just said, passing the budget. You know, ultimately that's our responsibility. The administration gives us their proposed budget and then we take it from there.

In terms of the scoring criteria that's done on the front end, that is, I think, has more to do with the prior adopted resolution that I mentioned, AR 2024-323. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, PM&E and Parks and Rec have already inserted population density as part of their scoring criteria when they put their proposed CIB together, and that comes before us. And so like I said earlier, I plan on asking, um, uh, in the work sessions that we have, how was that weighted, how was that considered in your proposal? But then to me, this resolution that is before us tonight speaks more on to the, the back end of the process. What do we do then, legislative, as a, as a body?

And I think this is essentially just a statement on the record saying we're going to consider housing growth, we're going to consider equity, we're going to consider, um, um, you know, this, this is also calls back to population density as part of our criteria for decision making. Okay, so the only real action from this then is to say, hey, this is something we care about that we're going to do in 6 months? Yes, and that's why I see it as complementary to the budget priorities we're resolution that we just passed. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any further members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on, uh, the amendment, uh, and that's to strike Section 3 in this resolution.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, the amendment passes. Um, we're back on the main motion. At this time, I don't have anyone in the queue.

So members may proceed to vote on the main motion.

Yeah, and just for clarity on the record, so, um, Vice Chair Volland moved that and second by Mr. Martinez. It got corrected. Thank you.

Okay, on a motion of 12 to 0, AR 2026-212 passes the body unanimously. We have, uh, one additional item on our consent agenda, um, and that is item 10F1. It is an informational item, AIM 103-2026, report on fully tax-exempt real property pursuant to AR 2026-73, as as amended. This was pulled by Miss Scout. Yes, I'd like to move to postpone this item to the August 18th meeting.

Um, my reasoning for that— this is a really important memorandum. Oh, sorry, do we need a second before we—. Yeah, sorry, uh, we do need a motion. So that was a motion by Miss Scout to postpone this item to the regular meeting of August 18th, I believe. Is that right?

Correct. And I will second for the purposes of discussion. Okay, second by Mr. Voland. Go ahead, Miss Scott. Okay, thanks.

Um, yeah, as I mentioned, this is a really important AIM. Um, it's in this, um, meeting packet and was added to the addendum, I believe, um, in response to a resolution, um, passed on March 24th. And this report looks at the fully tax-exempt real property in the municipality, and there are some really critical recommendations and analysis in this report. Things like reorganizing staff internally, potential code changes, looking at cross-department collaborations and efficiencies to improve our proper— our processes around property tax appraisal and how our entirety— the entirety of our property tax space is impacted by exempt properties. I would love to dig deeper into this memorandum in a work session with my colleagues and want to give us some time to explore doing that before we simply accept what is in this memorandum.

Okay. Just one second. I want to check for order. So I saw Mr. Johnson, you were in the queue. Did you take yourself out of the queue or did the computer do that?

It was some kind of computer glitch. Okay, so I'm going to take Mr. Johnson first because I know you're at the top, and then I'll work down from there. So Mr. Johnson, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I, I think I agree with everything Member Scout just said, but I'm, I'm not sure if I still find postponement of this necessary since this is just an informational memorandum, and I don't think it actually directs, you know, any next steps necessarily.

So I mean I welcome clarification if there's something I'm missing here, but I do believe that we could accept this tonight as an informational memorandum and then still have the opportunity to, to dig into what sort of follow-on work is necessary here. So unless this is actually creating some direction that will, if adopted tonight, add to somebody's work in the coming weeks, I'm kind of of the opinion that we could accept this and also do the things that Member Scout is advocating for.

Okay, next, Mr. Gerker, on the motion to postpone. Yeah, I was just gonna literally say exactly what Mr. Johnson just said. Typically, you know, when we're accepting these reports, we're not, we're not making policy decisions or taking a stance on what the reports say themselves. We're just accepting that they've provided the report to us and we're saying, okay, we've received it. Um, though I do, I would also, I mean, I agree with what Member Scott was saying as well about The need for going through this and a little bit more work on it, absolutely, 100%.

I just don't think we need to postpone it in order to do that. A prime example that kind of comes to mind is we accepted the audit report on P-Cards a while ago, and now we have a work session, or excuse me, we have our committee meeting tomorrow. So we have the ability to accept the reports and then do work on it going forward. Um, yeah, thanks. Okay, next, Mr.

Bolland on the motion to postpone. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I agree that this could be accepted tonight, but I just also wanted to put out there that leadership is looking at scheduling a future work session on this. We're looking probably at August 7th. We haven't set that in stone yet, but more to come, and we do want to dive into this as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, Miss Baldwin-Day. It sounds like a work session's in progress. I was going to offer that if, uh, if there was interest, the Audit Committee could also take up this item. Thank you.

I appreciate the additional— sorry, sorry, thank you. Um, go ahead, Miss Cope. Thanks. Sorry, um, I appreciate the additional information and insight from my colleagues. I'll withdraw my motion to postpone and instead move to accept.

Second. Okay, now we have a motion to accept, uh, this report, uh, from Miss Scout, second from Mr. Voland. Any further discussion on this item?

Okay, I think, uh, members' intent is clear. And yeah, I will note, um, that we have just— we have not fully scheduled this work session, um, but that is the intent. And so, uh, it will likely be on Friday, August 7th. We have one other work session scheduled that day, and certainly will be engaging with the assessor to discuss kind of what that looks like.

So, so then members may proceed to vote. The motion is to accept this report.

Okay, on a motion of 12 to 0, I am Aim 103-2026 has been accepted by the body. Um, that takes us to the end of our consent agenda items at this time. Um, and I think, uh, I understand— I know there's a lot of folks in the audience who are here for, um, one or more items. And so, um, I want to lay out a possible path forward and see if there's a motion. So the proposal is to essentially, again, recognizing that we have one continued public hearing We have two other items that are really internal matters, but I know are of great public interest on the 12th.

So, um, the request from the body— or the request, sorry, the request to the body, uh, would be to change the order of the day, um, to take up basically 13A through 14F, which is a one-time sensitive item and then six small administrative, um, administrative amendments to labor agreements, come back to 13A. Certainly we know that there's folks likely here to testify, and then to also move the two items in the 12s to take them up after the last—. I think you said 13A twice in there. Could you restate what you want? Oh yeah, I'm sorry, you're wanting to move— I'm sorry about that.

Um, yeah, so, so the The proposal would be to take up 13B. I'm sorry about that. That is considered a time-sensitive item. Then to take up items 14A through F. Those are all public hearing items.

And then to take up 13A after that. And then to continue through our new hearing items. So 14G, H, and I, and the licenses. And then to take up the 2 items in the 12s at the end of the meeting.

Madam Chair, if I might make a motion, is that in order? Yes, please proceed. Okay, I move to change the order of the day to take up item 13B, followed by items 14A through F, then item 13A, then item 14G through 14I, then the 15s And then finally, the items in Section 12. Second.

So we have a motion by Mr. Vollen to change the order of the day as described on the screen, um, second by Ms. Park. And I see we have Mr. Johnson. Go ahead. Thank you. This might get confusing, but, um, I would like to— can I make an amendment to a motion to change the order today?

So first is a point of information. Yes, that is an Okay, so I would make an amendment to take up item 13A, uh, followed by 13B and, and the rest as outlined here. I guess to make it more succinctly, what I'd say is I would put 13A as the first item we take up when we return from our dinner break. Second.

Okay, motion by Mr. Johnson to, um, essentially keep the agenda as it is, so taking up 13A, then moving through our items, and then taking taking up the 12s at the end. That is— that was the change. And then the second was from Mr. Gerker, I believe. If I may just briefly speak to my rationale, is I know that we have a lot of people from the community here to testify, including a great many personnel from Anchorage Police Department, many of whom I don't expect are here to testify.

But these are shift workers. Some of them are probably either just getting off shift, just about to go to shift, or perhaps in the middle of their rest period. And I think the longer we keep them here, I think ultimately would not serve the public interest as we are going to expect many of them to show up for work either in a few hours or tomorrow morning, and that I think we would like them well rested so they could do the job that we expect them to do to the best of their abilities.

Okay, next, Miss Silvers, is this on the motion to amend?

Okay, I can leave you in for the main. Mr. Mullen, motion to amend? Sure. I appreciate, uh, where Member Johnson is coming from, certainly.

I just thought I would give sort of leadership's perspective on why we wanted to go in this order. Um, we see items, uh, 13B as perhaps, um, pretty quick and non-controversial. That's also a must-pass item. Um, The 14s, the early 14s, likewise, I think we can get through pretty quickly. Um, those are public hearing items, and I think there will be a few people here to testify to those as well.

Um, but I don't foresee that they will be, um, all that long. And then go back to 13A, to Member Johnson's point, there's lots of folks here to testify, including some of our officers. And then the 14G through 14I Those we wanted to get through just in case there was questions for municipal staff, with the idea that we could let them go home sooner than later if possible. 15S, as we normally move through those very quickly, we expect to do the same. And then last, we would reserve the 12s, which are those more special reserved items.

Items. So that's kind of where we were coming from and trying to put it together this way, but I can appreciate the rationale for the amendment brought forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks. Uh, Mr. Gerker on the amendment.

Yes, ma'am. Yeah, so I appreciate that, appreciate leadership's perspective. I would just, I guess, gently push back that the municipal staff who are here for these items later are paid to be here, and the members of the community are volunteering their time. I think it is probably behooves us to try and get through Item 13A first. Thank you.

Okay, um, Ms. Silver's on the amendment.

Yeah, um, I, I agree. Yeah, um, the municipal staff are paid to be here and it's not ideal. They're also scheduled to be here. Um, I see many officers in the room. I see their spouses in the room.

I'm speaking to the amendment now, but, but actually I oppose switching any order of the day because it doesn't add any efficiency. But what it does is it kind of continues a pattern that we are in of reordering items of broad public interest to the end of the meeting, which really results in marginalizing the voices of residents of our municipality. And so I'm going to support the amendment because I think that that solves one half of the problem of reordering of the day, but probably will not support reordering the day at all at the end of the amendment. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Bond on the amendment. Yeah, thank you. I guess, you know, I would push back on the efficiency piece that is part of the reason that leadership wanted to do some reordering. I will note when it comes to member— or to matters of broad public interest, I'm not sure which particular matters the member from East Anchorage is referring to, but some of the items that we had put to the very end of the meeting are not public hearing items.

So just want to state that for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks. I'll just ask, is— I guess we'll take a vote, a motion to amend. So that is to keep 13A at the beginning to this change the order. So members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 2, uh, the amendment passes. So to be clear, the motion to change the order of the day, uh, is to essentially take our, our most of our business as, as it is published, but to move the two, uh, items in the 12s till the end of the meeting. So that just to be clear So when we would come back from dinner, we would— if this motion passes, we would start with 13A, move through the agenda, and then take up 12A and 12B after that. And so that is the motion on the table right now, is to change the order of the day according to as I just described. So we'll get the language updated if we can.

Okay, so— This is the main motion.

So yeah, just to be clear, even though it says on the screen, the intent would be to still take up 13A, even though it will not show up on the screen as written there. Uh, any further discussion? Okay, members may proceed to vote on that change of order.

Member Park.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, um, the motion to change the order as amended has passed the body. Um, we are at the end of our consent agenda. I'll, uh, note just a couple things because again I know there's great public interest. Um, this is the time that we take our, uh, dinner break. Um, so I know we typically have about 20 minutes or so.

I will ask folks to stay to, uh, that 20 minutes if at all possible so that we are back here at 7:30, um, so that we can start our first public continued public hearing item, which will be 13A. And then I will also note that I know you're seeing a lot of paper shuffling and checking with the clerk and making sure that we are following, because sometimes we have complex procedures and we know that we need to get it right and we're trying to do it in real time. And so, so thank you everybody for your patience. And again, when we come back, we will reopen the continued public hearing on item 13A, AO 2026-62, and we will proceed from there. Thank you.

It's so fresh where I'm from, palm trees ready-made. Good. Okay everyone, I think we're getting ready to get started. If folks can come back to to their seats.

Okay, we're going to get started in a minute if members can take their seats.

Okay everyone, I'm going to bring this meeting back to order. So next on our agenda is our continued public hearings. We will start with 13A, AO-2026-62, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 4.50 to enact a new Section 4.50.120 and establish the Anchorage Public Safety Commission. I will note there are multiple versions on the agenda. Before I reopen the public hearing, I also— or Before we get back into the public hearing, I want to just remind folks in the audience, so if you are here to testify on the item, you may line up at the dais.

We do not at this time have anyone listed for phone testimony, so we will do in person. And then also, because this is the third, essentially third public hearing on this item, and I know a number of folks have testified— I have a list of names here— either at our May 26th meeting and/or our June 9th meeting, Um, I will note that if you have testified, particularly on our, uh, June 9th meeting, um, there are 3 versions out there, one of which was introduced after the public hearing. Um, but our rules are such that, um, if folks have already testified, they may testify again on a new version, but they must keep their comments essentially to what is that new version. I will also note that the, um, most recent version of this has many elements of the original version. So I will ask folks to use your discretion, but also to be mindful that we may have a lot of testifiers.

So I will please ask everybody, if you are testifying for a second or third time, to please help us keep order. I will also note that folks will have, of course, 3 minutes unless you're here on behalf of a community council. And I will ask folks to keep order in the chamber, and I will also ask my fellow members on the dais to help me keep order as well. So with that, we will reopen or continue the public hearing. So members may— members of the public may come forward if you wish to testify.

And as a general reminder, the microphone is on when you press the green button and the light lights up. And then please remember to state your name and what part of town you're in. Mari Mahana, District 5.

Let me be clear, I stand behind our law enforcement officers at all levels. City, state, and federal. These heroes have one of the most stressful jobs on earth. They're the ones who help broken and bleeding people at car accidents. They are called to action when people are out of control due to anger issues, mental illness, alcohol, and drugs.

They're called to attend to people who die on the streets due to drugs, homelessness, and alcohol. They are called by families who are being terrorized by someone in their own household. They are called when someone gets behind the wheel who is impaired and puts every car on the road in danger. Most importantly, they will stand in the way of armed, out-of-control people who want to hurt me or my family.

Any commission formed should be focused on how to support law enforcement officers in doing their job safely so they can go home to their families at the end of the shift. Any citizen who is part of this commission should be required to ride along with the officers or participate in the Citizens Academy training. This committee should absolutely not have any power to subpoena records or make personnel decisions. I submit to you that a person who is not in your job field would have no credibility to judge your work. In conclusion, any Law Enforcement Commission should be focused on doing what we can to support these heroes, not judge them.

God bless and protect our law enforcement officers.

Next, please come forward and make sure the microphone is on. You have 3 minutes. Timer has started. Please go. Oh, make sure the microphone's on with the button.

Uh, no, please press the button until when the top lights up at screen. Thank you. Okay. Chair Brawley and members of the Anchorage Assembly, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of establishing an Anchorage Public Safety Partnership Commission. For the record, my name is Ann Ringstad.

I'm the executive director for NAMI Alaska, the statewide organization of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. NAMI Alaska provides education, support, advocacy, and public awareness for individuals, families, and communities affected by mental health conditions throughout our state. NAMI believes that public safety is strongest when law enforcement first responders, behavioral health providers, hospitals, schools, tribal organizations, community organizations, and most importantly, individuals and families with lived experience work together as equal partners. People experiencing a mental health crisis deserve the right response at the right time from the right personnel professionals. A Public Safety Partnership Commission provides the opportunity for ongoing collaboration to improve coordination, strengthen trust, and address the complex challenges facing our community.

Our key principles are straightforward. Public safety systems should center the voices of the people with lived experience and their families, promote diversion for treatment whenever appropriate rather than unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system, strengthen CrisisNow and 988 so behavioral health crisis receive behavioral health responses whenever possible. Support specialized crisis intervention and trauma-informed training for first responders. Advance equality, cultural responsiveness, and partnerships across agencies and communities. And use data to continuously improve outcomes and reduce injuries, incarceration, and repeat crises.

The inclusion of lived experience is especially important. Individuals and families who have navigated the mental health system offer perspectives that improve policy, training, crisis response, and community trust. Their voices help identify service gaps and create more effective person-centered solutions. Successful Public Safety Partnership Commissions across the country are multidisciplinary. They are not led by law enforcement alone, but bring together public safety, health healthcare, behavioral health, education, nonprofit organizations, tribal partners, business, faith communities, and people with lived experience.

This collaborative approach reflects the national best practices and has strengthened the public safety while improving community trust. Ultimately, we share the same goal: a safer Anchorage. By working together and investing in upstream prevention, collaboration, and compassion, crisis response, we can reduce violence, improve outcomes, and ensure that no one faces a mental health crisis alone. Thank you for your consideration and for your support of an Anchorage Public Safety Partnership Commission. Thanks.

Your time is up. Uh, next person please come forward.

I'll also note, um, I will keep an eye on the queue if members do have, uh, questions, but otherwise, uh, we'll proceed. So please come forward, state your name. You have 3 minutes. My name is Melissa Gould and I'm a resident of East Anchorage. You've all heard from me via email, but now it's time to put a face to the name.

I'm the wife of a police officer who has honorably served the city for 20 years and counting. I used to be that wife who was afraid to speak up, but not anymore. We've had to raise our kids to be silently proud of their father for the work he does to protect our community. Do your kids get to go to school and say what you do for a living? My children have not been able to experience that for fear of retaliation.

As a police family, we say goodbye to my husband before each shift, knowing that he may not come home again because his job requires him to risk his own life for complete strangers every day. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for me. I'm asking you to wake up and see the risk of having individuals that know nothing about law enforcement advise the police on what should be done. I know that many members of the community are upset about the 5 officer-involved shootings this year. I am too.

Two suspects injured, three deceased. When looking at CourtView, each person has one or more criminal charges associated with their name. Three have charges for violating parole or other conditions of release, and protective orders have been filed against them. One of those individual records show detailed charges of armed robbery, assault, family violence, multiple felon in possession, multiple violations of conditions of probation, tampering with evidence, exploitation of a minor to make porn, sexual abuse of a minor with penetration, possession of child porn, violating conditions of release, and murder. Murder.

Before we start drinking the Kool-Aid that our APD officers are just trying to get their next trophy, maybe the assembly and members of the public should consider looking at the root cause of what drove these individuals to make the choices they have and required interaction with law enforcement in the first place. We don't have a police problem, we have a public accountability problem. This ordinance as written will only continue to cause divide. I watched the work session last week. Some parts were helpful and some had me yelling at the screen.

Training laypeople within 6 months of joining the commission apparently makes someone qualified to provide input on whether my husband and other officers did the correct thing when making split-second decision to save others and themselves. What an insult. Who is responsible for providing this training and what is the cost of that training? Should someone convicted of a violent crime be allowed on the commission? There's a Citizens Academy designed to educate the public about our police Police Department.

Where do those folks fit into this commission? There's an assembly member who wants to pay commission members and give them access to any document under the sun. If someone wants full access to documents and protected information, then apply, put on the uniform and the badge, risk your life, and become command staff for the chief. Additionally, the fact that this ordinance as written rejects participation from current law enforcement or their families is your way of controlling the department. I know that this ordinance references other agencies as well, but I see this as an attack on police.

If this ordinance passes, it must allow for at least one dedicated seat for an employed APD officer with current patrol experience. I know that this commission is only supposed to make recommendations. I have a recommendation: some of you should refrain from running for reelection.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone is already on. You have 3 minutes. State your name and then you can testify. Okay.

Good evening, Assembly members. My name is Danielle Price. My brother, Micah Bonnen, lost his life after APD responded to a 911 call. I'm here today to make sure his voice and the voices of others living with severe mental illness are finally heard. When people hear about someone dying under a mental health crisis, they often remember only the worst day of that person's life.

That was not who Micah was. He quietly helped the people around him. He painted and repaired an elderly neighbor's home without accepting a dime. He rescued an injured duck and cared for it until it could return to the wild. Kindness wasn't something he tried to show.

It was simply who he was. Micah also lived with PTSD, a traumatic brain injury, and late-onset schizophrenia. He asked for help. He even petitioned the court for help. And he was denied.

Our family did everything we knew how to do, but we could not fight this illness alone. He was left to battle a devastating disease until it consumed him. When Micah was in crisis, the crisis response team did not respond. I want to acknowledge something difficult. Cults.

During that crisis, Micah fired his gun. I understand that created an incredibly dangerous situation for responding officers. My purpose is not to condemn law enforcement. I support the officers who put their— themselves in harm's way to protect our communities. My brother is retired law enforcement.

I want to acknowledge— or I'm I'm sorry, we can never know whether stronger mental health intervention during the initial crisis response and enhanced de-escalation could have changed the outcome, but I believe we owe it to every family and every officer to make sure those tools are available before the next crisis occurs. The officer involved in my brother's death has also been involved in multiple fatal shootings within a relatively short period of time. I believe that deserves thoughtful review, not because I assume wrongdoing, but because accountability, officer wellness, and effective training protect both officers and the public. I respectfully ask the assembly to strengthen crisis response teams, mandate ongoing crisis intervention and de-escalating training, require regular psych evals for officers involved in repeated deadly force incidents, ensure independent reviews of use of force incidents involving individuals experiencing mental health crisis, and advocate for stronger mental health oversight in Alaska so system gaps are identified and addressed before another family suffers a tragic loss. This is not about choosing sides.

It's about building a system that gives people in mental health crisis every response, every reasonable chance to survive while giving officers every possible tool to resolve these situations safely. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. You have— state your name.

You have 3 minutes. My name is Catherine Jones. I am the mother of Tyler May. This is the third meeting because the people of this community ask you to slow down. They asked you to listen before a decision that will affect public trust for years to come.

I hope tonight you continue to listen. I am not here because I hate the police. I am here because I buried my son. Tyler was 21 years old. He had people who loved him.

He had a family, he had dreams, and he had a future that was taken away. My son was shot in the head while he was on the ground. As his mother, that is something that I will never be able to to erase from my mind. Every day I wake up to carry the weight, the loss. Every birthday, every holiday, every family gathering reminds me that Tyler should be here.

That is why I'm standing here today. I'm not only asking you— I'm not asking you to prejudge any officer or any individual case. I'm asking you to recognize that when deadly force is used, the public deserves a public safety commission that is independent, transparent, and trusted. No police department should be expected to investigate itself without a meaningful public safety commission. Good officers should, should welcome accountability because accountability strengthens public confidence, honors those who serve with integrity.

Families should never have to wonder whether, whether every question was asked every fact was examined or whether every decision was made fairly. We should know that the Independent Public Safety Commission exists to seek the truth, promote transparency, and to hold our public institutions accountable. This is bigger than my son. This is about the families that have lost someone to police encounter, every family that hopes they'll never receive the phone call. The people of Anchorage deserve a Public Safety Commission with real independence and meaning authority, not one that simply exists on paper.

We need a commission that can ask hard questions, demand transparency, identify patterns, and make recommendations, recommendations, and restore public trust. My son's life mattered. Every person's life matters. I ask for you tonight to think beyond the vote. Think about the families that will one day stand here where I'm standing.

Think about the kind of system you want if it was your child. Please do not settle for the appearance of accountability when our own community deserves a Public Safety Commission that the public can believe in. For Tyler, for every family, for the future of Anchorage, thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. Mr. Patterson, I know you have testified before, so I will ask you to speak to the S1 version. Thank you. My name is Michael Patterson. I live in District 1, uh, so I'm an organizer of the Party for Socialism Liberation Anchorage.

We do not support the S1 version. The S1 version is a lot of the same nonsense that we've been here saying over and over again. It's just performance. I attended the July 14th work session And there was something pretty appalling that I think Assemblymember Perez Verdia said about how if we want to have a conversation about an independent civilian oversight, then we should have that conversation. You have been here the entire time.

You have been here the entire time for this conversation. If a $40,000 task force is not a conversation, if having all these people show up for the last 6 years is not a conversation, what is a conversation on civilian oversight? I think you're being obstructionist. I think you care more about the endorsement of the APDEA than you do care about protecting the community. Furthermore, we've had 18 shootings in 2 years.

11 Of those have been fatal. The vast majority have been people of color. Not one officer has been held accountable. The Office of Special Prosecutions is never going to hold APD accountable. They never have.

The fact that the mayor in her report today can say that essentially that if you do pass something that has independent oversight subpoena powers, that she's probably going to veto it. Go ahead. Please do.

We've been here for 6 years coming down here asking for true oversight. And the thing is, I want to say to the assembly members who have been talking about Assemblymember Martinez in terms of of holding him accountable for his actions. That's all we're asking for, for APD. If we're going to scrutinize one assembly member so much for misusing public campaign funds and possibly misusing, uh, municipal funds, we want that when the police kill somebody. That's all we're asking for.

We want an entity that can investigate, that has professionals on it, to make a recommendation about what should happen to that officer. Officers' privacy does not outweigh public interest when they, when they kill somebody. When they kill a 16-year-old girl on camera, what we all get to see, and then we get to see the Office of Special Prosecution say, that's okay, totally justified. No, absolutely not. The S.1 version is not what people have been asking for.

You both know that. You both know that the S-1 version is not even close to what people have been asking for. The people have asked for independent oversight, enhanced access to information, and the ability to recommend disciplinary action. You both know that. So stop playing stupid.

Please do not insult our intelligence. You know that this is not what people want. You are more concerned about protecting your political careers than you are about protecting the people.

I have a member in the queue, I believe, with a question. Mr. Gerker, is that a question? Yeah, thank you, appreciate that. Uh, Mr. Patterson, is there a scenario in your mind where use of lethal force is justified? Yeah, if someone's shooting up a school, a mass shooter, yeah.

So if somebody's potentially a threat to somebody else with a deadly weapon, they are— that is a justified use of deadly force? Yeah. Okay. All right, thanks. There you go.

But I will say, but I will say, I would like to respond. I will say that when you give an agent of the government the license to kill, as we have given the, the Anchorage Police Department, that should have more scrutiny because that's literally the government that we pay for. And also, Mr. Patterson, can you tell me, I want you to tell me, do you think Easterly is being killed? Do you think Easter Leafer being killed was justified? Mr.

Patterson, do you think Easter Leafer being killed was justified? Go ahead, say it for us. Do you? You think a 6-year-old—. I'm going to ask the room to please come to order.

Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Um, I believe, ma'am, you have testified before, so I will ask you to speak to the changes in the new version. Thank you. And please state your name for the record. I'm sorry, I'm going to read this for Marcella because of her disability, but I'm going to let her answer those initial questions.

They want to know your name. Marcella Buskovsky-Grounds.

So I'm reading you this letter that's also included in the packet that you all received earlier today, so you can see it for yourselves physically, and this is her verbally as well. Hi, my name is Marcella Boskovsky grounds, and I'm here today about my first cousin Cassandra Lee Boskovsky. In September 2019, Detective Lee contacted me asking if I had seen or heard from Cassandra. I told him the last time I heard from her was in August 2019 when she had told me people were after her. I tried to get more information, but she didn't want me involved.

At the time, I was also struggling with homelessness and couldn't help the way I I wanted to. A few days later, he called again and suggested filing a missing persons report, and I agreed because the more people looking for her, the better. Years passed with little information. Then on July 6th, 2024, Detective Lee called me and asked if I had heard of Brian Steven Smith. He showed me photos recovered from his phone, and within seconds I identified Cassandra.

What hurt the most was learning that other agencies had already believed the photos were Cassandra years earlier, but no one showed them to me. We also found out the missing person's report was delayed before being submitted. That was devastating to hear. After that, my family and I started pushing for answers ourselves. With the help from Michael Livingston, we spent months gathering evidence for Cassandra's presumptive death trial.

The jury came back in about 40 minutes and ruled that Cassandra was deceased and that her death was a homicide. Since then, we've organized protests, searched for her remains, and continued fighting for justice. We are still searching for Cassandra today. Our family wants accountability, real changes within APD, and better protocols for identifying victims and notifying families. If we had been shown these photos years ago, we could have been searching for Cassandra sooner.

Cassandra mattered. She still matters deeply to our family, and no family should have to fight this hard just to be heard. I'll let you finish that last sentence. Kweyana, thank you for letting me speak today.

Next person, please come forward. State your name and I may again remind folks, I know folks have a lot of things they want to say, but I want to ask you if you have testified again to please keep to the changes in the S version if possible. Please go ahead and we'll restart the timer. Okay. Hi, my name is Amber Batts.

I'm a born and raised Alaskan, formerly incarcerated, and a community advocate focused on police accountability and the safety of marginalized people. I fully support creating a public safety commission, but not with S. S1, but I'm asking you to not confuse community engagement with community accountability. Since the former commission ended in 2024, Anchorage Police have shot 18 people and 11 people have died. I know other people have said that, but that needs to be repeated again and again. This ordinance calls the new commission independent and community-led, but how can it be when the agencies it's supposed to review are the ones in charge of it?

Anchorage doesn't need another look-good commission that is powerless or apathetic to do anything. As it stands, the commission cannot investigate, subpoena records, or access information beyond what the public can already obtain. That's not oversight. That's a listening session. And yes, listening matters.

But people have been listening for years as families have demanded body camera footage, as the community has demanded answers after police shootings. The community has listened and watched as people describe what happens when law enforcement controls the official story and the evidence behind it. Public safety must be measured by whether the people most afraid to call the police can safely ask for help. I ask you to give the commission independent staff and counsel, require public tracking of police shootings, police use of force complaints, and body camera releases. Require meaningful representation from people directly affected by policing, including sex workers, formerly incarcerated people, Indigenous people, people with disabilities, and families affected by police violence.

Require meetings more than quarterly. Accountability cannot operate 4 times a year. Anchorage does not need another commission. That sounds good in theory, but does nothing to deal with the issues. When the police control the records, control the evidence, control the narrative, and control the commission that is supposed to hold them accountable, that is not public safety.

That is institutional self-protection, and asking the community to call it oversight will not make it anything other than that. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. The microphone is already on. State your name. You'll have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Rebecca, and earlier this year I turned 17 years old.

Easter Leifa should have also turned 17 years old, but last year, at only 16, she was killed by APD. She had so much life left in her, and no one deserved to have the right to take that away. The only thing I'm up here asking from you is when you hear these numbers of how many people that were killed, I would like you to imagine someone in your life that same age. I'm sure many of you probably have kids or your friends have kids, and they're probably in high school and they're probably around that same age. And I want you to think about how you would feel if during a mental health crisis they were perceived as a threat and killed.

That's all I have to ask. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name and you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Roger Ketzler, and remember that name. May 19th, APD killed my son.

The chief of police should step down. The 3 police officers should be stepped should be fired or let go. Nobody is held accountable for my son's murder. I want, I want justice for him. It's been over 2 months, no accountability yet, no, no videos, no nothing.

There was a shooting a couple weeks ago in Fairbanks. They had the video to the parents in 3 days. In 3 days. It's going on 2 months because they're trying to hide something. They're trying to cut everything out.

I want the chief of police, I'll never forget your face the time you made a speech on TV that, come on, civilians of Anchorage, you got to do better. Not Anchorage, not the citizens of Anchorage. It's Anchorage Police Department who got to do better. You took my son's life. He might have been having a mental health crisis at that time, but he didn't deserve to die just like many others.

Why do they got to shoot to kill? What's wrong with the legs or arm or something? Or rubber bullets or tasers? I'm sure the police officer hiding behind the car, and from what I understand, he never shot no bullets when the cops got there. He just had a gun in the air.

And the cops took his life. A goddamn bullet was lodged in his liver and I don't know somewhere in his arm and I don't know I never read the whole autopsy report. I want accountability for these police officers. Remember this name Roger Ketzler and Google me because you have not heard the end of me.

Please refrain from clapping in the chambers, that is out of order. Next person, please come forward. Again, microphone is already on. State your name and you will have 3 minutes. My name is CJ Williams.

First things first, I am not one of the families affected. You don't have to be to show up for that person to matter, and for— blood is not the case of empathy. So I'm coming from a place where this person I, I have not that much connection to, but I see myself, I see my family, I see my coworkers, I see my colleagues in this person. Emile McCord was a man in a very bad situation who needed help. He was in a classic mental health crisis.

There were reports that he had fired his weapon and it was at a time where the crisis team was not available. And so he got people who showed up and shot him.

Now, no matter what case you're in, studies show that most people are two paychecks from homelessness.

And being that we are in relatively turbulent times, it's not a stretch to say that most people in this room could experience a mental health crisis.

Just because Emil McCord was not my brother doesn't mean that my brother could, could not have been in that situation. My brother has been in many situations similar. Many people in my family have. I've had multiple run-ins with the police, but luckily they've all been positive, and I'm blessed for that. When I was a child, I had multiple junior police stickers.

I would seek them out and chat with them.

I had a police Halloween costume. I would tell them if I saw anything dangerous in certain neighborhoods around my school when I was younger.

And it's impossible to say that I don't appreciate them when they have shown up and when they have done their jobs respectfully, when they've taken the boundaries, when they've taken the responsibility of their jobs well. They're not superhuman. They're people with implied immunity and unfortunately impunity. And I believe that has to stop. I second everything that Tyler's mom said and that the person in front of me said completely.

I don't need to know Emil. I don't need to be best friends. I don't need to be his brother to understand that that can happen to anybody in this room.

Next. I live in District 1. I'm the executive director of Empowerment Advocate Alaska, and one of the things that we do is assist families, uh, who are surviving family members of officer-involved shootings. I've done this since 2020, so I have lots of experience working with these families one-on-one.

Earlier today, I gave the clerk, uh, some file folders. I hope you guys received them and looked at them. There are about 13 to 14 letters of support for Emil coming from family, friends throughout Alaska. There also was a statement by the Tyonic Native Corporation Board of Directors and the Native Village of Tyonic. We're here today because, as Michael said earlier, we've been here for almost a decade having this conversation.

So the idea that this new S-1 version or the version before that or the version before that, you know, there's really any difference Yeah, there's slight variations, but ultimately none of them are suitable. None of them are. And I make that clear in my proposal. The recommendations that I'm giving you guys are, if that's what you're going to pass, at least let's focus on victim-centered practices. My concern is that I don't think you all will.

I really noticed that during the work session in hearing Perez-Rodilla speak, and some of the other assembly members seem to agree with, that the conversation of justice and this commission do not—. They're not intertwined, they're separate conversations. They actually are not. They're not. They all belong in the same conversation.

Yes, justice, I think when we look at it in the technical way of criminal charges, yeah, that's not what the commission's going to do, but it does give families some form of justice if an officer who has shot somebody 3 to 4 times in less than 2 years is still on that police force, and that commission can come in and say, you know what, you don't have this job anymore, because obviously there is something very wrong with that. That's not normal behavior, right? I think we can all agree with that. That's not normal. And if a commission can come in and say, as a disciplinary action, this person's off the force We have concerns.

I mean, that's the bare minimum you all can do when we're talking about the commission. I'd like to see, and I make it clear in my proposal, an investigative model. I do think eventually we're going to be at that stage because the model that you're proposing right now is not going to work out for these families and the community. Um, but all in all, I want you all to really consider the things that you received. And I, like I said, I'm speaking as somebody who does this and has done this for a very long time.

This isn't a new topic for me.

Next person, please come forward. State your name. I believe you've also testified before, so I'll ask you to speak to the new version. Scott McCord.

Justice delayed is justice denied. My brother is dead and your silence speaks louder than any promise you've made. Stop protecting a badge and start protecting the people who trusted you. And Sean Case, shouldn't your boys be out there serving and protecting?

Next person, please come forward. I believe you may have also testified before, so I'll ask please keep to the new version. Chair, sorry, just a point of information. Your mic is really soft. I'm not sure the folks can hear you.

Sorry. Yeah, as I stated, please come forward. Microphone is already on. I believe you may have also testified before, so please try to keep to changes in this new version. Thank you.

On May 19th is the day Ammon McCord was shot and killed by law enforcement. That's the day mine and my siblings and my mom's world shifted in a way we'd never expect. I want you all to know this isn't something my brother wouldn't do. With law enforcement. As far as I know, he would comply.

My question is, what really happened that night? Law enforcement took away so much from him, a better chance to achieve a new goal he was seeking.

He's more than just a good person. He made sure his nieces were taken care of. Thanks to APD, they took that They took a lot more than an uncle.

He was always up for a good challenge. Anything he put to his mind, he would do it even if he failed. We would always remind him he tried his best.

So why are we still waiting for answers? Why aren't we given any kind of closure. Emil's life means more than what they're saying about him on the media.

My family doesn't deserve to go through this. Why does APD get to choose that for us?

Not only did Emil deserve to be treated with with dignity. My family deserves transparency, respect, and closure. APD shouldn't be the last to decide on my brother's life when they only had a 20-second interaction with him.

I want you all to keep in mind, it's devastating to keep thinking about those 20 seconds. Trying to get to know— try and get to know him for 26 years. And tell me if those 20 seconds is worth continuing, continuing your career. It's unbelievable that my family and other families have to make their second appearance today.

Next person, please come forward. State your name. Microphone's already on. You have 3 minutes. Uh, Daniel King, West Anchorage, representing myself.

I just wanted to check on one item on this with the— for the makeup of the group. We say that you can have 3 members that are ex-police or retired police officers, or 3 members that are immediate family members in other jurisdictions. That are police, but then it doesn't allow any municipal employees or immediate members of municipal employees. Uh, I think you should look at that just for the language that's getting used there. It's restricting it so that police could be on there, or members of families of police that could be on there, but not municipal employees.

It seems overly restrictive to other municipal employees. And did you know there are 3 locations in our code that have the definition for immediate family and none of them are the same. So you should look at the definition that you want to use and reference it or put it into the AO. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. You'll have 3 minutes to testify. I can't remember if you had testified before, but if you have, please stay with the S1 version. Thank you.

My name is JC. I have not yet testified.

I can't really say anything more than the family members or my party members have already. Yeah, I can say is if this was something that APD could solve on its own, why did it get this bad? Why are we in this situation to begin with? If they could investigate themselves and solve it themselves, why haven't they? We have been at this for nearly a decade and not seen improvement.

People are still dying. And we are focusing on the deaths here because that's the most extreme and tragic. But that is not the end of the discussion.

APD has been complaints thousands every year about the brutality here and cruelty that they use and excessive force, and we want to believe that they can investigate themselves. Today I have sat here, I'm sure you've seen me in bright red sweater, turned around watching them stone-faced, chewing at the skin around their nails while family members talk about loved ones that they have lost.

They have showed no remorse, no intrigue, nothing. And we want them— we want the community to believe that a body that is mostly just opinions would change them. We've given them our opinions, we've given testimony, they have not changed. A council that has no teeth would be no different than tonight.

If we cannot subpoena, if we cannot have consequences, what is the point? Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Um, have you testified on this item before? Uh, no, I have not. Okay, thank you. So you have 3 minutes up, and please state your name.

Thanks. Perfect. Good evening, my name is Dominic Eubank, and I've served as an Anchorage police officer for the last 10 years. On March 18, 2022, I was shot multiple times in the line of duty by a suspect armed with an AK-47 and a handgun.

The injuries nearly cost me my life and left me with severe damage to my leg, including severed arteries and the loss of over 4 inches of bone that I had to regrow. My recovery lasted more than 2 and a half years, included daily pain and the difficult process of that regrowth.

I still live with nerve pain and limited functionality, but I share this experience to provide perspective. A call of a dispute and an assault between neighbors turned into near death for myself and 5 of my coworkers just because we were police officers. I returned to full duty in July of 2025, not because anyone asked me to, but because I chose to. I understand the responsibility that comes with this profession, the scrutiny that follows these decisions, and the weight carried by those who continue to serve. I stand here today as a victim of violence that no one should ever have to go through.

Sorry about that.

Um, law enforcement is one of the few professions where a person can be judged, criticized, or even despised simply because of the uniform that they wear. Despite that, officers continue to show up every day knowing that they may be required to make a split-second decision under the most difficult of circumstances. Some proposed amendments risk creating an environment where officers may become more concerned about the fallout of the decisions that they are making while trying to do it at the best that they can with the information they have at the time. The reality is that public outrage often grows as more information becomes available after an incident. Officers, however, do not have that benefit of hindsight while responding to a call.

They are often required to make immediate decisions based on this limited information, rapidly changing circumstances, and real threats to public safety. But the officers are also victims in these cases. Many offenses are minor offenses of shoplifting that turn deadly due to the desperation of someone not wanting to go to jail for the result of their actions.

I understand that some level of oversight can be appropriate and necessary. However, asking individuals without formal training in use of force or police procedure to evaluate these incidents has failed elsewhere, and I believe it creates a serious risk here as well. If a commission like this was to be implemented, I believe there should be requirements placed on those that hold the positions to have back backgrounds in police training, policy and procedure, force investigations, the law, and to participate in reality-based training with the department.

And my 3 minutes are up, so thank you guys for your time.

Next person, please come. I'm in the queue, please. Officer, I just want to thank you for, for your service to our community, for coming out to testify, and, and the courage for coming back to serve the community. It's not lost on myself. So thank you very much.

How can you say that to him when families were sharing— please keep order. Please keep order.

I understand this public hearing is not a conversation. Thank you so much. Next person, please come forward. Um, Miss Clock, I know you have testified before, so I'll ask you to keep to the S-1 version.

Hi, I'm Emily Clock. I live in District 3. And I'm testifying on behalf of the Alaska Coalition of Justice, also known as ACJ. I serve as the coordinator. We're a statewide group that advocates for police accountability and transparency, and we've been meeting weekly since June 2020.

In last week's assembly work session, a question was posed about the purpose of this commission. What is the problem we are trying to solve? Simply put, we must be proactive in addressing the causes of officer-involved shootings rather than waiting for more people to lose their lives. Between May 2024 and May 2025, APD shot 13 people, 8 of whom were killed. In the summer of 2024, hundreds of people marched in the streets of Anchorage to demand accountability.

Since then, APD has fatally shot 3 more people. This is a loud and clear wake-up call to explore root causes and solutions. We are all aware of the need for police accountability in Alaska. Even Mayor LaFrance recognized the overwhelming number of officer-involved shootings in 2024 when she called for third-party investigations into APD's actions. Over 80 people attended a community meeting in 2024 to express their pain and frustration about officer-involved shootings and to discuss solutions.

ACJF has met with the mayor, assembly members, Chief Case, state legislators, the Crisis Now team, and others to explore solutions. Assembly members have also taken actions and been part of many discussions. Including voting for a budget amendment to explore civilian oversight of APD, a work session about civilian oversight of police with the Inspector General of Columbus, and starting a task force that included a meeting with the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. The majority of task force members voted for a commission with investigatory and subpoena authority and enhanced access to information. And since the introduction of this ordinance, dozens of community members have called for justice for victims and oversight of APD.

The need for a commission with community oversight of APD is clear. ACJ supports amendments from Assemblymember Sydney Scout for the S1 version of this ordinance that strengthens the commission with investigatory authority, subpoena authority, and enhanced access to information. These amendments ensure the transparency and accountability that the community is demanding. We also support an amendment to create relationship between the commission and the ombudsman's office. In a press release on August 15th, 2024, after 6 officer-involved shootings, Mayor LaFrance said, quote, we cannot and we will not accept this as a new normal in Anchorage.

We lost a young person in our community who should have been starting her first day of school today. We cannot take back the pain associated with this loss, but we can do everything in our power to make sure this doesn't happen again in Anchorage. Courage. Please do everything in your power to make sure this doesn't happen again. It's been clear from the beginning that this commission needs strong oversight of the police.

ACJ urges you to vote for Assemblymember Scout's amendments. Thank you for your time.

Next person, please come forward. Um, you'll have 3 minutes. Please state your name. I don't believe you testified before, is that correct? No.

Okay, go ahead. My name is Christopher Martin. I was born and raised in Alaska. This is my home. I'm also white, if you have not noticed or can't see.

It was nice to hear Mr. McCormick express his support for the police. I also support the police. When I was about 22 years old, a policeman saved my brother's life. He had been broken up with. He was depressed and alone.

Two friends got together with me. We stayed with him. We drank, we wrestled, we watched TV.

He got erratic. The neighbors called the police. A man showed up at the door. My brother tried to force his way past his friends, past me, to get to the police officer to try to get him to shoot him. I was standing in the doorway trying to hold him back and begging that officer not to shoot my brother and kill him.

And thankfully he did. He took a second. He respected the moment. He said, "Deal with this. Please don't make me come back." And I will forever be grateful to him.

Oversight ensures measures are followed to make sure life is valued, escalations avoided, lives are not changed. That's important. It will bring more support from the public to know that police are being held accountable. To serve and protect, I'm pretty sure, is still on many badges. That's not referring to themselves, that's referring to the public.

In the words they often use, if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear. So why fear oversight? I work in road construction with people with large pieces of equipment. Um, if I endanger someone's life, if I make a bad call, I will be accountable. I'll be investigated.

I'll be punished if that's necessary. I don't think police are evil. I don't want to abolish them. There has to be a standard. Cancer exists because the body will not defend itself against its own cells when they become mutated, when they become destructive, when a body cannot heal itself and outside treatment is needed.

I almost lost my brother that night. I still think about it. I wake up in nightmares about potentially losing my partner who is here tonight, who is Native, and whose life often seems to be considered less value than that of mine, myself, or my brother. Vote to protect the people who need you. Vote to protect the people who were born of this land.

Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name. You'll have 3 minutes. I don't believe you've testified before. My name is Alyssa Specht and I'm from Midtown.

In 2019, I fulfilled a calling I had felt since kindergarten and joined APD as a patrol officer. I wanted to help people during the worst moments of their lives. I knew there was risk of experiencing physical and emotional trauma during my career. I did not know just how deep some of those experiences would cut, nor how unsupported I would be. When you drive your car, you know there's a risk of getting into an accident.

When the other driver crashes into you, we don't say it was your fault because you knew the risks. We don't say it's the fault of the customer service employee when they are verbally abused because they signed up for it. And in multiple times I've been assaulted, I've had my profession thrown back in my face as if my fear, my injuries, my trauma didn't matter to anyone because I knew the risk. On July 29th, 2024, in downtown Anchorage, a man tried to murder me at work. He dragged me to my knees and tackled me onto the pavement while ripping my head backwards by my hair.

He sat on my chest, pinning my arms with his knees, and began repeatedly hammer-fisting my head and face. I knew he wanted to know he was hurting me, but I was determined not to give him the satisfaction. When I would not cry out, he began raking his fingernails across my eyes and face. He then grabbed me by my throat and began strangling me. Ironically, I had taken the AST Strangulation Investigation course prior to event.

It is a special kind of hell to know the mechanics of how you're being murdered as it's happening. When I felt my breathing completely cut off, a countdown started in my head. I knew I had 30 seconds or less until unconsciousness, and then it would be over for me. When I freed my right hand, my attacker bit it so hard the ER doctor later feared it was broken. When my partner, who had been struggling with all his strength to stop the assault, realized I was being strangled, he knew he had to act immediately to save my life.

Though deadly force would have been authorized, he feared hitting me or a bystander, so instead he used his taser. The taser had enough of an effect I was able to get my attacker off of me and put him in handcuffs. By his own statements, my would-be murderer attacked me solely because I was a woman. His former landlord came forward after my attack to say he had frequently spoken of and watched videos about harming women.

In spite of numerous— he was not charged with attempted murder and was offered a plea deal which saw him back on the street streets less than 9 months after the attack, and in spite of numerous violations of his conditions, he was released from all supervision last night. Too often when the public discusses officer-involved incidents, we are portrayed as monolithic in nature, all bad or all good, and often dehumanized. We're not all bad or all good. We're people and we're part of this community. My coworkers and I are not seeking to avoid accountability.

The kind of authority vested in our profession demands the highest levels of accountability. Setting up a tribunal in which no context of law, case law, policy, circumstances, etc., can be offered by a law enforcement expert or representative of APD is not accountability. It's an inquisition to dole out punishment for punishment's sake. There is no relationship in which successful accountability is a one-sided process. I want to serve my neighbors to the best of my ability, and I want to work for a department that does the same.

That is why I ask you to vote no on the version of the ordinance that excludes APD from the process and discourages progress. Thank you for your time.

Next person, please come forward. State your name and what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. Hey, thanks. My name is Maxine Dugan.

My group is the Community United for Safety and Protection. We're Alaska's sex worker group, current and former sex workers, sex trafficking survivors, and our allies. I myself have worked as a prostitute prostitute for 30+ years and pretty much plan on working as a prostitute for another 30+ more. I got my start over here in Spenard. It was great.

So today our group wants to offer our condolences to all the family members who have, you know, received violence without their permission. Um, and we are speaking in opposition to this version until it is amended. Because the commission is prohibited from conducting independent investigations to exercise subpoena power or influence personal disciplinary decisions, we will oppose this version until this version will be able to support, um, restricting the engagement with active investigations, which limits the ability to address immediate community concerns regarding critical incidences. You know, the families here need their questions answered. The model stops short of the true civilian oversight because the effectiveness is tied to mayoral discretion in appointments and whether the assembly chooses to act on its non-binding recommendations.

And since both the elected bodies can and do receive donations from police associations, the conflicts of interest become multi-leveled and hardwired. Until we ban police associations from donating to these elected officials who are supposed to hold them accountable. We are forced to continue to live under this police fascist state if this new commission is approved. For those reasons, I respectfully urge your opposition until amended to include independent investigations, subpoena power, and influencing personal disciplinary decisions. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward, uh, state your name and you'll have 3 minutes.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the assembly. My name is Tomas Franjul and I have had the privilege of serving as an Anchorage police officer for nearly 15 years. Normally this evening I would be volunteering my time teaching police recruits defensive tactics such as judo, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, and wrestling. But I came here tonight because I understand you've been hearing testimony about officers like me, and I felt it was important that you also hear from someone who has lived these experiences firsthand. My hope is simply that before decisions are made about officers like me, you'll understand what these moments actually feel like from inside the uniform.

Last year, Last year, I was involved in a hostage rescue. It involved an officer-involved shooting. It ended with a mother and her 4 children going home alive. Before I arrived, the suspect had already fired at responding officers. As my team prepared to enter, I believed I wasn't coming home to my wife, my daughter, or my son.

I was terrified.

Fear was there, but so was our responsibility. We moved forward because innocent lives depended on it. We hoped it would end peacefully. We wanted the suspect to surrender. He had complete control over what happened next.

We didn't go there hoping to use force. We went there with the intention of saving lives. The public often hears about officer-involved shootings. I hope we're remembered not only for the worst day of someone's life, but for the lives we were trying to save. I volunteer to teach defensive tactics because I believe the best use of force is the one that never has to happen.

In nearly 15 years as a police officer, I've never had to strike a person using a— during a use of force encounter. I attribute that to training. The better an officer can safely control someone, the more options they have. More options means less force, fewer injuries, and safer outcomes for everyone involved. The people who benefit most from that training are members of our community.

In every profession where people are required to make split-second decisions that can affect lives, those decisions are reviewed by people with relevant expertise, not to excuse mistakes, but to distinguish between poor decision and reasonable decisions made under extraordinary circumstances. Alaska recognizes this principle through its Office of Special Prosecution. If the Assembly chooses to establish an additional oversight system, I ask that it be guided by the same commitment to informed, experienced review. I spend my teach— my free time teaching officers how to use less force, and when force cannot be avoided, I hope you'll remember what's at stake: a husband going home to his wife, a father going home to his children, and a mother and her 4 children going home alive. That's why I put on the uniform.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Sarah Short. I'm going to urge you to vote no and bring it back to work on it some more for a couple of reasons. As you all know, I regularly walk the homeless camps.

And it is near and dear to my heart that we have active accountability in all areas of our city government, whether it's APD, AFD, or you all as assembly members, in particular Mr. Martinez. I last night was called to a rescue, I guess you call it, of a person under mental health crisis. The only thing I could do when I got there— because I walked the homeless camps, people know me, and unfortunately this person was my nephew, so I really am invested in this—. If I called APD, are they going to take him down?

Are they going to hurt him? I shouldn't even be thinking like that. Can I call APD? Can I call the mobile crisis team? I made the choice to call the mobile crisis team, and I have no regrets.

I have frequently worked with members in APD to include, um, Tanya and Ruth, the outreach team. They're wonderful people. They do their jobs. They serve with integrity. When you serve with integrity, you can look at yourself in the mirror.

When you don't serve with integrity, you should step back take responsibility for your behavior, and you should take accountability. We need that with our APD force, and I applaud you for looking at those options, but we need more work because a lot of these officers do risk their lives every single day. We need them out there on the streets. When I'm walking these homeless camps, we need them. What we don't need is to have our funds for things like the mobile crisis team tied up in 17 flights for Mr. Martinez to visit his family.

We need APD to have better oversight. We need a mobile crisis team. We need mental health assistance now. For 10 years, I've been asking the assembly for a good treatment center, and I watch you guys drag your feet time and time again. Accountability is what we're talking about, right?

So give us the right accountability, bring it to a real work session, and let the people have involvement. You don't need subpoena powers. You guys are not qualified. It is clear you can't even track your own travel budget by what you let Mr. Martinez do.

Next person, please come forward, state your name, and you'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, I'm Karen Barnard. I've grown up here in Anchorage. I appreciate the police, and I appreciate everybody who has come forward and shared their experiences and stories. So we can all take a breath and appreciate that. I'm a diagnostic engineer.

I built big machines that ran 500 users at a time. And you thought you're the only person on that machine. And the way we did it successfully and did these things so fast was the fox was not allowed to guard the chicken house. I was a diagnostic engineer. I did not work for the electronics designers.

I worked for a separate control group. We built the control box. That box then ran diagnostics on all of the computer, the CPU part, the brain. And there was 55 chips. So I threw data really fast.

I had to write reports. These guys, these engineers, they had to address my reports within 6 weeks. Weeks because Intel said so. And I tell you, we built this thing fast. It had a lot of problems.

And by having an oversight, it's called the Anchorage Public Safety Partnership Commission, you can believe that those hardware engineers showed up at my meetings because they were part of the experts The experts always have to be involved with any solution. There also has to be a time. This business going on years and years and weeks and weeks. We had 6 weeks. We couldn't turn out the machine.

The US Navy, MasterCard, Visa, they have millions of transactions a second. It's amazing. They weren't going to wait. We had to deliver these you know, $500,000, $2 million machines on time. And so by having a commission that doesn't have authority is really a waste of time.

It would be like me handing a report and say, "Eh, if you feel like it, maybe we'll get this chip straightened out." Well, we got 52 more chips to go. How you think that's gonna work? It's not. And so I didn't quite pick up the right version, but whatever version gets passed, it needs to have some teeth. It needs to have the experts.

It needs to have a conversation with the community, with law enforcement. The police are put into situations, we don't give them the training that matches the situations out there. So I see this commission as being the right direction and it needs needs to have some teeth in order to be valuable. So thank you very much. I did attend a bunch of stuff last year, and I was wondering what happened.

Next person, please come forward. Mr. Lopez, I know you testified. If you can speak to the S1 version. Thank you. S1 version, and try to keep to some of it.

So, uh, Jamie Lopez, formerly homeless. So, um, I've watched play out over a 2-year period. And more or less, it was a lot of frustration about the Officer Involved Shootings. Uh, you know, it was delayed, obviously, so hopefully that outrage would diminish. And the task force took place last year, and there were recommendations, and those recommendations have largely been dismissed.

Um, I don't think you got the result that you wanted, and so as a result of that, uh, there is pressure. Pressure from members of the community, pressure from the law enforcement union and law enforcement officers in this room. And so, you know, it's, uh, it's a power dynamic, and there is a power imbalance. Uh, we're all human beings in this room. We're flawed creatures.

And so the question is, uh, do you investigate yourselves, or do you have other people perform investigations. And, and the problem with this is you have any number of people, sometimes they have bad experiences with law enforcement, and then what has to happen is they have to wait for years, and sometimes they get no resolution at all. And so that was sort of the whole genesis of this commission, was to provide independent oversight and authority to look at the policies that are in place whether they pertain to officer-involved shootings or even homeless policy. There are any number of marginalized people, the vulnerable and the poor in this town. They fear retaliation when they have bad experiences.

They do not report things, and they do not have phones. And so I know there's a gentleman in the back of this room right now, and there's millions of dollars in salary in this room right now, and I hope you never have to experience poverty. Uh, because right now, if you cannot afford to pay rent or a mortgage, uh, you are a de facto criminal, and you're being driven endlessly around this town to the point you break physically and mentally, and that is attrition warfare. And in a time of war, uh, you know, that's used against enemy combatants, but you're using it against civilians right now. So, uh, the S1 version, uh, basically, none of these versions really meet the test.

What you have is basically 9 members of the commission are chosen by the mayor, and it will be probably people that are cherry-picked. Then you have 3 other members, effectively they are chosen probably for their support of the mayor's policies. And so this is no real independence to anybody. Um, lastly, I'll just finish on the thing about the homeless thing. I truly hope you re— relook at the Houseless Lived Experience Advisory Board and how that was essentially wiped off the map, and it really brought nothing because it didn't have the ability to enforce change.

So hopefully you'll think about that again. Thank you.

Would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, the public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move the S1 version.

Okay, I have a motion from Mr. Perez-Rodilla to move the S1 version. Is there a second?

Okay, I see we have one person in the queue, but we cannot proceed, uh, with discussion on this item unless there is a second or the body makes a different motion.

Okay, um, if we do not receive a second on a motion, then the item will die for lack of action. So I'll ask one more time. Is there— there is a motion on the floor. Is there a second?

Okay, there is no motion by the rest of the body, so this item has died for lack of action. Motion passes 7-0.

Next, then, we will move on to Item 13B. I'm sorry, what's happening? Waiting. So this is not the time to respond to the public, but just for clarity, I will state once again that our motion— our procedures are such that we cannot debate an item unless there is both a motion and a second to bring it to the floor. There was— please keep order in the room.

Okay, I understand there's a few folks leaving, so we'll wait just a minute.

Okay, I understand a lot of folks are heading out, so we're going to take just a couple minutes break. We will be back at 8:57.

All eagles. Hours of everyone's time, not running around.

To order. It looks like folks have exited the room who plan to. Next is Item 13B, AR 2026-166, and that is a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage adopting the 2026 Housing and Community Development Annual Action Plan, 2026 Action Plan, which constitutes application to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, for the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, the Home Investment Partnerships Program, HOME, and the Emergency Solutions Grant, ESG, and appropriates the 2026 program year reimbursable grants from HUD in the amounts not to exceed $1,788,314 in CDBG entitlement when tendered, $616,173 in HOME entitlement when tendered, and $166,990 in ESG entitlement when tendered, all to the federal grant Fund 241 in the Anchorage Health Department. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

And then I'll note the microphone is on, so please state your name, what part of town you're in, you have 3 minutes. Good evening. Everybody woke. I'm in favor of you forwarding this grant and allowing the administration to continue with their aggressive, innovative plans for development of housing, affordable housing, sustainable housing in Alaska, to utilize these funds to continue to explore collaborative projects that will move housing affordability and sustainability in Anchorage and throughout the governing body for this grant. And I hope you utilize— take the opportunity to look at the model that the mayor and that administration is using and take technology and innovative— think outside the box and use these funds wisely for all Anchorage.

Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Adrienne. We're FCDC. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Again, microphone is already on. You'll have 3 minutes. State your name and you can testify. Yeah, I'm Karen Barnard.

One second. While we reset the timer.

Okay, please proceed. Go ahead. Karen Barnard. I was just here. And I've been homeless for 2 years because of lack of oversight over bad landlords.

So one of the things I've been to a lot of homeless commission and the H-HAN meetings, all sorts of stuff. In fact, I've been to so many people say, well, we see you there, we know we're at the right meeting. So I have appreciated all of the complexity of this, and it's great that we're applying for the HUD reimbursable funds. Through all those meetings I went to, I was rather appalled that many of the organizations returned a lot of money. And having been wrongly booted out of shelters that were designed for me as an elder, I discovered the elders have been forgotten and were just pushed in with everybody else despite our high risk of COVID pneumonia, RSV, all of those things.

And I found it very disturbing that so much money was returned. They could have put us into a place instead of just letting us wander for 2 years. I keep my privacy. And so what I've discovered is I've been on a waitlist for a solo room at Complex Care since December of 2024. The reason I just heard was I cannot have a single room is they're taking people from the other shelters and putting them into Complex Care.

And so because I cannot go to the shelters because I'm high risk, I got booted out of complex care when I had COVID. They sent me to St. Francis Shelter with no notice and expected me to be in with the general population with COVID So we need some oversight, and I would like to see— I'm going to go look at what all the plans are and see how you're addressing the elders, because I've seen nothing. It's appalling. The elders need to be by ourselves. We need to have a solo room, and we're not given that.

We're put in with people that are suffering addictions and highly allergic to all of the ashes that they bring in. They interrupt our sleep. They have a lot of distress that really has a negative impact on us, so we need to put some meat into these plans so that money does not get returned and the elders are assisted. I'm tired of being homeless. 2 Years, long time, and it's outrageous given all of that money that got returned.

Thank you for all your work.

Okay, um, ma'am, you have— person you just met was Adrian with FCDC. Now I'm Adrienne. I'm sorry, can you hear me? So folks can only testify regardless of how many roles you hold once in this case. So I'm sorry about that.

So my other personality can't testify? No, I'm sorry, you are still one person. Okay. Yeah, thank you. But you're welcome to send us a written testimony by email if you would like.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Would any individuals like to come forward to testify?

Okay, not seeing any and no one is on the phone, then public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Motion to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Ms. Park. Point of information for the sponsor, you moving the original or the S version? Or the—. Great question, thank you.

Move the S. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, that's it.

Thanks for that, Mr. Johnson. The S version of AR 2026-166. Ms. Baldende, would you like to speak to your motion?

Sure. This, uh, this has been before us once, and we had unfortunately canceled a presentation at the last Housing and Homelessness Committee meeting, but I believe we received the presentation and additional information by email from the Health Department with respect to this S version.

I really appreciate the adjustments that have been made here from the initial version. I think the proposals are significantly stronger as currently constructed, and I urge my colleagues' support. Would love to invite Director Rashad to make any comments or to offer her perspective if she would like. Thank you.

Kimberly Rash, Anchorage Health Department. So this, uh, like Member Baldwin-Day stated, this S version really aligns with a lot of the plans that we have and strategies that we have throughout the municipality. So it really just ties everything in. Um, and so I'm hopeful that you all agree and pass it tonight because the next The next step after that is that we do have to process the paperwork internally and then get it submitted to HUD in time so that we can meet the deadline and receive the funds and start doing all the great work that is listed in there. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions, Ms. Baldwin-Day, or comments?

Okay, thanks. Um, and I apologize, I saw Ms. Scott was in the queue. Um, are you in the queue on this item? Oh, go ahead, Ms. Scott. Thank you.

Um, I want to thank Director Rasch for answering my questions in advance of this meeting, and also just want to state for the record, I plan to support this plan. Um, I think it looks great, but I do wish we had been able to take the time to review some pretty major changes in this plan at the scheduled committee meeting. And so in the future, would really like to request that the chair of that committee make sure that we are able to line by line go through the funding being allocated here. It's really important money going out into our community, and I would have appreciated a conversation in advance. Thanks.

Okay, I have, um, I know Ms. Baldwin-Day has spoken again. Is there— I don't see anyone else in the queue, so I will go next to Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, I was actually going to ask a question of the chairs for Housing and Homelessness if it would be possible for us to receive a more of a— more of a little more of a deep dive, particularly on the funding that's been allocated to the Housing Redevelopment Program. I've heard lots of questions from constituents about how this program is going to be rolled out and what the access points are going to be. There were a couple of slides in the presentation that was sent to us, but I think it would be very helpful to understand what exactly that will look like and how these funds are going to be distributed among the community housing development organizations.

So I would personally appreciate that if that's something that the committee co-chairs would be willing to do, or, you know, perhaps we could do a work session separately to discuss that. I am open to my colleagues' thoughts on how that ought to look.

Thanks. Please, Mr. Berrios-Rodilla, please respond. I don't want to speak for my fellow co-chair, but I think we would be open to having it on the committee. I also just want to think about timing and if we want to have it sooner than the next meeting, then certainly would be open to a work session as well.

But, but there would be room on the agenda for the next meeting if we want to do that. Yeah, I'm certainly— I'm not proposing that we postpone action or anything like that. I'm just thinking through how exactly the process looks once we've appropriated these funds. So thank you.

Thanks. I don't see anyone else in the queue, but I would like to be in the queue. Member Brawley, you're recognized. Thank you. Just a question for the administration.

Can you, um, uh, probably for Mr. Fawzy, but maybe for Ms. Rash, what, what is the timing constraint on this item? I know it's considered a must-pass per the administration. Um, I am not asking because I would like to propose an extension or a postponement of this, but I want to understand kind of when this needs to be approved by. Thank you.

To Chair Brawley, so the deadline for HUD is August 14th. Before that date, we would like to get it submitted into HUD. Last year when we submitted it on the deadline, the system went down. And so an employee had to stay very late, and they also work on Eastern Standard Time. And so trying to figure out that was a bit much.

So I would say that it takes about a week or so to do some internal routing of the document to make sure that we have all of the approvals, which would put us to the first week of August. And so I'm urging and hoping that the body approves it today so that we can stay on track.

Okay, thanks for that information.

I don't see anyone else in the queue, um, so members then may proceed to vote. And I will also note, um, Ms. Silvers is, um, planning to be on the phone for a period of time and will likely come back in person, but will be on, uh— so let me, before we vote, let me just make sure if she's on the phone.

Member Silvers, can you hear us?

Okay, uh, well, I don't want to hold up the business of our meeting, so she will, uh connect when she's able to, so we will proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, AR 2026 166, substitute version, uh, passes the body. Next, we'll move on to our new public hearing items.

Oh, okay, Ms. Silvers, are you there?

Yes, I'm here. Okay, thank you. So we will move on to 14A. As I said, our first— or our first new public hearing item, that's Resolution AR 2026-175. 5, A resolution approving an administrative agreement, Local 71-2026-06, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the Public Employees Local 71.

Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify.

Okay, seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. Before I seek a motion from the body, I'm going to turn Miss Scout to do a disclosure. Yeah, I have a potential conflict of interest. My partner is a member of Public Employees Local 71. Thank you.

Um, so that, uh, I guess we'll run through a few questions. Um, are you members of the same household? No. Okay. Uh, and does this person— you said this person works for Local 71.

Um, do they work specifically in the municipality of Anchorage or for the municipality? No, he works for the airport. Okay, um, so I— we did have prior conversation with the attorney. Their advice at the time was that this would not be considered a substantial personal interest because there is no direct connection to municipal employment here, and so you do not have a conflict. Thank you.

Participate. So now that we've gotten that out of the way, what is the will the body. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Bohlen, second by Miss Baldwin-Day to approve.

Um, would you like to speak to it, Mr. Bohlen? Nothing for me, thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. Member Silvers? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, this item passes unanimously. Next, we'll move on to item 14B, Resolution AR-2026-176, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, PLU AA-2026-08, between the municipality and the Plumbers and Steamfitters UA Local 367, PLU. Public hearing on this item is now open. Would anyone wish to testify? Please come forward.

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

Motion by Miss Scout to approve, second by Mr. Boland. Um, Miss Scout, would you like to speak to it? No comments. Okay, don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Silvers? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, item AR 2026-176 passes the body unanimously. Next we have item 14C, AR 2026-177, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, ENG 302 AA 2026-02, between the Municipality of Anchorage and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify. To testify?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. Um, I will note, uh, another item of disclosure. Previously I spoke with Mr. Handeland. Um, we have previously ruled that his, uh, interest or, or family member's interest in Local 302 is related to a different, um, entity than the Municipality of Anchorage, and so you do not have a conflict.

So We'll save ourselves a step of that disclosure. The ruling is the same. So what is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Vohland to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any comments? Nothing further. Thank you. Okay, no one in the queue.

Members may proceed to vote.

Member Silvers?

Yes. On a motion of 12 to 0, uh, AR 2026-177 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to item 14D, AR 2026-178, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, AMEA AA 2610, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the Anchorage Municipal Employees Association, AMEA. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to to testify?

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Miss Scout to approve, second by Mr. Volland.

Any comments? No. Okay, Mr. Gerker, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is, uh, Mr. Hatcher in the room?

Come on down. It's good to see you, Paul. How are you doing? I'm good, Jared, thanks. Paul Hatcher, AMEA Union President, District 5 representative or member, and an AMEA, uh, Muni employee, current planning senior planner.

What can I do for you, Mr. Grover? So, Mr. Hatcher, yesterday you sent sent me an email unsolicited discussing PERRA's prohibition on interfering with unions' administration. Do you mind if I ask what prompted you to send me that email? So we, through the chair, Mr. Coker, we had a meeting. We have a quarterly meeting with HR, and Ms. Billingsley mentioned that there was some questions that you might have or had related to this, this AA, because it's not straight— it's not just the holiday pay.

It's a— the merger of ASCA and AMEA at the time that we voted on in April. And so that was preemptively to provide you with any information you wanted. That was vetted and given to me by ASCA, Heidi Daigris and Doug Carson, our business agent. Right. Look forward to you.

Familiar with Mr. Carson's work? That's what he said too. I'm sure he did. So I'm curious because And then further down at the end of your email, you ended it with an admonition, I guess, of warning against interference with union administration.

Do you believe, I guess, why do you believe it was appropriate to raise that prospect of unlawful interference before I'd even asked a question? So there was question on dues, dues increases, at least that's what we'd heard. Heard from HR that you had questions on prior, which I had not, by the way. Okay, I just— and raising of dues and that process and things like that. Uh, we— so we preemptively sent an email.

Uh, there was question also— sorry, I'm trying to bring my thoughts together. Um, previous to now, if a member wanted to remove themselves from the union, they would basically send an email to HR and ask to be removed, which is actually not what they're supposed to do. It's something we've been talking to some of the other unions about. It's just a process that needs to be cleaned up. And so that is where that line of, where that line came from is to kind of eliminate HR having to be that person or be that entity entity to take care of the member.

The member needs to contact the union and resolve that issue with the union prior to having that taken care of. Okay. So just to narrow it down and just be really specific here, it is not the union's position that assembly members asking questions, debating amendments, or maybe even voting against a labor contract is an unfair labor practice? Would you restate that again? Is it the union's position that assembly members asking questions, debating amendments, or even voting against a labor contract is an unfair labor practice?

I do not believe so. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Appreciate it. And for my colleagues, I don't have an issue with the dues language that we are presented with because it says voluntary over and over and over.

Other unions might take— might take a look. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, next I have Miss Scout in the queue. I'd like to call the question.

Okay, motion by Miss Scout to call the question. Is there a second?

Yes. I will note, um, there is no other members in the queue, so, um, I think, yeah, I think you calling it might have, uh— I'm going to invoke former member Myers and say sometimes we would vote on those, sometimes they were more of a signal. Um, okay, uh, members may proceed to vote. There's no one else in the queue.

Okay, yeah, let the clerk catch up real quick.

Uh, Member Silvers on approving AR 2026 6-178. Member Silvers, if you voted, I did not hear you.

Yes. Thank you.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2020-6178 passes the body. Yes. Next, we'll move on to Item 14E, AR 2026-179, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, IBEW AA 2026-04, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1547, IBEW. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, 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 Skow. Any comments? No, ma'am. Okay, no one else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Silvers.

Members, all those on AR 2026-179?

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, item 2020— AR 2026-179 passes the body. Next, we'll move on to item 14F. AR 2026-180, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, IBEW AA 2026-05, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1547, IBEW Tech. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

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

Motion by Ms. Park to approve, second by Ms. Scout. Any further comments?

Okay, not seeing anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Silvers? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-180 passes— oh, sorry, AR 2026-180 passes the body unanimously. Next, we are on 14G, AO 2026-95, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly repealing Anchorage Municipal Code 10.45.050, surcharge on admission charges to events held in George M. Sullivan Sports Arena. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

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

Motion by Miss Scout to approve, second by Mr. Boland. Would you like to speak to it, Miss Scout? I believe we've had sufficient conversation about this among the body. I appreciate, um, those discussions and work sessions and committee meetings, and I'm also excited to see the Sullivan Arena, um, with a new contract and want to support, support those new contractors. So excited to move this.

Okay, any other member comments? I don't see anyone in the queue. Oh, Mr. Bolland, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, yeah, I, I want to, I guess, um, I want to thank folks in the community who flagged some prior issues with operations at Sullivan. And I really want to thank the administration, in particular Mr. Falzy, for working hard on this and for, yeah, working to get us to a place where this contract can have good oversight. I think ultimately though, I, I, I will want to plant a flag that the, the conversation around the future of the Sullivan Arena still kind of has to move forward, and we need to be able to think thoughtfully about the trade-offs. You know, is it an asset to us or more of a liability in the long term? Um, but all that to say, big thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Member Silvers.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, item, uh, AO-2026-95 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 14H, AO-2026-96, an ordinance authorizing acquisition of real properties legally described as Lots, uh, 17 and 18 of Block 1, Laurel Acres Subdivision, Plat 7144, generally located northeast of Minnesota Drive and west of 100th Avenue. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Park to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Would you like to make any comments? Yes, um, I'm really happy to see that this particular property is being taken care of by Cook Inlet Housing. This is about a dozen blocks from my house And the property was— I'm sorry to interrupt, I believe you may be speaking on the next item. If you touch more—. Yeah, you're, you're taking up 14 minutes.

I'm so sorry. It's okay, it's okay, save those for next time. Okay, any— uh, I don't see anyone in the queue on, um, AO-2026-96, uh, Laurel Acres, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Silvers.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-96 passes the body unanimously. Next, we have item AO 2026-97, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal of real property at less than fair market value located at 6721 Teschler Drive off East 68th Avenue in Anchorage and legally described as Lot 5, Block 2, Dawn Village Subdivision, Plat 76229, Parcel ID 014106143, to Cook Inlet Housing Authority. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Okay, seeing and hearing none wishing to testify, this Public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion by Ms. Park, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Please proceed with Park. Thank you, Chair. I'm really happy to see that Cook Inlet is taking responsibility for this property. It's about a dozen blocks from my house, and there was a number of people living in this abandoned property for a long period of time that really caused caused a lot of distress to the neighbors. There were several addicted people living in that property, and it was a real detriment to the neighborhood.

And I think it should give us pause to reflect that it is not only in certain areas of town that substance abuse is occurring, but in fact all over the Anchorage bowl. And I will be voting for this and urge everyone to do the same.

Okay, uh, any additional comments? Not seeing anyone in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Silvers? Yes.

Member Park.

Member Park, is your computer not working?

Okay, thank you. And a vote of 12 to 0, um, AO 2026-97 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to our, uh, new and continued, uh, public hearings regarding liquor licenses, marijuana licenses, or other potentially quasi-judicial items. So as a reminder, these are public hearing items. The first one is 15A, Resolution AR-2026-199, a resolution approving an alcohol special land use permit for sporting activity or event, license number 6076-2022.

-62 For Mulligans LLC, DBA Mulligans, in the B-3 General Business District located at 9191 Old Seward Highway, Suites 10, 11, 12, in within Toyon Subdivision, Track 3, Plat, uh, 8324. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

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

Motion by Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve. Any discussion?

Okay, there's no one in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Silvers.

Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, item AR 2026-199 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to resolution AR 2026-200, a resolution approving a modification to a previously approved special land use permit for Enlightened Gardens LLC, a marijuana cultivation facility with license number M21551, DBA Enlightened Gardens. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to to testify?

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, uh, to testify, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by Mr. Vohland, second by Miss Scout.

Any comments? Okay, uh, not seeing anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Silvers?

Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, uh, item AR 2026-200 passes the body unanimously. Uh, we have our last public hearing item tonight. This is 15C, AR 2026- 201, a resolution approving a modification to a previously approved special land use permit for Enlightened Extracts LLC, a marijuana manufacturing facility with license number M21552, DBA Enlightened Extracts. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one 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 Ms. Scout. Any further comments?

Okay, not seeing any in the queue, um, members may proceed to vote.

Member Silvers.

Uh, Member Silvers, did you vote on AR 2026-201?

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, um, item AO— or AR 2026-201 passes the body. Um, so I'm going to suggest two things, and I see Miss Silvers is joining us back in the room. Um, One is that we take a 5-minute break before we take up our remaining items, and the second is I'm going to ask for Mr. Gates or the attorneys to distribute— we have a late-on-the-table resolution related to— so this is something that we would need to vote to take up for action tonight. This is regarding the short-term rental registration that I spoke of before, but I want to give members time to read it and then we can get into to it and decide if we're going to take action on that tonight. So I'm going to suggest 5-minute break, distribution of the item I just mentioned, then we will take that up, and then we will take up the 2 items in the 12s.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we're almost ready to come back to order.

And I will note for members, we do have the laid on the table item that has not yet been read into the record that I— we will get started once all members are seated.

Okay, I'll ask anyone who would like to have side conversations, please take those outside for the time being. So before us is a laid on the table resolution, and this was something I alluded to earlier. Apologies for not having it ready for the consent agenda. It's been that kind of night. Um, uh, so I will read this item and then I will note because it is a resolution and it's proposed for action tonight, um, it would take 8 votes to lay it on the table, um, and that is to take it up.

And then if we take it up, um, then it's a, a typical majority vote. So just to be clear, the first step we need to decide is if we are laying this on the table. It is AR unnumbered 2026. It would be considered 10B8 if it's on our agenda, but the consent agenda has already passed, so we will take it up as its own item. A resolution of the Anchorage Assembly requesting the Administration and Code Enforcement Division to implement a policy for enforcement of the new short-term rental STR registration requirement that focuses on obtaining compliance within a reasonable time and not on fines or deterrence of STR operations.

So this, as I mentioned earlier in the evening, is an item, uh, and we can make the case for the time sensitiveness, but I understand there are maybe one or more members that need to make a disclosure. So first I'll turn to Mr. Handeland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to let everyone know that I do own a short-term rental.

I have completed the form and got it all submitted, so we're all good on there. But just wanted to make sure everyone knew. Thank you. So I have spoken with the attorneys, as I know you have as well, and the ruling is that it is not a substantial personal interest that could benefit from the passage of this, not just owning a short-term rental, but because this is simply extending the timeline for compliance. Next, I have in the queue— so I'm going to rule that Mr. Handlin does not have a conflict.

Next Thanks, Mr. Voland. Do you have a similar disclosure? Well, that's not why I was in the queue. I could make one though, um, that I own a rental unit. I owner-occupy a duplex.

Um, the rental unit for a short time was operated as a short-term rental, but now it's been returned to a long-term rental. Okay, thanks. I'll just briefly ask, is there anybody who feels they need to make a relevant disclosure? Yes, Miss Park, go ahead. So I have in my home, I have a single bedroom that is rented short-term part of the year.

So I have applied for the licensing and not yet gotten all the information back that I need to provide for the platform, but that is my interest, one bedroom.

Thank you. I guess I'm going to rule similarly that Ms. Park, because this is simply extending a deadline that has not yet passed, that Ms. Park does not have a substantial interest such that it's a conflict. And I'll see if anybody has objection to that. Well, Madam Chair, I, I want to say maybe one other layer. I don't have an objection, but can I, um, I guess raise a point on the disclosure?

Would that be in order?

Uh, yeah, I suppose make a comment. We'll see if it's an objection. So I know in the past, um, we've taken action on items that have been very broad and affected a lot of folks in the community. For instance, I remember when we passed the, um, when we increased the exemption on the, on the business personal property tax inventory piece. I myself as a business owner helped bring that forward and voted on it, but it had a very— it was very broad in its scope of impact to many, many people.

So it wasn't like a specific thing that would benefit just me or just my business. So I think that's also something to keep in the context here. Thanks. Okay, thanks. At this point conflict.

I have made a ruling. I have not heard an objection to that ruling. And so unless somebody makes an objection, then I am going to rule that Ms. Park does not have a conflict.

Okay.

Not hearing any others, then as I said, I have read this item into the record. The motion is to— or I am sorry, there is no motion before us. So I am seeking a motion regarding this item. Move to lay on the table. Second.

Sorry. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to lay this on the table. Second by Mr. Handeland. Um, I mean, I— sorry, here, I'm going to request that I can have the floor as a member. Sure, Member Brawley.

Thank you. Since I'm the sponsor of this, I will explain. Um, this has been a discussion I think I mentioned earlier this evening, but I know that feels like a long time ago. Um, so there is a deadline to register that is in code for July 30th, 2026, um, and that is quickly approaching. We have had multiple requests, um, to, uh, either extend that deadline in some way or simply to not penalize folks who have not fully, uh, registered at that point.

And so, um, the alternatives before us would be to change code, which requires introducing an ordinance and taking action on it at a future meeting. This ordinance— or this resolution instead would allow for essentially a time-limited extension where there would be a grace period where fines would not be implemented. Sorry, one second.

Maybe actually I'm going to ask, um, the attorney to explain what this does, and I think that, I think that should speak to the timeliness. Thank you, Mr. Gates or Ms. Gardner.

Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yeah, so this resolution will basically, uh, ask our code enforcement law enforcement officers and the municipal clerk's office and the administration, anyone responsible for enforcement of the STR registration requirement, enforcement actions provide persons who aren't registered with like 30 days to comply, and if they do, then dismiss whatever fines are imposed. You know, so it's just, I guess, assures them that they're not suddenly going to be shut down immediately on day 15. You know, you have sufficient time to do the fairly simple registration process and avoid any fines that were sent to the person. If they simply register and provide the registration number to whatever enforcement officer sent them an NOV, uh, that we are encouraging that officer to dismiss all fines.

Since compliance is achieved, that's the main point of the whole registration chapter for STRs.

Thank you. So the timeliness here is that this is our last regular meeting until this deadline. We do have a special meeting that is not intended to take up other items at this time, and our next opportunity to address this therefore would be August 4th. Which could be retroactive, but because the request has been made at least 10 days in advance and the timeliness of this meeting, it seems like if the body intends to take any action like this, the opportunity would be tonight versus waiting for 2 weeks. So that is the timeliness.

Other members in the queue, questions, comments? Ms. Scout.

Yeah, I appreciate this. This proposal coming forward, I have a number of questions. Um, apology. Oh, sorry, I'm sorry, I was up. Do we have a motion on the floor?

Oh, isn't it the motion to lay on the table, or no?

Okay, okay. So yeah, thank you for the clerk to keeping, keeping us in order. So First, we need a motion to lay this on the table and a second, then we can have discussion about timelines. I'm sorry, I was a little bit out of order myself. And then if we do lay this on the table, which takes 8 votes, then we can speak to the merits of this item.

Okay, great. So is there— I'm sorry, is there a motion to lay this on the table? Wait.

Who seconded? Does anyone know? I believe it was Baldwin-Day and Handlin seconded. Is that right? Yes.

Okay, okay, sorry. So we are in the space that we have a motion, so we are— so in order for debate, um, and I think— but because the motion right now is to lay on the table, we need to keep that debate, uh, more so to is this timeliness and do we want to take it up now?

Okay.

Um, I guess my questions around timeliness are perhaps for the clerk or the administration. Um, I'm just trying to get a handle on— do we have an estimate on how many short-term rentals we have in the municipality and how many have registered so far. I'm wondering how many folks this would impact if this is a significant and, um, timely need in our community to move this now.

Yeah, Madam Clerk, can you answer that? Yeah, it's, um, based on previous legislation, it was estimated that there is somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 1,900 short-term rentals in the municipality. The last time we looked in the software, over 1,100 individual licensees have registered, or have, yeah, registered 1,900 short-term rental spaces. Okay. 11— Over 1,100 people have signed up for a place, and then they've registered over 1,900 units.

So how many are we waiting for? We don't know. Okay. We're guessing somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500. Okay, so more than double of what's registered so far.

Um, I have a question also for members Handeland and Park who are short-term rental owners. Um, how long did this application or registration take? Is it an arduous process?

Um, through the chair, um, it was— I don't know, it wasn't too bad. I think I took like 10 minutes. I mean, there was a little bit where, um, it was a tad confusing, but overall it wasn't too bad. Okay, thank you. No further questions.

Okay, uh, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to ask for a card to speak to timeliness. Of laying on the table without actually speaking to the item.

I don't necessarily think there's a timeliness issue. What the resolved of the item does is extends essentially a grace period for the remainder of— it says for the remainder of 2026 at least.

And then any found to be in violation would be provided a, quote, "reasonable period of time," such as no more than 30 days, to become registered. However, if you look at the whereas on page 1, line 25, when we passed the original ordinance, there was already a grace period built in. So if I'm understanding this correctly, the effective date of the ordinance would be July 31st, Then the, you know, the clerk would have to become aware of a non-compliant operator.

Section F, which was in the original ordinance, no owner shall be subject to fines for failure to register until 90 days after May 2026, but there's a 14-day essentially cure. Therefore, thereafter an owner served a notice of violation for failure to register shall be provided 14 days to comply. That's 14 days after the notice of violation, not 14 days after July 31st. So we've had 3 months for these short-term rental units to register. In my estimation, that's adequate time for a 10-minute process There's been media about this.

There's been messaging through the municipality to the public about this requirement. There's already a grace period built in. And so be— because of all that context, I don't think it can really be argued that there's an urgency here. I think that there already is essentially a mechanism to cure, and it's unlikely You know, I think when folks get a violation that they're not going to avail themselves of that process that Member Handeland described. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks. I'll just briefly note, um, not on the merits of this item, but there are two steps here. So I think the question before members really is, is this something that we want to even contemplate taking action on tonight? The second question is really the merits of the item. So, um, I would suggest if folks have questions on the merits of the item to hold those, and then if we can resolve the question whether we take it up tonight.

And I'm not, I'm not speaking to argue for a specific point of or path, just that we should resolve whether we are taking this up tonight or not. Ms. Park.

Thank you. Um, so I just went to look at my application and found out that my login for the MUNI doesn't work. I don't know how many other people have had problems doing this, but, um, as to the timeliness, I would suggest that since this is our only meeting before August 4th, that we proceed with, uh, this AR. Thank you.

Mr. McCormick. I'll be voting to take this up so we can discuss the merits. I'd push back a little bit on there being enough media or coverage for, for people to know that this is something— this new process is being required. I mean, uh, we, we as the city here spend hundreds of thousands of dollars telling, uh, educating voters in town of all the new taxes that they could vote on to themselves and how much more money that they could give to the city. I don't think we've spent very much money at all in regards to asking for compliance.

I think discussing the merits of this tonight before the deadline is in order. Thank you. Mr. Gerker.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I would just— I would just say that to the timeliness, change management takes time, and it takes there's a lot of people that's involved in this. There's a lot of operators here in the community. And it's, it's, it's clear to me that it's going to take a little bit more time. You know, I'm the liaison with the Visit Anchorage, and this is something that came up in the last board meeting.

And what many of them said was, look, we're in a— we're in the absolute heat of summer season, everything is incredibly crazy for all of our operators, and it's easy for something like this to get, to get lost. And there's, there's a, there's a fair amount of, I think, concern within the short-term rental owner community about potential fines and violations that we could really alleviate with, with moving this forward. And I think I think that makes a lot of— and this is our last opportunity to do it before that deadline expires, where we could, um, really alleviate a lot of concerns for owners. So I, I do think that this is timely. I do think it is time sensitive, and I do encourage folks to move it along.

Mr. Handeland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was gonna, I mean, kind of reiterate what, uh, Member Gerker had said there of— I mean, this summertime. This is when everyone who's doing anything with tourism related, it's, it's their busy season. And so having something that's new, even if it's maybe relatively small amount of time, it's— you got a lot of things getting pulled, pulling you in different directions.

And so I would encourage my colleagues to vote yes.

Okay, don't see anyone else in the queue. The motion before us again is to lay this item on the table, um, at which point we could take up the merits of that item. Members may proceed to vote, and as a reminder, this takes 8 votes because it is a resolution being laid on the table for action.

On a vote of 9 to 3, this item was laid on the table for action. Um, so I will ask members, uh, if you would like to speak to the merits, now is the time.

And when we get to that point, just as a reminder, then it will be a majority vote. Uh, yeah, and sorry, before that we need a motion to approve. Move to approve. Second. Second.

Motion by Mr. McCormick, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. McCormick. I just had a question on this. Um, as we're reading it in Section 1, It's saying the assembly recommends that for the remainder. Does that leave this up to the administration to determine if they will follow that recommendation?

So I will turn that question to the attorneys. I believe we did have— I will say we had some discussion about kind of what the language should be.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair and Member McCormick. I think this language is chosen sort of in recognition of the separation of powers here. You know, enforcement of codes is generally an executive function, and so is legislation. If we pass code, maybe we can direct some there in code, but this is a resolution where we're asking for enforcement a certain way, but we can't demand it or require it in this sort of vehicle.

Well, then my question is to the administration. Something that they feel would be amenable if passed. Through the Chair, Member McCormick, we would support this approach. The object of code enforcement is to inform, educate, and then enforce. And I think this is a clear-cut intent as we manage this change.

It would— we support it. And frankly, it's less work than starting an enforcement action and having to undo it. Awesome. Thank you for that response. Thank you for your work.

With Code Enforcement. As kind of alluded to earlier, this is a new process. I think it's going to take time, take time to inform people that are operating STRs. I appreciate the leniency and the time to come into compliance and given the 30 days and giving people timely time to come in, come into compliance when notified about this. For that reason, I will be in support of this, and I wouldn't mind being added as a co-sponsor if you are open to it.

One second. Yeah, just to be clear, if anybody would like to be added as a co-sponsor, they are welcome to be. Thank you. And I—. Okay, I see— Madam Chair, I would like to be as well.

Okay. Ms. Park, Mr. McCormick, Ms. Baldwin-Day. I guess, does anybody not want to be added? I don't want to be added. Okay, okay, okay.

Uh, so the clerk will make note as folks said. Um, next we have Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I would like to offer an amendment on page 2, line 23. There's a phrase towards the end of that line between, um, commas, for the remainder of 2026 at least.

I would replace that with until September 30th. And then on line 25, uh, there's a statement such as no more than 30 days. I would strike out such as.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Johnson, uh, to amend page 2, line 23, and replace the phrase for the remainder of 2026 at least with the phrase "until September 30th," and then on line 25 to strike the words "such as." That was seconded by Mr. Boland. Any further discussion? Yeah, I just— to explain my rationale quickly on the second part, "such as," I feel like that vagueness is potentially confusing.

I would rather we just provide a little bit more clarity on what our expectation is in terms of how long people have to come into compliance. And then for the other piece of it, making it September 30th until the end of 2026. I understand and I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should extend some grace for people to come into compliance and also recognize that we're in the middle of the busy season. But I think extending our deadline for people to actually abide by the ordinance for an additional 5 months, I think, risks going so far as to sort of undermine the intent of the ordinance that we did adopt by this body back back in May. And so I think this is a more reasonable and balanced approach.

I'm also being mindful of the fact that while I understand kind of the process that got us here and the timeliness of it, um, this is something we're taking up without the public really having any opportunity to weigh in. And I will say I've already gotten at least one comment where I have gotten a comment from somebody watching the meeting saying like, whoa, wait, if I had known this coming, I would have had some thoughts to share with the body on it. And I think we should proceed cautiously. I mean, again, I understand that we need to dispose of this tonight. I agree with that, but I would argue for taking a less significant step in light of the fact that we're doing this without any meaningful engagement from the public on, on this, other than those that have reached out and asked for an extension.

So that, that's the rationale I'm providing. Thank you.

Sorry, just for the record, can you remind me who seconded the motion? Was it Ms. Baldwin-Day? Oh, Mr. Bowen. Okay, Mr. Bowen. Um, okay, next, Mr. Bowen in the queue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I'm very aligned with Member Johnson on this. I was actually going to make a very similar amendment. I think that the language 'at least' is way too open-ended, um, and so I, I want to go back to sort of what we're doing here. So what we're what we're doing is we are saying for an extended timeline, we're going to lengthen the time to come back into compliance.

Um, the, the ordinance that this essentially seeks to provide guidance to the administration on, I believe it was sponsored by, I want to say myself, Member Johnson, and Member Baldwin-Day, and we built that into this to say, Hey, again, this is like a fix-it ticket. You get 14 days to comply. So now we're saying for an extended timeline, you get a longer period on that fix-it, which, okay, we can do that. I definitely think that September 30th is a better timeline for me because another underlying reason that we brought this ordinance forward. I think there was a lot of, um, debate that we had was we need to do this portion first, the registration portion first, so we can get the information that we supposedly don't have about how many short-term rentals there are, who owns them, where they are.

And then that will allow us to then have more, what some would argue, would be data-driven policy. So I feel like the longer we put this off, the less information we have, the less informed policy we can bring forward in the future about what, if anything, we want to do about short-term rentals. So I don't want to necessarily delay this indefinitely. I think there is, um, you know, yes, I think that education is great and giving people the opportunity. That's why there was that original language But we also need at some point to make sure that people are complying so that we have accurate data that can inform us as policymakers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you. Just a comment here, that being that, you know, at this juncture it seems like connecting with the folks who reached out to us from some of the registration platforms Airbnb, Vacasa, VRBO, etc., would be a good move to invite them to partner with us to let their users know that this deadline is approaching. And that was a commitment that was made particularly by Airbnb, the Airbnb platform, that they would be communicating directly with their users in the Anchorage area.

And so I think this would be a great opportunity for us to leverage that relationship and any other contacts we have at other platforms to help them help us help their users come into compliance in a timely fashion. I'm fine with the extension through September 30th with 30 days to cure. However, I do want to be clear that I would not support any further extension of that deadline. So I'm good with it in terms of this initial step, getting everyone acclimated to the idea that we're registering short-term rentals in Anchorage, but you only get one grace period as far as I'm concerned. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Gerger. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to real briefly— Member Johnson's point is well made and well received. You know, when I was at the Visit Anchorage board of directors meeting this last week and this item was being discussed, They actually weren't asking until the end of the year. So, you know, that's— it's when I saw those end of the year, I was like, oh, that's great.

But they were actually asking for October. So end of September, October is pretty dang close. So I think this would serve the industry well and give us a little bit more time to get everybody booted into the system without causing great consternation that there's going to be fines or violations or you're not going to be able to operate your business anymore, while also making sure that we do get the data, um, in a, you know, relatively expeditious fashion. Thank you. Mr. Handlin.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, to Member Baldwin-Day's, uh, point, Airbnb did contact me about doing it. So I got a notification saying, hey, you've got to update your registration, uh, with it. I think I ignored it the first time because I, I had already filled out, but I had not put in my, my number there, and then it came back with another notification. So I'm, I'm not sure if people are still getting notifications on it, but I do know Airbnb is sending those out.

Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. I will confirm what Mr. Handlin says. They are sending out notices from Airbnb, um, and also you know, the notice of when it's due.

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

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, that motion passes. So now we have the item as amended before us. Any further discussion?

Not seeing anyone in the queue, members may proceed to vote. And again, uh, the late on the table was a supermajority. This is a majority.

On a vote of 12 to 0, this resolution, uh, currently unnumbered, uh, unanimous— unanimously passes the body. And thank you, uh, for the body's indulgence in taking up this matter given the timing of this meeting, the next meeting. So next we'll move on to our last two items of the night. Um, we are taking them up one at a time in order. Um, so I will read them, but first I will state a couple very brief things just so that we are clear about our procedure.

Okay, uh, so I'll briefly say before we— I read the first one of these into the record. First, we held a work session on Friday, July 17th, not on the substance of these two items before us, but on the process overall. So if members of the public have not reviewed that, they may find that of interest. Also, at a previous meeting, our last regular meeting of July 7th, when both of these items were on the agenda, the chair had ruled that Member Martinez has a substantial personal interest in both of these items. Which creates a conflict.

And so he is not able to participate in these, either 12A or 12B, as a member. And that was a previous ruling. But also, as I had stated last meeting when these matters were taken up, that the member— and this is in consultation with our attorneys— the member may be present in the audience during the discussion. He does not have to be, but he is welcome to be as a member of the audience. And in addition, that for each of these items, the member will have an opportunity at the beginning of the item before a motion is made to make a brief statement.

This is again not public testimony, but we are making sure that we have a fair opportunity because this is dealing with a member. And then at the end of the members— other members debate, the 11 of us, prior to a vote that is taken, this member in question, Mr. Martinez, may have another opportunity to make a statement. So to be clear, this may mean speaking up to 4 times, twice on 12A and twice on 12B, um, and he is welcome to, uh, use that opportunity or not. Um, and then I'll remind members, on the advice of counsel, we are not currently in a posture of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial, but all of our rules of order still apply. And again, I'll remind folks there is no public testimony on this item.

So with that, I will— I see Mr. Martinez is leaving the dais, so we will move to item 12A. Resolution AR-2026-191, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly censuring Assemblymember George Martinez based on the findings of the Alaska Public Offices Commission and reaffirming the Assembly's— excuse me— commitment to campaign finance integrity. I will note that there are— is only one version of this item. What is the will of the body? Move to postpone indefinitely.

There's a motion to postpone indefinitely by Mr. Voland. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ms. Park. Mr. Vohland, would you like to speak to that?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I don't know that this is— this item, as I read it, is ripe at this time. Um, I— there's a lot of information that has been swirling around, um, on social media. There was these, um, you know, an APOC violation publicly reported that came forward. And, and I think that this resolution, this item pertains to that, to the campaign-related piece.

Since then, there has been made other accusations in, in the public arena, you know, social media.

That's sort of above and beyond the campaign finance issue that is referenced in this resolution. This resolution also says, you know, we will consider this to be the end of this matter.

However, issues— I guess concerns have been raised about travel-related activity within the, the purview of official work. And so I think that that's a different question than this resolution. I also appreciated the opportunity to have a work session with the attorneys and for us to lay out the, their concerns around due process, and that if disciplinary action, whether that be removal or something entirely different, were to be added to language around a censure, then we would need to have some type of investigation, some type of findings. And I think it's really important that we're all working off of the same set of facts, and I don't think that we've had that opportunity. I think over the past few weeks, facts have been put out to the public, and those, those facts have sort of evolved over time.

And so I would like to get us to a place where, as policymakers, we can be working from the same foundation of facts. What we do with those is up to each member, But I think that this comes short of that. I would be interested in having either the municipal attorney's office or internal audit present us with their findings of fact, and perhaps, you know, an action like this could come back before us. But right now, I just don't I'm not at a place where I can determine whether it's this action or another action or no action at all, um, is what is needed at this time. I think that there's a different item that we can take action on tonight that maybe would, would get us there, would move us in the direction of something that I'm talking about, but I don't think that this is here quite yet.

Um, yeah, I think I will leave my comments there for now. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you. So I agree with my colleague that this resolution is very narrowly constructed, and that was intentional because the facts pertaining to this resolution are quite clear. And in fact, this resolution to censure is only a recitation of the facts as we know them. As have been laid out by the Alaska Public, Public Offices Commission and the eventual sanction by that body.

So this is— we're not editorializing here, uh, and it was made clear to us in our work session that is, it is squarely within the purview of this body to issue a formal reprimand. And there is no disciplinary language in this resolution. It is simply an expression of our collective disapproval of the conduct of a member, which is in order, does not violate due process, and I believe merits our consideration because this issue, as my colleague rightly pointed out, is separate and apart from other allegations that have been raised since. There is a fundamental difference between something that happens with campaign finance versus something that happens with public funds. In one's public capacity as an elected official.

And so I do believe these are separate issues, separate questions, and we can dispense with one before taking up the other. So I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on the motion to postpone indefinitely and to take up this item as written. Thank you. Next, Ms. Schoep. Thank you.

Um, I agree with Member Baldwin-Day on many of the points laid out. I believe that this censure resolution is strictly about the violations, um, in the campaign finance realm. The investigation has concluded, the facts are publicly available, and importantly, members of the public have spoken out and asked for us to take action, um, on this and to hear them. And I think that's incredibly important for all of our ability to maintain and build public trust. And I would urge my colleagues to vote no on indefinitely postponing this item.

Mr. Handeland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I would say that I would encourage not to postpone indefinitely on this. For the APOC issue, that is one thing where we do know all the information. That is not something that is really at question here.

And that's something that for the next item we have pulled that out for our S1 version. And so I would encourage my colleagues to not postpone this and let's dispatch with this.

Miss Sowers.

Yeah, um, so I do think that this This resolution does address a very different thing than the next resolution. And so, you know, the APOC violation is one thing that has been investigated by APOC. And I think handling these two very separately as two separate matters is something— it's consistent with what I've heard from my constituents in East Anchorage that really want to have this dealt with separately as two separate matters and not conflated together in a way that's confusing or just makes it so that it's harder to get to the facts. Thanks.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. I have a question for council. So in considering this, uh, you know, we have in the subsequent item S&S, S1, S2 versions that call for an investigation to take place, and I believe the intent is to sort of parse, um, the item before us as being separate and not influencing the subsequent item.

But I just want to fact-check with with, with council that if, uh, Item 12A is adopted by the body, that that will not in any way affect any of the actions outlined in the, uh, S1 or S2 versions of, of, uh, 2026-192. Is my assumption correct here?

Through the chair to Member Johnson, yes, that's correct. This, uh, censure resolution deals with the APOC violations and the S versions of the— of item 12B, all the S versions pull that— no longer have the APOC component and are just directing investigation into municipal activities. Okay, thank you for that confirmation.

Okay, I know Mr. Bowen, you've already spoken on this, so I'm gonna first go to others in the queue. So Mr. Perez-Verdia. Thank you, Chair. So some thoughts The, the, well, first of all, I, I, my understanding from our work session is that a member can, can bring forward a motion to censure at any point, and that's the right of members, and, and that essentially this, this item comes with no penalties. It's simply a statement of disapproval, and, and similarly, we do resolutions all the time where we, take a, take a stand on a, an item in, in, uh, that's, that's going through the House or the Senate and for our state or, or some, something that's happening in the world, we'll, we'll voice our, our opinion as a body about it.

And so this seems similar to me that we're simply voicing whether we, um, are disapproving of something that, that, that a member did or not. And so, uh, you know, I'm not necessarily in favor of postponing it. I think we either need to vote to, um, to do it or not. Um, and, uh, I think that the information is in front of us. I think we just have to make the decision as a member whether we want to be a part of, um, voicing disapproval of a member or not.

So I will not be in support of postponing. I'd rather we bring up the item and vote on it. Thanks.

Uh, next, Ms. Park has not spoken on this.

Thank you.

I'm concerned that this S-1 version documents both the APOC allegations and some questions regarding municipal expenses that have not been previously addressed. Ms. Park. Yeah, I think based on your Comments. So just to be clear, we're on AR 2026-191, number 12A, of which there's no additional version, so it's just this version. Okay, thank you.

I know it's been a long night, so, um, Ms. Park, you're welcome to get back in the queue. Yeah, I'm, I'm still in favor of postponing, and I I support Vice Chair Voland in that. Thank you. Okay, next, Mr. Gerker, you have not spoken on this, so I'll go to you. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

I— look, many of my colleagues have already said this. These are two separate items. You have the APOC matter, which is egregious. I mean, those are APOC's own words. This is a particularly egregious violation.

And I do personally think is a significant violation of public trust. But this is separate from the next item, which is calling for investigation into the use of municipal travel funds. I do think this should move forward separately, as we heard from council. And I think Member Perez Verdia just articulately outlined it. We do have the ability as a body to voice our opinion on on a matter or the conduct of a colleague.

Consequently, I will call the question.

Okay, there's been a motion to call the question. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. McCormick. A reminder, this is not a debatable motion, so now we need to vote to call the question.

And to be clear, we are voting on the Action of whether to call the question, not on the underlying item.

Okay, on a vote of 6 to 5, um, that item has not passed. As a reminder, there are 11 of us up on the dais, but affirmative votes still need 7 votes. So, uh, okay, now the motion to call the question has failed. I have Mr. Voland in the queue. Go ahead.

And we're— and again, we are still on Motion to postpone. Postpone indefinitely. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I still think we should postpone, and here's why. I, I understand that we, um, have the ability as, as a body to pass a censure resolution.

Um, however, you know, first of all, I, I don't buy that these are two separate items. The rollout of all of these accusations that we have seen on social media started with the APOC, then moved into accusations around travel activities in an official capacity. This also came forward after all of those social media posts were swirling in the public. Um, so there's that piece. Also, I would point you to the resolves In Section 4, it says, "The Assembly intends this censure as its complete and proportionate response to this matter.

Upon Assemblymember Martinez's full compliance to the Commission's order, the Assembly considers the matter closed and contemplates no further action arising from the conduct addressed in the Commission's order." So for my part, I'm not ready to close the book on this. And I'm more interested in activities that are related to Assembly travel and activities related to an official capacity. And I'll just put this out there, one of the things that, that I was interested in exploring was disciplinary action other than removal, but that could be, that could go along with censure. So if there was a level of investigation done and it was determined, okay, well, yeah, there was a violation of, of travel in an official capacity, then maybe there are other disciplinary options open to us as a body, open to leadership, you know, whether that be a travel restriction for a time or something else. And so I would just like a little bit more time to say, okay, you know, we disapprove of this action, action, but if there are other related actions, particularly the done in an official capacity, that we can actually take some meaningful action on that.

I just don't think that we have that set of facts to establish that secondary disciplinary action. I think we heard that pretty clearly from the attorneys in the work session that we had.

Finally, I do worry about, you know, if— okay, if we're going to say this is just relevant this is its own thing and this is just the APOC activity, this is just the campaign activity, then I worry we're going to start setting a precedent that we bring forward a censure resolution every time we have an APOC violation. And that can very quickly get politicized, get weaponized, and I just don't think that's a good track to go down before we have established a more clear set of facts, and to me, really, the meaningful piece of that is, is in the performance of your official duties. There's also the layer where APOC has issued its fine. There's been a penalty in the public, and Member Martinez is going to have to pay that fine. So there's already been sort of a punishment in that regard.

So yeah, just to recap, I'm interested in, in the follow-along piece of official capacity and what actions we might take that maybe are not removal. And so that's why I don't think this is quite ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks. The two other members in— actually, all the other members in the queue have spoken before, so I have myself in the queue.

Member Brawley. Thank you. I just want to be clear why I'm putting myself next here. Um, I'm going to speak briefly as a member. I have really tried to be mindful of and responsible with the position that I'm in, which is the chair, and to not create a situation where it looks like the body is speaking or that, um, the chair— the capital C, the Chair— is speaking on this item.

So I want to be clear that I'm attempting right now to speak as a member, knowing that that is not, um, easily possible. Um, I I am in favor of a vote to postpone indefinitely, so I will say that. I will also say that, that I am one of 11 people in this decision, and so I recognize again that I'm not directing from the chair's seat that we act in a certain way. But I will say I'm in favor of postponing indefinitely, and I'm in a no vote on the underlying item, not because I don't think that these matters are trivial, but that I am interested in understanding on what basis we are making decisions. And I have thought a lot about if any other name, any name, any member that I've served with, any member that I could think of prior who's been on this dais, and if this was about them with the same facts, different person's name, would I vote differently?

And I don't think that I would. I don't— I genuinely do not believe even if we have this power that we should proceed lightly or, or at this point proceed with any action against another one of our members. I, because I have been in the middle of and I've watched all of the conflict this has created, all of the tension, all of the time that we are spending on this and not on our budget, not on housing, not on any other issue that we need to be dealing with. And I recognize that whatever I say is going to be spun in whatever way people want to make it to say that I am not asking for accountability, that I do not care, that these things are not important. And I see people nodding in the audience, and I understand that is— that is— there is a no-win situation here regardless of what side you're on.

Um, but we're down this path now, so I would just like to say that I am going to vote yes to postpone indefinitely. No, I do not know how I'm going to vote on the next item. That is a different discussion. But at this time, I'm not interested in using my vote, and I'm not interested in using my seat as a member to engage in this behavior in this way. Thank you.

Sorry, everyone else in the queue has already spoken, so I'm going to move through. I have not spoken. Oh, Mr. McCormick, you did call the question, is that right? I seconded, but I didn't speak. Okay, well, I apologize for that.

No problem. Next, Mr. McCormick.

I agree this is a position no one wants to be in. No one gets elected or campaigns to discuss other members' conduct. No one wants to be here, but nevertheless, we are.

And we've been charged, uh, to, to manage and be responsible for the, for the business of the city. And I'm a little taken aback by this coordinated postpone indefinitely move here, especially from the leadership. We're seeing the leadership, and I understand that you want to move on with the business of the city. We all want to move on to the business of the city. I'm going to call a point of order on coordinated.

Um, it sounds like he's speaking to motive. Mr. McCormick, can you rephrase that? Is not speculating on other people's motives.

Fair enough.

We see the leadership here moving, as they both just testified, that they will be in support of a postpone indefinitely. And I understand that you don't want that to be twisted. You want to move on with the business of the city, as we all do. But it is a show to the public when they see those two people telling that their opinion is that we should postpone this. It is a show to the people that we don't hold members accountable, that we, we will let this behavior continue.

I want to move on with the business of the city. I want to do so responsibly and with the trust of the public. We cannot postpone this indefinitely. It will be at our peril, the entire body's peril.

Okay, next I have Mr. Johnson.

Yeah, I think just briefly want to address one point in terms of whether or not we should consider this item and the subsequent item together, and if the results of investigation, if the second item passes, should inform our decisions leading to this. And I will say for my part, I think it is important that we treat these as separate issues. I think in the case of the item before before us. The— effectively, the investigative step has been happened, conclusions have been drawn, and in this circumstance, we have been presented with a potential course of action. So I think, for my part at least, it is very important that we parse out, um, the way we respond to, um, the actions taken as a result of an APOC violation, which happened as a candidate, and actions that may have been taken by a member in their official duties on the body.

And so I just, for my part, I would not put these together or necessarily allow my thoughts on one to influence the other. That's all I wanted to add.

Next, Mr. Handeland. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to comment on Mr. Bolland's point on the APOC violation component of it. And as someone who watches these hearings, watches what's going on, sees what happens with these fines.

This one was particularly egregious, and that's where we sit there and we see the APOC staff saying that this strikes at the heart of campaign finance law. And this is the reason why we have it. And we're talking about personal benefit. I mean, this is like, if you— to bring it to a comparison that people think of a speeding ticket. There's a difference between you are going a couple miles an hour above the speed limit or reckless driving.

But to be sitting there saying, well, it's just an infraction with a car, they are drastically different. And when you go and look at this, with it being the fact of it's, it's not a late filing, or, oh hey, I happened to misclassify something, I forgot to include an employer information on this. This is someone using campaign finance for personal benefit.

And this is not— I mean, I went and looked through previous reports and there's like one other where someone had mistakenly done it. This is not a run-of-the-mill campaign finance violation. And it— they said it in, in the report with particular egregious, and they talked about the truthfulness of Mr. Martinez. And as far as the fine violation, that was for his action there. But as far as being held to account for his behavior during that hearing, there was nothing that they did on that.

And I think that's where we need to take a stand of, hey, this is another member, but we need to be saying we don't approve of this. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I, I don't think that we would be at this point of censure had the APOC hearing unfolded differently. And so I want to push back on this notion that taking action on this censure resolution politicizes APOC violations in the future.

I recognize that APOC violations happen. Sometimes they're accidental, sometimes they are clerical errors. They, they do happen. People file late. These are things that occur and, and, and with some degree of frequency.

But what is different, what is fundamentally different about this particular instance, is the substance of the hearing before the Alaska Public Commission. That is the point at which I believe we departed from the norm. And if you read the item and the, the Commission's summary is attached to Item 12B, and I encourage my colleagues to read it if you have not. In that final order, The commission finds Mr. Martinez's testimony at the hearing was formulaic and evasive. At times, he outright refused to respond to questions or provide answers to straightforward inquiries.

A later paragraph: The most troubling aspect of Mr. Martinez's testimony, however, was his persistent refusal to directly answer simple questions from the commissioners. Rather than providing information, he was evasive, vague, and noncommittal. When a— further, when a witness is evasive under questioning, refuses or fails to answer straightforward questions, or is inconsistent in his answers, the trier of fact, i.e., the Commission, is permitted to find the witness lacks credibility. Further, he was not forthcoming with investigators until pushed. He was extremely evasive in responding to Commissioner questions during the hearing.

We find his testimony not to be credible and disregard it. That is fundamentally different than an APOC violation.

And that is the point at which I believe we have to hold our colleagues accountable. We have to hold ourselves accountable. And I, quite frankly, I, I don't care whose name is attached to such behavior. If it occurs on this body, We ought to call it out. Because it is, in the end, incumbent upon us to hold one another accountable.

We are the only people who can do that apart from the voters. And so I, I ask my colleagues to please reject the motion to postpone indefinitely and let us do the work that is ours to do of holding ourselves to the highest possible ethical standard. That is our work. I hope my colleagues will join me in it. Thank you.

Next, Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. I agree with most of what's been said on the dais. We cannot, we cannot support behavior that reflects badly on the rest of the body. And we have been tasked with, with making a decision here.

I firmly believe that the two questions should be separate regarding the APOC, uh, conduct and any possible conduct within the municipality. Um, so having said that, I'm wondering, and I do understand the reluctance to postpone indefinitely, Would the chair entertain a motion to postpone to a time certain?

So the clerk has said that motion would not be in order. It would need to be made if, if we dispatch with this motion, and then it can be taken up separately. Thank you. Okay.

Um, okay, so there's no one else in the queue. The motion on the floor right now is to postpone indefinitely. Uh, we will take up that motion, and depending on that, then we will be back on the main item.

Members, we proceed to vote on that motion to postpone indefinitely.

Okay, the motion to postpone indefinitely fails, uh, 3 to 8. We are back on the main motion. I'm sorry, there is no main motion, um, so we are seeking a—. Move to approve. Sorry, motion from Mr.

Mr. Vollen to approve, second from Mr. Gerker. Mr. Vollen, would you like to speak to it further? Yeah, I put this motion on the floor frankly so I could have another crack at the queue.

Um, yeah, I, I just want to put out there that I feel like— do we need to make move to extend 15 minutes? Yeah, so note we are coming up on 11 PM. I would entertain a motion to extend. So moved. Can you specify?

Until 11:15. Second. Okay, motion to extend to 11:15. Second. Motion— sorry, motion by Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Park.

Any objection? Okay, not seeing any, we'll move forward. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So I really— I want to be really clear. I feel like I need to respond now because What I am not doing is failing to call for accountability.

I think this actually— are we doing okay?

Okay, okay. Sorry, we have some tech issues. We have tech issues, so please proceed. Okay, um, so not in fact voted on this item. Yeah, I, I want to be very clear, I, I am not saying that we should not call for accountability.

I think this item actually comes short of that because what— again, what I'm interested in doing is saying, okay, if there is travel stuff that happened in an official capacity in addition to campaign activity, then I want to look at disciplinary action such as a travel restriction. For a year, or potentially look at, do we remove this member from committee chair— committee chair position or other representation on behalf of the assembly? I think that there's things that we can do that actually are not just symbolic but actually address other activities that may or may not happen. Those accusations have been thrown out there. To the public.

But again, we don't know the set of facts that we're operating on. I don't think we have the full picture without that investigation happening. Um, and so I, I guess for my part, I think that there's a different path here that potentially involves a reprimand.

I also think a reprimand is a better word than censure, because censure has different connotations depending on what we're talking about, Robert's Rules or, you know, a federal understanding of what a censure means.

And so I think there's a different path here that we can get to true accountability that doesn't involve interfering with the will of the voters and going the full removal route.

And so I— people try to separate these, but I'm trying to take this all in context, and I think that we can get somewhere that, that creates accountability. Also, in terms of the conversations that leadership has been having, we've been really focused on the branch, the integrity of the branch, and looking at our travel policy. We acknowledge we need to rewrite Essentially, we acknowledge that we need to— we've asked for an independent, a special audit of assembly travel, so there's ongoing work. Point of information, I just want to clarify that I don't know if you're speaking to this item. I am speaking to this item.

So what I'm saying is I'm speaking in support of a censure resolution that would actually be able to have disciplinary action. Okay, and I'm also speaking to the conversations that leadership has had that has been raised in this debate by a member, so I'm responding to that. Point of information, just— what was your information? Just to clarify, you're asking— you're talking about discipline in, in the context of a censure related to APOC or related to the public, the potential misuse of public funds? Because those are separate.

These are separate items. So sure, okay, let's say an investigation is done and it's been found that there are assembly travel, you know, issues.

I would— I, I was interested in bringing forward a substitute version of this that not only would have reprimand, but if there are issues with assembly travel than suspending that travel. So layered onto the central resolution, or removal of representation from, uh, from NACo, which is a position that this member holds. And so I, I think we're not able to get there is essentially what I heard in the work session. I couldn't bring forward that substitute version that would not fulfill necessarily due process. And so, you know, I guess we could take action on this and really constrain it to the private activity, but I just— it is hard for me to separate these two things in the way that all of this has been rolled out in the public.

So I guess, yeah, that is All that to say, I won't be supporting this item. We have another item before us. There's a version of that tonight that I think I can support, um, but I just— I don't think that this does much other than what's already been done and addressed in the public via APOC, um, and I would like to see paired with censure, you know, if, if other accusations are true, that the underlying issues are addressed by leadership. So anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.

Sorry, go ahead, uh, Mr. Handeland. Uh, I would like to move Handeland Amendment Number 2.

Second. Motion by Mr. Handeland to move Handeland Amendment Number 2, second by Mr. Gerker. Mr. Handeland.

Do I have the floor, Madam Chair? Yes, go ahead. Oh, thank you. Uh, so I mean, this is a, I mean, a simple, um, amendment just asks for there to be some accountability on Member Martinez's part to produce a full public apology with it. And I kind of based that off of Member Baldwin-Day's comments at one of the previous meetings where I think that's really what we're— I guess as it regards to the APOC portion and when we saw it during the report or during the work session there, that that was an option that we have to sit there and say, hey, if, if, if Member Martinez is looking to have this item closed, this would be at least for the, for the APOC portion, uh, a way of closing it out.