Assembly Regular - October 6, 2026 - 2026-10-06 17:00:00

Hi everyone, we'll get started in a couple more minutes.

Okay everyone, I think we are all here, so we are going to call this meeting to order. Welcome everyone, today is Tuesday, October 6th. This is our regular meeting of the assembly. I will turn to the clerk to ask for a roll call.

When you're ready.

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

Here. Member Silvers. Here. Member Presverdia. Here.

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

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

Member Park. Here. Member Johnson. Here. And Student Representative.

Here. Thanks. You have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next, I will ask Mr. McCormick to lead us in the Pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.

Thank you. Mr. Presverdia, will you please read the land acknowledgement? A land acknowledgement is a formal statement recognizing the indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present Indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity.

The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina 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, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina.

Thank you. Next, we'll take up minutes of previous meetings. We have, uh, 2 from prior meetings, uh, this evening. The first one, Item 4A, Regular Meeting of September 1st, 2026, and the second, uh, Regular Meeting of September 15th, 2026, seeking a motion to approve. Move to approve the minutes.

Second. Motion by Vice Chair Voland to approve, seconded by Member Baldwin-Day. Is there any changes to the minutes? Any discussion? Any objection to adoption of the minutes?

Seeing and hearing none, the minutes shall be considered unanimously adopted. Next, we will turn to the mayor for the mayor's report. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening, everyone. On Friday, I shared my budget proposal for 2027, which is on the agenda for introduction tonight.

This budget keeps 2026 operation levels with minimal changes. It funds core municipal services with targeted investments to improve community safety, support affordability, and encourage growth. For over 2 years, my team and I have focused on rebuilding our municipal government, staffing up departments, and improving essential services to make our community a better place to live and to invest in. That means plowing roads, fixing streets and sidewalks, revitalizing downtown, building housing, reducing unsheltered homelessness, and strengthening public safety. And thank you to the assembly for being partners in this work.

However, as we developed this budget, we had to fill a $15 million gap using a combination of one-time funding and trims to contracted services and vacant positions. These one-time funds won't be available next year, and we expect the budget gap to double for 2028. Without a large boost in outside funding support or new revenue, future cuts will be unavoidable and will impact service levels across our municipality. We're facing a fiscal cliff, and addressing it will require real, honest conversations with all of us in the year ahead. I encourage residents across our community to engage in the budget process and to participate in the community conversation about how we fund our municipality.

And thank you to Chair Brawley and, um, Member Baldwin-Day for those conversations about our fiscal future that you've been hosting. Also on tonight's agenda is a resolution, AR 2026-292, which lays out our proposal with the school district to sell the 54-acre West Park property by Sand Lake and Diamond for housing development and return the proceeds to the district to help with its budget deficit. This plan to sell the West Park land is a win-win. It allows us to provide much-needed funding for our local schools, and it will open unused public land for housing that our community urgently needs. We're also proposing a land swap with the State of Alaska to unlock housing opportunities at two key sites.

Under this exchange, ownership of the Tozher Track near the U-Med District would transfer to the state, while the municipality would acquire the Block 102 parcel in downtown. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation has the development capacity to lead a housing project at the Tozier site, while the municipality is well positioned to facilitate multifamily development on Block 102. We're seeing tremendous momentum in Anchorage right now with substantial incoming investments and personnel additions at JBAB. Our team is moving as quickly as possible to expand our housing supply supply. Just last week, we celebrated the groundbreaking of more than 240 senior housing units by Touchmark in South Anchorage.

We need housing of every type at every price point, along with big reinvestment in housing rehabilitation. And, you know, the Touchmark folks were very clear— they had tried to do this project a few years ago, but it didn't pencil. But because of the tax incentives that this body approved, it penciled, and We were breaking ground last week. Market conditions often create barriers to new residential construction, but local tools like our multifamily tax incentive help projects like this one pencil out. Tonight, Assemblymembers will be taking up the MHOP ordinance.

This is a large piece of legislation and a complex issue, and it triggers real, understandable questions from residents who care deeply about their neighborhoods. Large policy changes rarely transform neighborhoods overnight. Market constraints play a big role. As we enter the dialogue tonight, I want to remind us that we all share the same underlying goal: creating more housing opportunities for everyone in our community— for young families, working-age people, and seniors— while ensuring our neighborhoods are vibrant and welcoming. We know the urgency of our housing shortage requires action.

With major economic growth on the horizon and a tightly constrained housing market in It's important for us to examine every tool available to increase housing construction and rehabilitation. Zoning reform alone won't solve our supply problem, but it is part of a bigger approach that includes land swaps and public-private partnerships that make developments happen. Our priority remains clear: making it easier to build housing at every level while maintaining strong, livable neighborhoods. We welcome a constructive dialogue tonight on how to strike that balance for all residents. Lastly, I'm excited to call your attention to items 10.8E and 13B, where we're seeking assembly approval to accept $5.8 million in state and federal funding that will help us add surge beds to our emergency shelter system this fall and over the next year strengthen our crisis response system.

I urge your support for these items so that we can help people move indoors earlier this year than last and continue our progress to reduce the number of people sleeping outside in the municipality. With that, thank you all. Back to you, Chair Brawley. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Next, we'll move on to the chair's report.

Uh, so I'll have a few things to share, and then I think I'll give a preview of kind of what we expect might happen tonight in terms of procedure and order, but we'll be taking that up in a little while. So good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regular business meeting. First, I want to recognize that next Monday or this coming Monday is Indigenous Peoples' Day, also now a municipal holiday, and that celebrates the rich cultures, traditions, and contributions of Alaska Native and Indigenous peoples. It is a time to honor the generations who have cared for this land and recognize the important role Indigenous communities continue to play in shaping Anchorage and Alaska, as they have for thousands of years.

As I hope that it also serves as an opportunity to celebrate Indigenous resilience, honor the past, and reaffirm our commitment to a future rooted in respect, understanding, and partnership. If you'd like to do something special to commemorate this day, Monday, October 12th, there is a celebration at Alaska Pacific University and admission is free at the Anchorage Museum that day. I'll also note in 2 weeks we will be welcoming the Alaska Federation of Natives, or AFN convention happening October 19th through 23rd at the Denaina Center. We'll say more about that at our next meeting. Another reminder, speaking of our calendar, a reminder that I will repeat at our next meeting on October 20th as well.

We normally meet on Tuesday nights, but we also change our schedule to avoid conflicts with the state and federal election, which this year is Tuesday, November 3rd. So it's already on our calendars, but just a reminder to members of the public and members that our first November meeting will be Wednesday, November 4th. Unusual for us to meet on a Wednesday, but we do it sometimes. And so also don't forget to make a plan to vote the day before on Tuesday, November 3rd, or if you get it done early, you can do that through early voting or absentee voting. And again, another reminder, as great as our clerk's team is, they do not manage the state elections, only local elections.

So please contact the Alaska Division of Elections if you have any questions, because I know they, they field questions every year and have to redirect. Next, a reminder about our budget. So the 2027 budget cycle hit its next milestone with the release of the mayor's proposed budget. As she said just now, the full budget is in the form of 8 agenda items, so it will be introduced tonight. I believe we are still waiting for the print copies, so we will not be dealing with it right at the beginning of the meeting, but expect expect, um, that either right before or right after dinner we will introduce all those items so they are in the record for future public hearings.

The budget documents are also online at the Office of Management and Budget website, and the Assembly will be reviewing and discussing those documents and the proposal over the next few weeks. There's two work sessions on Friday, October 16th and 23rd, and then also a work session to review Assembly amendments on Friday, November 6th. The public is invited to comment on the budget via email anytime or those two public hearings that will be on October 20th and November 4th. Also, a reminder is that when community members get involved and share their priorities, it helps the mayor and assembly shape our budget to meet our community's needs, and we anticipate robust discussion today— or this year, for sure. The municipal budget is complex.

You don't need to be an expert to provide that input. The Assembly has a lot of information and resources to help you dive into this process. They are on the Budget and Taxes page at muni.org/assembly, or again, um, to find the budget book itself, uh, go to the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, website, uh, also muni.org. Uh, alongside the budget discussion, the Assembly and Mayor are working on the municipality's long-term fiscal situation. So earlier this fall, the Assembly adopted a resolution to establish a Fiscal Future Initiative and engage the community in long-term fiscal education and strategic visioning, calling for a Community Fiscal Future Summit in October 2026.

So I'm pleased to report that the Fiscal Future Summit has been scheduled. It will be on Friday, October 30th, 10 AM to 4 PM at the UAA Student Union, and we will not be scheduling other assembly meetings at that time. So hopefully you can participate. Uh, the attendance is free. You don't need prior budget experience to participate.

Just come willing to learn and to be part of the work to shape our community's future. We already have well over 50 people registered, and it's shaping up to be a productive day. So looking forward to that. The link to register is posted at muni.org/assembly, again with our budget information. Finally, as you can see, our agenda tonight is very full, and the agenda for the October 20th meeting is also anticipated to be full with either items that have been introduced or have been continued to those meetings, um, not to mention that we'll have a budget public hearing, and then we're working up to budget approval next month.

So with all that said, in an effort to clear the deck for this busy budget season ahead, we anticipate likely continuing this meeting to tomorrow night, Wednesday, October 7th, starting at 6 PM, the earliest we can open our public hearings, and that will also be here in Assembly Chambers. So just a few notes, and then again, we will come back to this, um, when we move through our agenda and, and ordering. Uh, members should expect a motion to change the order of the day, reordering several continued and new public hearing items. We'll take that up after dealing with late on the table items and after we pull items from the consent agenda so we can discuss further when we get there. But just to make a note that that's, that's something to anticipate shortly.

As a preview, I can share that assembly leadership has coordinated with the administration to understand which items are time sensitive, which items could go into the next meeting or November. And we've already taken some steps to shift some public hearing dates to accommodate that. You'll see that on the agenda as well. The general plan is to take up the most urgent items tonight as well as items likely to have people here to testify and then move several other items to the continued meeting tomorrow. And I'll also note that certainly the AO 2026-85, the missing middle housing overlay, is going to need significant time both for the public hearing and debate.

So that's likely to take most of our time tonight. But of course, that's all depending on the will of the body. So just trying to preview as best we we can. And I'll note that we may need to order the agenda again later or tomorrow depending on how timing plays out. So again, we'll get into specifics, but are trying to manage a complex set of items on the agenda.

And then finally, I'll note, uh, if there are any students in the audience who are here for a class, if you can stick around until right before the dinner break, uh, in about an hour or so, probably, uh, we'll call you up to share your name, your school or group, and the class that you're here for. And then if you need a signature to verify that you were here for that class, you can find an assembly member as we go into our dinner break to sign your form. So stay tuned and we'll have you up in a bit. With that, I will do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we may conclude at the most reasonable hour possible. So 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 here in the chambers. Please refrain from personal attacks. Speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing. Please keep any signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size.

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

If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If 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 then I will save the public testimony reminders for a little bit later, um, just reminders about how we do public testimony. So with that, um, that concludes the chair's report. So I will move next to committee and liaison reports, and I'll start this evening with Mr. Johnson.

Uh, no report tonight, Chair. Um, Ms. Park. Um, the legislative committee meets tomorrow at 1 o'clock, and, um, I will be discussing, uh, parts of the AML meeting with Senator Mikulski's office from this morning.

Okay, next, Mr. McCormick. Nothing to report, thank you. And, uh, next, Ms. Scout on the phone.

Yeah, um, the rescheduled Energy Enterprise and Utilities Oversight Committee is now meeting Thursday, October 15th, um, at 11:45 to 1:15 PM at City Hall.

Okay, thank you. Next, Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. The Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee, not to be confused with the newly named committee that Miss Scout just mentioned, met on September 17th. We discussed the Port Plan of Finance, which we expect to receive a report on about this time each year, and the idea being that we'll be setting surcharge rates no later than August.

We have had some interesting emails come through, folks who are concerned about the Port Plan of Finance and exactly how that funding is coming through. There is a grant strategy narrative that's available in the Plan of Finance document, and that will continue to be updated, so we'll continue to keep you posted about how the Port is being paid for. A state asset that we manage and requires a lot of, a lot of different players in order to fund it appropriately. We also received a report on the Terminal 1 ongoing construction. The 6-foot diameter, 100-foot deep pilings are— some of them are installed already.

We expect a pause in late October as the weather turns colder. Those are obviously for the seismic protection of Terminal 1 since the port is located in Seismic Zone 5. We also received an update about some storm drain issues and some other projects happening at the port. And we also received an update from Solid Waste Services and a really exciting update, in fact, about the waste-to-energy program as that's coming online. In fact, some of the issues that we're having at the port with respect to soil remediation and contaminated soils coming from J-Bear would really be— would be sufficiently helped if we already had the waste-to-energy project in place because we we would be able to take care of contaminated soils here in Alaska without shipping them outside to be dealt with elsewhere.

And then finally, we received just some general updates from Solid Waste Services. Fun factoid: there was a bit of a salmon disaster on the highway, and 22,000 pounds of salmon ended up spilling and mixing with hydraulic fluid. Solid Waste Services was able to take those and dispose of them as part of our organics program. So all good things in the infrastructure world. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Budget and Finance Committee most recently met on Thursday, September 17th, and we concluded our presentation on service areas. It was a pretty fascinating discussion.

So members of the public, if they haven't already watched that one back, you might want to. Um, our next meeting will be on Thursday, October 15th at 10 AM in City Hall Conference Room 155. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Mr. Perez Verdia.

Thank you, Chair. No update this evening. Okay, next, Ms. Silvers. Yeah, the, um, Public Safety Committee will be meeting tomorrow from 11 to 12:30. Tomorrow we will discuss opioid overdose dispatches from AFD Retail theft from APD, and then we will also discuss KRETA regulations and impacts.

And Member Park will talk a little bit about an AO that they are working on. Thanks. Thank you. Next, Mr. Gerker. Nothing for me, Chair.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Martinez. The last meeting of the Housing and Community Economic Development Committee met on October 1st, and And just to draw attention for folks to visit that website, there was a robust presentation on seismic designation and land use. Obviously, the quote-unquote MHOP conversation has instigated that discussion, but it was a robust conversation nevertheless with some handouts that may be useful for the public. The next meeting of the committee meets on Thursday, November 5th.

Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Handeland. Nothing to report.

Okay, that concludes our committee and liaison reports. Next, we'll move on to the addendum to the agenda. Before we do that, we will address late on the table items, um, and I'll note there's kind of two general categories that we have. One of them is a number of items for introduction that comprise our budget, um, the, the legislative items that are attached to the budget. Um, as I said, we will, um, uh, I know we're still waiting on the paper copies, so rather than doing that right now, we will take it up when we have those.

And then the other set of items are all really supplemental, and so I'm going to read those into the record for now, and then again we will come back to that in a little bit. So the first set of items is associated with item 13D. That's AO 2026-85. So I will read them down the line. There's 13D7, information, unnumbered AIM 2026 regarding AO 2026-85, M. Hoppen, AO 2026-122, Planning Department response to request for information.

The next one, 13D8, is unnumbered AIM 2026, observations on vehicle parking in developments in the absence of off-street parking requirements in AMC Title 21. The next one is— and I should say these are all AIMs. The next one, 13D9, information, unnumbered AIM, letter of support for AO 2026 MHOP from the Alaska Public Interest Research Group, AKPIRG. The next one, 13D10, Another AIM information memorandum unnumbered AO 2026-85, MHOP Sand Lake Community Council resolution. The next one, 13D-11, is a summary of economic effects, or C, for this ordinance.

And then the last one on this item is 13D-12, AM unnumbered information memorandum unnumbered AIM 2026, memo regarding AWU infrastructure as it relates to the missing middle housing opportunity overlay. Um, so that's the first set. And then I will note as well, um, laid on the table items, these are all supplemental, so I believe there are, um, uh, print copies. And then for anyone listening online and wanting to find them, um, we have started the practice of posting that packet of materials on the website. I believe it will be ready tomorrow, um, because we do still need the time to turn them around from staff, um, but they will be available to the public as well in there.

And then associated with the item permanently in the record after that. Uh, the other set is for, uh, two different of, of our new public hearings. The first one is 14G number 5, information memorandum unnumbered AIM 2026 Block 102/former Tozier tract exchange analysis and breakdown. And then two associated with item 14K, uh, that is AO 2026-122. So 14K2, information memorandum unnumbered AIM Turnagain Community Council resolution regarding AO 2026-122.

And 14K3, unnumbered AIM 2026, AO 2026-85, and MHOP and AO 2026-122, Planning Department response to request for information. So again, the other items— I'm—. Don't— one second.

Yeah, and I'll note, I know there may be additional late-on-the-table items for introduction, so until we have copies of those, we will hold off taking action on those at this time.

So those are all supplemental, don't need further action, and again, we'll come back to introduction and other items as we need to. So with all of those read into the record, that can— that includes late-on-the-table items for now, and then incorporating into the addendum to the agenda. And so I'm seeking a motion to incorporate the addendum including laid on the table. So moved. Second.

A motion by Mr. Bullen, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any further discussion on all of, all of the things that I just read?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, is there any objection to incorporation of the addendum to the agenda including laid on the table items?

Ms. Park. Point of information, um, I know I have an S version that is laid on the table. I don't have a copy of it yet. Yeah, thank you. So, um, and that's the same situation with budget items.

And so until I have those available, um, so, so, and I should clarify as well, when we have the consent agenda and including items for introduction, especially for ordinances for introduction, it is possible to still read them into the record later. So this is opportunity. Yeah, so again, we'll come back to that, uh, in a little bit when we have the copies.

Okay, uh, sorry, so one last chance, um, any objection to, uh, the motion?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then we will consider the addendum to the agenda incorporated. Again, we will come back to— we have several late on the table items that we can address a little bit later in the meeting.

So that motion has been unanimously adopted. Uh, next, uh, appearance requests. We don't have any this evening, and so next we will move on to the consent agenda, and we'll go down the line to ask folks what you would like to pull. So I'm going to start this evening with Mr. Handeland. I've got, uh, 10B4, 10B5, 10D16, 10D17, and 10D19.

One second while I wrote this down.

Yeah, so just to— please correct me if I have this incorrect. So I have 10 Bravo 4, 10 Bravo 5, and then 10 Delta 16, 17, and 19. Is that correct? That is correct, Madam Chair. Okay.

Thank you. Um, got those 5 items. Uh, next, Mr. Martinez. No items. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Gerker. No items, Chair. Miss Silvers. No items. Thank you.

Mr. Perez-Fordia. No additional items. Thanks. Mr. Voland. No items.

Miss Baldwin. 10 Alpha 3, 10 Foxtrot 3.

Okay, I have 10 Alpha 3 and 10, uh, Foxtrot 3 for Miss Baldwin-Day. Next, Miss Scout.

No items, thank you. Okay, next, Mr. McCormick. No further items, thank you. And Miss Park. No items, Chair.

And Mr. Johnson. 10A2.

Okay, I have 10 Alpha 2. Okay, then I will read those back. Uh, one second.

Okay, I'm going to read that back, um, and then I have a little bit of chair direction as well after that. Uh, so first I have, uh, 10A2, Mr. Johnson, 10A3, Ms. Baldwin-Day, 10B4, Mr. Handeland. 10B5, Mr. Handeland. Uh, 10D16, Mr. Handeland. 10D17, Mr. Handeland.

10D19, Mr. Handeland. And then 10F3, Miss Baldwin-Day. Uh, any additional items?

Okay, not hearing any. Um, and then I will also, before I make the motion, will also direct the clerk to set a public— or to change the public hearing for 10G1 to the meeting of November 4th, 2026.

And then also to associate item 10F1 under reports with item 13C, which is AO 2026-98. That is a supplemental item.

So, uh, with all of that said, is there, uh, any objection to, um, adoption? I guess any further discussion on the consent agenda minus the items that have been pulled?

Any objection to adoption of the consent agenda minus the pulled items? Oh, sorry, we need a— sorry, we need a motion. Move to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Second. Okay, motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items.

Thank you for correcting me, Madam Clerk. Uh, any further discussion on, um, the motion? Okay, any objection to adoption of the motion?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then we can consider the consent agenda minus the pulled items as unanimously adopted by the body. So if you were here for one of the items that was not pulled and it was on the consent agenda still, then that item has been unanimously adopted, and then the other items we will take up separately. So before we move on to our individual consent agenda items, let us address the change— changing the order of the day. I know this is going to be a little more complicated than usual, um, but we can speak to it, uh, further. So, uh, Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm going to move to change the order of the day to take up agenda items in the following order: 13A, 13B, 10D16, 10D17, 13C, 13F, 13G, 14A, 14G, 14K, 13D. Second. Um, thanks. If I can—.

Yeah, one second. So a motion by, uh, Mr. Bolland to— and I'm going to read them back one more time, and I know we'll probably have to do this a couple times, uh, to— and the second was by Ms. Baldwin-Day. So the motion was to change to items 13A, 13B, 10D16, 10D17, 13C, 13F, 13G, 14A, 14G, 14K, and 13D. And if you'd like to speak to it, Mr. Boland. Thank you.

Um, so 10D16 and 10D17 are contracts that need to follow the funding in the— in items 13A, 13B.

13C, I think we can move that one along pretty quickly. The sponsors, myself and Chair Brawley, plan to continue the public hearing to 10:20, and we've let the community members who are interested in that one know that that is the plan. 13F is the downtown special assessment. That one is time sensitive.

14G is an ordinance on elections that I believe the sponsors intend to postpone indefinitely.

14A is an assembly procedures ordinance that the sponsor intends to postpone indefinitely.

14K and— sorry, first, 14G, that one is also a timely one. That is the land swap piece that the mayor mentioned in her report. The, uh, and then, um, onto 14K and 13D, which I believe, um, those, those are the Comp Plan Update Ordinance and MHOP, which are likely to take up the bulk of our meeting. So some of those I think we can move through quickly. Some of those have to go in a certain order, um, and then some of those will, uh, have a lot of folks here likely to participate, and then we can do the rest of our items if we don't get them get to them tonight, take those up tomorrow evening.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Next, Mr. Gerker in the queue. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we not have anybody here for 10 Alpha 2 and 10 Alpha 3 from, from the public?

Yeah, please go ahead. So this order, um, would be after the— okay, right, condition resolutions. Yep, thanks. And then we already took care of sort of the rest of the consent agenda, um, I should also specify that the order that I just laid out would follow, um, uh, Item 11A, and then I think we're good.

Yeah, and I'll just briefly add, um, the intent would be to take up all of the public hearings after dinner. So first to take up the consent agenda. The reasoning behind having those two items that would normally be in the consent agenda, as Mr. Vohland said, is their contract funds. And so essentially this would be taking up everything else with the consent agenda as normal. Mr. McCormick.

Uh, Vice Chair Vohland answered my question of the 11. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, sorry, one second.

Yeah, I'll just note the queue might be acting up, so I'll also visually scan. So, um, okay, any further discussion on this?

Okay, is there any objection to changing the order of the day as noted on the screen above?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then we will consider, uh, the order changed. Um, and again, if you want a written version of this. I think the clerk can provide that over the dinner break. We want to make sure folks are following along. So with that, let us move on then to the, uh, the rest of the items on the consent agenda, starting with 10A.2.

So I will read that into the record: Resolution AR-2026-281, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing October 2026 as Disability Employment Awareness Month. This item was pulled by Mr. Johnson. Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Johnson to approve, second by— I'll go with Ms. Park.

Would you like to speak to it further, Mr. Johnson? Uh, no, Chair. Okay, um, sorry, I was thinking of different items. Um, uh, is there any objection to, um, adoption of this resolution?

Seeing and hearing none, then we will consider this resolution adopted. I believe we have Mr. Johnson reading and then Mr. Martinez presenting. If anybody is here for this resolution, please come forward.

Whereas October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, NDEAM, celebrating the contributions of workers with disabilities and educating about the value of a workforce workforce inclusive of their skills and talents. And whereas the NDEAM theme for 2026 is celebrating value and talent. And whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act celebrated its 36th anniversary this year in honor of America's 250th birthday, a significant milestone which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in various areas of life, including employment. And whereas disability can happen to anyone, and people with disabilities, including those with professional training, can often contribute to the workforce with accommodations and modifications that are many times overlooked. And whereas Alaska has a lower approval rate for Social Security disability than other states, yet adults with disabilities still need equal access to income and healthcare.

And Whereas the past few years' large-scale challenges, changing norms, and employment adjustments prove that many employment requirements may be successfully completed in non-traditional ways, and differently-abled individuals have a legitimate and ongoing role in the work environment, however it looks and changes. And whereas hiring people with disabilities creates a vibrant, diverse, economically sound, welcoming, robust, and competitive Alaskan workforce and whereas policymakers, labor leaders, and employers can increase economic vitality by training for and establishing disability-inclusive workplaces with part-time professional work, disability-friendly technology, and equal opportunity for all by ensuring disabled workers have access to good jobs every month of every year. Now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes the month of October as Disability Employment Awareness Month and encourages the people of Anchorage to further their awareness about disability-inclusive employment. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 6th day of October, 2026. Thank you.

And if you'd like to say a few words, just press the green button to turn the microphone on. Thank you. Thank you. Hello everyone. My name is Annette Alfonsi, and I am the director of a locally founded nonprofit, Empowering Education.

This is almost a decade now that we've been putting on a disability awareness art show. To participate in the art show, artists need to have any connection in any way to any disability. So people don't need to disclose disability to be able to participate and sell their art on consignment at a local gallery. Denali Graphics and Frame Gallery. We have a Meet the Artists artist showcase happening this Saturday, October 10th, from noon to 4:00 PM, and it's at Denali Graphics at 700 West International Airport Road.

It's free. We're gonna have Beartooth Pizza and Great Harvest Cookies and Wild Berry Chocolates, and everybody's invited to come and have some snacks and meet with the artists and look at some really cool art. And maybe make a purchase if you want. And to that end, I'd like to introduce one of the artists that's been with us since the very first year that we ever started this. This is artist Annemarie Oskolkoff.

Being disabled, you encounter many obstacles and limitations, so having things like the Disability Awareness Art Show is hugely valuable. Shows like this can open doors to so much more. Then in addition to the art show, in my case licensing artwork for a public awareness advertisement campaign, having the confidence to complete a book manuscript, to even planning and to take out a shadow puppet play and also publish a children's book in my native language of Susten. And this is what the Disability Awareness Show has done for me personally. There are a lot of other stories with that, and so it's very important to support things like this, and we hope to see you on Saturday.

Thank you so much. I forgot to mention, these are pieces that are on sale at the gallery right now that are made by Ann Marie. So this is a piece that Tells about the creation of the Northern Lights. And I— so you can see the ribbons of Northern Lights in this painting. And this is a fish mobile.

So thank you for that, Annemarie. There are so many incredible stories of the ripple effect that happens as a result of us all coming together. And it was only possible because at the time, a random volunteer— that was me— and a random gallery manager at Denali Graphics, took a few extra minutes out of our day to find the yes to put on their first collective group art show that had never happened like that before. And it also only happened because artists like Anne-Marie showed up and said, "We've never seen something like this before, but it sounds really cool. We don't know what it looks like." And I said, "I don't know what it looks like either.

Like, let's find out." And now it's almost been 10 years later. The reason I wanted to highlight this is because right now we are at a crossroads in the arts in Anchorage. We've had funding cut through the university for arts degree-seeking programs, and then recently we've had arts cut in the schools. And now there's construction in Town Square right next to the Performing Arts Center. So there's this incredible shift that's happening in the arts, and I know that I, for one, am kind of nervous about it, or I feel really concerned.

As somebody who grew up as a dance and theater kid. But I'm also really excited about this art show that technically doesn't have municipal funding that maintained itself during the pandemic. And so what I wanted to share with you all, because I know that often you all are kind of, uh, not stuck, but you're— but you're— you're— the box that you operate in has to do with policy and funding and what's allowable. But in the arts, one of the things that we do is we find the yes So I'd like to invite a perspective shift as we're looking for how the arts can persevere and even grow in Anchorage and invite finding the yes, whatever that might look like for you, or to paraphrase how the theater kids would say it, find the yes and. And if you aren't sure what that looks like or you want a little bit of energy and motivation around it, please join us at Denali Graphics on Saturday and meet some really cool artists and get some energy around that.

Thank you so much for this resolution this year. Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Okay. Next, we have our second recognition resolution, AR 2026-284, recognizing October 2026 as Filipino American History Month, a time to celebrate Filipino Americans and their cultural and historic contributions. This item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve.

Second. Okay, motion to approve by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Boland. Uh, any objection to, or any further discussion on this item? Any objection to adoption of this item? Okay, so you're going to hearing none, this item has been unanimously adopted.

And I believe we have Miss Baldwin-Day reading, and then I will be presenting, so I'm going to hand the gavel over Mr. Voland.

And sorry, if anybody is here to receive this, please come forward.

Thank you, Chair. Whereas the first recorded presence of Filipinos in the United States was on October 18, 1587, and the first Filipinos arrived in Alaska in 1788 on the fur trading ship Ifigenia Nubiana, with Filipinos settling in Alaska in the early 1900s in the coastal villages in Southeast and in Bristol Bay, and by the 1930s in Anchorage. And whereas Filipino Americans have a rich history of public and military service and participation in leadership— and participation and leadership in social justice movements, including the United Farm Workers movement, the fight for ethnic studies, the Washington Yakama strikes, and the anti-martial law movements. And whereas the Filipino American National Historical Society's 2026 Filipino American History Month theme is Beyond the Margins: Centering Intersectional Filipino American Histories, recognizing the contributions, struggles, and lived experiences of Filipino Americans whose stories have been typically overlooked, underrepresented, or excluded from traditional, traditional historic narratives. And whereas in 1935, the U.S. Congress passed the Filipino Repatriation Act offering free one-way transportation for Filipinos in the U.S. to return to the Philippines if they agreed to never return.

At that time, there was an annual quota of 50 Filipinos who were allowed to enter the US. Filipinos were not allowed to become citizens or own property. The intentions behind the law were rooted in anti-Asian sentiment and Asian exclusion. And whereas 30 years later, the US Congress passed the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which was the first federal immigration law to eliminate national origin quotas that had favored Europeans while barring or limiting Asians from entering the U.S. This legislation opened the doors for thousands of Filipinos to migrate to the U.S., reuniting families and establishing multigenerational communities across the nation.

The act has allowed the number of Filipino Americans in the U.S. to grow from 1,000— from 176,000 in 1960 to over 4 million in 2025. And whereas The state of Alaska recognized the advocacy, leadership, courage, and service of Filipino Americans in Anchorage and Alaska, whose struggles, resistance, solidarity, and resilience have helped to sustain our community and state during challenging and transformative times by formally recognizing Filipino American History Month in 2023. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizes and celebrates October 2026 as Filipino American History Month. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 6th day of October, 2026.

All right. Yeah. And whoever would like to say something, please proceed. Microphone's on. Hi, everyone.

My name is Adler Dalpan. I'm a school counselor at West High School. This is our 3rd year here with our Filipino club from West. And every, every year we come here to just say thank you for recognizing Filipino American History Month. A lot of our kids, you know, they come from Philippines.

It's sometimes it's hard to, you know, adapt to Anchorage and Alaska and especially the different weather. Right. And it's just such an amazing thing that they get to see that we get to celebrate Filipino American History Month and our students are just feeling welcomed and feeling that some sense of belonging. So I just want to really thank you again for being able to recognize Filipino American History Month. I do have a few students that also want to say some thank you too.

So thank you so much.

Hi, I address to you now. I am Sergio D'Angelo. I am a U.S.-born Filipino-Japanese citizen, and I would like to send my very gratitude not to this assembly today, but also to my very state of Alaska.

As an Alaskan-born Filipino, I am very grateful that you have accepted my very— not just me, my family, but also my community. I would not be as honored here today to actually meet you because I'm here today to actually also honor my grandmother who actually brought my family along. And I'm thankful that you have accepted my people, for, as we know, this nation of not just the U.S., but this state as well. It wouldn't— we were basically— we thank you for actually helping us and giving us the potential to be growing our very, I guess you could say, our highest point within our lives. And I thank you for— it is a privilege to be here.

I thank you for giving me the education. I thank you for giving my family their jobs, their houses, and like, sorry.

I'm sorry, I'm just very shy. But I'm very grateful that you have accepted us here today and to give us the honor to actually speak our voices and that I am not just very proud of myself, not just my community, but thank you for giving us the honor to be here today. And thank you once more to this state of Alaska as a proud Alaskan-born Filipino. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Kyle Danganon, and when I was 3 years old, my family was lucky enough to receive a job opportunity all the way up here in Anchorage, Alaska. And since I was very young, I didn't always have many friends who understood or got to see my Filipino culture. So I am currently a freshman at West Anchorage High School and was recently elected as the the officer assistant at Filipino Club. And being a part of the club, it really just allowed me to meet new people who came from common backgrounds, as well as the opportunity to learn about the various cultures and traditions that sum up who we are, not just as a Filipino, but as a person. It helped me realize that there really aren't any limits to being a Filipino.

Everyone can have their own unique experiences and traditions to share with the community. And Filipino Club has helped me feel more connected to my culture and more comfortable showing it to others. Lastly, I'd like to recognize the Assembly for recognizing this month as a dedication to our country and our culture. Filipino American History Month is important to me because it recognizes the history and contributions of Filipino Americans in the United States. And most importantly, it reminds me to always appreciate where my family came from and be proud of being Filipino.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you so much.

Yes. Thank you. And I will— I'll make one additional note. Thank you so much for being here. I am remiss if I don't say thank you to Representative Genevieve Mena.

I know she intended to be here today, but there are many other things on the schedule. And also we'll note that she successfully passed, I think it was her first bill in the legislature in, I believe, 2023. I'm seeing nods. Those folks out there know more better than I do— to officially make Filipino History Month a state-recognized month in Alaska. So thank you to her as well.

And sorry, Representative Mena, you weren't able to be here timing-wise. So, okay, thank you, everybody. So next we'll move on to— we have a few more consent agenda items, so we move through those. So next, 10B4. Let me get my agenda so I can read it into the record.

AR 2026-291, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly establishing standard hiring procedures for the ombudsman and municipal clerk positions. This item was pulled by Mr. Handeland. Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by Mr. Handeland, second by Mr. Bowens.

Uh, would you like to speak to it further? Yes, I— so I just had one, uh, amendment that I would like to do to it. So in Section 1 Where it says the assembly should, I would like to have a motion or an amendment to change that to shall.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Handlin to change— just to clarify, so it is, let's see, page 2, line 11, is that right? Correct. Okay, so page 2, line 11, to change the word should to the word shall. Second by Mr. McCormick.

Do you want to speak to that further? Yeah, I mean, I think that— I mean, I really appreciate this resolution coming forward. It was just to kind of strengthen the language there to have it so that we, um, kind of have, have some established procedures there. Thanks.

Chair Brawley. Thank you. Um, I just have a quick question. So I, I am not opposed to this, and certainly, um, I'll say my intent would be to establish such a committee as these vacancies occur. But I just want to ask Assembly Counsel, because I know we actually did— had discussion back and forth about the use of should versus shall.

I will also note that this does have an end date. So this, you know, and of course the assembly could rescind it or change it, you know, before then. But the intent was to not kind of bind future assemblies forever. But if I could ask Assembly Counsel to just speak to if you have any concerns about this particular amendment.

My apologies, could you repeat the question please? I understand it's Tim before. Yes, thank you. So looking at the amendment is to change the word should on page 2, line 11 to the word shall. And I noted this does have an end date, so it does not bind assemblies, future assemblies forever.

Just wondering if there is any concern about changing that to a shall and making it more of a requirement.

I don't, I don't have any concern.

Okay, um, through the chair, I think no concerns with changing that to a shall to make it a mandatory duty. I do want to flag just a note in here that I think was intentional in drafting, but in that same line it puts that duty on the chair or the assembly, and I think the more specific you make that duty and the more mandatory you make that duty, then you might want to clarify who you really want to perform it, because right now it says the chair or the assembly should establish the committee. Thank you. For my part, I would, I would I think that depending on the circumstances, either of those scenarios could happen.

Okay. I think that— so what I'm hearing is just the implication of making it a mandatory would require action either from the chair or the full assembly.

Okay. I don't see—. Point of information, Chair. Yes, Mr. Martinez. What's your point of information?

I don't believe the queue is working, and I tried to get in, so electronically I couldn't identify. Okay, thank you. So, Mr. Martinez, you would be next in the queue then, and I'll visually scan if anybody else wants to be in the queue.

But I don't have a comment on this particular amendment. Okay, so you would want to be for the main item. Okay, I will start writing down. Um, okay, any further discussion? Mr. Gerker, I think the queue may be working for the main motion.

Yeah, main motion. Okay, hold on.

Can you also put me in the queue for the main motion as well?

Anyone in the queue currently for this amendment?

Okay. Any objection to adoption of this amendment?

Okay. Mr. Martinez has objected, so we will take a vote on the amendment.

And just to repeat, the amendment is to change the word "should" on page 2, line 11 in Section 1 to the word "shall." Member Scout?

No objection.

Is the queue— is the vote system working for you, Mr. Hanlon?

No. All right. Do you mind if I take your voice vote?

Do you vote yes or no on the amendment? Mr. Handeland? Yes. Mr. Martinez? No.

Miss Baldwin-Day? Yes. Miss Park? Yes.

And, uh, how does the Youth Rep vote?

Yes.

Okay, please record the Youth Rep votes yes. And, um, I will apologize in advance, I'm still getting mentally used to having the Youth Rep there after the summer, so we will work through this. So on a vote of 8 to 4, that amendment passes. And then in the main motion, so far I have Mr. Martinez, then Mr. Gerker, then Mr. Handlin, and I'll keep an eye out. So Mr. Martinez, go ahead.

Move to amend line number 13.

To remove municipal employees.

Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Martinez to strike the words— oops, sorry— on page 2, line 13, this phrase municipal employees. Second by— was that Mr. Gerker? Second by Mr. Gerker.

Any further discussion on that, Mr. Martinez? Yes, I could describe why. Thank you, Chair. Um, the— for this particular item specifically relates to the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman's independence is important with respect to, uh, municipal employee investigations. And so the subject of a municipal employee technically could become the subject of a municipal investigation regarding the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman works for the legislative branch and is appointed as such, and I think a municipal employee would be a potential conflict of interest. Thank you.

Ms. Brawley, on the amendment. Yeah, thank you. This is on the amendment. Um, so, uh, I understand the concern. I think that is a valid one.

I will note in the past, um, Assembly leadership has been kind of researching how this has gone in the past, and I will say in past search committees for these positions, just as an example, for the ombudsman, the municipal clerk has also served on that committee as one of the most senior folks in that branch. And so my only concern, I guess, with this would be— and I believe the ombudsman does not investigate the— well, does not investigate the mayor or the assembly. And I believe also doesn't investigate certain legislative branch employees or functions. And so the suggestion would be we can go with that if folks want. But if we want someone like the clerk to be serving on that committee, then this would be— removing this completely would be broad.

So we could reframe it to be more specific potentially.

And next, I have Ms. Silvers on the amendment.

Yeah, can we I would like to amend— move to amend the amendment to allow employees under the assembly to serve on the committee. So like the municipal clerk.

Okay. I think— so motion by Ms. Silvers. I think we need to figure out what language to amend briefly. Might I suggest some language?

Um, we could say legislative branch municipal employees or legislative branch employees. Perfect. Okay, so, um, so then Silver's amendment is section— or sorry, page 2, line 13, to replace the phrase municipal employee— well, to replace the phrase municipal with legislative branch employees.

Second. Okay, um, that is a motion by Miss Silvers and second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Any further discussion on the amendment to the amendment?

Sorry, one second, the clerk needs a minute.

Okay, yeah, the software is, is being challenging, so the clerk is moving to manual.

Um, okay, any further, uh, discussion on the amendment to the amendment? Sorry, I lost my voice for a second. Okay, is there any— okay, one more moment.

Point of information, Chair. Yes, what's your point of information, Mr. Martinez? And this may not be— it may also be that I have a question for you, but it was related to a statement that you made, um, and so I wanted to clarify one of the things you mentioned, if you could. You described The sort of point of information is, is not the clerk also subject to potential investigation of the ombudsman?

Um, that is my understanding, but I'm going to actually turn to Assembly Counsel because I know the clerk is also busy. So if folks can clarify, is the clerk meaning the person, not the entire department? Is that— are they subject to investigation by the ombudsman? Uh, yes, based on my reading of the code. The clerk isn't exempted from investigation from the ombudsman, so she would be subject to investigation.

Okay, thank you. So then I do stand corrected. So the position of the clerk would— and the clerk's office would be subject to investigation.

Yes, Ms. Silvers, this is on the amendment to the amendment.

I guess I have a question. Um, after the ombudsman is hired, um, what is the authority structure between the ombudsman and the clerk look like?

So for that, what I would turn to, um, counsel to respond.

So I believe the question is, outside of the hiring process, there is a person in the office. What is Ms. Silvers, can you clarify? It was the— what does the authority structure look like between the clerk and the ombudsman or other assembly staff, I guess? Okay, so the— what is the relationship between the ombudsman and other assembly branch staff?

Through the chair. So there's a section of code addressing the assembly chairs duties, and that does include discussion of the chair's administrative duties toward legislative branch staff. And so specifically for the clerk and the ombudsman, it provides that the chair shall provide direction to the municipal clerk and other offices.

And—. But it is a little bit different for the ombudsman. It says the chair shall provide administrative support to the office of the ombudsman in a limited and as-needed manner. So there is a bit of a distinction there in terms of how they're the two positions are supervised, but it does give— to the extent there is authority exercised in day-to-day supervision, that would be held by the chair. If your question was to something different, I'm happy to do a follow-up answer.

Okay, the clerk informs me that the computer should be working again, so members, please flag me down if that's not the case. And I'm still keeping the list of folks who wanted to be in the main motion. Any further discussion on the amendment to the amendment?

OK, and then let us— here we'll go. Members may proceed to vote on the amendment to the amendment. We will test the voting system, see if it works. Member Scout, on the amendment to the amendment.

Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, the amendment to the amendment passes. We are back on the amendment again. So now it reads page 2, line 13, uh, the phrase municipal is now replaced with, uh, legislative branch employees, and the underlying amendment was to believe, strike that phrase. So the— a yes vote would mean we would just remove that phrase from the resolution. A no vote would be to retain that— or no, I'm sorry, no, sorry, yeah, sorry, I'm getting mixed up.

Okay, so let me restate that. So the amend— the amendment to the amendment is to change the phrase legislative branch branch, or so it doesn't say municipal employees, it says legislative branch employees. I'm sorry. So now we're back on the amendment. So I'll check one more time.

So Mr. Martinez on the amendment, Mr. Gerker on the amendment, Mr. Handeland amendment. Okay, that's all for the main. Any further discussion on this amendment?

Okay, members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Member Scout.

Yes. Oh yeah, yeah, sorry. And we just remembered the Youth Vote amendment to the amendment. Do you vote yes or no? I'm sorry, amendment itself.

Sorry, go ahead. Yes. Okay, okay. And the threat post— yes, sorry, we are— we'll get this figured out. Um, so that amendment unanimously passes.

So we are back on the main motion. So I will move back through the queue. Mr. Martinez, uh, and then Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we'd had a conversation, I seem to recall, maybe a month or two ago about filling the ombudsman's, uh, role when a vacancy happens.

I don't actually see it, and maybe I missed it in the last couple months, but are— is the intent of the body to post these positions and make them competitively recruited for? Because I know that that's kind of been a— it's not really been a well-established process for this role. And I'm just looking at this and it says candidates for the position may be filled, or candidates for the position— like, this is where I was reviewing candidates for this position, but I don't actually see how we're getting these candidates. Like, is it going to be competitively recruited for?

Yeah, if I can respond to that. The intent is to really take up the discussion further at the Governance Committee on Thursday, but I'll say briefly, yes, that is the intent, is to form a committee to have a competitive process. And I think, as I said, that's not reflected here because this is a broad resolution. But I would suggest if we could take that up on Thursday in more detail. But that is the intent for sure.

Okay, thanks.

And next, Mr. Handeland. Yeah, I just had a question for the sponsors. So, um, this does have an end date, uh, through April 30th, 2028. I guess, was there a rationale behind that rather than setting the policy? I know that the assembly can always change that, but if we're having an issue now, I guess having a policy that essentially disappears, um, was there a reasoning behind that?

Thanks. I can respond to that. There's kind of two thoughts behind this date. One is, as I said earlier, when we were working on this, of course, there's always a consideration of whether and how we potentially bind future assemblies. They can certainly rescind a resolution like this.

And so that was a discussion, you know, should we put this in place? The intention with assembly leadership is certainly to You know, we have talked a lot about process and kind of shoring up a lot of our processes, so we felt that this was a way to kind of say generally this is what we would like the process to be. The end date is really when the next— so the assembly essentially has 6 seats on the ballot, not this coming year, but every, you know, the other 2 years. So at that point, there could in theory be, you know, 6 new members in there for a new assembly or some subset of seats would turn over. And so the thought here is to leave really the question of if this policy is still intended to be in place, or this resolution, this intent is still to be in place, so that way the new body can take that up at that time.

So it doesn't mean that the body needs to extend it, but it just says that this is not a forever, you know, something that could apply 30 years from now. Certainly in the past, as we've looked through, we've seen a number of different ways folks have done things. But the thought too is, for example, at this point, you know, we know the clerk is not going anywhere anytime soon. If something does happen to the clerk, knock on wood that that doesn't happen, but that this, in the time frame at least, this would cover that situation as well. So that's the thought behind the time limit.

Okay, thank you. I can also maybe add just a layer to that answer. Yeah, Mr. Vaughn. Essentially what we're trying to do here is strike a balance between setting a more consistent pattern in this process going forward and putting that intent on the public record so future assemblies can look back at this as something to reference but without tying their hands.

Okay, I don't see— hopefully the queue seems to be working now. I don't see any other members in the queue, so please correct me if that's incorrect. Okay, um, and, uh, this time I will do it in the correct order. First, before I open the vote, I will ask what is the vote of the youth Representative? Yes.

Okay, and then I will ask members may proceed to vote. This is on the main motion resolution AR 2026-291.

Member Scout?

Yes. Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, that item passes unanimously. And as I mentioned, we will be discussing this process a little bit further in our governance committee on Thursday. Next, we have item 10B5, AR 2026-292, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly expressing intent that the Southwest Anchorage school site, Tracts 1 and 2, or West Park, be sold for housing development, that the net proceeds be directed to the Anchorage, uh, School District to the maximum extent possible, and that the Heritage Land Bank may waive any reversionary interest that may be construed to remain in a portion of the property. This item was pulled by Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, I have some questions for the administration on this item. Uh, yes, and first we'll need a motion. Oh, move to approve. Sorry. Second.

Motion by Mr. Handeland to approve, second by Ms. Park. Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, yeah, please go ahead. Okay. So does this direct the Heritage Land Bank to release its interest rather than ask for a recommendation?

And I'll turn to— I think Mr. Dole would be the one to respond. Through the chair, Member Handeland, that is correct. It directs the release of that property interest since it's absorbed in the action to create the new parcel for the school district. Is that customary? As I was kind of looking through some previous ones, it looked like it was more, I guess, recommendation-based, but, uh, didn't go back that far.

Through the chair, this is, um, I can't think of another instance where two different parcels were merged in this manner, so that's kind of the two are intertwined. So I'd say it's more a rare occasion or one of first impression. It is not customary because this normally doesn't come up. Okay, and then do we have any kind of, I guess, estimated costs or estimated proceeds from the sale at all there? I mean, I was a little concerned seeing that there's— yeah, there was really no information on any kind of estimate or rough estimate on how much this property was worth.

Through the chair, there isn't a comparable property that we're aware of in this posture in this part of town. We will, before proceeding with the disposal, obtain appraisal to determine fair market value.

Okay, um, so I guess, yeah, for the record, I guess I have a little bit of concern, I guess, with, with this, just from the fact that, hey, we are being asked to essentially kind of pledge this property. I know that everything is preliminary, it doesn't really, really bind us, but that we're being asked to take an action really before we've got kind of full information. And this is not something that, hey, I'm necessarily opposed to in any way, but I mean, just not having that full and complete information before us just has— I just have some concerns with that.

Okay, and one second.

Miss Brawley. Thank you. Um, I wanted to, uh, just share some perspective on this and, and for members of the public as well. So first, um, this was an item that was intended to be discussed at our joint, uh, school board and assembly meeting on the 18th. We didn't get to this item at that time, uh, but there is some information at least in the presentations that we had.

Um, I will also note, um, that in dis— and that this is a larger discussion about multiple properties. I have spoken with the administration. Um, another option that this body has that I just wanted to put on the table is, um, this item is not considered urgent for passage tonight. It is also being brought to the school board concurrently. Um, if it's the same— I'm not sure if it's the same wording but the same general idea.

So another option the body has is to postpone this meeting, or postpone this to the meeting of October 20th for further discussion. And I've had a request for a work session— we have not gotten it on the calendar yet— for the purpose of discussing, um, essentially all three of the properties being discussed. So West Park, um, and two other former school properties. And so if that is of interest to the body, this item could be postponed and then taken up at our next meeting. So I just wanted to offer that.

Thank you. And I see next, uh, Ms. Gardner in the queue. Uh, thank you. Through the chair, uh, to Member Handlin, just to give a little bit of context, uh, financial context on these parcels.

Um, there were originally different parcels. They were replatted and certain parcels were combined and turned into a different arrangement. But ultimately, looking back, um, we did a lot of interesting legal property tracking to get to this, uh, knowledge. But a lot of these most of the property was purchased with ASD funds originally. So ASD put over $6 million of their, of their own bond funds into the property.

And so that is a reason why, even if we— absent this resolution stating the intent, if West Park were to come back to the municipality and the municipality were to sell it, there might already be an existing obligation to return a significant portion of the funds to the school district. And we haven't quite been able to pin that legal duty down, but these weren't these were originally largely purchased with ASD funds.

Okay, next I have Mr. Handeland again in the queue. Yeah, so I'd move to postpone this to a time certain to the October 20th meeting. Second. Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Handeland to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th, second by Ms. Park. Any further discussion?

That. No discussion. Okay, I don't see anyone. Oh, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day. Yeah, I'm, uh, I'm curious what the, what the rationale for postponement is, uh, in the mover's opinion.

Yeah, I mean, I think that— I mean, I would like some, I guess, more information on this before we're, um I guess kind of somewhat obligating, uh, I know it's preliminary, it's nothing set in stone, but funds for this. And so I would just like some more information on some comps, or I guess, I guess estimated cost, what, what we're looking at here, especially as we're going into budget season.

Okay, anything further, Miss Baldwin-Day? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Sorry, I think it sounds— well, we'll have to deal with the IT issues at the break, but go ahead. Um, yeah, I— as I understand it, I think what we're, what we're attempting to do here is actually avoid cost to the municipality. Is that correct?

Um, am I, am I correct in that assumption, Mr. Dole? Through the chair, Member Baldwin-Day, that is correct. As I'm reading this, it looks like if we were to, um, there would actually be quite a bit of work to do on our end if we were in fact going to try to parse this apart again to its component pieces— HLB, ASD purchase, all of those things taken together. Is that accurate? Through the chair, that is correct.

And I would compare the $6.2 million invested by the school district with the the portion ASD purchased from HLB of $475,000. So it's somewhere over 10 to 1. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Yeah, I think I'm— I recognize that this is a complex, I think as Ms. Gardner said, a complex real estate arc, shall we say.

It's a complex story. But it appears to me that The intent here is for us to do two things simultaneously. One is to support ASD, provided that they will show a supplemental budget showing how funds will be used, and also to avoid spending what might potentially be a whole lot of money to recoup a $475,000 investment. So I feel ready to go ahead and take action on this tonight. Of course, I'm happy to defer to colleagues who feel otherwise, but I will be a no vote on postponement.

Thank you. Next, Ms. Park, on the postponement. Thank you. Um, inasmuch as it does convey money back to the school district that they have already spent, and we are attempting to save money, uh, through this action, I think it would be best to vote on it now, and I will withdraw my second.

Thank you. And I have myself in the queue regarding postponement. Miss Brawley. Thank you. Um, I'll just briefly say I'm indifferent to whether we postpone or not.

Um, and I think that if, if there is interest in a work session on this, this topic generally, that's what I've committed to doing. So, so this item is not, um, the only piece of that. So, so just if that, if that involves members' decision to postpone or not, um, we can certainly still get a briefing on the broader issue regardless of whether this passes tonight or whether it gets postponed. Thanks.

Okay, I don't see any other, um, members in the queue, so, uh, the motion is to postpone this item to the meeting of October 20th. Um, how does the youth rep vote? Yes. Okay, and then members may proceed to vote on postponement again to the meeting of October 20th.

Member Scout? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 6 to 6, um, this, uh, the motion to postpone to the meeting of October— sorry, October 20th has failed. So we're back on the main motion. Is there any further discussion on this item?

Okay, not seeing anyone in the queue, um, so I will ask, um, the youth rep, how do you vote? Um, so this is AR 2026-292, and we're back on the motion to approve.

Yes. And members may proceed to vote.

Member Scout.

Yes. Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, AR 2026-292 passes the body. And as noted, um, uh, regardless of the outcome of this item, uh, we will look for a time to have a work session on the general briefing on the, uh, those 3 properties. Uh, next, so we, uh, as we said, we, we reordered the day, so we are not taking up 10D16 or 10D17 right now. So next we will go to 10D19.

That is AM646-2026, Amendment 2 to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the remaining design and construction of AMATS West 32nd Avenue upgrades, Lois Drive to Minnesota Avenue, DOT Project CFHWY-01128. This item was pulled by Mr. Handeland. Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion to approve by Mr. Handlin, second by Mr. Bohlen.

Mr. Handlin. So it was just, uh, and I see now on the, the title there, um, we've got the correct amount, but in the actual documentation it says that, uh, Amendment 2 with, uh, DOT and Public Facilities in the amount of, um, $1,745,047.50.

Is the remaining amount, but it's actually, uh, $1,568,962.50. And so I just wanted to make sure that that was corrected for the record.

Okay, um, for clarity, can you, um—. So on page 2, line 11, it lists the full amount remaining, or the full amount MOA match, not the remaining total estimated match, which should be the $1.5 million there.

Okay. So I see. So page 2, line 11, where it reads proposed amendment number 2 with DOT NPF in the amount of— so I'll turn to the administration just to confirm, is there any concern about that, or, or is that a— is that a Scrivener's error that we need to correct? Thank you, Chair, to Member Hanlon. Thank you for flagging that.

It looks like that is correct, that the amendment amount is what is listed on the screen, and that that final sentence is ambiguous because it is listing the total amount of the contract after the amendment. But I think I think this discussion makes that clear. I'm looking over to our Public Works Director to see if there's anything further we think we need to do to the item. Otherwise, I believe we can pass it in its current form with this discussion.

Okay, I'm not hearing any objections from Mr. Kohli in the audience, so I think that's noted that it's clear that the amendment is the $1.5 million, et cetera. The total amount is the $1.7 million, et cetera. So, okay, thanks. Okay, thank you. The record has been noted.

Uh, any further discussion on this item? Not seeing any. Um, I'll ask, is there any objection to adoption of this item?

Seeing and hearing none, no objection to this item. And for clarity, for Youth Rep folks, if I'm saying no objection, you have the ability— wait.

Thank you. Yeah, so just for the public's clarity and for youth members, um, you do have the ability to object, um, if I ask for a no objection. So, uh, that's why we didn't ask for a separate vote. So just helping everybody understand. Uh, so then the last item on our consent agenda is, for now, is, uh, 10F3.

Let me flip to that page briefly.

Okay, 10F3, AAM 165/2026, Right-of-Way Management Strategy. This was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second.

Uh, thank you. And just for clarity, is the motion to approve or to accept? Uh, pardon me, it's to accept. Thank you. Second agrees.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, so a motion to accept by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Vohland. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you. I, I wanted to, to draw my colleagues and the public's attention to this item It has— it's been in development for a while, and I'm actually really delighted to see this come forward from the Planning Department.

There are a couple of things that I think are worth highlighting, especially since I'm sure we'll have a robust discussion later about right-of-way and parking needs in Anchorage. And so I wanted to highlight a few of the findings of the existing conditions of this study. First, I— Would like to point to page 2, line 23. Even in downtown, where many drivers are looking for places to park, there were available on-street parking spaces at the busiest times of day. Also, bullet 2, in residential areas, on-street parking is almost never more than 50% full.

There's a note that available parking is not always easy to find. Sometimes, especially in downtown, off-street parking is a little difficult to navigate. There is a note that enforcement tools, resources, and practices are not meeting Anchorage's needs. And I think this is something to take very seriously for us as a body. I think there is some legislative work to do here and some really fantastic policy recommendations contained in this pretty stout document that are really worth taking up.

They're worth putting into practice, I believe. Further, the study notes that funding and staff resources for right-of-way management are limited. And we may need to be thinking about different revenue sources if we are, in fact, going to manage our right-of-way differently. There's noncompliant and abandoned vehicles, which are a persistent challenge in neighborhoods, which I think, again, is a legislative project asking to be done, and that current management roles and responsibilities within the muni actually make it difficult for us to respond appropriately to right-of-way needs. So I wanted to flag all of those things, because I think we need to be working from a similar set of facts when we talk about to especially parking needs and Anchorage.

Um, vehicle storage in the public right-of-way is something that we all ought to be concerned about, especially when we're thinking about adding additional density in certain parts of town and along our transit corridors. And so I, I hope that my colleagues will give this their attention and potentially collaborate on some legislative work in the future. Uh, again, this report, I believe, is also available, or the study is also available on the planning department website. And so for those who are listening online, if you, uh, if you would like to save yourself some printing costs, you can go and grab this in PDF form. I think that's all for me, and I urge my colleagues to likewise vote yes to accept.

Thank you. Okay, next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am also pleased to accept this tonight. This work was actually responsive to a budget amendment that I brought forward along with former member Zolotow.

And so it has been some time coming, but I think it's— it has some good takeaways for us. And what I hope— and I just want to flag for the administration too— is that we can be briefed on this at the next meeting of the Transportation Committee. I think that would be really relevant. And yeah, may give us ideas for future policies that we want to work on collaboratively. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so first I'll go to the youth rep. What is your vote on the motion to accept this report? Yes. And any objection to acceptance of this report?

Seeing and hearing none, um, then this report has been accepted into the record, um, and sounds like we can expect to see it at a future Transportation Committee. This item was adopted, uh, or accepted by the body. Um, okay, so that brings us to the end of our consent agenda items. Um, so we have a, a couple more brief things to do, and then we will break for dinner. Uh, the first one— well, first I'm going to read two additional items into the record, and then, uh, we will ask our students to come up and say hello, and then we'll break for dinner.

Uh, so first I will read these in. These are both, uh, related to items on our agenda today. So the first one is supplemental to item 13D. It is AO-2026-85S, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly adopting Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21 in order to create a missing middle housing opportunity overlay, which will implement the transit supportive development corridors and neighborhood compatible infill goals established by the Anchorage 2040 land use Plan. So that one is— I don't have the supplemental number, but it is attached to Item 13D.

The second one is attached to— one second.

The second one is attached to Item 14G. It is AO-2026-115-S1, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly authorizing the disposal by a non-competitive property exchange of heritage land bank Parcel 3-080, uh, commonly known as the former Tozier Track, uh, legally described as, uh, and I'm not going to read the legal description, an amendment of the 2026 HLB Work Program. So those are both read into the record as substitute versions, um, for items further on on our agenda. And I will note, um, we do not have the budget items yet, but as again, as I said, we will take them up after dinner. So the last thing we'll do before we break for dinner is to ask, um, any students who are here to come up.

So anyone who is here for a class, um, and I know we had some of our West High folks. I believe they, they left already, but if anybody else would like to come say hello, uh, please come up to the podium.

Thank you. We got a few tonight, um, and again, if you do need any paperwork signed, we're happy to do that after, after we break. Um, so for the first person, if you would like to press press the green button there to turn the microphone on. The light will be green, and then just go ahead and press it, turn it on. Thank you.

And then go ahead and state your name, what school you go to, what grade, and if you're here for a specific class. I am Noah McDougall. I go to Chugiak High School. I am a junior, and I am here for my World Discovery seminar gov class. Thank you.

Next person, please. Hi, I'm Savannah. I am from Chugiak High School. I am a senior, and I'm for my WS seminar US gov class. Thank you.

Next person. Hi, my name is Gabriella Jetty, and I'm a senior at Chugiak High School, and I'm here from my World Discovery seminar gov class. Okay, and next person. Hi, I'm Julia Samuel. I'm a senior at South High School, and I'm not here for class.

I'm just here. Okay, well, thank you for being here recreationally. Okay, and thank you everybody. And again, um, if you do need some paperwork signed, I'm sure we'll be happy to do that. Um, so with that, we have concluded, uh, our consent agenda items for now.

So we will break for dinner, back in about 20 minutes or so. And then I'll just remind folks, um, I know we have a number of late-on-the-table items, so I believe there's copies available in— out in the lobby or from the clerk's office. Thank you.

Members Scout, are you back online? Yes, I'm here. Okay, okay everyone, I think we're going to get started, so I'll ask members to return to your seats.

Everyone, we need to get our meeting started. I will ask ask anybody other than members who would like to take your conversations outside if you would like to continue them. We need quiet in the chambers.

And we will be hopeful for the— that we will be blessed by the IT spirits. So moving on. So next we have on our agenda, we have one more— let me also say For the public, I know there's a number of folks here to testify. If you were not here earlier, we did reorder the agenda. I will read those out again when we get to that point, just for clarity.

And so we do have some other business that we need to take care of because we anticipate that one item will take up most of the meeting. So I will just ask everyone's patience as we get through our other business, as we have— well, currently we have 18 public hearing items on the agenda, so, uh, so we are not anticipating taking all those up tonight, but just asking everybody's patience because we have a number of other things we need to do. And then I will also note that we are still waiting for our print copies of the budget ordinances. I will, if nothing else, I'm going to read those into the record before we open the public hearings on our final items tonight, just to make sure that we are in order. Mr. McCormick, were you in the queue for— okay, for, for discussion now?

Okay. Um, okay, so with that, um, we will do our next item on the agenda, which is item 11A. So that is information memorandum AIM 139-2026, Anchorage Municipal Code, uh, 3.102. Report for 2026 regarding unmanned aircraft, UAS, and confirming no use of facial recognition technology. Um, right now we have a motion to postpone indefinitely on the floor that was made by Mr. McCormick and second by Ms. Silvers, and I see Mr. McCormick in the queue.

I'd like to withdraw my motion.

Okay, um, the mover has asked to withdraw his motion. Does the second agree? I don't think she asked. Oh, okay, okay. I'm sorry, indefinitely?

No, sorry, and I, for clarity, I was mistaken. So I had originally asked if you had agreed to a motion, but the, uh, sorry, the maker of the motion can withdraw a motion without Lean for the second. Okay, um, okay, so there is no motion on the floor. Is there any, uh, motion by the body?

I'll move to accept. Second for purposes of discussion. Okay, there's a motion to accept this item, uh, and by Mr. McCormick, second by Mr. Boland. Uh, Mr. McCormick? Yeah, if we could ask Chief Case some questions about the report.

And would I be able to request the clerk attach, uh, 10F4 to this as supplemental? One second.

Okay, okay, um, so I was just checking with the clerk, so it is in order, um, to direct attaching one item to another. I will note, um, the 10, uh, I think it was 10F4, as the item you referenced, that one has already been accepted into the record, so I would— if you, if you want this to exist in the record, I would suggest attaching this to that, if that makes sense. The reverse of what you would say. Okay, if we could, yeah, do it as reverse. Okay.

Okay, so the clerk is so directed. And then, um, back to, uh, Chief Case, I think, or Mr. McCormick, to answer— ask your questions. Okay, Chief Case, we saw 10-F4 was, uh, accepted by this body. It was the new, uh, report that was submitted from your, uh, department or the administration. Is, is that record now complete?

Have we completed this, uh, information memorandum through the Chairman McCormick? Yes. Okay. Um, and on, on that new report, different from this report, we saw 150 new flight logs. Where did those come from?

How— what was the discrepancy that we saw? Uh, you're gonna have to report, uh, let me know the lines of the 100 20 to 50, or that we didn't add— from my knowledge, we didn't add new, new lines that were not in the previous ones. Which, what specifically are you talking to, which pages? There's 150 new flight logs that are, that are added from the previous report than this report. Again, you're gonna have to refer to the lines or the pages that you're talking about.

Well, you submitted a report to this body stating that it was ready public review, and I called out a discrepancy, and you went to fix it. Now we're seeing 150 additional logs. I, I would like to know where they came from. I'm sorry for the delayed response. The queue is not seeming to recognize me.

I believe we flagged this the last time, but I can explain this. The chief sent several different spreadsheets. The most recent year's spreadsheets had two tabs in it, and when the staff that I worked with to take the police department's data and collate it with all of the other departments. She just missed that tab, so that was the 150 that you're referring to. Okay, or thereabouts.

Thank you. And then, Chief Casey, it looks like in the spreadsheets you guys are flying DJI Matrices and DJI Avatas. Is— are we flying DJI-style drones? Correct. Okay, and those DJI flight logs automatically record their own takeoff, landing, GPS serial number, did we check the DJI flight logs against what we're reporting to the public?

We did. Okay. And same thing of checking the, um, the CAD or the CAD files of when cases are opened. Are we checking those against the flight log? Uh, generally it's the reports that the operator wrote in conjunction with the flight logs.

Okay, and then we also saw a new policy put in here, the Drone as First Responder policy that was adopted on February 20th. Is this the first time we've released this to the public? Has this been released previously to the public? It's been released previously to the public. Okay, where was that released previously?

Public Health and Safety Committee meeting, did a presentation on it, released the policy, and did a PowerPoint presentation on it. Perfect. Um, and now So just to clarify, we're saying this, this public record is now intact in whole? We've released all the drone flights? That's correct.

Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Any further questions, Mr. McCormick? Okay. And I'll note we are having a tech issue, and so I know we have Silvers in the queue next, and I'll just make visual contact if you want to be in the queue.

If you're going to attach this report into the permanent record, can we please redact the addresses first? Thank you.

Okay, next, Mr. Voland. Thank you. Um, yeah, so I think my only feedback on this, um, is that the item that we previously accepted I would have liked to have a little bit less of an opaque title. And I think this is— this topic is one that is in the public interest. And so 10F4, again, which we previously accepted, doesn't really call out that this is a drone report.

It just gives sort of an opaque code reference. But with that, on this item which we're discussing now, 11A, I will move to postpone indefinitely. Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Bohlen to postpone indefinitely. Is there a second? Second.

Second by Ms. Silvers. Any further discussion on that? And again, I will do a visual scan. Mr. Perez-Rodilla, I'm not sure I'm, I'm, I'm fully understanding what postponing an information memorandum indefinitely means.

Does that mean the information no longer is, is Can you— maybe you can clarify sort of functionally what that— what happens with this item? So, um, well, first I'll say that that was sort of at the request of the administration, that this one, which was incomplete, goes away. So that means that we would not accept this. We previously in this meeting did accept the replacement that they brought forward. So just, just functionally, it's not accepted by the body is what that, that means?

Correct. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any further discussion from members?

Not seeing any, so I will ask— I guess I'll ask, is there any objection to postponement of this item indefinitely?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, item 11A has been postponed indefinitely. That was—. Sorry, one second—. That was AIM 139-2026. OK, so that brings us to our continued public hearings.

So I am again, just for the public's understanding and knowledge and reminder for members, I'm going to again read out the order of the items that we changed the order earlier today, and then I will note if I do not say one of these items, it will still be taken up, but after this list in the agenda. So if you're here for any of the items that are not listed, those are Well, they're very likely to come up tomorrow or at a future meeting. So, so we are going to be taking up in this order 13A, 13B, 10D, 16, and 17. Those are not public hearing items. They were left over from the consent agenda.

Then 13C, 13F, 13G, 14A, 14G, 14K, and then 13D. And I know that is a long list, and so I will state again If you look at the agenda, some items are already listed this way, others I believe the sponsors will speak to it. Some of these items are intended to be postponed indefinitely and not taken up, and so if you're accounting the amount of time it will take, I think it will be shorter than you might expect. So with that, and then I'm going to briefly also read our public hearing reminders because I did not do that earlier in the day. So for all public hearings, reminders for public testimony, I will ask you to please to come forward and state your name when we get to that.

Please state the community council or area of the municipality in which you live. Please stay on topic. Direct comments to me or other people on the dais, and I will interrupt you, or another member may call a point of order if you're off topic. Individuals have 3 minutes. If you're representing a community council and speaking on their behalf, you have 5 minutes.

And then public testimony is the public's time to speak. So typically, assembly members do not answer questions during this period, but they may address those topics or seek more information during debate. And then the last one I will note— well, actually, I'll say it later regarding substitute versions and testimony a second time, but I will hold that for now because that is not pertinent to this moment. So next, we will move to the first public hearing item. That is 13A, AO-2026-114, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 16.120, Emergency Shelter Plan for Homeless Persons Code, to reduce barriers to shelter and align code with current practices.

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

Thank you. And the microphone is on, uh, so please state your name, what part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Sure. My name is Amber Batts.

Um, I'm asking the assembly to take a closer look at the funding for mass Property Management. People need shelter, yes, but providing a room is only part of the responsibility. The city also needs to know whether people are safe, services promises promised are being delivered, and if public money is being spent responsibly. MASH is a for-profit company receiving public money to serve people experiencing homelessness. That deserves scrutiny.

What portion of the funding pays for direct services, staffing, and resident safety? What portion pays for admin and support? And what information can, can the public actually see? I'm also concerned about safety at MASH properties and how they've been handled. Specifically, I'm talking about the deaths of Marilyn Octoyak and Dora Menegak.

Before approving additional funding, it would be great to have answers to 3 questions. First, what exactly are we getting, meaning how are people being served and what services, what staffing, and what safety standards must, must MH meet? Second, who monitors the contract? Do they visit the property? Do they review incident reports?

Do they speak privately with residents? And can residents report problems without fear of retaliation? Third, what happens when a contractor falls short? Are there consequences, and will the Assembly and the public learn about these problems before the next funding request? I'm asking that the contract requirements, monitoring findings, and any corrective policy actions are publicly made available while protecting residents' privacy, of course.

If those records already exist, please let me know where to find them. We can fund shelter and demand accountability at the same time. We owe that to the people staying there and to the public paying for it. Thank you.

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

Okay, microphone is on. Please state your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage formerly Coalition, formerly homeless. So, um, on this I'm going to skip part of it because I didn't do any fair reading and I did not have time to prepare. Only fair, uh, to answer the previous speaker's questions, uh, yes, there is an oversight contract.

It is performed by Restorative Reentry Services. They get paid $150,000 a year to run oversight over the 3 shelters: East 56, Linda's Place, and Alex Hotel. And every 2 weeks they put out a report It's available on the Anchorage Health Department webpage. But it is a bit of a boilerplate report. And sometimes things do not show up in there that are actually happening on site and property.

And there is a sort of incentives to make things look rosy. And so some things do not get reported in these reports at all.

The people suffer as a result of it. Some of the clients do. It just depends on whether or not— who is watching the watchers. And I would suggest that some of the concerns are valid by the speaker, and somebody should look into them, because clearly the clients don't know how to report things when they do have issues. And there is a process.

You have to report it to the health department, and then, you know, it gets elevated. But half the time these people don't even know it, and they're getting kicked out for various reasons. And sometimes it's because the staff doesn't like you. Um, but yeah, I'll just leave it at that.

Okay, when anyone else was to testify, please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move the S. Second.

Motion by Mr. Voland to move the S version, uh, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I will also move Amendment Number 1.

Brawley, Buland, Amendment Number 1. Okay, motion to amend with Amendment Number 1 by Mr. Buland. Is there a second? Second. Second by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Mr. Buland. Thank you. Uh, this just corrects an error. There was a, a reference to a subsection of code, um, which was mistakenly reinserted into the S version that should not be there. So folks can see the the stricken language.

Okay, any further discussion on the amendment? And again, I will keep visually scanning if folks want to get in the queue in case it's not working.

Okay, I don't see anyone. Um, is there any objection to adoption of this amendment?

Seeing and hearing none, uh, this amendment is adopted. So we are back on the main motion. Is there any further discussion?

Okay, and I'll just note, Member Scout, I am attempting to make sure that I'm catching you if you contact me to get in the queue. I don't see any. Okay, so I don't see any members in the queue. So how does the Youth Rep vote on this item? Yes.

Okay, and members may proceed to vote. This is AO 2026-114S as amended.

Member Scout.

Yes.

I, uh, Member Gerker? Yes. Member Baldwin-Day? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-114-S as amended has passed the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to item 13B. Uh, 13B is Resolution AR 2026-262, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage approving a state Community Assistance Program revenue, appropriating State Community Assistance Program revenue to area-wide general fund 101000 in an amount to— sorry, in an amount of $2,813,529 for homeless shelter support and electronic health records and electronic medical record system software subscription, and an amount of $457,725 as a transfer and appropriating said transfer to the operating projects committed fund, uh, the, uh, general fund 1900 for setup of the EHR EMR system and amending the 2026 capital improvement budget. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing— 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 Mr. Boland to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Boland? Just urge support. Okay, uh, and I will check any further discussion on this item.

Don't see anyone in the queue. Um, how does the youth rep vote on this item? Yes. And members may proceed to vote.

Member Scout?

Yes.

Member Gerker? Yes.

Okay, on a motion of 12 to 0, AR 2026, uh, 262 passes the body unanimously. And I'll note apologies to members if you get the your computer not working roulette when you're voting. So if you don't hear from the clerk to ask you to voice vote, please indicate your vote when it's time. Next, we'll move on to item 10D16. A reminder, this is not a public hearing item.

This is AM 620-2026, Amendment Number 5 with Henning Inc. or Henning for congregate shelter services for the municipality Anchorage Health Department, not to exceed $1 million.

$43,000.243.60. What is the will of the body?

Oh, I'm sorry, previously this item was pulled by Mr. Handlin. Mr. Handlin, I'll let another member move it. Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Perez-Rodilla, second by Mr. Voland.

Mr. Perez-Rodilla, do you want to speak to it?

Nope. OK, any further discussion? Mr. Handeland. Yes, so I just have a couple questions for the administration on this one, and just because the next item also concerns similar things, is there any objection to me kind of talking to both items there or asking questions on that? I think I would encourage keeping them at least relevant to the first one if they apply to both, and then I'll see if— I know we have Director Rasch.

I don't know if she would be the right one to come answer questions, so if you can please come to the podium.

And I think as you're asking questions, Mr. Handlin, maybe just indicate which ones apply to both. Thank you. Yeah, so, um, I mean, with these increases here, um, With this additional funding that we got from the state, I guess, what was the administration's plan if we hadn't gotten that? Because as kind of previously discussed, we were, I mean, it's a not-to-exceed contract, and so that we saw that kind of get eaten up with the cold weather that we had. And so, I mean, if we didn't have this funding going forward, I mean, would we have had shelters, I mean, where, where we wouldn't have been able to be providing the services that we're, um, supposed to.

Uh, through the chair to Member Handlin, great question. So, um, what I would do is I would try to find the money. Um, first and foremost, I would, uh, go to OMB, um, and have them turn over every seat cushion, and anything we could find we would put towards the contract. Uh, if money is not found then we would have to close shelters at that point.

Okay, so my other question is, I mean, so between these two, it's increasing the total capacity for emergency from 300 to 450, is that correct?

We're currently right now we're at 140 each. Previously we could go up to 150, now with the approval of 16.120, we can go up to 200 at each location as long as it stays within the budget that we have approved until the end of the year. Okay. And so then it was just— I mean, there would seem to be kind of a discrepancy with this. So in July, the assembly approved a memo covering partial payment for the, the Hennings contract here of half a million dollars, and that was said to, uh, for the increase from January to April's capacity, but then in this it says Amendment Number 4, or it says that this is also to cover capacity from that same time period.

And so I guess I'm kind of curious on, I guess, why that wasn't brought up sooner and kind of pushed out.

Could you repeat the question? Brought up sooner as in, um, So funding could—. So in, uh, in July we approved $500,000 to cover the capacity for that winter time period. It didn't say anything of, hey, this is a partial payment or anything like that. And then in this one here, the additional funding is needed to accommodate the increase in the 100-person maximum allowed capacity in the shelter between January 1st and April 30th.

And so I guess the discrepancy I'm seeing is that we've approved everything to the assembly. We were not told at that time, hey, there's still this extra portion. And then now that we're coming for another funding increase, we're seeing that, oh hey, there's actually some more. And so I'm wondering, hey, why that wasn't taken care of back in July when we were originally discussing this and why it's kind of getting piecemealed here. Gotcha, okay, yes, I understand.

So back in July when we did the first amount of money, that was money that was already approved appropriated, so we moved it to the contract. At that time, my understanding is OMB had gone in front of the Budget and Finance Committee meeting stating that we would not have enough money for quarter 4 of this year. And so that communication went out via that forum, and then this right here is the action to shore up what Director Brouse had mentioned earlier. Okay, let's see.

Um, and so the— these, uh, additional, uh, increase and stuff, have those already been incorporated into this next year's budget request? Yes, it has. Okay, thank you. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Uh, next, Mr. Gerker, or were you testing? I know we were—. Sorry, I was doing a side quest with IT. I'm actually not in the queue. Okay, thank you.

Well, we did verify that it's working, so thank you. Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue, so how does the youth rep vote on this item?

Yes. And members may proceed to vote.

Member Scout?

Yes. Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, item Item AM620-2026 passes the body unanimously. Next, we have another non-public hearing item, that is 10D17. This is Amendment Number 3 with MASH Property Management for congregate shelter services for the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Health Department, not to exceed $1,134,540.

This item was pulled by Mr. Handlin as well. Move to approve. Second. Second. Motion by Member Handeland to approve, second by Mr. Buland.

Would you like to speak to it further, Mr. Handeland? I have another question that's related to this one. Sorry, I was trying to split up my questions here. So we see that between the Hennings contract and the MASH one, that it was roughly the same amount of increase, but the MASH increase in the number of beds is half the capacity of Hennings. And so can you maybe, I guess, kind of speak to that?

Yes, through the chair. So at Linda's Place, what a comfortable capacity looks like is 150 beds, whereas East 56 has a larger capacity because it's a bigger facility. And so we tend to surge up higher, up to 200 at the East 56 location, and that is on the first floor. So the second floor, and I mentioned previously in one of our meetings, a public health and Safety— or no, it was Housing and Homeless, excuse me— that we are now authorized to use the second floor of the facility, which potentially we could add another 20 beds upstairs on the second floor. So that's why you see the surge is a little bit different at both locations, just because the facility sizes.

Yeah, I guess, can you speak, I guess, to the amount of why those— I mean, it seems like we're paying more or paying roughly the same for, for half the, I guess, available surge capacity there. Yes, uh, through the chair, so MASH's contract, their per-person rate is higher than Henning's, and so that's where you will see the difference. With East 56, the health department has funds that are set aside through our operating budget which cover rent, utilities, damages, porta-potties, and so we have all of those additional costs on top of paying up the contracted amount to Henning. Whereas at Linda's Place, we do not have any additional costs other than the per-person rate. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any further discussion? I don't see anyone in the queue. Um, how does— sorry, how does the youth representative vote on this item?

Sorry, this item? Yes. Okay, thank you. And members may proceed to vote. This is AM AM 625-2026.

Member Scout?

Yes.

Member Silvers?

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AM 625-2026 passes the body unanimously. Next, we have Item 13C. That is AO-2026-98, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 4.60 and 27.30.085 to enact a new Section 4.6310 and establish the Chugach State Park Access Advisory Board. Public hearing on this item was continued from the meeting of August 4th, and public hearing on this item is open. Mr. Bowen.

Madam Chair, I move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of October 20th. Second. Okay, there's a motion from Mr. Vohland to continue this public hearing to the meeting of October 20th, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Would you like to speak to that further? Yeah, I'll just say, um, we have received a lot of good input from, um, various individuals and stakeholder groups and, um, have incorporated some of that into an S version.

Um, We are hoping to have a couple more meetings with the public before we hear our next round of public hearing and take action on this. Thank you.

I'm sorry, thanks. Any further discussion from members on this? Any objection to continuing the public hearing on this item to October 20th?

Seeing and hearing none, this item is continued to the meeting of October 20th. And one second.

Okay, uh, next item again with our reordered agenda is item— is resolution— uh, sorry, item 13F, Resolution AR-2026-235, a resolution confirming the 2026 assessment roll and levying special assessments for services on property specially benefited in the Downtown Improvement District Special Assessment District 1, SD 97, setting the rates of assessment, etc. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify. The microphone is on. State your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Radhika Krishna. I'm the executive director of the Anchorage Downtown Partnership. I'm happy to just take a minute of your time to tell you how the Downtown Improvement District works. And how these funds are used.

In 1997, the Anchorage Assembly added sections of code that allowed for special, special assessment districts. At that point, the Downtown Improvement District was created thanks to the work of many champions. It remains to this day the only business improvement district in the state of Alaska. Our organization, the Anchorage Downtown Partnership, has managed the district and campaigned for its renewal 3 times since then. We run incredibly leanly, uh, as you'll see in code.

What we are charged with doing is providing supplemental public services. So with these funds, we do everything from sidewalk snow removal through the 30 miles of sidewalk in downtown. That's the reason why downtown sidewalks are clear in the winter. We do daily cleaning. We maintain those public trash cans that you see downtown.

We clean graffiti. We clean, um, power washing items, we, uh, chip ice, we remove weeds, and we go out and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants and sponsorships to throw some of the events that you know and love downtown, including Live After Five and coming up our city's New Year's Eve celebration and fireworks. So we're proud of what we do. We run very leanly. We have a $1.6 million budget total, and I hope that as you enter budget season, you appreciate what an incredible amount of services that is for a very small organization.

Um, this is the method by which we do it, most of those public services. So we hope to continue doing that for many years, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, I don't see any questions from members. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. So the microphone is on. Please state your name, your part of town, and you'll have 3 minutes.

Well, good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Anchorage Assembly. My name is Charles Joy and I reside in the Appaloosa community. Tonight I am representing the Older Persons Action Group Incorporated in the request that our property at 810 West 8th Avenue be exempted from or given an option to opt out of the 26 Downtown Improvement District special assessment. The reason is following: OPAG has maintained its 501 nonprofit status since 1968. And has served the older Alaskans for nearly 6 decades.

We operate on our limited resources and rely on grants, donations, and charitable contributions to carry out this mission. Most of these funds are restricted and cannot be used for expenses such as property taxes or special assessments. The property in question was donated to OPEG in November 2023. Since receiving it, OPEG has already had to divert more than $56,000 in unrestricted funding toward the demolition, remediation, insurance, taxes, and other costs associated with the property. Compounding that financial burden, OPAC's application for property tax exemption under the nonprofit criteria was denied, leaving our organization responsible for an average of $7,400 of annual property taxes on this parcel using limited charitable contributions.

For a nonprofit like OPAC, This is a significant financial burden. In fact, the ongoing expenses of carrying this property has become so burdensome that OPAG is now being forced to sell assets that were originally donated to support other charitable parts of our mission. Until a qualified buyer can be found, OPAG must continue to pay the taxes, the insurance, and other expenses associated with the property. Adding the Downtown Improvement District special assessment creates yet another financial burden. Um, while there is a practical benefit to this property, uh, our property now for the Downtown Special Assessment, um, our property does not benefit much from any of that.

It's basically a gravel pad, so, uh, we don't benefit from any of the other stuff that's happening with the, uh, services they provide. So, um, every unrestricted dollar that we spend carrying on this property is a dollar that we cannot use to serve our older Alaskans. And so for this reason, the Older Persons Action Group respectfully asks the assembly to exempt this property from the 2026 Downtown Improvement District Special Assessment roll, or at least give us an option to opt out of the DIS exemption. Thanks. Any questions?

Thank you. I don't see any questions from members. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else wish to testify on this item, please come forward if so. 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 to approve by Mr. Volland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Would you like to speak to it further, Mr. Volland? Um, I, I think I'll, uh, just say thank you to the Downtown property owners who have supported this time and time again, and thank you to the work of the Downtown Partnership to help downtown be a cleaner, more vibrant place. I guess I will extend the opportunity quickly to the administration if they wanted to weigh in at all or provide any context on that second piece of testimony that we heard tonight, um, or not. Through Chair to Vice Chair Voland, I'll mention that the Older Persons Action Group issue is somewhat new to me, but I'm happy to coordinate with them and with the municipal assessor to see what can be done. My general understanding is that charitable properties are exempt from the Downtown Improvement District assessment, and so it could be handled in the normal course with an effective application.

If that application did not qualify for some reason, then it would be a taxable property. Um, thank you for that answer. Can we take action? Do you believe we can take action on this item tonight and resolve that question at a later date? Is that a possibility?

Yes, I think we could, in part because the exemptions have to meet a certain timeline, and so this, this assessment rule should be set ready for action now. Okay, appreciate that. Uh, urge support. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

And Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Uh, question to the municipal manager, Mr. Fawzy, just to hear what you said again and just to make sure I heard it correctly. Tax-exempt properties that receive tax exemptions also receive the exemption from having to pay the assessment for the downtown district? That is my understanding, which I am confirming with the tax assessor.

And let me be more accurate. Nonprofit organizations that have tax-exempt property are exempt from the, the special assessment or not? It looks like the assessor is coming to my rescue, but I think the one nuance there is that nonprofit organizations have to have the property for exclusive charitable purposes. So it is possible that a nonprofit organization could hold a taxable property. But with that, I should probably get out of the way and let the expert in to answer the question.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'll ask our Treasurer, Mr. Kademus, to answer. Thanks. Yeah, through the Chair to Martinez, so this is Jack Kademus, Municipal Assessor.

So typically when we look at what properties are exempt from the Downtown Improvement District, or DID, it is spelled out in the section of code, but it's largely going to be your charitable nonprofits. It's going to be your government properties. It's also going to be your residential properties as well that are receiving the residential exemption. Those are exempted. What's not exempted— there are certain exemptions that are not— that are exempt from property tax but are not exempt from the DIT.

For example, you have your property tax incentives under 1260, you have your deteriorated property tax exemption under 1235. Those are just two examples I can think of at the top of my head. So they're not— hopefully that answers your question. It does. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't see anyone further in the queue, so I will ask, um, how does the Youth Rep vote on this item? Yes. And then, uh, members may proceed to vote. This is AR 2026-235.

Member Scout.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-235 passes the body unanimously. Uh, next we have item 13G, uh, that is AO 2026-116, an omnibus ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending and updating Anchorage Municipal Code Title 28 elections. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open.

Okay, I'm going to move to postpone indefinitely. Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Voland to postpone indefinitely, uh, second by, uh, Miss Scout. Do you want to speak to it, Mr. Voland? Yeah, I believe this is going to come back before us, um, sort of split apart and in different reforms. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And I'll remind members and the public, so we have in our code that if we— someone moves to postpone something indefinitely while the public hearing is still open, it is not a debatable motion. However, it does allow for the, the mover of that motion to speak and then the sponsor if they would also like to respond. So I will ask Ms. Scout and Mr. Handlin if you would like to add anything further.

You're not required to. No, we're going to be bringing it back as a split. So, okay, thank you. Yeah, and I'll note that, um, those items were introduced on our agenda, um, and will be set for public— or they were set for public hearing in November. So, uh, with that, um, uh, I will ask, is there any objection to postponing this item indefinitely?

Seeing and hearing none, this item has been postponed indefinitely. Next, that brings us to item 14A, Okay, so let me read that one into the record. Ordinance AO-2026-107, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 2 by enacting a new Chapter 2.90 and amending Chapter 9.20 and Sections 1.15.140, 10.80.610, 27.20.85 to create uniform procedures for all administrative matters considered by the Municipal Assembly. Public hearing on this item is now Open. Mr. Buland.

Madam Chair, I move to postpone indefinitely.

Okay, there's a motion to postpone this indefinitely. Is there— second by Mr. Buland, a second by Ms. Silvers. Would you like to speak to that, Mr. Buland? Yes, thank you, Chair. I believe it is your intent as the sponsor to bring this back in a different form.

That is correct, uh, and this is again, uh, same situation that I mentioned earlier, so, um, I ask if there— is there any objection to postponing this item indefinitely?

Seeing and hearing none, this item has been postponed indefinitely, um, and as was stated, it will come back in a future form. So next we are on to— okay, moving along. Next, uh, we are on item 14G, that is AO-2026-115, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly authorizing the disposal by a non-competitive property exchange of Heritage Land Bank Parcel 3.080, commonly known as the former Tozier Track, legally described as, uh, E½, E½, uh, northwest ¼, northeast ¼, Section 33, uh, T13N, R3WSM. Thank you.

Public hearing on this item, and I'll also note there's an S version and S1 version. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Okay, one person coming forward.

So as you are coming up, I will note the microphone is already on, um, so just please state your name, part of town, and you will have 3 minutes. My name is Linda Sharp and I live in Midtown Anchorage. I've read just a little bit about this and if I'm not mistaken, it has to do with trading Tozier Tract for an acre downtown. Is that what's on the— may I just verify that's what we're talking about? Yes, but otherwise we cannot answer your question, so please continue with your testimony.

All right. Well, from what I read, I have emailed you, so this is really just a follow-up on that. And I can't imagine why you would sell or trade a larger tract on Tudor Road for one tract downtown. As I understand, it's to be part of the MMHOP plan, and the acre downtown would allow for about 8 units that you would be exchanging and taking possession of and giving up about 5 acres on Tudor Road, which would accommodate about 40 units. So if that's the plan, I think that it's a bad idea, and I oppose it.

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

Okay, seeing, uh, no one coming forward to testify and no one signed up on the phone, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move the S1 version. Second. Okay, there's a motion to approve the S1 version by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Voland.

Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you. This is a substitute substitute version that was developed by myself and Member Scout. So members may have noticed that there was a difference between the original version and the substitute substitute proposed by the mayor, which struck two of the conditions of the transfer of the Tojer Track parcel to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. And I understand that the change in the substitute version was made because AHFC was not interested in having conditions imposed on them with the Tojer Track.

And We have a couple of supplemental items with this particular proposal that I think flesh out what the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation intends to do with Tojer Track. But Member Scout and I wanted to be sure that the assembly's intent for this land swap was very clear, and so we've added some language here. We've— in the S1 version that references back to a resolution that we passed very recently with respect to municipal property disposals and the priorities of the body, asked for at least 15 dwelling units per acre with at least 70% of the, of the land on either site to be developed, whether that is residential, mixed-use, or other service-related features. And we also, in the, uh, in Section 2, added a clause recommending that every effort be made to break ground on both sites within 3 years of the execution of the property exchange. So we did not go so far as to include a reversionary clause.

We were told that that would be a deal breaker, and since this deal has been in the works for some time and definitely something that has a priority of the administration, we thought that the best we could do under the circumstances was to include very clear intent language from the assembly and hope that our partners at AHFC are paying attention to that and, um, will do the best that they possibly can to ensure that this particular investment of public land does in fact continue to serve the public good. And I do want to remind my colleagues that public land is one of the ways that we can actually guarantee, or at least support, the development of affordable and attainable housing in Anchorage. And so this is, um, this is an important move and not one to be taken lightly. I do urge my colleagues' support and Of course, welcome feedback. Thank you.

Okay. Next I have in the queue Ms. Scout, and then I will move through the queue online. So go ahead, Ms. Scout.

Thank you.

Yeah, just echoing a lot of what Member Baldwin-Day said, I will also share that I had a really productive conversation with a couple of staff members at AHFC on Friday.

Discussing the swap and what would be amenable to them and was really grateful to find this compromise around intent language, making sure they still have control over the site and the ability to analyze what's possible. So, support from my colleagues as well and also gratitude to AHFC for helping us find a solution here.

Thank you. Next I have Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so in light of, uh, Ms. Sharp's testimony here tonight, um, I thought I would give the opportunity to the administration to explain to the public, um, what is the value that the municipality is getting with this deal. Um, I, I think it was stated and I may have misheard, but that we would only be getting 8 units potentially on the downtown Block 102 lot.

I don't know if that's the case or not, but, um, so maybe just if you could lay out the vision, and then why is this a win for the municipality?

Yeah, and I'll invite the mayor or Mr. Dole to speak to that. Through the Chair, thank you, Co-Chair Voland, for the question of why we're going about pursuing this swap. As you know, the interest by the municipality in acquiring Block 102 for housing has been in the works a long, long time, shall we say, over several administrations. Excuse me. We have an opportunity now to effect on that.

Why one for the other? One's bigger than the other. I think it comes down to the details of the property and what we think they can do to go forward in pursuing housing within the municipality. Um, if we look at Block 102, it is optimally located for workforce housing if we can leverage it for that. It's in walking distance of scores of businesses who could benefit from workforce housing.

The water lines, sewer lines, road access are already resolved for. We don't have to worry about what we're going to extend or build into it. Well, we haven't completed the development assessment on it. However, the soil conditions are much better known, and we forecast it can easily accommodate over 100 units of, um, just of, uh, basic multifamily housing there. We're not going looking at 8 units or something like that.

This is an area that begs for a high-density multifamily housing And we— with the municipality contributing the land, we're in a position to uniquely influence going forward to hit that point that for a parcel in a place where it's most needed. Looking at this, if we look at the raw economics of the basic appraisals, we're basically taking a $4 million asset and trading it for a $5 million asset. Now, there will be some other things contributed to balance that out. However, not from the municipality itself going forward. Chojur is a phenomenal site also for development.

It would be more challenging, more problematic for the municipality going forward. We know there's water, sewer, road access, and other things.

And the exciting thing about partnering with AHFC, we can think of no better entity in the state than the, than these to develop it, who has the expertise and the recently demonstrated expertise they've done with parcels they've received from other state agencies and turning those into housing. They are dedicated to housing. I've personally worked on them on other packages before coming to Anchorage and seen that they focus on the— in the affordable housing space and the high-density space. They're unparalleled. It's their mission to maximize what can be done there.

So for us, this is a twofer. We on Block 102 have an opportunity to move forward and optimize it to meet our vision of providing housing where— in a place, in a way where it will best serve the people of Anchorage. And there's no partner we would be better off with for the resources for what it's going to take to develop Tozer. There may be other local ones, but we're working with them on other parcels as we speak. We have a capacity issue.

We welcome AHFC's expertise and wallet coming to this discussion for Tozier.

Okay, I think that was a very comprehensive response. I appreciate it. And I, um, I will say for my part, I am pretty excited to support this going forward. I often hear from my constituents that they want to see less parking lots downtown and more housing downtown. I think that is something that actually has pretty broad support, at least as it comes to me.

So urge support for this. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Next, Mr. Perez-Berdia. Thank you, Chair.

I want to, I want to say a few things that I'd like the administration to weigh in a bit.

This is a project that's been in the works for a while, and I'm really excited about it. And for all the reasons that we just heard, it's a, it's a really wonderful opportunity. The concern I have about this S1 version is a few things. We are spending so much energy removing barriers for development. All of the work over the last few years is about trying to make development easier.

And so what, what concerns me is at the last minute after a long process, we put some requirements in here that, that may make it more difficult to develop this. And I think that we're all on the same page in terms of wanting more housing. We're all on the same page in terms of wanting more density. I'm just not sure the value at this stage of putting in these requirements at this point, um, when we're still early in the process. We don't know exactly how this is going to unfold, what the requirements will be, what— who will develop it, all of that.

So I guess what I'd like to hear from the administration is the additional requirements parameters that was put in in the S-1 version From your perspective, how problematic is this? Is this something that could down the road become a problem for us in terms of actually developing it or limit our ability to develop it in the way that we want to? So I'd like to hear from someone in the administration to speak to that. Through the chair, looking at the original version, that is where the restrictive language was contained as requirements. The S— 1 version or the S version removed it as requirements.

The S1 version keeps it out as a standing requirement but reflects the intent of the assembly which was really came out in a resolution about the same time we introduced this. So I think it— we think it does a great job of combining the intent of the assembly without creating restrictions of the original version that would have been the deal killer. So then, thank you for that. So the intent language is something that can be overridden in your mind? Is, is if, if for some reason the intent language does not comport with what actually is reality, does this allow the administration to go in opposition to the intent language?

Through the chair, Section 2 of the S-1 version reads, the assembly recommends that— recommends is not binding. Okay, great. I heard it from you. Thanks very much. Okay, next I have, uh, the mayor.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. And, um, yes, this land exchange has been in the works for a while, on and off for a number of years, and, um, in a very focused way these last 2 years. The state administration has been working very diligently with us and the municipality. It feels wrong to say this on the record, but we are clearly, as Mr. Dool said, getting the better deal in terms of the market value of the transaction. I want to thank AHFC, Brian Butcher and his team, Mike Robbins at ACDA, Governor Dunleavy for moving this forward.

There's been a lot of parts that have had to be worked out, and it'll help us make progress towards our housing goals, 10,000 homes. And also thank you to members Baldwin-Day and Scout for bringing forward an S version that expresses assembly intent and also gets us where we need to be and retains the language of the S. I would like to ask Clerk Hines to be respectfully added as a co-sponsor to this version. Thank you, and I urge the assembly's support.

Thank you. Yeah, and the clerk is, um, will take care of that. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of questions for background information so that we have a better contextualization here.

It's been described that Block 102 has been part of the municipality's aspiration for quite time. How long has the Tozier tract been in the municipality's real estate portfolio?

Through the Chair, Member Martinez, I do not have the exact date. I believe about 4 years when the swap was worked out with the Mushin organization to relocate. There was a swap to a swap. I want to make sure I caught that.

What is the municipality's— when we acquired that Tozier tract, what was our developmental vision for that property, and how far along did we get doing whatever that vision was, if there was one?

Through the chair, I'm not familiar with the full details of that prior development. I recall it dissolving in terms of the development agreement with the developer. There's another parcel also involved in development with that same developer in agreement, and it— the parties had a parting of ways.

Put a finer point on it, had we made progress with getting that property toward development? Through the chair, no. Had we made any progress with getting Block 102 prior to this particular time into a potential developmental envelope? Through the chair, no. So essentially, there are two properties in different real estate portfolios that are sitting idly and not doing anything productive.

And the intent is to swap the ownership of those particular properties so they can get into a developmental portfolio. Is that fair to describe? From nothing to the intent of developing something? Through the chair, we consider this from nothing to something. Some would say the parking lot value of Block 102 is realistic.

We have a better way. Think we can meet that need and raise that property up to a higher beneficial use. It is an idle at this point. Theoretically, it's a parking lot.

Idling in a parking lot, very interesting way to describe that.

So just to confirm, we're also not talking about apples to apples with respect to the types of housing. Block 102's housing potential is very different than what Tozier Track could be developed as. Is that just fair to understand? Through the chair, from what we know now of the parcels, that is more than fair. It is very fair that they will develop on different paths.

I think some of the concerns that people have, just to make sure that we heard them, around value, I think, are worthy. Some of those concerns that we get the biggest bang for our developmental buck, I think, are really important. But the contextualization that we've basically been sitting on property and not being able to get it developed and being able to create a land exchange that can then create two developable properties, I think, is quite intriguing. And it's really good work. So I appreciate you with the feedback, and I think that makes the case for supporting this today.

Thank you. Okay, next I have myself in the queue. Ms. Brawley. Thank you. First, I want to say thank you to the administration, I know, and to ACDA and to AHFC.

I know it is difficult to do deals like this. Obviously, they don't happen quickly or that often, or else we wouldn't have had to put in this much effort. So thank you for that. I'll note also, I want to say thank you to the sponsors of the S-1 version. I think it is— I know there's been a lot of discussion around this item and, and kind of figuring out what is the right balance between directing or at least encouraging what we would like to see happen on those properties, recognizing that with real estate deals, we are just one player in a very complex complex process, and we, we cannot tell the private sector specifically what to build.

So I appreciate the balance that has been struck in this. I'll note that in our Housing Action Plan that was approved back in 2023, one of the goals of that plan, or one of the priorities, is to make the municipality a better business partner. And I think this is a great example of striking that balance. We have had issues such as reversionary clauses, which can really express policy intent but then can also gum up the works. And so we've had to undo a couple of those over the years, or extend them in one case.

And also, you know, certainly we have to hold to our priorities. So the resolution that Member Baldwin-Day referenced, saying that we can certainly say, here's what we would like to see, here's what is most important, and even if we cannot make third parties do exactly what we want, we can at least express that intent. So, and I just want to respond also to Mr. Perez-Verdias' points. I think it is striking a balance. I think it is important to remember that it is common and it is often, I guess, routinely done in many communities to have negotiations between levels of government for cities to put certain conditions on properties and also to really say, these are the— when we're disposing of land, this is what we want to see.

So I think it's not unusual for us to do that. And I think, again, it's a matter of striking that balance between whether we are making sure that we're expressing our intent and our priorities without basically undermining that goal of getting more housing online. So, so I'm very excited and see that this does strike a good balance. I intend to vote yes, and I encourage colleagues to support. So with that, taking back the gavel, Mr. Handeland.

So I have a question for the sponsors, Ms. Scout or Baldwin Day, on your— in your guys' assembly memorandum on the diagram here. I was just kind of confused I was wondering, it says 15 dwellings per— 15 dwelling units per acre gross. Like, I guess I'm assuming it doesn't mean disgusting. No, that is gross versus net.

Okay, thank you. Dwelling units per acre. So thank you for the question.

Okay, next, Ms. Scout, go ahead.

Oh, I don't need to be in the queue anymore. I was going to repeat many of the comments that were made, clarifying that this is a compromise and that HSD agreed to this language and around— agreed to the concept of intention language, and I hope my colleagues will support this.

Okay, thank you. And Mr. Bond, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, I, I just want to highlight, I, I do think that this intent language is really important. I agree, as others have, have said, that it strikes a certain balance.

Um, I also want to reiterate that Member Scout, I believe she said here tonight on the record, that she was able to meet with the other entity and, and have a productive conversation and make sure that this language that was added to this version is not going to derail anything. So I think that's important for us to bear in mind. I also think it is, it is important when we are disposing of municipal property to make sure that we get the, the best and highest use of that property. Um, I, I hear the point about not putting so many conditions on something that, you know, a project can't actually move forward. At the same time, we are— we often hear when planning matters come before us that we really need to protect the residential capacity of the limited land that we have left to develop on in the Anchorage Bowl.

Um, and One of the ways that we can do that is, is to make these types of recommendations that are consistent with previously passed policy guidance. And so I, I guess I just want to thank Member Baldwin-Day and Member Scout for leading the charge on that and make— making sure that some of our values are captured in this. And thank you to the, the mayor and her team for lending their support to this version as well. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I don't see any other members in the queue, um, so how does the youth member vote?

Yes. And, um, so members may proceed to vote. Again, this is the motion to approve AO 2026-115, the S1 version.

Member Scout?

Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR— or sorry, AO 2026-115S1 passes the body unanimously.

Madam Chair, I move to immediately reconsider and urge a no vote. Okay, there's been a motion to immediately reconsider this item, uh, by Mr. Volland. Is there a second? And second from Mr. Martinez. Um, and again, uh, the If voting no on reconsideration means this is done, voting yes on reconsideration reopens the item.

So I will ask, um, does the youth representative— how do you vote on reconsideration of this item? No. Okay, and members may proceed to vote.

Member Scout.

No. Okay, on a vote of 0 to 12, reconsideration has unanimously failed, and so this item is a done deal. Uh, next we will move on to— actually, wait one second.

Okay, um, so if you were here earlier, uh, we have one more quick item of business, and that is to, uh, get all of our budget items for the FY27 budget introduced. We now have the paper copies. They are being passed out, um, and because these are laid on the table, these are items for introduction. Um, there are 8 of them total. Rather than doing individual votes on all of them, um, this is what we propose.

Um, so there are essentially, uh, 5 of them are ordinances. They require a first, second, and third, um, and we are going to do them in 2 batches. And so with the 5 ordinances, what I will do is read all 5 of those items into the record, and then— and I will give the numbers of where they were— they're supposed to fall on our agenda. And then I will ask for one motion to introduce all of them and set the public— both of the public hearings that are noted on our list. And then we will do the same thing with resolutions, but because those require a different vote threshold, we need to do them differently.

So we will do this as efficiently as we can. And I'll note members are receiving them. We did receive them by email earlier today, so we just needed to get them printed, and then all of them will be online. And of course, these are all for introduction for future meetings. So with that, I'm going to read the 5 ordinances into the record, and then we will deal with them with one motion.

The first one is Ordinance AO-2026-123, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage, adopting and appropriating funds for the 2027 general government operating budget.

Thank you. I was waiting. So that's— that would be item 10G.10. The next one will be item 10G.11, or I should— I guess I'm not going to read the consent agenda items because we already passed the consent agenda, but I will note they would be Or one second.

Okay, um, so, uh, the next one is AO 2026-124, an ordinance adopting the 2027 general government capital improvement budget. Waivering. The next one is, uh, uh, further down the list is AO 2026-125, an ordinance adopting and appropriating funds for the 2027 Municipal Utilities and Enterprise activities operating budgets and the 2027 Municipal Utilities and Enterprise Activities capital improvement budgets. Waiv—. Next one is AO 2026-126, an ordinance adopting and appropriating funds for the 2027 operating and capital budgets of Anchorage Community Development Authority.

And the last one of the 5 is AO 2026-127, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code chapters 1.3 3.20, and 3.30 relating to the organization of the executive branch, setting forth the duties and responsibilities of executive branch agencies. So for all of those, I am seeking a motion to introduce and set the public hearings, uh, public hearings, two of them because it's the budget, and I will need a second and a third. Madam Chair, move to introduce the items that you just read and to set the public hearing for the meetings of October 20th and November 4th. Second. Third.

Okay, uh, so there was a motion to set the 5 items that I read for public hearing on October 20th and November 4th by Mr. Boland, second by Ms. Park, and third by Mr. Perez-Fredia. So those have been introduced, and again, the public hearings have been set. So then I will flip back the page and we will read the 3 resolutions into the record. These ones, because they are resolutions for introduction, require 7 votes or unanimous consent. So I will go ahead and read those.

Resolution AR-2026-274, a resolution adopting the 2027 to 2032 General Government Capital Improvement Program. The next one is AR-2026-275, a resolution adopting the 2027 to 2032 Six-Year Fiscal Program. And the third and last one is AR 2026-276, a resolution approving the 2027 to 2032 Municipal Utilities and Enterprise Activities Capital Improvement Programs. Move to introduce the items that were just read and set the public hearings for the meetings of October 20th and November 4th. Okay, uh, so, uh, there was a motion by Mr. Vohland to introduce the three items and set both of them, or set set all three of them for the public hearings for October 20th and November 4th.

Is there a second? Second. And second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. And so for introduction for these, um, we, uh, could take a roll call vote on this, um, but I'm going to suggest that if, uh, I'll ask if there's any objection to introducing these three resolutions and setting for the public hearing.

Okay, seeing and hearing no objection, then, uh, these resolutions as written or as read are set for those public hearings as read and, um, uh, by unanimous consent. Okay, so that takes care of our budget items. Again, the rest of the discussion about the budget will happen at future meetings. So next we will move back to our remaining public hearing items. And so next we have item 14K, resolution— or sorry, Ordinance AO-2026 Item 122.

Sorry, paper. Um, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2020 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan and the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan to reflect updated housing density minimums in transit supportive development corridors. Waivering. Okay, public hearing on this item is now open. Chair, I'd like to move to postpone indefinitely, please.

Second. Okay, there's been a motion to postpone this item indefinitely by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Voland. Again, the public hearing is open, so I will ask— because the maker of the motion is the sponsor, she is the only one who is able to speak. So I will turn to Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you.

So this suite of amendments to the comprehensive plan initiated with the original Transit Supportive Development Overlay Ordinance, and it traveled through the Planning and Zoning Commission process with the original TSDO. The intent of these amendments was to ensure that TSDO could be implemented and that the comprehensive plan would support that implementation.

I mistakenly believed that this needed to travel now with MHOP, but I have been made to understand that the scaled-down version of MHOP no longer requires these amendments to the comprehensive plan in order to be implemented. And so this ordinance is actually unnecessary. So my apologies for the kerfuffle that this introduction caused, and I urge my colleagues to vote to postpone indefinitely. Thank you.

Okay, so I will note this is not a debatable motion, so I will turn to and ask, what is the— does the youth representative— how does the youth representative vote on the motion to postpone this item indefinitely? Yes. Okay, and members may proceed to vote.

Member Scout? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, um, AO 2026-122 has been postponed indefinitely.

Okay, um, I know there's a lot of anticipation in this room, so we are now at the, uh, item that I know a number of folks are here for, and that is Item 13D. That is Ordinance AO-2026-85, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21 in order to create a new missing middle housing opportunity overlay which will implement the transit supportive development corridors established in the Anchorage 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Before I open the public hearing, I will just make a couple of notes. First of them is that we did have an S or substitute version introduced on our agenda this evening. So I will remind— and I do have a list, it's a page long of folks who have already testified.

So I will ask folks, if you have already testified that and you intend to speak tonight on this item, then you need to only speak to the changes in the substitute version. So I will ask again. I know it can be difficult in the moment to, to suss that out. I'm hoping we don't have a bunch of points of order, but really asking folks to make the best use of your time and everyone's time to keep those comments focused on the substitute version if you have already testified. Identified.

Second, if you have test— if you are testifying on behalf of a community council, please indicate that before you start. You will have 5 minutes to speak on behalf of the council, and then you will not be able to testify on behalf of— on your own behalf in that same moment. So you have 5 minutes and not 8 minutes. And then I will say to members, but I'll repeat this again if and when we get to debate tonight, of course we have a 1-hour time limit for debate that can be extended We also have a hard stop at midnight. And so just for folks' awareness as well, we do have a continued meeting scheduled.

And so the continued meeting, per my consultation with the clerk, is that we pick up where we left off. And so I will ask that if we do extend the time and we get to that point, we can deal with this in more detail. But I just want to remind folks that we do need to be mindful of the clock. Myself and the clerk will be watching that. So with that We will reopen the public hearing on this item, so I will also ask folks, if you would like to testify, to please come forward.

Again, I will do my best to keep an eye on folks if you have testified before, but I will also ask the honor system. And then I will also note we do have a number of folks on the phone. I know there's a lot of folks here, and so I think at this point we'll get through as many folks as we can, at least over the next hour, and then I may end up switching between phone and in person just to make sure that we're not calling folks too late at night. So with all of that said, the public hearing is now open. I see the first person is here.

Microphone is on. I will also ask— sorry, before we start, I'll ask again if you can take any discussions outside. This room is very hard to hear when there are multiple conversations. So please, again, if you want to have side conversations, please take them in the hallway. So that we can make sure everybody in this room can hear.

With that, I will invite the first person to speak. Could I just say something? While I was in the audience, it was hard to hear some of you. Is there a way to turn up the volume? Thank you.

Yeah, we can look at that. I will ask members just to make sure to speak into your microphones. And again, as everybody has heard, this circular room is very echoey. So again, I will remind folks and I will keep reminding you, please take any kind side conversations outside. Okay.

With all of that said, let's go through our public hearing. So please proceed, sir. My name is Brad Neugebauer from the Sand Lake area. Thank you, Assemblymembers, for honoring the duties of your office. Please remember you represent the neighborhoods in your district.

We the people. A few questions. Do you Assemblymembers know the actual lot coverage, height, and setbacks of your own residence or of those in your neighborhood? Do you know these numbers for new dwellings being built around Anchorage? Has anyone educated you on the actual numbers?

It appears that no one has, and you have not asked to be educated, because if you had, then you would know that proposed 80 or 70% residential lot coverages are AI-generated hallucinations. You would know that 0 to 5 feet front setback is ridiculous. You would know that proposed 75 or 40 feet tall is a nightmare in R-1 and R-2. So which neighborhoods cried out to you, we want Tisdale, we want Emhop? Which neighborhoods asked for a doge-style gutting of our Title 21?

None. By your vote, You already allow a duplex and an ADU everywhere. Thank you. So why get greedy and allow multiplexes to be dropped into our neighborhoods? MHOP is not harmless pixie dust that fell from the sky.

This is a major zoning change of neighborhoods. Tony Perez at OptiCoast, the firm who created the term middle missing housing, says that missing middle housing must meet 3 requirements. House-scale buildings that fit in with multiple units inside in a walkable neighborhood. Are any of the numbers in this ordinance house-scale? No.

A lot of time and energy has been expended on the TSDO and MHOP creations. Dr. Frankenstein did not expect his loving creations to become monsters, but they did. Don't blindly listen to the PR about how wonderful and harmless these TISDO and MHOP creations are. Don't blindly trust without having knowledge. Get educated.

Ask questions. Please pause these monstrous zoning changes right here, right now, in the room where it happens. Go do your homework before going any further with this. It is never too late to do the right thing. Thank you.

And I have some homework for you here, if I could give to the clerk. Thank you. Yeah, I'll remind folks, um, yeah, anybody who would like to provide things for members, um, the clerk Travis there, um, can take those items. Thank you. Thank you very much.

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

My name is Alexander Mendenhall and I live in West Anchorage. I grew up in Heddington Park My parents still live there. I know I'm lucky. My roots are in North Mountain View, and my parents made sure I saw housing struggles in other areas. From Chicago to Dayton, I have seen true housing inequity.

I support the objectives of this plan. As a young person with a good job, I have struggled to find safe, affordable housing. This is not the right tool— this could be the right tool, but this is not the appropriate plan for established neighborhoods. For 6 to 7 months of the year, we are a city of snow, and Huntington Park streets narrow badly in winter. Winter.

There are no sidewalk easements and no on-street— and on-street parking is limited. Rezoning brings more units and more cars, and the plows will struggle to clear the streets more than they already do. That puts pedestrians, including kids walking to West High, walking more so in the road alongside traffic. Safety decreases as traffic and density increases. This plan also misses the real need.

I've studied economics and am familiar with the missing middle argument. Build more middle-priced housing and existing homes open up for low— lower-income buyers. But with a median home price in Anchorage of $450,000, a household needs roughly $150,000 in income to keep housing at 30%. My friends and I earning around $55,000 can't afford a new fourplex unit built on a teardown lot. For us, the real missing middle is rentals around $500 to $1,000 a month.

And this plan does not create those. My coworkers a decade older than me and earning more are still struggling to find a family home with a yard. The implementation of this ordinance wouldn't help them either. The downtown and Spenard corridor plans would serve people like me far better, and I'd ask you all to oppose this ordinance and integrate the Spenard and downtown plans that were set aside in the downtown land use map. I'll be honest, I can't live in Huntington Park yet.

A neighborhood like that takes a certain financial footing, and I'm working hard to earn it. But it's where I would love to raise my future children. In 10 to 20 years, I want a big backyard where I can garden, and I want my kids to walk to school or to a friend's house safely, just as I could run to my best friend's house down the street at 7 years old alone. And I know I could find that in Huntington Park. I'm not the only one.

Neighbors' children's a decade older than me, and others are buying homes in Huntington Park right now to raise their families there. The neighborhood is already drawing the next generation of families, and the rezoning puts that at risk. If the zoning changes, I would unfortunately think twice about buying a home in Huntington Park or any other area in this zoning because something that I would— even though it's something that I would very much like to do, because no one knows when the house next door will add on an ADU or when the house will be torn down to create a townhome with limited yard and no parking. I love the idea of housing for people like me. It just does not belong in Huntington Park.

I urge the Assembly to preserve the character of all existing neighborhoods and revisit the downtown and Spinnard plans that were set aside. One last thing, to quote Milton Friedman, a 1976 Nobel Prize winner, "One of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intention rather than by their results." Thank you.

Folks, I will remind people clapping is not in order during public testimony. Next person please come forward. State your name. You have 3 minutes. Thank you.

Good evening. Marnie Isaacs, Turnigan, R2D. We bought our 600-square-foot basement home here in the mid-'70s.

We love our older, diverse neighborhood. We're still there, and we're going to retire there. It's mansions, trailer parks, apartments, but mostly single-family, duplex, and some triplexes. I share all this with you because we were in your position 50 years ago, uh, looking for affordable housing while the pipeline was under construction. Housing availability was difficult, costs were high, and the necessity of zoning in shaping communities I strongly support.

However, I hope my comments will raise some questions and some doubts about MHOP in its current form, AO-2026-85, and its potential to impact our city are at risk, I believe. There are numerous provisions I find egregious, such as no front setbacks in all categories, unresolved issues around parking, snow management, hazards, green space. But my comments are broader in nature. This effort started as a TSDO—. Affordable housing was a principal goal—.

But the sponsor has changed it to middle— missing middle. To me, the fundamental mission and who will benefit most is not clear. This is referred to by the sponsors as an overlay. It is actually a massive rezone affecting 3,200 properties, including 4,400 just added in about 23 of your neighborhoods with no consultation or notice. Unfortunately, the primary sponsor has just provided sponsor amendment number 2 incorporating the new map.

This leaves us no chance to review this map or offer critical and informed consent. Right now, my biggest concern is that MHOP in its current form will be used as a template to allow business and commercial uses in neighborhoods. If this is the next ordinance, we do not need to endure the helter skelter of missteps and closed processes we have seen to date. At a minimum, please include an end date for public and decision makers to assess the impact of what you're doing tonight. My entire career has focused on conflict avoidance, mostly associated with large resource developments.

Through a controlled—. Not through controlled form of communication, we have found collaboration. I urge you to further consider the debate tonight. To conclude, this MHOP version is not a work product ready for approval. I ask for 3 actions: Do not approve MHOP tonight.

Second, return to the June 9th MHOP map which conforms with the quarter-mile—. Quarter designation of the comprehensive plan and the tax abatement map. Do not include the recently added 4,400 parcels. And three, revise some of the dimensional standards that would make our community less inviting, not more. Thank you.

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

First, thank you for acknowledging that the acoustics are bad in here. I thought it was me. Good evening, members of the assembly and the administration. My name is Bob Butera. I live in Rogers Park, and I care deeply about Anchorage.

And in both my personal and professional life, I have worked hard to create livable neighborhoods. I had the honor of participating in crafting the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, and I have followed the TSDO AMOP ordinance since its inception. There's a primary principle of planning that you focus on those areas that need attention and you strictly avoid those areas that are thriving. This ordinance does the opposite. It opens up thriving neighborhoods of small homes to unlimited dense development.

These family neighborhoods are in scarce supply in Anchorage, and our comprehensive plan states that they shall be allowed to thrive. The outcome of this ordinance is that we'll eliminate this essential neighborhood diversity from our city.

For something that affects so many people, what has been missing over these years is public discussion. We have been talked at, we've been listened to, but there has really been no meaningful public discussion. And that is sad because one positive aspect of this ordinance is that it has engaged housing advocates of all stripes, and there is much that these advocates agree on.

When we do things without public process and in a rush, bad policy results. There's no rush here. Changes will happen slowly, and they will not solve our near-term housing problems. And the substantial changes that were made in the HOME Initiative are already yielding results. We must take the time to get this right.

We must start a process to find solutions that make Anchorage a better place and that unite instead of divide us. For the good of our city, I hope that the assembly will either find the middle path forward— there's an ordinance, I don't know really what's in it— or if not, I ask that they— you vote no on this ordinance or postpone it into the future. And should it pass, I asked the administration to veto it. And following this veto, I asked the administration to have its planning department engage the residents of Anchorage in a facilitated comprehensive plan revision that finds a path forward that increases housing and improves our thriving single-family neighborhoods. We have an incredible opportunity for the younger generation of this city to take ownership of the direction of their city.

Be guided by facts, transparency, and the wisdom of its long-term residents. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, good evening. My name is William Riley. I live in South Anchorage and I own and manage multi-family housing throughout Anchorage and most, if not everyone's, district, uh, here today. My focus is primarily low, uh, primarily low-income affordable housing.

Roughly 90% of the units that I rent and manage are below HUD's published average rents for comparable properties in Anchorage. And between rehabilitating and managing older apartment buildings and developing new construction, I see firsthand what makes housing economically viable or not worth building at all. I support MHOP because its basic philosophy is right. If Anchorage wants more housing, just like the Valley, we need to make it housing— we need to make housing easier to build. There are two main points of the ordinance that I would like to touch on.

I particularly support the increase on height limits. Uh, 30 feet effectively limits pretty much every project to two stories when you account for floor systems and a sloped roof and the insulation requirements of Alaska. I support a 40-foot, uh, limit throughout the entire district if you want a meaningful change to the housing development. I also support applying these standards to the existing building lots. Um, owners should be able to rehabilitate, expand, add units, or convert underused space using the new density setbacks and lot coverage standards.

If these are already incorporated in the latest revision, please keep them. If it isn't clear, please make them explicit. This makes MHOP a house preservation bill as well as a development bill, and preservation is where highest high interest rates, transportation, construction costs come into play. Let's be real, with today's costs, much of Anchorage's older housing isn't going to be replaced with new construction. A realistic option is often to rehabilitate an older building and getting another 20 to 30 years of useful housing out of it.

Expanded options give owners more ways to, uh, more ways to make rehabilitation economically viable. Add a unit, expand a building, or make better use of a property. And if building safety can bring the same flexibility into older buildings while still enforcing genuine life safety requirements that can save housing that otherwise wouldn't pencil. The goal should be safe, habitable housing, not perfection at any cost. A roof over somebody's head is better than no roof at all.

Make rehabilitation uneconomic and buildings are going to sit vacant and deteriorate. Homeless people will eventually break into them for the same reason: a roof is better than no roof.

Once we evict them, they get boarded up for years until we finally demolish them and call it a win. We can get— we can celebrate this, um, but demolition is theatrics if we've created— if all we've created is another empty lot. So I support MHOP, increase height and density, and reduce unnecessary restrictions, but make sure those freedoms apply to rehabilitating the housing we already have, because a roof over someone's head is better than no roof at all. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Um, and I know you testified before, so asking you to speak to the substitute version. I'm speaking on behalf of my community council.

Okay, uh, one second.

Sorry, just for clarity, I'm making sure because I know during the same meeting we say that people cannot testify, um, you know, one after the other.

Um, I'm gonna ask if we could have the next person because I need to confer with our attorneys and then we'll come back to you. So thank you. So next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Madam Chair, members of the assembly, Madam Mayor, I'm John Wanamaker.

I'm a lifelong Alaskan and a lifelong resident in College Village in Midtown.

I first want to applaud the mayor and assembly members for your effort in pursuing this mission of bringing more achievable housing to Anchorage. Homeownership in the United States is part of the American dream. It's what has made this country what it is. And the decision— when someone decides to purchase a home, it's a lifelong decision. It's something that probably the single largest investment they're going to make in their life.

And when you make such a large decision, you try and de-risk it. And that's from a policy standpoint, we have regulations that help us de-risk it with property inspections, building codes, and zoning. And there's a covenant between the home buyer and the city, a promise, a pact, that this investment I'm going to make in this, our residential neighborhood, is not one that's easily transportable If the rules change mid-game, I can't pick up my house and move it. So this is a sacred pact between the homebuyer and its government. And that's why I have to oppose, and I'm going to ask you to vote no on this proposed MHOP.

There was a promise made to all these homebuyers that you're hearing from. That the residence they were buying was going to be the residence that they were going to maintain for the rest of their lives.

It's a— I think Bob Butera spoke eloquently about it. You know, a good thing that's come from this is the discussion about affordable housing, or achievable housing, whatever the term of art is.

And we should embrace the public process and continue those discussions. I just don't think this is the right solution at this time, and I urge you to vote no. Thank you.

Okay, um, and before the next person starts, so I did confer with our attorneys, I think, and this is consistent with my understanding, so we don't allow the same person to testify identify twice, but I would say if you're speaking on behalf of the community council, if there's another individual from Northstar, they would be welcome to deliver those remarks. So, and I know this, just to note, this person was not in line, but because it's from the community council, we will do that. And so we'll move through. So please identify yourself, and since you're speaking on the council, on behalf of the council, 5 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, my name is Keelan Kenny, and I'm the secretary of the Northstar Community Council. I first want to start off by emphasizing that there's a diversity of opinions on this topic within our council. Last year we passed a resolution that was strongly opposed to TSDO, but it was a very close margin and a very large meeting for us. This testimony is not based on any new past resolution that we have voted on, but on conversations that we've had amongst ourselves during our meetings and recently during a special meeting where we discussed this testimony.

The through line is that the difference of opinion is that we all agree Anchorage needs more housing and we all share values of wanting to live in a pleasant, walkable North where as many families as possible have access to attainable, high-quality housing. We also all want to earnestly put real effort into finding solutions to housing, and we've all learned important things and grown in our understanding of the seriousness of the problem at hand, which we think is a very notable change from the crowd that turned out in opposition to the HOME Initiative 2 years ago, at least within our council. We also all share the understanding that an increase in density is absolutely mandatory to get where we need to go. Even if we disagree on the nuts and bolts of what might look like and where the increase in density should occur. Where we most strongly disagree is how R1 and R2 are handled in the current iteration of MHOP.

Some of us are fine with the policy as it is, but some of us would like to see R1 and R2 pulled out temporarily and be subject to further discussion and deliberate on how to make increased density work in a more nuanced and measured way. Many of the folks in the latter group would also support a passage of this AO so long as R1 and R2 were excluded from the map or treated with a different set of dimensional standards than high-density zones. So we would like you to honestly, earnestly consider the question: how much opportunity for new housing is lost if we set R1, R2 aside and spend another several months working on this topic together as a community? And how much is there among city leadership, and how much capacity is there among staff and city leadership to engage in a public process around it. If there is any capacity at all, or we can dig deeper and find some, we would like you to seriously consider the amendment to remove R-1 and R-2.

Those who support the passage of MHOP without the inclusion of R-1, R-2 would like to see a refined plan for density and increased flexibility in target areas by working together as a community to more closely align these dense— more aligned dense development within the intent, dimensions, and vision of the 2040 Plan. And area plans like the Spinar Corridor Plan. We'd like to work together to come up with legislation to further increase flexibility and density in R-1 and R-2 muni-wide. Sure, it may have to leave to different standards in different areas, but the intent would be to get more density, things like allowing in fourplexes in most, if not all, R-1, R-2 zones, an action supported by the 2040 Plan. So as long as the dimensions are carefully considered, we would argue that the type of infill we're looking to see in R-1, R2, small developers, homeowners expanding on their lots, subdivisions of lots for starter homes.

All of these types of likely building projects will fit within slightly expanded R1, R2 zones without needing drastic changes. I think we should give this idea a fair shake and see what we can accomplish as a community. If it's successful, we could come out on the other side with strengthened relationships, more trust, and a better working relationship to prepare us for the many many more controversial issues we need to work through on housing, such as the expansion of multi-use and residential zones, increased regulation of short-term rentals, and how to raise revenue to invest in housing. These are all serious issues that have just been as much of, if not more of an impact than MHOP would. We want to be able to work together on a community on these without further deepening the resentment and mistrust that has been brewing for multiple years.

There is a lot of skill, time, experience, and community organizing capacity capacity within the community of folks who agree and disagree with the inclusion of R1 and R2 in NHOP, and we would like to be able to harness, harness that capacity collectively. With that, we would also like to briefly speak in ways in which we could improve the public process going forward and the mistakes that we feel were made at this time. As an example of these missteps, the change in public notice requirements was a tough look in terms of timing and has led to a lot of distrust and resorting direct And restoring direct written notice to affected property owners in some capacity would go a long way to rebuilding trust, and our council recently passed a resolution in favor of this. Similarly, the TSDO pause was a huge missed opportunity to engage with the work that the community was putting in over that time, and we hope that the community— that the muni will be better prepared to take advantage of it in the future. Unfortunately, folks on both sides of them would— strong— with strong agreements of what the plan say and can point to portions of the plan that they think justify their interpretations.

Along these lines, we appreciate the intent of targeted— targeting increased density in the bowl somehow, but think that the shoehorning of that density into the TSDO framework in the 2040 Land Use Plan was clunky at best and led to a lot of wasted time and energy and misunderstanding. I will wrap up there.

Okay, thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town, 3 minutes, microphone is on. Okay. Hi, my name is Heather and I'm a resident of Government Hill in an area that would be affected by MHOP. I want to start by saying that I support the goal of creating more housing opportunities in Anchorage, and I think MHOP could be part of the solution.

Government Hill already has a diverse mix of housing from apartments, duplexes, single-family homes, and ADUs. That variety is part of what makes our neighborhood unique and why I love to live there, but I have concerns about an 8-plex being built right next to my single-story home with how this plan is currently presented. If MHOP is focused on creating more housing opportunities, why are the tax advantages only offered to those building an 8-plex or more? I'm proposing you create more opportunities for current residents to obtain these tax breaks. If we already opened the door to homeowner-skilled housing, what can we do to make actually building it financially attractive?

For example, if I could receive a meaningful long-term property tax incentive to build an ADU for another Anchorage family, not an Airbnb, I would seriously consider doing it. That could create another home without requiring someone to buy and tear down an existing house. I'm concerned that if our strongest incentives are aimed at larger projects, we could unintentionally encourage the removal of clusters of single-family homes in neighborhoods that already have a healthy mix of housing like mine. Can we incentivize smaller-scale additions, and can we expand those opportunities into more parts of Anchorage so we aren't concentrating all of our housing growth into the same neighborhoods. Let's give existing homeowners an opportunity to be part of the solution while also giving more neighborhoods the opportunity to add housing.

I encourage the assembly to think about these options before voting. Thank you.

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

Hi everyone, my name is Liana Hefner. I live in College Village, one of the R1 neighborhoods affected. So I just wanted to start with, I really, really appreciate that the assembly is taking this on. I myself, having lived in Anchorage for 10 years and have started family here, have brought up the issue of housing for years. And I also was once in the shoes of these awesome young people who clearly are, you know, wanting to see housing as a human rights issue and looking out for our community.

And now, being in my mid-40s and having young kids, I moved— we moved our family out of a midtown mixed neighborhood into College Village, which It was a huge, huge financial sacrifice.

And I want to make clear, I work in a field in which I do a lot of work on social issues. I work with tribes on land and water rights and climate change issues. And I volunteer teaching yoga at the women's correctional center. I really care about our community. And I'm a mom with two kiddos.

And there were a lot of reasons why we decided to make that huge financial sacrifice to move into, frankly, a place that has brought us so much joy and has greatly improved the mental health of myself and my husband by being in this beautiful community surrounded by lots of nature. Um, so I really appreciate the folks who testified before me. I think there was a lot of great points made. I think that there are a lot of aspects of this plan that can move forward, but I also see a lot of the issues that were brought up I agree with. I'm having a really hard time imagining, uh, seeing the quality of our neighborhood change drastically The 70% lot coverage, the zero setback, the height, you know, restrictions, which would be 30 feet.

That would be awesome to have a lot of that along busy corridors, already mixed neighborhoods, but I think it would be a real loss to, number one, to take a lot of these older neighborhoods that have a certain quality of— honestly, a quality— when I walk down the streets in our neighborhood, literally the trees there speak to me. To lose that would be heartbreaking. So I just want to encourage you to put a pause on this, spend a bit more time and take into consideration the comments from our previous. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, part of town, 3 minutes, and the microphone's on.

Hi, my name is Nithya Theru, and I am testifying today on behalf of the Alaska Public Interest Research Group, specifically on the S-4. Version of this ordinance. Um, I want to begin by, um, bringing attention to the fact, um, as we discuss this S version, that the original version of MHOP that was introduced in June is already a major compromise that was developed in the process of receiving feedback on TSDO. Concerns around lot coverage and building heights were expressed by the community and taken into account in the crafting of MHOP which reduced lot coverage from 100% to 70%, exempted R-1 from building height increases, and decreased R-2 height increases from 60 feet to 40 feet. ACPRG believes that these are reasonable, reasonable compromises to address community concerns.

We appreciate that this S version attempts to engage in productive compromise, but we are still concerned about a few specific areas of this S version. Um, first we want to say that the goal of MHOP is to increase the places where builders can build different types of housing structures. The more places where there are where builders can do this, the more likely it is that they will take a chance on specializing in middle housing and more diverse housing types. It will not be economically viable for builders to construct middle housing if they are severely limited in where they can do so and do not see a way to do so on a larger scale across the city. While tier density, which is brought up in the S version, sounds like a good compromise in theory, this version would add unnecessary complexity to the overlay.

As mentioned, the original version of MHPOP already makes some major concessions to R1 by exempting these zones from increased building heights and by reducing lot coverage to 70% across all zones from the original 100% in TSDO. Ackberg is concerned about the narrative that density must be contained to only occurring as close to the street as possible. This system contributes to keeping middle and low-income residents on the margins of neighborhoods, further entrenching the legacies of redlining and exclusionary zoning by writing into code that any housing that regular folks can afford should always be at the street and not in neighborhoods with access to green space, sidewalks, and other desirable amenities. Furthermore, from a building perspective, the more complicated you make the code, the less likely that developers will be willing to build in these zones. We are working in a market system where the goal is to incentivize developers to build these types of housing that the city needs.

And so we urge you to support the original version of MHOP. I just wanted to say really fast as well, since I have a little time left, that ACPRG has also received feedback from builders that an earthquake amendment would directly prevent builders from investing in middle-income housing projects. The city is currently working on updating earthquake maps and Adding this amendment creates uncertainty for builders about where they can and cannot build, which creates regulatory instability. So thank you for your time.

Okay, next person please come forward. Um, are you with the community? Okay, personal. Okay, so then state your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Thanks.

I wrote my words this time. My name is Phil Cannon. I've lived in Mountain View for 15 years. I'm the pastor of Mountain View Hope Covenant Church, and I am the president of of the Mountain View Community Council, but I'm speaking for myself tonight. I support the goals of MHOP.

Anchorage needs more housing, and creating opportunities near transit and services and existing infrastructure makes sense, but I'm not confident that this proposal will produce the housing and the kinds of neighborhoods that it promises. Mountain View has a history that I think Anchorage should learn from. Um, during the pipeline boom, our neighborhood helped meet Anchorage's growing housing needs. Apartments and fourplexes were quickly built with lasting consequences. Too much of that housing deteriorated, and our community still lives with the effects of poorly planned development, um, and a legacy of disinvestment.

I love Mountain View. My, my neighbors and I are not the problem. Um, but housing decisions like that have lasting consequences. Um, when, when residents of R1 and R2 neighborhoods are asking for, um, things like lower height restrictions and, and less density, um, I respect their concerns. Our history gives them reasons to ask hard questions.

Um, I don't believe that MHOP necessarily repeats that history, but supporting its intentions and trusting its results are kind of different things. What gives us confidence that quality housing is what's going to be built, quality housing that benefits the community, is going to be the easiest and most affordable thing to build. And I will also say, I think my, my support certainly depends on fairness. If it's true that lower heights protect things like sunlight and privacy, and, um, if neighborhood scale in R1 areas, like, like, like, like, if those concerns are real, then I think that those concerns deserve equal attention across the board. Um, I don't know why existing zoning should determine whose concerns deserve protection.

So I would say, I, like, I I could support a 30-foot height limit consistent throughout the whole thing, but if that's not achievable, then at least a consistent 40-foot height limit across the board would at least be fair. My preference maybe is the lower limit, but whatever you choose, apply it equally to every neighborhood. If, if MHAB gives some neighborhoods protections denied to others that are facing the same concerns, then that's unjust, and I would urge you to reject any version that does that. Finally, Mountain View should be a priority for reinvestment, rehabilitating aging housing, replacing failing buildings, creating thoughtful new homes specifically in ways that benefit the people who have lived there, um, that will help them remain. Even if MHOP succeeds somewhere else, that doesn't mean it's going to benefit— like, all these other places could benefit and Mountain View could still continue as it is.

Um, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is on. Oh, my name is Jonah Rothletter.

I live in Northstar. I'm coming here today first to thank you all for engaging in this conversation. I know it's been a long journey through TSDO, through this, and you having this time to— for all of us to make our thoughts known and noted is important. So thank you. I think fundamentally through all this that I have been reading and learning is that housing policy historically has been used to restrict who's allowed in communities.

We see it, we saw it all the time with redlining. We saw it with covenants preventing people of color, people of different ethnicities and religions from entering communities. So fundamentally, I have to ask, when we sit here and say it's going to change the nature of our community, Who is not being included anymore in this community, or who are we trying to remove? It might not be the intention of those who are against this density, increased density, of preventing people from coming in, but people are being— someone will be marginalized, whether it's the people that have the means or not.

In regards to people with the means, I'm of the millennial generation, and I look back at those, or I look behind me and see those behind me, when the Gen Alpha, the Gen Zs, and I see the ladder crumbling behind them. In America, we see that housing, house ownership is one of the best ways for families to move up the economic ladder, and with the housing at what it's at, that ladder is crumbling for those generations behind mine.

And housing means so much and it drives so much. It drives the schools, the unhoused populations. We need to see denser housing being built.

So, um, so fundamental— I would also mention that fundamentally I am for MHOP.

And this also ties into other reasons I've come up in front of the Assembly. I've spoken before about how we have seen funds come in front of the— the Assembly can find funds for policing initiatives and stuff like that, but it's harder to find these community-based initiatives come forward and see them get pushed through, especially when these are the things that actually do affect the community and prevent a lot of the things that the police are Band-Aids for.

Finally, I just want to say With a lot of the critiques we are, uh, myself and others are given, please don't chase the idea of perfection in creating a policy. There will not be one. But what will happen is that we will sit there and it will stagnate and ideas won't happen at all. So I rather much see an imperfection, imperfect plan come forward and be implemented than one that gets stagnated. What we currently have isn't perfect and we need to see change.

So thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, I live in a townhouse on the eastern side of Anchorage.

I'm sorry, sir, could I ask you to step a little bit closer to the microphone so that we can hear? Thank you. We live in a townhouse on the eastern side of Anchorage. I've witnessed increasing numbers of cars, trucks, and vans parked on the streets in the neighborhoods. This looks somewhat— in some cases because people are sharing houses because of the cost of housing.

Rush hour is also having serious increase in traffic, is easy to see. The population is growing fast. I think we can all agree on that. I recently read an article about somewhere in New England which had a huge development of very large houses. They were not for sale but for rent.

I also saw another— an article about a rent-to-own development in Florida. This is a disaster over time as the rent-to-own will increase over time. It will increase and the renter will have no— equity at the worst. They may be older and even without a job or housing.

I see a serious problem with the building to rent instead of building to buy. I am aware of the house that sold for $380 million— $380,000 in Florida. 14 And a half years later, it sold for 1.2 million, I believe that says. How far do you think they would have lasted renting instead of buying it? They couldn't buy it though.

Well, that's not quite right. Wages will not keep up with the cost of renting a home. It does not need much observation to see that Anchorage should require building to buy, not building to rent. Otherwise, in the future, there will be much suffering among large portion of the population and a few very rich developers.

Thank you. Thank you. And sir, before you walk away, can you, uh, sir, can you, uh, state your name on the record so we have—. John Rectenwald. Okay, thank you very much.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Uh, good evening.

Stephen Rydell from Spanard. I have a 3/4-acre lot in, um, in Spanard. It's legal for 12 units. The preliminary site plan is for 8. For aesthetic reasons, I could crowd 12 on my property, but I just wouldn't want— I don't want that.

I'd like to address the proposed changes, though, to the R-2M offset requirements for building square footages over 6,000 feet. Right now, they're 10 feet, and in some cases, it's better to have it at 5, and you're considering regulations to change it to 5, but I would like to see you to give the planners the power over whether it should be 10 or 5 and to increase the aesthetics, to have some room to, to say that's, that's too many buildings or that's too close to the guy next door. The planner should have the power. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward.

Microphone's on. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Hi, good evening. My name is Laura Carter and I grew up in Airport Heights, and today I live in the same neighborhood with my husband and my 2 young Suns. I'm here to ask you to amend the MHOT proposal as it currently stands.

But first, I want to be clear, I'm not opposed to more housing in Anchorage. I support thoughtful ways to increase housing choices, but this proposal feels like we're trying to solve one problem by creating many others. My biggest concerns are the scale and speed of this change. Huge, huge areas of Anchorage are now included with the potential for 8-plexes, zero lot lines, 70% lot coverage, and no parking requirements in established neighborhoods. We are still only 2 years into the change to allow duplexes and ADUs in all R-1 areas, and we still need to watch and assess the impacts of this change because these areas aren't simply empty parcels waiting to be developed.

They are neighborhoods with mature trees, lawns, gardens, and green spaces that have been cared for over decades. In our northern climate, these things matter. If we increase building coverage from 40 to 70%, what happens to drainage, snowmelt, trees and yards? Are our roads, utilities, and snow removal systems prepared for substantially more people and vehicles on individual lots? I also question whether this accomplishes the goal of helping young people achieve homeownership.

The tax incentives favor large multi-unit developments which will primarily create rental units, not opportunities for young Anchorage families to buy a home. Initially, those rentals will be desirable precisely because of the qualities this proposal could erode. Green space, lower traffic, and family-friendly neighborhoods. Once neighborhoods start to see more and more of these units, they will no longer be desirable to the individuals we so desperately need to help. I'm also concerned about the car— the increase in cars with no parking requirements.

More units mean more people and more vehicles. I really want to push back on this idea that if we can shoehorn all those cars on the streets, then there isn't a problem. The fact that something technically fits does not mean it creates the kind of neighborhood we want to live in. Our neighborhoods are valuable because children can walk, ride bikes, play, and know their neighbors. Finally, I worry about incentives for large-scale rental development.

A duplex owned by someone with a personal stake in the neighborhood is one thing, but an 8-plex owned by a distant corporation is quite another. One is a home and a community, and the other is a business investment. So this isn't about stopping growth. It's about really thinking about the kind of growth we want. To have in our neighborhoods.

So I'm asking you to remove the R-1 and R-2 from this proposal and take the time to develop a housing policy for those areas that will increase opportunities without sacrificing the qualities that make Anchorage neighborhoods desirable places to live. This is my home. This is where I grew up, and this is where I'm choosing to raise my children. So please don't change these neighborhoods so dramatically that we will lose the qualities that make them worth calling home. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. My name is Sarah Claydeen. I live in the South Addition.

I encourage you to vote against MHOP unless R1 and R2 are excluded or it is amended to maintain existing setbacks and lot coverage limits and to require off-street parking for new housing units. Missing middle Housing advocates say that we need to add triplexes, townhouses, and multiplex apartments to existing single-family residential neighborhoods. The Missing Middle Housing website provides examples of the targeted densities for missing middle development. These targeted densities range from 12 dwelling units per acre for duplexes and townhouses to 35 units per acre for multiplex apartments. The website reference— a target references a target of about 16 dwelling units per acre, saying that density helps provide the number of households needed to support transit and neighborhoods serving local businesses.

Currently, with zoning allowances recently passed in Anchorage, 3 units are permitted on any residential lot. That means a duplex and an ADU, or a single-family house with 2 ADUs, can be built today on any R1 lot. That equates to 18.7 dwelling units per acre on our existing 7,000 square feet R1 lots. In other words, we are already meeting the missing middle targeted densities with recent changes to existing zoning for the vast majority of lot sizes in MHOP corridors. What is really needed to expand housing availability and anchorage is to, to build desirable dense housing in our central Midtown area.

There are vacant or undeveloped lots in Midtown adjacent to or near amenities and businesses that we drive to every day. Those include Cutty Park, the library, Natural Pantry, New Sagaya Midtown, workout clubs and gyms, Midtown Mall, REI, lots of restaurants, ice cream shops, movie theaters, and many more. Building desirable dense housing in these Midtown spaces will deliver far more housing per acre, especially if mid-rise and high-rise apartments or condos are included. This type of development can considerably exceed missing middle density targets, delivering more housing and allowing for a walkable lifestyle in Anchorage. I urge you to vote against MHOP in its current form because existing neighborhood zoning allowances are already meeting missing middle density targets, and, and housing development in our central Midtown area will deliver more density and allow for walkability.

Thank you.

Hey, next person please come forward, say your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Christy Templeman and I've been a resident of Rogers Park for 47 years. I grew up here in the '80s and the '90s and many of the same families, including mine, have chosen to continue living here and raise Anchorage's next generation. We are deeply grateful for the strong and stable and cross-generational community we have. During some of the most vulnerable seasons of my family's life, through sickness and loss, we have been carried by our neighbors.

The intention behind Rogers Park when it was developed more than 75 years ago remains important today. To balance green space, mature trees, and a community-oriented way of life. That's why we choose to live here. Our homes are modest in size with roomy yard space and off-street parking. Most of our streets don't have sidewalks, so we share the road with vehicles.

Walking, biking, and skiing—when we get to—in the street is simply part of how we live and move in our neighborhood. I agree that Anchorage needs more housing options. We need thoughtful opportunities for middle housing, more affordable choices, and more opportunities for people to purchase a starter home. I want that for Anchorage residents today and for my children in the future. But I believe that we need a better solution, a compromise to MHOP.

First, we need to carefully consider whether these proposed changes are consistent with the goals and guidelines established in the 2040 Land Use Plan. And we need to recognize that increased density may need to look different in different residential neighborhoods. In Rogers Park, safe streets, traffic flow, and off-street parking are major concerns. Off-street parking isn't simply convenience here. One recent winter, our street became impassable because of cars parked on both sides combined with snow accumulation.

I'm also concerned about drainage. Increasing allowable lot coverage from 40 to 70% and reducing front setbacks from 20 to 0 feet, along with additional impervious spaces— surfaces— means less soil available to absorb rainfall and snowmelt. That increases runoff and could put additional pressure on aging infrastructure that was built for lower-density neighborhood. And finally, I think we should allow the zoning changes already made in recent years time to take effect and be evaluated. Rogers Park and other R1 neighborhoods have already seen a significant increase in potential development capacity.

Let's allow these neighborhoods to absorb those changes and evaluate the results. This isn't about resisting change. It's about finding middle ground for the middle— missing middle housing. It is a request for a balanced and thoughtful approach. One that creates more housing opportunities while also respecting the existing neighborhood culture, infrastructure, safety, and quality of life that make Anchorage a great place to live.

Thank you for listening and considering my concerns for Rogers Park. Okay, next person please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Um, hi, my name is Bennett Pierce. I live in, uh, Boo-Layers Cove, South Edition.

And I guess I, you know, grew up in Anchorage and I just moved back a year ago to work here as a working professional and it's kind of a goal of mine to, you know, build a life here and eventually own a house, right? But I think my preferences are probably a little bit different than my parents and some of the other folks in this room. I, you know, still want a place that I can call my own. I currently rent an apartment in Bouillabaisse Cove with a few friends and And it's amazing to have a space to be able to host people, have dinner parties, and, you know, just to call my own. But, you know, I rent it.

I don't own it and it's currently for sale. And so, you know, there's— that's a bit up in the air in terms of what's going on there. But, you know, that's kind of what comes with renting. But I would personally love to see, you know, more of that style development across Anchorage. I think that it's, you know, I really think that everyone in Anchorage brings something pretty special people to the table and it's cool to, you know, be able to live close to those people and have that, you know, for all those people to have access to that, you know, that I enjoy of a space to call their own and to host friends.

And I think MHOP is a step in the right direction for Anchorage. I think, you know, the list of— if I, you know, I personally prefer to live in slightly denser housing and I think that the list of purchasing that slightly denser housing is pretty constrained in Anchorage. The options for home buying are, um, you know, kind of, you know, towards the, the single-family home side. And so I think this would open up some, some options for, um, you know, the— just, just for everyone in Anchorage to be able to, to buy something that works for them. So I support the MHAW proposal, and I urge the assembly members here tonight to vote in favor for it.

Um, yeah, thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Hello, my name is Erin Willihan.

I live in Spinard. I'm testifying today in my personal capacity in support of MHOP. I was born and raised in East Anchorage and feel lucky to live in Spinard today. We all know Anchorage is in the midst of a housing crisis and in need of more housing supply to meet the needs of our city's residents, and we have heard and experienced the statistics on price increases for renters and home buyers over the last 5 years. From young renters to retirees looking to downsize, everyone is struggling.

The impending military buildup will only add more strain to an already strained market. Giving developers the opportunity to increase density and allow for smaller homes on smaller lots is one effective way to increase supply in the market and bring down prices for everyone. And it's years past do. My parents bought their first home in 1997 when I was 4 and my sister was a newborn. It was in Nunaka Valley.

My dad worked construction and my mom worked at Nunaka Valley Elementary School. Our home was built in the 1950s in the midst of another housing shortage. It was roughly 900 square feet but rests on a 6,000-foot lot as required by R-1 zoning. In 1997, it was priced as a starter home. Since that time, the value of the land alone that Nunaka Valley homes sit on has skyrocketed, meaning that under current laws developers today will likely never build new 900-square-foot starter homes that would be accessible to young Anchorage couples like my parents.

And affordable family-oriented neighborhoods like Nunaka Valley will continue to decline, lose their character, their families, their elementary schools, and eventually cease to exist as Anchorage families are shut out of housing opportunities. The enforcement of 6,000-square-foot lots and R-1 zoning limits us to have only luxury large homes that are out of reach of most Anchorage residents. And over time, this contributes to the erosion of the fabric of Anchorage as a vibrant city with healthy, diverse, accessible neighborhoods. The MHOP ordinance is just one tool we can have in our toolbox to make Anchorage a more livable city for everyone. It expands our options and what is possible.

Further, the freedom and flexibility it offers our neighborhoods reflects an innovative and and independent spirit that I think many recognize as distinctly Alaskan. I believe that we share a vision for a thriving, diverse, and healthy Anchorage community. But we have to start somewhere, and perfection can be the enemy of good. You have an opportunity tonight to take one step in the right direction to remove one of the interlocking barriers to affordable housing. You also have a responsibility to the overwhelming number of hardworking Anchorage residents who are simply asking for the opportunity to try to continue to build our lives here.

Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You have 3 minutes, and I believe you testified before, so you'll speak to the S version. Thank you. All right, um, I'm Esther Perman.

I'm resident of Northstar, and I definitely am talking to the S version. Um, good evening, members of the assembly, members of the youth, uh, Youth Assembly, and the administration. Mm-hmm. I'm here tonight to express my support for the substitute version of MOP. Anchorage needs more housing options, especially smaller, more accessible homes for our community.

It also needs larger-scale development where infrastructure like sidewalks, parking, and utilities can support it. The S version of this ordinance strikes the exact right balance to achieve that growth while protecting our neighborhood character. I'm going to tell you a little bit about the S version because I know most people haven't read it in depth, especially in the audience. Um, what makes the S version a win-win is that it encourages new homes while directly respecting community standards. It does a couple things.

Uh, it honors the 2040 Land Use Plan by directing high-density housing and vibrant mixed-use developments right along the transit supportive corridors and the town centers where utilities and roads are already built, and the areas directly around that. It also honors Goal 7 of the Land Use Plan and related policies which require that neighborhood infill development is compatible with the size of existing homes. It also puts R-1 and R-2 back on the map, but for those neighborhoods, it preserves the neighborhood scale by capping building heights at 30 feet and using lot coverage limits to prevent oversized structures. This encourages real context-sensitive missing middle housing like duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and small cottage courts. The taller 40-foot multiplexes with zero-foot setbacks are still allowed in MHOP.

But in a new category that is limited to higher density zones within the overlay. This way, areas like Fireweed, where I live, can grow up and add needed new housing near services and bus routes. It also removes high-risk seismic zones from the overlay, ensuring that we grow responsibly and safely away from natural hazards. The S version also introduces a 10-year performance-based sunset clause that guarantees accountability to the neighbors. This is an idea from the ADN editorial this weekend, uh, where they called for accountability.

Um, under this clause, the continuation of the overlay depends on meeting two clear measurable metrics: actually hitting our production goals and proving through a mandatory study that infill development does not impair emergency vehicle access or winter snowplowing. If all of this doesn't work for Anchorage or our winter functionality, it automatically sunsets. That's the definition of a safe, accountable, win-win policy. We have a wonderful opportunity to develop many small homes, revitalize our transit corridors, and protect the livability of our neighborhoods all at once. I urge the assembly to approve the S version, or at least postpone it till you've read it carefully.

Thank you.

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

Hi, my name is Liz Gobeski. I've lived in Anchorage for 13 years, and I've been a homeowner in a neighborhood that's zoned R-1 within the MHOP area for the past 11 years. Specifically, it's just the other side of 36th from College Villages. I support the MHOP and I encourage the assembly to approve it. To me, supporting MHOP is a matter of civic responsibility.

I realize that for homeowners in the overlay area like myself, the MHOP may change some of the aesthetic of our neighborhoods and it could lead to inconveniences. That said, my individual property interests exist within a larger community, and I don't believe that my personal interests should outweigh the public good. Everyone benefits from a city where people of all economic means can afford to live.

I'm a working professional with a good income. When I purchased my home in 2014, My costs went up compared to being a renter of a comparable house, but it was manageable while still being able to save for retirement, emergencies, and generally lead a good quality of life. Today, where wages haven't kept up with property values, mortgage rates, and inflation, it would be much more difficult for me to afford the same modest house. And that's even taking into account advances in my career over that time.

I think it's the responsibility of homeowners like me to recognize how privileged we are and how very difficult it is for young people and people who aren't already well off to afford— to find affordable housing in our city. I ask the assembly to prioritize our community's long-term needs and vote yes on the MHOP. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town, 3 minutes, and the microphone is on. Good evening, Chair Brawley and assembly members. My name is David Lockard. I'm— I live in Rogers Park, and I'm here to represent the Rogers Park Community Council.

I'm the vice president. I have a resolution in front of me that I was asked to read to you. This is regarding MHOP. Whereas Rogers Park Community Council is an all-volunteer, self-governing neighborhood organization recognized in the Municipality of Anchorage Charter. And whereas the purpose of community councils is to provide a direct and continuing means of citizen participation in government and local affairs.

And whereas whereas Rogers Park Community Council recognizes the need to meet housing demand in Anchorage in a manner that updates an aging housing stock, provides more housing choices, and is ideally more attainable. And whereas on June 9th, 2026, the assembly introduced Ordinance 2026-85, Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Overlay, or MHOP, which appears to be a modified version of the Transit Supportive Development Overlay ordinance previously proposed. And whereas the Assembly eliminated in AO 2025-40S the requirement that municipality propose zoning changes by the Assembly, the administration, or the Planning and Zoning Commission, such as area-wide rezonings, targeted area rezones, and overlays, provide public notice to affected property owners. And whereas most of the 30,000+ property owners within the proposed MHOP overlay are likely unaware that this notice requirement was eliminated throughout the municipality and also not aware of the newly proposed MHOP ordinance, which is scheduled for a second assembly public hearing October 6th. And whereas Most property owners have invested a significant portion of their economic worth in their homes and business properties, and adopted land use plans and zoning affect the value of those properties.

And whereas the 2040 Anchorage Land Use Plan and the 2020 Anchorage Comprehensive Plan define neighborhood-scale growth expectations and emphasize transitions between densities for neighborhood compatibility, including ensuring that new homes and transitional areas are in character with existing homes, can help accommodate new housing types, and reduce conflict between neighbors and developers, and require that proposed changes to increasing density be undertaken in consultation with affected neighborhoods. And whereas the proposed MHOP overlay has the potential to adversely affect the value of single and two-family residential properties by increasing allowable height limits and lot coverage, reducing minimum lot sizes, eliminating front setbacks, and allowing certain higher density types of development. And whereas a group of residents and community council members from several of the neighborhoods within the proposed MHOP overlay have proposed amendments to MHOP that attempt to allow increased housing density in a manner consistent with the 2020 and 2040 plans and minimize adverse impacts to existing single and two-family neighborhoods. And whereas the Rogers Park Community Council boundary areas are included in its entirety in the proposed MHOP overlay area. Now therefore, be it resolved, the Rogers Park Community Council asks the assembly to reject MHOP in its current form and to come back to the public to find compromises that may fit into existing neighborhoods and focus on neighborhood growth processes outlined in the 2020 Comp Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan.

This resolution was passed on September approved on September 29th by a vote of 37 yes, 5 no, 1 abstention. Signed by Jill Klein, Rogers Park Community Council President. Thank you. Thank you for testimony. I'll briefly note, I know we've got a number of folks still in line.

I'm asking you to come forward once we get to about 10:00 PM. We do have 8 individuals who are signed up on the phone, so what I will do at that point is start alternating, have one person in person, then one on the phone. And we'll go from there until we get through that list. So in the meantime, uh, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, my name is Greg Shoemaker. I'm with Rogers Park. I'm in the Rogers Park community. I was here on September 15th and I was second in line before the clock struck midnight, so I've been in line a long time, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. One of the key things I took away from September 15th, there seemed to be a real generational divide between the younger adults and the older established residents of Anchorage.

Young adults seem to have a consistent theme of housing and affordability, and they had either friends who they knew were leaving the state or they were thinking of leaving the state due to the affordability issue with housing. I don't think there's been any real discussion that MHOP will create affordable housing. There's an assumption that increasing housing supply will make homes and rent more affordable. I performed a Google search on why younger adults were struggling with housing. I found an article by the Michigan Journal of Economics.

Their article stated key factors were stagnant entry-level wages and income, inflation— prices on essential goods have accelerated far faster than wages, wages have failed to keep pace with inflation— and mortgage rates. I checked today, the average rate for a mortgage for a 30-year rate is 7.4 to 7.55%. This is in stark contrast with the earlier rates of 2 to 4%. Housing availability is a factor, but there's no consensus that increasing supply will result in affordability. MHOP takes a shotgun approach to solving the housing availability variable but fails to address those key factors.

Such as stagnant wages and income, inflation outpacing wages, especially for younger adults, and high mortgage rates. Developers of housing will demand an ROI. They will charge what the market allows to make a profit. There's no incentive in MWOP to make housing affordable. There's an incentive to build an 8-plex, as the developer will receive a 25 to 28-year tax abatement.

But that doesn't directly lead to affordable housing. I believe we need to take a step back and consider doing a pilot project in a smaller area of Anchorage. This way we can test to see if MHOP creates more housing and also see if that housing is more affordable. The unintended consequences that have been previously discussed with MHOP are real. Safety, earthquake zones, walkable streets, snow removal, emergency vehicles accessibility, garbage removal.

What tax abatements could cost the community. Once MAP is— once MHOP is passed, we cannot easily put the genie back in the bottle. Let's have true stakeholder involvement with younger adults and older established residents to discuss the success or the failures from the pilot project and grow from there. Let's truly do this the right way so this can be a win-win situation for all generations who live here in Anchorage. Thank you very much.

Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Monica Shaw. I'm a resident of Rogers Park, and like my husband, I stood in line for many hours on September 15th, so I'm glad to speak to you today.

I hope you'll give my— the attention that we deserve. For all the testimony that we're giving. Um, much of what I noticed during that time listening for 3 hours to all the testimony was that everyone spoke about affordable housing and quantity of housing. Both of those items seemed to be needed, and I agree. I think that's what Anchorage needs.

I think that's what we need. I think all of our neighborhoods need this, but not at the at the expense of all the property owners who already have invested their time and their hearts into their homes. This ordinance, as I see it, benefits a very few number of developers that will get tax abatements for building large quantities on whatever lots that they find that they are able to develop. At the last session, so many people stood up and spoke against ordinances with tax abatements. We sat through those as well, and you all listened and you asked great questions, and you asked why and how those economics would be successful.

And I ask you to do that with this ordinance as well. In the coming years, if this, um, ordinance is passed, the zero-sum aspect of the economics of this tax abatement will mean all of our taxes will rise and only the developers will come out on the other side and will not be sharing the tax burden. They will collect the rents which they have set based on what the market can bear, and history has shown us rents don't go down, house prices don't go down. I've lived here for 45-plus years, and the one time I remember house prices and taxes going down was when the economy tanked in the early '80s. It hasn't happened since.

I don't expect it to happen again. I hope it doesn't happen again. And again, I want to see a thriving Anchorage. The prime benefactors of this ordinance, as I said, are developers, and I feel like we need to figure out a way instead to focus on affordable housing. That is what I heard.

That is what I hear so many people speak about. But MHOP doesn't address that, and I think tells us everything we need to know about this ordinance and about whether we should be supporting it and whether we should not. I actually believe that multiplex housing is the way to increase density and to offer a variety for multigenerational families to live together. And for us as elderly people, I think of myself in my retirement years living in a small place, but that isn't going to happen with this ordinance. I really urge you to step back and rethink supporting it.

Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Hello, my name is Carice Day, and I'm from District 4.

I want to make it clear that although my mom holds a seat on the assembly, my thoughts tonight are wholly my own. I'm going to open up about my own personal life. I'm 20 years old. I work a full-time job that pays well above minimum wage, and I still live at home with my parents. I am very fortunate to have that as an option.

This is due to an extreme lack of affordable housing in Anchorage. And before you say, "Get a roommate," I have tried. My friends and I have searched for housing where two college students can afford to live, pay for school, their bills, and still eat every month. This is why Anchorage is dying. There is no reason for people my age to see a future here without proper housing.

I've spoken at length with my friends who live very different lives and have seen— and have very different backgrounds as well, and not one of us sees a future here. This ordinance would start to change that, and for this reason, I support MHOP. To the people who fear for their neighborhoods and the places they've lived in for 40 years or more, I sympathize with you. Let me remind you that when many of you moved here and bought your homes, you can afford them on a single income That is no longer possible. And to the families who live here and want to protect the nature and the lives around their neighborhoods, I would like to say nothing in nature stays the same over time.

And if preserving your neighborhoods exactly as they have always been is your goal, then you must be prepared to watch them die as more young people move out of Alaska. For the next generation and for the future of Anchorage, support MHOP. Okay, next person please come forward, state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes, and then after that I will switch to having a person on the phone, then we'll alternate. Please go ahead. Hi, my name is Christina Das and I live in the North Star neighborhood.

I'm a renter there, and through my experience renting, know that finding housing is a challenge.

Affordable housing in the city is a challenge, and I would like to voice my support for the MHOP Thank you.

Okay. And as I said, so we have a few folks on the phone. So my intention is to do one phone testimony and we'll keep working through the line. So I will ask our clerk to please call Ms. Gail French.

Hello, this is Gail. Hi, Gail. This is Anna Brawley with the Assembly. We are on testimony for AO-202685 and you are next. So you have 3 minutes when you'd like to begin.

Do you want me to begin now or you want to tell me when to begin? No, please begin now. Thank you.

Okay.

Miss French, are you still there? Yeah, I just had to get open up my notes. My name is Gail French. I live in the Government Hill neighborhood.

I moved to Anchorage for many reasons, a major one of which was to fulfill the American dream of a single-family home with a yard for children, a dog, and a garden. As the daughter of an economist and parents who grew up in the Great Depression, the life goal of owning a paid-for home in retirement was possible here. After many years of hard work, my husband and I had amassed the credit score and down payment to purchase a house. We were delighted to find a modest house to purchase in Government Hill in 1992, which is now paid for, and in which we anticipated living out our lives with the economic security of no mortgage or rent. Our daughter grew up in a safe neighborhood, playing in backyards and parks.

My summer hobby and joy is gardening. Our dog enjoys our French yard, and we all enjoy walks in the neighborhood year-round. Our neighbors are known to us. Some as acquaintances, some as good friends. If a lot line to lot line 3-story building covering 70% of the lot is built to our south, we would live without sun in our yard or house for most of the year.

The lack of winter sun has a huge effect on happiness. Lack of summer sun would devastate my gardening and enjoyment of my backyard. Our daughter looked for a single-family home for 2 years before finding one in a safe, stable neighborhood she could afford. Yes, the proposed zoning changes would increase the number of apartments, but at the cost of what percentage of affordable starter homes in the Anchorage Bowl? By the look of the map, most of these proposed zoning changes are in areas with the highest fine density of the lowest home cost.

Every small single-family home or duplex lost to multiplexes is one less home available to the middle class. Of course, this doesn't affect the availability of multi-dollar homes, million-dollar homes. This ordinance will push even more people into rental situations instead of building equity towards their future economic security. The assembly has already potentially doubled or tripled the occupancy potential of Anchorage of AO 2023-103 that allows a duplex plus an accessory dwelling. The sweat equity that we put into our single-family home will drop by a huge margin, and the corporations building these monstrosities will rake in profits, especially with the 8-plex tax exemption.

As an R-2 neighborhood without parking requirements, we already have many times in the winter where snow and cars make the street too narrow for ambulances or fire trucks. What is the plan for the effect of quadrupling the number of cars parked in the streets? I loudly protest these radical changes, both for our treasured Government Hill neighborhood and for all the affected working-class neighborhoods on the proposed map. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

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

My name is William Zasnowski and I live in Midtown.

I just I just want you to look at MOA is doing right now on Denali Street, restricting traffic to store snow and allow safer pedestrian walkway. Why? Eliminating parking requirements in a neighborhood is going to create a nightmare that will impact everyone, especially schoolchildren within walking distance of their schools. For all my 50-plus years in Anchorage, I've always wondered why snow storage— where are you going to put your property snow? Has never not and never been considered when developing a property.

It seems to me current commercial property along Diamond, Tudor, 36 Benson, Northern Lights Boulevard, Fireweed Lane even would be more appropriate to develop into high-density housing that would already handle parking, is already on transit routes more readily than Rogers Park, Airport Heights, Fairview, College Village, Russian, Jackson, Art and Turdigan, and Government Hill. Also, I did not know AO2540 removed the long-standing requirement notifying me of changes to my neighborhood, so I didn't know a lot about this. Consequently, I also did not know about AO2535S1 giving 25+ years tax abatement, uh, to these developers. Uh, to balance a future budget shortfall, you need income, more income, not less. Why not deferment and collect the taxes, put a lien on a property and collect the taxes at time of sale?

If a home I bought in 1999 sold today with appreciation, and I sold it today having not paid taxes over the last 27 years, I could take my money and leave the city and state with bags of cash. You are potentially creating an incentive for more rich developers to become absentee landlords. Meanwhile, our green card valuations and mill rates are going to go up and up to cover the cost of the government. Which members of the assembly, which members of the assembly hold degrees in urban development? Hands?

No, okay. Instead of turning neighborhoods into commercial rental properties, maybe we could turn commercial properties into residential properties. What was 2026-115 Tozer Track exchange? Wasn't that like to develop? No, no irony there.

Sometimes it's good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out. Think about what you're trying to do in such a hurry and why. Show of hands, who reads the Anchorage Daily News daily?

Nobody. Okay, so I would like to submit this to members of the assembly. It was a well-written article by a neighbor of mine, and I would like all of you to read it. He said much more, way more eloquently than I ever could. Thank you very much.

Who do I give it to? Thank you. So if you'd like to give a material, um, Travis there with his hand up, he can distribute it to members. Thank you. And I'll remind folks too, I know this can be confusing, um, members don't respond to questions on the dais, so Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. So next we will call our next person on the phone. So Travis, if you could call Patrick Crocina.

Hello? Hi, is this Patrick?

Hello? Is this Patrick? Can you hear me? Yes, it is. Thank you.

Um, this is, this is Assembly Chair Brawley. We are in the public hearing for AO-2026-85, MHOP, and you are next on the list for testimony. Um, so you can, and you have 3 minutes, so you can proceed when you're ready. Okay. All right, start.

Uh, being a professional architect, uh, in Anchorage for over 50 years, I've experienced working directly with Title 21 Comprehensive Land Planning, Building Department, all utility infrastructure, various code and planning commissions. I have never seen such a blatant attack on the established planning and zoning procedures and policy. Uh, these ordinance do drastically change the intent of the already established guidelines. In fact, without citywide neighborhood approvals, these act— these actions seem illegal. Property owners' rights to these massive changes in density and parking without proper modifications, approvals, and circumvented by this current attempt.

Whenever my clients desire to change zoning in established neighborhoods, they have to go through a thoroughly vetted process, and it allows surrounding property owners to weigh in on any zoning changes. The project has to move— would have environmental impacts. Statements, traffic studies, utility infrastructure, noise studies, shade studies, density barriers, green spaces, and critical parking allocations. None of these have been there— been done for such sweeping changes that not only affect property owners but the multiple neighborhoods. Providing affordable housing is every city's desire.

However, a blatant disregard to the existing neighborhoods is not how These cities have done it. Comparisons and cooperation between planning and zoning neighborhoods and property owners has created sound sustainable solutions. These ordinances are not that way. Transportation overlays seem like an arbitrary way to increase densities. Most cities plan and install the transportation corridor first, then let free market create the proximity densities along the corridor.

Developers go to established neighborhoods to create proximity density on the market conditions, not an arbitrary hope that the residents will take mass transit. By providing, providing no parking requirements also pigeonholes these residents that they won't have a parking stall. So they have to depend on mass transit. That only works on cities like New York or whatever, which have huge high-density multifamily zones in those areas. My question to this body is, if you believe that higher density without parking is the answer, then experiment with property that is not an established neighborhood, either underused commercial or undeveloped land, or provide— and then provide public transportation and see how that works.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you for testifying. Um, next person in the room, please come forward, state your name, part of town, 3 minutes. Hello, yeah, my name is Donovan Camp. I'm in District 1, uh, and I'm here, uh, testifying as a neighbor, uh, in that area, uh, in support of the original, uh, missing middle and housing overlay, uh, MHOP. And the things I've seen, uh, in our city and just reading about zoning policies is that Anchorage isn't alone.

I think we all know that this is a national issue. That we've seen with so much R-1 restrictive zoning and exclusionary zoning practices that have developed within the U.S. in a lot of the newer cities, relatively.

And so some of the history there that I don't feel like has gotten talked about a lot within our community groups is just how that 1R zoning was so exclusionary and some of the original intent behind those, those exclusions for who and the class that could be in certain neighborhoods. But as with Anchorage not being alone, we're seeing ordinances in so many cities who have the same issue, and they've adopted very similar plans as MHOP. Even more, you know, progressive plans to shift the city to allow that development that we've seen in cities for the last 7,000 years. As cities grow, they change. There's no permanency.

As a homeowner, I don't expect nothing to change in my city. I welcome— or my neighborhood— I welcome more neighbors there.

And I know with the struggles, for me, that's definitely my priority, is seeing very many, uh, 30- and 40-year-old friends of mine who are struggling to afford rent or find houses to rent within the city, or much less buy a home. Those cities that are doing those changes to their zoning, this kind of restrictive zoning that we've seen, uh, have seen maybe not that affordable housing that we're all kind of hoping for, but they have not seen this skyrocketing home prices that we're seeing everywhere else, including Anchorage. So this isn't something I think we can continue to kick down the road. It's something that's been planned for, for decades, is, is that shift. Um, was just looking at a overlay of Anchorage from a 1970 photo and seeing some of these neighborhoods being on the outskirts of Anchorage, I think we're ready for some change for that zoning to allow more neighbors, more denser areas.

Yeah, and multi-units, just the flexibility for home builders to house Anchorage's future citizens. Thank you. Thank you. And before you walk away, a couple folks in the queue. First, Mr. Handlin.

I'll defer to Member Voland there. I had a comment in between our next speaker. Okay, uh, Mr. Voland. Well, I was gonna ask Mr. Donovan, I hear through the grapevine we live in the same neighborhood, and I hear that you're doing your part to add a housing unit to our neighborhood. How is that project going?

Uh, just finishing up on That one, we purchased a house that was split into a single family, and we're putting it back into duplex. And we are looking to build an ADU. Our new renter is now downstairs, and she was having a heck of a time finding a place in Anchorage. And a friend of a friend got that together. But yeah, so we're trying to build— be that one extra house that we can do right now with our zoning policies that we have.

Great, thanks.

Thank you. And Mr. Andela, did you have a point of information or point of order? So I was just going to make a request to the chair that we prioritize the individuals that are here in the room. Looking at the, the line here and the amount of time that we have left, I don't want someone to miss an opportunity to be able to speak because we're prioritizing the phone. We can always do that tomorrow as well.

Yeah, thank you. Um, so I have, uh, considered that, and I think also, um, I am mindful of calling folks, um, after 10 PM. I know we do that, so, um, I'm going to suggest we have just a few more. Sometimes people don't pick up as well, so, um, so heard, that is noted. I think I'm going to continue as I am right now, and then we'll see if this takes longer.

So next, I'm going to ask, um, to call the next person, Mr. Brian Templeman.

Hi, if you record your name and reason for calling, I'll see if this person is available. Okay, and I'll note also, I know we did update our public comment form. If folks are using the screening feature, there's no way for us to interact with that feature really, and so we're continuing to remind folks to turn that off if you intend to testify. So we can try that person if we come back later. So I'm going to Uh, move down the line to the next person on the phone, Mr. Mark Butler.

Hi, Mr. Butler. Hi, this is Chair Brawley. We are on public testimony for AO-2685. Are you ready to testify? Yes, I am.

Okay, you have 3 minutes. Please go ahead. Thank you.

Let me know when to start. Yes, please go ahead. Oh, hi, this is Mark Butler. I'm a longtime resident of North Star Community Council. I've owned a home there for 20 years.

I lived there and other neighborhoods for about 30 years before that. I'm currently out of state helping to provide end-of-life care for some loved ones, so I can't be there in person. I thank you for this option. Our neighborhood is pretty wonderful, I think. It's North Star by Valley Moon Park.

It is not a fancy neighborhood, doesn't have million-dollar $5 million houses and so forth. But it's multiracial, it's young and old, it's lots of amenities near Spenard and the Spenard Farmers Market, and so forth. And we really like it. And I am president of a condo association, and we have 24 units in there. And in the last 6 months, 2 of those units have come up for sale.

And I think they both qualify for the missing— the MM, missing middle. One of them that eventually sold for $250,000— these are 3 small 3-bedroom apartments or condos— condos— took 3.5 months to close, and it closed for $250,000. The other one is— or just recently closed for $264,000. And it took about 2.5 months. So there was not a lot of demand for these units, and so that's some basic facts in the marketplace.

What I learned working in community councils and working for 16.5 years as the manager of the Community Council Center is that public safety is the number one most important goal of local government, because if you can't be safe, it doesn't matter if the kids have great schools, libraries, parks, uh, you know, all the amenities that we like, transportation, bus services, and so forth. So public safety is the number one value. Um, I am against, uh, MMHOP, and I was against the other ones. My community council voted, Northstar voted, uh, against, uh, this. Um, uh, we're worried about all the things that people brought up, but one thing that other people haven't brought up is the high risk earthquake zones.

I'm interested in knowing what earthquake experts in Anchorage have to say about building these large buildings on small, oversized units crammed into little lots, and in earthquake— high-risk earthquake zones. Is this smart? Everyone who's been here— I've been here over 50 years, Everyone who's been here for a number of years knows that it's not if we'll have another earthquake event or severe earthquake event, it's when we will have it. So is our government prepared to help out people in these large units if there is an earthquake zone and there's not much space between buildings and so forth? Thank you.

Your time has expired, Mr. Butler. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, um, so we got through, uh, calling two folks, so I'm going to switch to doing, uh, two people in person. I know folks have been standing in line for a long time.

We have some number of folks who want to sign up as well, so I'll invite the next person in, in the room to come forward. The microphone is on. Please state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Jim Mendenhall.

I've lived in West Anchorage for about 33 years. I'm concerned about the MHOP ordinance. Housing is a recognized national issue. I serve on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chamber studied the housing problem, identified contributing factors, and continues to work on the issue. It recommends the KISS principle: eliminate unnecessary complexity from the home building process.

Simplicity creates certainty, lowers cost, and makes development more feasible. There's nothing simple about this overlay process and the ordinances that have led up to it. Regarding infill, Daniel Parolek, author of the Middle Missing Housing book, and Anchorage Comp Plan both state development should be compatible with the valued characteristics of surrounding properties and neighborhoods. How is allowing infill of a multifamily structure with minimal setbacks and no off-street parking compatible with R-1 and R-2 characteristics? Based on my understanding of the MMM, a cluster of homes spanning several blocks, similar to the example shown on the COVID of Mr. Parolek's book and reposted on the municipal website, may be compatible in certain areas of Anchorage.

Developing a larger area provides more options than constructing a single isolated structure. Which brings to the question about what is the process to improve our housing situation? Anchorage has a comprehensive plan, as others have talked about. We have a 2040 land use plan. Yet the work to integrate approved zoning recommendations that could be compatible with the MMM appear to have been set aside.

Assembly members are passing solutions stating they're making housing more affordable. Yet provisions of AO 2025-35, the source of the overlay map, requires developers and contractors to comply with prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. Agnew Beck's 2025 report estimated the requirement would increase project costs by 22%. How is this lowering housing costs? Then there's the public notice.

We are left to discover your proposals on the muni website, where finding information can be challenging. I have one S version stated that we're back to the tax incentive map. Another has what appears to be over 4,000 additional parcels added. And yesterday I heard that there were potential for 3 more S versions tonight. I have not read the S version that came out tonight.

And then we're seeing AOs that create special treatment. Subsidies for certain projects create an uneven playing field that discourages unsubsidized supply. Market-rate builders still face all the red tape while subsidized projects are streamlined. I suggest elimination of special treatment on certain projects and treat all projects equally. Thank you for listening to my comments.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Again, I'll do 2 and 2 now. So, uh, Microphone is on. State your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Thank you. My name is Bob French and I'm from Government Hill. This ordinance has probably made me angrier than any other that I have testified about in over 43 years in Anchorage, mainly because this ordinance allows taking property taxes from every property owner in Anchorage to subsidize the profits of developers while also asking some property owners to give up the value and equity that we have built in our most important investment, our homes. We live in an R-2 district, and there's a 14,000-square-foot lot directly south of my house.

I don't find anything in the proposed ordinance or the previous ordinances that would prevent a developer from putting up a 40-foot-high 8-plex on that lot without any off— without off-street parking within 5 feet of our south property line. We would never see the sun in winter. Our garden would be shaded most of the day. We and our neighbors could not drive on the streets due to the parked cars and the snow berms. The value of our 75-year-old home that we have updated over the past 35 years would simply be destroyed.

Multiplex buildings are not in themselves bad or undesirable, but they simply don't fit in established R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. I believe that MHOP will reduce, not increase, the availability of homes for first-time home buyers. Many others have explained the multitude of problems with this ordinance, but because I do support the goal of creating more affordable housing in Anchorage, here are changes that I recommend that could actually facilitate constructing additional housing. Properly fund the muni planning department to streamline the permit approval process. Because of the cyclical nature of permitting, allow for more contract code reviewers to do that work.

Remove R-1 and R-2 zones from the blanket approval for multiplexes. Only allow anything bigger than a duplex in an R-2 zone through a public process to get the support of neighbors and the community council before being allowed to to be built. Do not allow multiplexes to be built in seismic zones 4 and 5. Repeal AO-2540S, which removed the longstanding requirement for notifying residents and property owners of zoning changes that drastically affect their most valuable asset. Other speakers are correct in that this lack of notification has caused huge mistrust with this body and the entire process that has occurred for this whole thing.

Repeal— I urge you to repeal AO-2022-ADS that deleted the requirements for off-street parking. I believe that this entire proposal is illegal because it does not comply with the comp and land use plans, and retroactively changing the comp plans, I believe, as we saw with, uh, 2026-122 is also illegal. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next I will ask— before we go back to in person, I'll ask Travis to call Mr. William Dewey.

Uh, I'm back here. Oh, okay, okay. Then we will strike you, so we'll get to you shortly. Um, next please call— next please call Nancy Pease, and then we'll go back to in person.

Hello, you can find my home phone.

Um, hi, is this Miss Nancy Peace?

Sorry, I was speaking to a voicemail. Um, okay, I will mark that. So we'll try folks that we weren't able to reach one more time at the end. Um, in the meantime, we'll go back to in person. So next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Lee Butterfield. I live in South Anchorage. M.H.O.P. Does not affect the area of town I live in, but if I told you— if it got you to pass it, if I told you I would like it to, I would put that forward now.

I have been teaching in the Anchorage School District for almost 20 years. In those two decades, I have shepherded over 3,000 of our shared children through the halls of secondary education. And the one thing I've learned about all children, adolescents, and young people is that they share a common trait. And that trait is that they do not learn from what you say. They learn their value in the community and their values of other people by what you do.

And there are several things in their lives right now that I'd like to bring up as an example. The state of Alaska says that they want their children to learn how to read, and then they financially strangle the classrooms where that's supposed to take place. And shift that money into reinforcing the cages of those in prison, therefore showing our children that they care more about their future incarceration than they do their current education. The Anchorage School District says they want smaller class sizes, but when the money shows up, they put $17 million away for a rainy day, showing our children and our adolescents that possible future problems are more important than the critical needs they're facing in their classrooms every day. And that brings me to you.

Your businesses tell us that they want hands to work. Our mayor tonight told us that she wants the vibrance of our young people in our communities. You have told us that it's important that our working-aged young people stay, so much so as to promise 10,000 units in 10 years. So I ask you, as you think about things tonight, what will you show our young people in this city tonight? Will you show them that fear of a shadow in a town that doesn't cast shadows for a third of the year is more important than the possibility of their own roof over their own head?

Will you show them that your fear of a nasty email about slower garbage pickup is more important than their ability to enter into the economic ladder that we have present? And will you show them tonight that your worries about someone getting angry about parking supersedes their need to live in a community their families want them to stay in? So as you have these conversations and deliberate, which I'm glad you do, please know that whether these young people realize it themselves They will feel the decision you make and the actions you take. Please move the ball forward.

Thank you. I'll note somebody caught that we had neglected to start the timer shortly after, but I was noting, and so this person— I'll just note this person did not exceed their 3-minute limit. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi. My name's— sorry, please move a little bit closer to the microphone. Thank you. Hi, my name's Emma Jane Kyris. I'm from District 2 in Eagle River.

I'm born and raised in Alaska, and I'm here to talk just a little bit in my support of AO 2026-85. I moved to Anchorage about 3 years ago. I'm really loving my community. I'm loving the people in it, and it breaks my heart to watch so many of my young friends my peers, even people I don't really like, give up on living in Anchorage or Eagle River or even Alaska because they don't think that they will ever be able to afford a place to stay.

I don't think this is how things have to be. And I think a lot of people bringing up their issues with the MHOP proposal, you know, they talk about things like congested parking or buildings blocking light to their yards, that kind of thing. Personally, if I could ensure that every person in Anchorage who wants housing has access to that housing, I will ride my bike to work every day and I will hang out with my neighbors in my horribly lit front yard.

Uh, I want a future where young people don't have to fight to find safe, affordable housing, and I think passing AO 2026-85 is a really good step forward. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Before we move to next person in line, we will call our last two people on the phone. So first, Mr. David Evans.

Hello. Hi, this is David. Yeah. Hi, this is Chair Brawley. I am calling in the assembly meeting.

We are on public testimony for AO 2026-85, and you are next on the list, so you have 3 minutes when you're ready. Okay, thank you. Again, my name is David Evans. I live in District 4, whose seats are currently occupied by Ms. Park and Ms. Baldwin-Day. A recent Agnew Beck study showed that nearly 80% of the new home demand in Anchorage comes from those earning less than 80% of the median household income.

MHOP does not specifically address that need, and MHOP's authors are clear: it isn't about affordable homes. Furthermore, a national— a recent national study by the Urban Institute of cities who have implemented MHOP-like changes found that at best 1% increase in housing supply over about 10 years attributable to those changes. Sadly, most of those new homes were higher-end homes too. So I expect at least some of the MHOP supporters who have expressed hope that MHOP will help them or their elderly relatives find homes they can afford will be gravely disappointed. And even if MHOP somehow achieves that best possible increase in the face of Anchorage's high construction costs and challenging economic situation, then in the MHOP area, that's a just about 300 mostly high-end new homes, only 3% of the mayor's 10-year goal.

And that's not nothing, I agree, but do you really want to spend political capital for such a paltry return? Do you really want to pass something that just dances around the edges of Anchorage's greatest housing need? And do you really want to trample on the Comp Plan land use plan spirit, intent, provisions, and goals as described in my written testimony? Submitted on September 4th. I'm asking you to please do the right things.

Postpone MHOP indefinitely. Work on approaches that do address the greatest housing need in Anchorage in a way— in ways that comply with existing plans. Change those plans if they really need to be revised and follow Title 21 requirements for substantive changes to the plans. And then and only then update zoning regulations since the comp and land use plans should guide zoning rather than the other way around, and make those changes only after robust public process and notice. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Okay, let's call our last person on the phone, Mr. Brian Mullen.

Good evening, assembly members. Can you hear me? Yes. Is this Mr. Brian Mullen? This is Brian.

Great. Okay. Yes, this is Chair Brawley. We are on public testimony. Please begin when you are ready, and you have 3 minutes.

Okay, yeah, my name is Brian Mullen.

Can you hear me? Yes, please proceed with your testimony. My name is Brian Mullen. I live in Rogers Park. I'm a licensed civil engineer.

Hold on.

My concerns over the MHOP are that it has not been very well thought out. And that it's been a rush-through process that hasn't been really addressing the concerns of the homeowners or communities. I think that our communities at least need to be given a chance to compromise on the changes that might affect us. Um, a lot of examples have been talked about tonight. Some of my concerns include additional on-street parking and the safety issues that might be associated with that, with children playing on the roads.

And snow removal issues and some of those other type of things. One thing that hasn't been talked about is additional stress on the utilities that are existing here. Just on May 1st this year, my basement was flooded with sewer water from aged, uh, AEWU utilities that are not being well maintained. I worry that more demand on these utilities is only going to lead to more issues with utilities. So that hasn't really been addressed and thought out, and I would ask AEWU what they think about this.

Another issue is the development boundaries where we can maybe build all the way to the front of lots, and I just really worry about the character of the neighborhood if that's going to be allowed. Um, one other question I would ask the assembly is, you know, why, why are we targeting just these particular neighborhoods? If we really care about this issue, why don't we spread it throughout all of Anchorage and we can all share in this game of addressing housing demand. That's all I'll say tonight. I'll save the remainder of my time.

Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Thank you for your testimony. Okay, that concludes our folks on the phone. As I said, I will try calling those last two who didn't pick up after we get through everybody in person.

So we'll go back to in person. Next person, please come forward. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes. My name is Emma Arnold and I am a lifelong Alaskan.

I live in Eagle River at the moment, but I am a young person who is trying to move to Anchorage for a better job at the moment. However, the apartment situation in Anchorage is pretty awful at the moment. There are very few apartments that can be used for lower-income people, and I think that MHOP will help broaden the range of apartments that we can have. I also believe that MHOP being put in these neighborhoods will give the community better access to amenities that they deserve. I also believe that it can reduce the strain on the environment by encouraging public transport.

I also believe that the, the cost of community is inconveniences, and I believe that if we have as many people housed and safe as possible, I believe the minor inconveniences can be dealt with and worked through once we have that strengthened community. Thank you.

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

My name is River Ramulla from South Anchorage, and I'm here to voice strong support for the city's new housing plan and to call attention to some lurking dangers that I see on the horizon with regard to housing and homelessness in Anchorage and elsewhere. Well, the city has made many strong efforts to reduce the number of outdoor deaths in Anchorage. I believe they may be getting absorbed into emergent systems that gamify and cyclically profit off of those deaths and the factors that cause them. What is innocuous and convenient in housing solutions today may be laying the groundwork for systems that cause harm to residents in the long term. All over the nation, we have seen the rapid expansion of government contracts with private developers private surveillance companies, often combined with private housing development, as well as the expansion of permissions that allow online companies to price gouge on short-term housing options.

Rather than addressing homelessness, poverty, and crime, such efforts seem to automate systems that maintain and actually require seasonally exploited, persecuted, and dying people to maintain profitability. The plight of those experiencing homelessness and slow death outdoors should not be used to enact policy unrelated to helping them or to guarantee profits extracted from their suffering, sometimes for entertainment purposes. Where are the zoning and funding requests for more residential treatment facilities? What about incentivized partnerships with commercial property owners who have convertible unused space? Where are the new job listings for trained field medics searching for and rescuing people dying alone in the woods, regardless of their housing status?

Where is the legal aid for people who get abused and exploited in the dark by systems that were supposed to help and protect them? When officials start splitting hairs about what kinds of life statuses officially count in outdoor death numbers, seemingly as a means of hiding the severity of related problems that have nothing to do with whether or not someone has an official address listed on record, we have lost our way. We should be horrified at any ethics that demands seasonal expressions of what increasingly looks like fully automated group euthanasia or capital punishment. We should be careful that current flaws in moral reasoning do not find their way into the foundations of any technological systems we continue to invest in, often blindly for expedience, in ways that ignore those still living in the margins of these systems.

As a survivor of institutional violence, well-versed in its evils and profit-seeking motives, we should forbid private companies from harvesting our data and exploiting us. Funds spent on—. Madam Chair, I need to pause the speaker's time. Um, what is your point of order, Mr. Gergen?

What does this have to do with the item in front of us?

So, Mr. Ramulla, we are having testimony on zoning change, so I want to make sure that you're speaking to the zoning change. I am. It's all related to housing development in Anchorage, and homelessness is a problem here, and it's designed to solve those problems. Is that correct? Okay.

I'm just, I'm just surprised that that's— that hasn't been mentioned in an effort to increase housing opportunity for people in Anchorage. Yeah. So there were— yeah. So I'm not sure how how people who have died outdoors without housing isn't related to this issue. Understood.

Yeah. And I will also note, as a practical matter, you've only got about 15— well, 12 seconds left on the timer. And so I'm going to ask you to wrap up your testimony and that'll be the end of it. I am. Yeah, I had— I was intending to do so.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Can you please— can I reclaim at least like 5 seconds or something?

Yeah, if you can— yeah, just—. We'll give you a few extra seconds. Sorry. So I'll say it again. Thank you.

Um, we should forbid private companies from harvesting our data and exploiting us. Funds spent on expensive surveillance contracts are better allocated toward early intervention programs and more housing options that match the diversity of Anchorage residents needing warm places to sleep, adequate nutrition, and living support. That's why we should support this ordinance while remembering that we should not be building systems designed to increase people's profitability to data brokers and privately contracted law enforcement. Thank you. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is on. Brian Huska, College Village. New Alaska resident, been here 3 years, so I bring maybe a little outside perspective.

More importantly, I'm a retired fire officer. I served as well as a plan review officer and commercial inspector at Urbana, Illinois. Urbana, Illinois made the mistake of allowing development without a requirement of off-street parking. I'm asking you to learn from their mistake and not repeat it. I'm asking you to listen to so many of the other folks who have testified tonight and said slow down a little bit, right?

Try a test area, exempt R-1 and R-2, steps such as that. I'm asking you to listen to this gentleman with whom I disagree and show, show the young people of Anchorage that you listen, right, and that you respond to community concerns. We love our neighborhood. It's great. But let me stop there and change gears.

Now, I'm going to challenge you as an outsider, right? Alaska or Anchorage is not a boomtown. We hear from our young people, they're leaving.

The population is stable at best. The housing crisis is truly a national crisis with most of the drivers being bigger than any one community, right? So is there a real need, right, a population-driven need, a growing population need for more housing, right? I'm going to ask you that and then I'm going to probably irritate you and say, look, it took us a long time to find a house in Anchorage. Nice neighborhoods are hard to come by.

You have lots of people here speaking in defense of their neighborhoods. And I think if you pursue MHOP in its current state, you're going to make Anchorage less desirable than it is right now. Right? Don't make Anchorage a dump. Thank you.

Hey, next person, uh, please come forward at the timer. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Emily Weiser and I live in Airport Heights. I'm going to keep this short because what it comes down to is I love my neighborhood and that is why I want to welcome more neighbors to benefit.

So I'm here to support MHOP, the original version, and to urge you to take it farther.

Um, I, I'd really like to not see an additional carve-out for R-1 and R-2, as previous testifiers have spoken to. These are already exclusionary and exclusive zones. We don't need to perpetuate that. That is not going to benefit our city. In addition, so along with that, um, don't reduce the height limit in R1 and R2 versus other zones.

I would love to see the lot coverage restored to 100%, not because I think anyone's going to build 100%, because— but because that provides the flexibility needed for the kind of odd and sometimes difficult lots that we may have left to develop or that would be up for development next.

And I would also love to see fourplexes in my neighborhood, maybe even six plexes. I would love to welcome more renters. I would love to welcome more people who can be my neighbors and enjoy my wonderful neighborhood and support places like Fire Island. Maybe we can get even more than just a bakery in our neighborhood that I could then walk to and enjoy. And I know that change can be uncomfortable, but the opposite of change is stagnation, and that is where we are.

So I'm asking you all to be the leaders that we need tonight and say yes to that change and yes to new neighbors and yes to a better Anchorage. Thank you.

And before we start our next testimony, um, I want to note we're getting close to 11, so we need to take up a motion to extend. Mr. Bullen? Yes, Madam Chair, move to extend the meeting until 11:30. Second. Okay, motion by Mr.

Bullen to extend the meeting to 11:30. Second by Ms. Park. Do you want to speak to it further? Um, yeah, I think we still have more folks have waited a long time to participate tonight. We should honor their intent to do that.

And then I also just want to point out, um, and I'm sure we do have another late on the table item that we may want to read in the record as well, separately from that. Okay, thank you. Um, I think, uh, because we're in the middle of public testimony, I'm not sure that I can read it into the record at this moment, but we will hold on to that. I'll also say, uh, the intent of course will be to continue our meeting till tomorrow. So I would also suggest to members, um, we will certainly want to get through the public hearing.

Um, it may not be wise at this point to extend to midnight, but to go at least to get through the public hearing, and then, uh, essentially all of our items will roll to— well, we'll basically pick up where we left off at 6 PM tomorrow when that happens. So just so everybody's understanding, uh, what happens. So, um, is there any further discussion on On motion to extend, uh, is there any objection to the motion to extend?

Point of information.

I think if we say that our intent is to get to, to get to the end of the hearing, then we can extend further. Um, Ms. Park, what is your point of information? If we go until 11:30, can we extend again? Yes, the only time we cannot extend past is midnight. Thank you.

And I'm sorry, I saw— I didn't see that you were in the queue at that moment. I'm sorry. Okay, uh, any objection to the motion to extend to 11:30? Okay, seeing and hearing none, then we will continue. Um, so next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Um, excuse me, good evening. My name is Anne Brooks. I'm a resident of Rogers Park, and I'm going to speak to a couple things based on my background as a civil engineer and a public involvement specialist working on planning and design projects that built a fair amount of Anchorage. I believe— I'm really saddened by what I'm hearing tonight because it could have totally been avoided if when this proposal came forward, I haven't heard anyone say that we don't need more housing and don't want more housing.

The challenge is in the details. And so I think I'm asking you tonight is to take a step back and work with those communities. I have learned so much from these young people tonight. I know that the Housing Club has been working in this community for 2 years. Unfortunately, most of their dialogue was amongst themselves.

Once TSDO and now MHOP came to my community, I saw the same thing happening with my neighbors, and I'm probably as, as, um, as guilty as most from talking just amongst ourselves and not really understanding all sides of the issue. When we went to public meetings and we asked, which I think there were two total, We didn't get our questions answered. We can get behind proposals that we understand. We can get behind proposals that provide some compromise. I thank Assemblywoman Park for, for coming forward with an S version.

After hearing the testimony tonight, I think there's a solution that's somewhere between the S version presented tonight and Assemblywoman Baldwin-Day's original proposal. I think there are compromises out there that will make this palatable. And one thing I really learned from public involvement, and it's probably also reflected in this room, when I worked on a transportation project and there was going to be a right-of-way acquisition that affected someone's house, the first thing I would do would let that person know that there was a potential impact to him. What you guys did when you decided that you no longer had to provide notice to property owners for zoning issues is you kicked the hornet's nest.

There's also concerns for me on the, on the fiscal side of things because I think there are financial implications to some of the solutions. My neighbor mentioned the sewage in his basement. Well, I kind of— I went to AWWU. My house was built in 1950. The sewer utility went in 1960.

We have asbestos concrete pipe, and it's got a 60, 70-year life, and we're at 66 years. How are we going to chart? How are we going to— thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Sure, my name is, uh, Dov Margalit. I live in Rogers Park, College Village, Rogers Park area.

Good evening, Chair, members of the assembly. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your service. Um, you know, I support the sentiment behind MHOF. I really do.

The, the need for more housing is very important, especially as younger people are moving into the workspace that is Something I absolutely support. I'm a business owner, I need people to work in that business, so definitely support the future of Anchorage. I do not support MHOF in its current form, um, and including the, uh, S version that has not been adopted yet. I believe the inclusion of R1 and R2 in the S versions still is an issue, especially with the R-1. Under this type of an overlay, the house next door in mine could be torn down, replaced with a multi-family rental unit, um, right up to the property line.

I believe it's now a 5-foot setback with no required parking. The owner doesn't live there, it's renters. Um, renters are fine, but, uh, there's a difference. I bought this house knowing what it was. It was an R-1.

Dwelling. This feels like a bait and switch, and, uh, that seems a little bit unfair right next to me. And, um, basically, to those here tonight that do support this ordinance, I'm with you. I'm with you for that need. But there are plenty of areas that are zoned multifamily, that are zoned commercial, that are zoned mixed-use that would— that are currently underused, underutilized.

In our neighborhood, we do have R-2 on the fringe of the community, and also there is large vacant lots. There is a BP building, is completely vacant, has been vacant, it's mothballed, and the property around it is huge. That property could be developed. Into a very large multifamily complex, rental condos, with all the support that you would need, including a mixed-use development. I think there's a lot of work to be done here.

I don't think as is this is enough. And I think, um, yes, this is a lot of work for all of you, and I appreciate your service, but I do believe that you need to start to listen to the communities. There are communities that support this ordinance. And I applaud them. There are communities that would prefer that it is not adjacent to an R-1 and R-2 dwelling.

I think we need to listen, listen to all people, all of the community, not just to the few. Everybody needs to be included in this planning. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward, um, state your name, padachar, and you'll have 3 minutes. And I believe you did testify, and so, um, you need to speak to the S version. Yes, thank you very much. Excuse me, um, thank you for, uh, listening and to all the comments. My name is David Wigglesworth.

I live in the Northstar area, and I'm just speaking to the S version. I've just looked at it tonight. I guess fundamentally I think it provides a lot of room for merging the divide and coming up with maybe something that could work for the community. It's much less broad-brushed than MHOP is now. It provides a little more predictability in the various neighborhoods that I think people are searching for.

It most certainly aligns with the Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Land Use Plan. Section 1 in the in the S version speaks to these MHOP overlay categories, and that aligns quite well with the land use designations in Section 2 of the land use plan, quite well. And it actually deals effectively, when you look at some of the dimensional standards, with the, the complexity of the R-2M zone, because it, it varies across the town. And I think the dimensional standards in, in the S version really try to get at some of those those, uh, those nuances in, in R2M in particular. I appreciate, as you probably will all gather, the, uh, the exclusion of seismic zones.

I think that's really important. There are very few parcels in the overlay that really are affected, so it's minimally a negligible impact in removing those areas, but it has a high benefit in terms of health safety for our community. I tried to, in some of my testimony that I sent you by email, go through your standards for looking at economic truth, resiliency, and those other lenses through which you make decisions. And I think I did a pretty good job articulating why it makes sense to exclude those zones. I appreciate the height transitions are back in the S version.

That provides for a lot more consistent, uh, compatibility as well as well-planned growth. The performance metrics, I applaud that as well. I remember I looked at the 2023, I think it was, housing summit you had where you brought up Charles Moran from Strongtowns, I believe it was. And one of the things that stuck with me is he said that towns that grow with density as the primary metric, and the words to the effect, grow very poorly. And I think the performance metrics here begin to get at the nuance that we want our town to grow well.

And so I think the S version begins to get at some of that in terms of respecting some of some of the neighborhood concerns that have been brought up.

So, and in the dimensional standards, I think it looks at providing some nuances across the various zones that I think are worth taking a look at. So I appreciate this Member Parks bringing this forward, and I hope you have some good discussion about its merits. Thank you very much. Point of information. Thank you.

What is your point of information, Mr.— Time check. Yeah, thank you. So just as a reminder, we did extend our meeting to 11:30, and then I was also going to note that our meeting is certainly currently in session, so we can disregard the thing on the screen. We are still recording, obviously we're still in our meeting, so just for the record. So yeah, we are continuing even though it's, it's 11 right now.

So okay, thank you. So with that, next person please come forward, state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Jeff Olson. I live in Rogers Park. First, I'd like to thank the assembly, the mayor and her staff for your efforts thus far to find solutions to the problems of housing availability and affordability in Anchorage.

And I appreciate the hard work and commitment that has resulted in the current MHOP ordinance specifically intended to address housing availability. I cannot, however, support MHOP in its current form. There are many of us who feel the process that led to this ordinance did not lend itself to truly reflect the 2040 Land Use Plan and importantly, did not lend itself to true community engagement. To be clear, I'm not advocating discarding MHOP, and I know there are others who feel the same way I do. Rather, I'd like to see it revised in a way that truly reflects the 2040 Land Use Plan and community input.

Right now, I'm aware of at least two ad hoc citizens groups that were formed to address housing issues. This kind of grassroots organization reflects the importance of these issues to all of us. These groups reflect different viewpoints on this ordinance and on solutions to housing availability and affordability. These differences are reflected in the strong showing of support for and opposition to MHOP we've seen in testimony to the, to the assembly and in local media. In my opinion, these grassroots efforts should now be leveraged to engage neighbors in a process that moves MHOP forward.

We need to engage with one, with one another. We need to listen to one another. I believe MHOP can become an ordinance that addresses housing availability in a thoughtful way, is true to the 2040 land use plan, and reflects the views of all of our neighbors.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the assembly. My name is Carolyn Ramsey.

I am the vice president of Airport Heights Community Council, but I am here representing myself. I'm also the chair of CRDU-MED, or Citizens for Responsible Development. Title 21.030.070 is our municipal code, directly lays out the public process for any substantive changes to the comprehensive plan. Changing the reach from quarter mile to half mile across most of the population centers of Anchorage is not a minor change, but a substantive one. The community planning website doesn't even have MHOP on it.

TSDO is there for comment, but MHOP isn't. Bottom line is municipal code requires a public process, and that public process needs to be followed. And since I've got time, I'd like to share a bit of history that's pertinent to public process. Back in 2013, there were days of testimony over Title 21, and again during the union busting proposal when the assembly actually voted to cut off public testimony. What came out of all that was an 11-member task force dedicated to evaluating the public process of the Anchorage Assembly.

Multiple recommendations came out of that task force and are now part of the assembly process today and/or the assembly chambers around you. That task Task force was made up of folks from across the spectrum, from Assemblymember Jim Barnett, Dowells Tim Potter, Joelle Hall from the AFL-CIO, just to name a few. I also had the honor and privilege to serve on that task force. Our chair was Jane Anvik. Also on that task force was Arla Stergeluski.

Two women who helped draft our municipal charter were there to share with us the history behind our charter and what they were thinking at the time it was written. I looked up to these two women as I grew up, and I got a chance to hear history firsthand from them. They specifically drafted our charter to be nonpartisan. When it comes to our city, we're supposed to leave partisan politics at the door and come together to make Anchorage a better place. In one meeting, we were discussing the public process and who should be allowed to testify.

This is when Arla said something that has stuck with me to this day. She said, public process is hard, but it's supposed to be hard. It takes time. It's drawn out and it's messy, but that's when the best work is done because everyone's involved. It's not the—.

It's not the assembly's job to run roughshod over the public, causing hours upon hours of public testimony, but to work hand in hand with the public to help make Anchorage the best place it can be. And with all the testimony I've heard standing in line for basically the last 2 hours, There's a lot of people here who want compromise. They want to come up forward and say, hey, let's work together to make this happen. And I'm hoping that the assembly can hear them, will take a step back, and actually work with the public to make this a better place. Thank you.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is on. My name is Patricia Anderson. I've lived, uh, 4 decades in Alpine Village subdivision off Lake Otis and Lure.

I live along the proposed transit corridor of Lake Otis. Like other proposed highways, I like an M-HOP to eminent domain. Updense the areas along the highway, and any of us who have homes are going to be told we have to give up our zoning rights to the neighbor next door. This may pit neighbors against each other when construction with no minimum setbacks, 70% footprint, no parking, and 4 stories— this is not creative to me. So here are a couple of ideas that may be worth some homework.

First idea: check out all vacant lots on muni.org. There are 8 long-time vacant R-5 lots on the 4 blocks going by my house. Give the owners incentives like given to other projects. There is a subdivision between East 68th and East 72nd Avenues west of Lake Otis that needs help of science since it's a wetland, as are several lots farther west down East 72nd. Another idea: eminent domain or incentivize car lots.

There are umpteen squared used car— used and new car lots in the municipality. These could be rezoned for housing. These ideas don't cram people into high-rise and minimum setback dwellings in established neighborhoods. This proposal adds less space, more noise pollution, with cars revving and music booming on streets that are unimproved like my neighborhood. However, no one is going to give up their cars—2.3 per household—no matter how many buses go by.

If this is a housing crisis, why aren't all areas of the municipality involved? I say no to MHOP. Thank you.

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

And just a reminder to keep the microphone close as well. Thank you. Hi, my name is Diana Evans and I live in Rogers Park. There's no doubt that there is a housing crisis in Anchorage, but I agree with many people that MHOP is missing middle housing on steroids. The density increases and tax abatements will drive residential infill to scales that my neighbors and I have a right to fear.

Like my friend David Wigglesworth said, I want our town to grow well. The Assembly MHOP FAQ has a statement that housing growth should be considered alongside infrastructure needs. My, um, historic Rogers Park neighborhood has sewer and water lines that are over 60 years old. Our trash pickup in single-lane alleys with overhead utility lines will interfere with large dumpsters emptying. Most of our streets don't have sidewalks, and as the right-of-way study for parking found out, our streets have capacity they don't have parking issues, but doesn't note that the reason this is was because our neighborhoods were developed with off-street parking requirements.

I see no evidence that there is any infrastructure consideration being honored. I believe that the end of— intent of MHOP is misunderstood and misrepresented.

The FAQ states that MHOP will not guarantee affordable housing but creates different housing types at different price points. However, the market will set the price, and I sincerely doubt that it will be affordable. However, there's been 30 families moving into Rogers Park in the last 5 years. A lot of them are into fixer-upper houses that are affordable in Rogers Park. I see opportunities for housing all over in Midtown, Fireweed Lane, and I hope that our community can step back, take time to come together with sorely needed dialogue, and make compromises that prevent chaos for younger family neighborhoods and provide true affordable and attainable housing.

If this body feels they don't have time for that, I would like you to pass the S version as a compromise. Thank you. Thank you for your service, and thanks for the time.

Okay, thank you. Next person, please come forward. Mr. Isaacs, I know you testified in the last meeting, so you would need to be speaking to the S version. Thank you. Thank you very much.

John Isaacs with Turnagain Community Council. I'm authorized to speak on behalf of the board tonight. I will be speaking on the S version, some of the new information information in the packet. First, thank you all for your hard work and long evenings, both the administration and the assembly. I hear Bob Dole is buying the first round of drinks tonight.

Is that right, Bob?

The S version is a compromise. You're hearing from a lot of stakeholders here tonight. You're hearing from young people who have a very hard time finding housing that they can afford and live in. You hear people who have been in established neighborhoods that would would like to be able to retain some of the characteristics of those neighborhoods. That's a very wide range to bridge, and one size does not fit all.

You know, the S version really truly is a compromise. It has graduated zones and height limits that allows you to have some increases in the R-1, R-2, where you can encourage small cottage homes, small townhouses. You can convert houses to fourplexes. You can have increased density there there without having a one-size-larger-height limit and large lot coverage. But then you can graduate that up closer to the quarters, which have more room for higher-density development.

You know, I want to point out, you know, this has been sort of a failure in public process. Listening to some of the community councils here tonight, you know, I'm in awe of what they've said. Because you have people here who are willing to offer compromises and work, and this system did not work for them. And I hope everyone learns a lesson for the next ordinance comes down the pike. Don't throw something down on the table, done, let's sit down and talk about it.

I also want to commend Ms. Parks because finding an assembly member who would carry this forward and take some of these ideas and get it before you, it's a game in a system that we all don't know very well. So thank you for doing that. While Turnigan might prefer that you would hold R1 and R2 back because we could have a more reasonable discussion about about it. Time is passing.

If we have to do something, let's look at this S version as a compromise. One other thing I would sort of like to say about that is let's also keep the map that is in the June 9th version. You know, for best intentions, what was the iterative map that goes on the website that most people don't see unless they know where it is, it's at 4,400 lots. It's increased the size of Emhop up by 16%. It adds injury to insult for those folks who weren't noticed that this is happening to them anyway.

So let's try to keep this to a manageable size and not expand this mess. Um, with that, I would say I hope you take time to look at the S version. I would be very concerned if you picked up the S version and voted on tonight because you probably haven't read it and looked at it. So please take the time to look at it, think about it, and think about that as an alternative to going with individual amendments. So again, thank you for your time.

You know, if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Um, state your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Uh, I am, uh, William Dewey, but I go by Fred, um, and I live in South Addition, and I'm the guy that was on the telephone. Okay. I was supposed to be on the telephone. I live in a neighborhood in South Addition.

I've got within one block, I have Safe Haven, which is a multiple, multiple family development. There are 3 duplexes within a block, and I'm in R-2, and I understand that things will will, will change. Okay, and that's why I'm here supporting the S version. The S version is a compromise. It doesn't— my, my neighborhood is a multi-family neighborhood that has multi-family dwellings, but it doesn't have large dwellings.

So you've gotten rid of— so you've gotten rid of tax for 8-plexes. What do you think developers are going to build? Are they going to build something that's going to give them a boom for the next 28 years or 25 years, or are they going to build something like a 4-plex that people can live in and rent? We've all heard about affordable housing, but affordable housing isn't even a goal with, uh, this particular— the one that you're looking at besides the S version. It is a compromise and it is a compromise that's worth looking at.

But I'm here also to talk as I'm a retired lawyer. I was a lawyer for 42 years and I dealt with very difficult people. I did criminal law. But when I was a law clerk, we dealt with a lot of different kinds of law. One of those things is reverse condemnation.

When somebody's property rights are taken away from them, they have a cause of action in this state. There is Supreme Court law on it. When they built the highway, the Seward Highway, they put a one-way street between Huffman and O'Malley. Every business got compensation for that because it changed the number of people that came and visited their businesses.

This particular ordinance, that— this Ordinance 85, not the S version, doesn't comply with the Anchorage 2040 Plan. It doesn't respect neighborhoods. It doesn't have enough public input. Input on a map that was released on September 23rd is not input for all of those people that are on that map.

I'm out. Thank you for your testimony. And as a reminder as well, I know I've said this before, if you want to finish remarks or have additional things to So you can always email members as well. Excuse me. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. I am Kimberly Verite, and I am from West Anchorage, and I sympathize with the youngsters and y'all up in front of me. Yeah, affordable housing.

But what is affordable housing? You know, I commuted 3 hours just to go to school, graduated, was a paramedic, had a 4-year degree. I still lived at home. Yes, I did. And that was in my 20s.

Lived in Bethel in a small trailer park. But guess what? I still wanted my car and my personal property protected and right there in front of me. Lived in apartments, lived in little cottages, still wanted my car next to me. 500-Foot little, little cottage worked out great.

So I sympathize. We're definitely going to need jobs for people to want to be here and to want to live here. And we ebb and flow. But here in the muni, and we've elected all of you with trust that you're going to listen to us, and it feels like this has been violated. So we know that we have a housing challenge, and most people— and I have older kids because I'm older— need homes with rental rates under $1,500 to be in that 30% of household income guidelines.

We have comp plans that outline also sorts of strategies. The muni can't fix everything, but we can expect expertise and hard effort to implement the plans. Yet we keep seeing proposed ordinances that appear inconsistent with our comp plan, that sidesteps municipal ordinance, and are harmful to the public trust. I don't trust you right now, and nor do my neighbors. And just because we might be in a certain neighborhood, you don't know where we started.

We started just like you. We started with nothing, built our way up. My first house, age 30, 8.5% was the interest rate. Okay, I'm proceeding through. Process matters.

Young people, you may not think the process matters right now. You guys are fairly young as well. You don't think the process matters, but it does matter. We have laws and ordinances for a reason, and that's for the trust. These ordinances bypass required— that you have proposed to bypass required public review, limiting community input and blocking meaningful appeals.

For decades, if a zoning change was proposed and could affect our property, we would get notice, public notice. For Tisdale and MHOP, we have expected— we are expected to monitor the assembly agenda to see if something might affect our property. As of 11:45 yesterday, there was still no details posted for today's meeting, let alone September 15th meeting. I couldn't download any information. And the problem is Title 2103-160 does not allow for bypassing full public notice if the proposal is inconsistent with the comp plan.

The changes don't fit the plan. The conflict with the comp plan and use selective information for justification. The comp plan is not merely about destiny changing population of proximity to transit corridor. Our municipal website says it best. It is based on a community's vision and portrays the dynamics, unique qualities, and concerns of the community.

Thank you for your testimony. Sorry, thank you. Oh, thanks. Uh, next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes.

Hello, thank you. My name is Annette Cartier. I live in Rogers Park, and I understand MHOP is provide affordable housing to residents who fall into the financial category of MHOP, middle— missing middle housing opportunity. On page 1 of the ordinance, line 6, it specifically says that it's to avoid the rising rates of outmigration, provide household financial stability, and avoid homelessness. Yes, I get that.

Everyone should have access to affordable housing. The entire Rogers Park subdivision is slated to be identified as MHOP housing. Rogers Park is currently a thriving single-family neighborhood. Due west of Rogers Park, Fireweed Lane has many positive attributes similar to Rogers Park that would benefit M-pop. Fireweed Lane mirrors Rogers Park subdivision in that it is also close to the bus lines, downtown, and walking distance to grocery stores.

Fireweed Lane also has a close proximity to the Chester Creek Trail system with sidewalks on both sides of Fireweed, which would aid in safety and walkability. I suggest we make use of what we already have in our own backyard. My best solution would be look for— look toward the location of Fireweed Lane as an area to enhance and provide an affordable housing community for the migration, homelessness, and the financial help that other families may need. Quickly, I'll speak to further enhance our tired-looking city I suggest landscaping, a designated community park, and/or community gardens on one or more of the parcels. Quickly, I'll speak to the taxes on MHOP.

Line 29, page 1 of the ordinance states that this land use policy does not incentivize. I see that. I see all the different types of construction that can happen with it. But according to AS 2025-35S-1, if you were a developer and you built an 8-plex or more units to rent, you will receive 25 to 28 years of property tax abatement. The question because— the question because becomes, is this in all of our backyards?

And we as taxpayers will pay— will be paying additional taxes to subsidize the abatement for the 25 to 28 years. I think it is in our backyards.

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

Uh, one, one second. Uh, Miss Silvers, what's your point? Can you turn your microphone on? Thank you. I move to extend the meeting until midnight.

Second. OK, there's been a motion by Ms. Silvers to move to extend the meeting to midnight, seconded by Ms. Park. Any further discussion on that? I know it's a long night. We got several folks in line.

I'll also note if we do get to midnight and we have not concluded the public hearing, that is where we'll pick up in the next meeting. So just for awareness, folks in line, any objection to extending to midnight?

Seeing and hearing none, then we are extended to midnight. So please proceed, sir. Howard Levine, Rogers Park area. Madam Chair, members of the assembly, I'm speaking in opposition of AO85. I appreciate, like many of the other speakers, that we need to create the missing middle housing in Anchorage.

However, We need to identify the appropriate areas for the missing middle, like for example, between Fireweed and Northern Lights, between the New Sort Highway and Spinard Road, where there are huge areas that are vacant and boarded up that are currently ready and waiting for this type project. To take away the R-1 and R-2 property owners' quality of life by eliminating setbacks, increasing lot coverage, and allowing smaller lots to increase housing density for the missing middle is not fair to those of us who invested in areas where we thought we could count on the rules of R-1 and R-2 zoning. I'm not opposed to the subsidizing of the missing middle housing development with tax incentives, but they need to be in the appropriate areas, not in the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town, and you'll have, uh, 3 minutes and the microphone is on.

My name is, my name is Stephen Callahan. I'm here on behalf of the U Med Tutor Community Council. Sorry, then we are going to reset your time so that you have 5 minutes. Please go ahead. Okay, I'll be nowhere near that much time.

This is going to be fast. Please proceed. We just submitted a resolution in support of, uh, missing middle housing. We generally support it.

Realize we are in a denser area. You know, we all— the Umatilla is a denser area of Anchorage. We have needs that are unique. We discussed this the other day at a meeting we held. One thing we need to take into consideration is the— we have a large employment base, and they have just invested probably $200 million in facilities.

They're going to need people to work there. People enjoy living in U Med. One of the reasons is they are close to where they work. There's people there who would take the bus. They don't have cars.

Uh, we have a wide diversity of people. We have doctors, we have nurses, we have students, we have students going to school. Some of these people live there year-round, some of them don't. So, so we, we voted to support this. We are taking a little bit of a leap of faith here that you'll work with the communities that do have concerns and address their concerns.

And it appears in the S version that a lot of the concerns have been addressed.

And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for serving on the assembly. Thank you, Bob Doll, for showing up tonight.

Thank you. Um, Next person, uh, please come forward, state your name, what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes.

Hello, my name is Sterling Wanamaker. I live in Rogers Park. Um, thank you, Assemblymembers, for your service. I truly appreciate it. I'll start off first by saying I'm 26.

I grew up in Anchorage. I grew up in College Village. I left the state to go to school, and I came back post-graduation because I love our state, I love our city, and I knew it was a place where the American dream is possible. I could come home, buy a home in an established neighborhood that was safe and had a great community, and raise a family here. And now I live in Rogers Park with my fiancée, and we love our neighborhood.

So I bought our house, and it was— it had been abandoned for years, a pile of junk. Spent every single waking second I had, every single paycheck I had, to remodel our home and to make it what it is today. And I'm very proud of doing so. Along the way, I worked with Building Safety, um, and it was a tenuous process, I can't lie. Um, and so I guess what I would say is let's put the focus on providing incentives to develop and remodel and rehabilitate the aging housing infrastructure that Anchorage already has and beautify our city in that way, provide the right incentives for new developments on undeveloped lots, um, and provide houses for those folks.

When you look at the proposed areas that MHOP and this ordinance will affect, it's hard not to notice that these areas are areas of the city that are an affordable place to live in the scheme of Anchorage. They have houses that are in neighborhoods that someone can actually approach as a younger person. And my fear with this ordinance, and I think it's a very justified fear, is that by doing this and providing, uh, the ability to, to build these 8-plexes and multi-family structures, you're going to strip away the affordability of these homes, and you're going to be left with these properties that, you know, are now in neighborhoods that is not approachable to a younger person, and you've destroyed this community of a neighborhood. And so what I ask you is, please do not strip away a young person's dream being able to buy a house in an established neighborhood where they can build with sweat equity a home that they're proud of and a home that they can raise their family in. Please provide the tax incentives and motivation to developers to develop new infrastructure on undeveloped lots and rehabilitate homes, houses, and commercial properties and large apartment complexes that are in need of lots of love and work.

And I trust you'll make the right decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi there, assembly. My name is Deborah Hanson.

I live in the South Edition. Um, I've lived there a long time. Um, I bought my house and I couldn't really afford it And thanks to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I was the first person that my loan officer at First National ever loaned to a single woman, because up until then you couldn't get mortgages. And I was really grateful I got one. I think after listening to all this testimony, you guys have probably figured out that housing isn't an item you get to check off on your to-do list and go on to the next item.

It's complicated because it affects people. It affects people like me. I moved into a house that was supposed to be my starter home, and I'm still there because I had 2 kids and had to pay for college. It affects more than people who want to own houses, people who need houses, people who want to make a lot of money off of houses like I think this missing middle thing does.

My neighbors are like elementary school teachers, a roofer, a firefighter, a counselor. We even have a family who moved in from the Valley, which I guess is the Golden Whale here, And they have a kid, that 20-month-old boy who's wonderful. We have a truck driver, retired truck driver, retired lawyer. It's pretty mixed neighborhood. It's pretty great.

I love it. Um, when I talk to them about the missing middle ordinance, they keep saying, why doesn't the assembly fix problems that we need to have fixed, like downtown parking lots, Airbnbs in our neighborhood, the wasteland that's Fireweed Lane? It used to be great when I first moved here in '82. Anchorage, by the way, used to look like a pit. Oh, it was literally gravel pits.

Zoning here meant closing the gravel pits. That's why we have the Sand Lake area in the neighborhood that's southwest off of Lake Otis and 15th. I think it'd be great if we united people rather than dividing them. This housing club, it'd be nice if we all talked to each other so they understood better what has happened here. Everybody's got good ideas, and we all want to help.

We want housing here. I want my kids to live here. I want my granddaughter to live here. We need to build a better city, one that's more durable and attractive. And we— I went through the zero lot line houses of the '80s and the Pete Zamorilla malls.

They're horrible. It was ugly and trashy. We need an ordinance that makes neighborhoods stronger and adds housing. You guys can do that. We can all do that.

We're all smart enough to figure that out. This is maybe— this isn't the answer, but there are answers. No one's talked about natural disasters. In the earthquake of 2018, I lost 4 windows. I'm just in the process of replacing them.

It's $2,800. That's a lot of money for me, which is why I'm still in my starter home. But it's not— you know, you tell someone, "Oh, you can get this great house." You forget the fact that you come back from your honeymoon and your hot water heater broke. Or you've got to replace your furnace, or you have to replace windows. None of these are glamorous, but you have to do it to keep your thing.

Anyway, thanks for it. Please, please seriously consider what you're doing here. Thanks. Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Eleanor Andrews. I live in South Addition. I can honestly say I've lived in every neighborhood at the hillside. Some of it forced moving, others I was fortunate enough. I've bought and rehabbed 5 homes here in Anchorage.

I have worked in government, private sector. I was a federal contractor, worked for state government. I'm a regulator, and I've always believed that we can solve our own problems. In the 62 years I've lived here, We're always looking for this golden answer that comes from someplace else. They're doing this out there.

They've got model homes. We are smart people because we built this place with nothing but dirt and spit. We don't have to pick up a project or nuance from some other place. Most of the people that testified here tonight are experienced in government building. They're engineers.

They built neighborhoods. And so I just I think that we need to start thinking about what we can do for ourselves, and I think that we'd do it better if we had better governance.

I had to come to assembly meetings for 7 years at the beginning of unification. You had to because the city was always trying to out-slick the furlough former borough and all of that stuff, and you couldn't turn your back on anything. But together we had to work and build this government. George Sullivan asked me to help write the labor ordinance, even though I was a unionist rep, because we worked together, we knew each other. So I'd like to make an offer to you.

Since I know everything and I've been everywhere, I'd like to meet with you and talk about the public process. You don't pass something and send it to us since you got 2 weeks to talk about it and then put in the website we had a robust public process. That's not true, and you know it. We're in no hurry. We don't have a crisis because the crisis doesn't last 10 years without being fixed.

We have non-attention to real things. We don't want to pay taxes. We don't want to make hard decisions. You sit here and talk for 10 minutes about the wording, whether the municipality or the assembly hires the ombudsman, and give short shrift to the things that affect every single person who lives in this town. So I really mean it.

I want to offer to meet with the assembly, the administration, share the resources that I have and the experience. Because when I was with Neighborhood Housing, we built 1,200 units of affordable housing. And there's nothing that you've put forth in the last 3 years that's addressing entry to housing for people who don't have a lot of money. So please accept my offer. I want to help, and I believe you got into this business because you want to serve, but I just think you don't know enough to make the decisions you've been trying to make.

Thank you.

Hey, next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town, and I believe you testified before, so I'm assuming you're speaking on the S version. Yes, this is about the S version. Um, good evening, uh, assembly members, Mayor LaFrance, and Municipal staff. My name is Mara Rosenthal. I'm a proud member of the Spenard Community Council.

And how cool is it that we've had this many people engaged on housing, right? Like, every— I think there's been about 60 people. I've been trying to keep track. So that's pretty cool. I'm excited about the S version of MHOP that Janice Park has brought forth.

It removes the broad brush of approach to zoning and is a little more nuanced. It's a more nuanced way to add density, but it's not too nuanced to be overly complicated, yet it, um, yet also it's consistent with neighborhood scale. The S version aligns with the 2040 Land Use Plan, which is our community-formed plan, and it's an award-winning document, and it's our legal guidance for land use. It also gets R-1 and R-2 happily back on the map. And this is a great— honestly, it's a great middle ground.

These more nuanced tiered approaches are a step in the right direction, as these are a great way to both provide density in neighborhoods as well as respond to the asks of people who, who have been concerned about previous versions of TSDO and MHOP in our northern climates. You see tiered approaches like this in many other cities like Seattle. Speaking of Seattle, the original version of MHP allows them for more density than Seattle. I appreciate that the S version is more comparable to Seattle standards regarding height, setbacks, and lot coverage, as we don't need to be thinking bigger than cities that are currently housing multiple major tech companies. Going forward, as we discuss how to continue increasing housing, I would like I just wanted to say throughout this past year, there's been a lot of name-calling like YIMBY and NIMBY, and these labels are just quite honestly divisive and unproductive.

If you're really listening, many people being labeled as NIMBY are in no way against more housing. They just want us to have a conversation about how we want density to look in our community. And Mayor LaFrance, thank you for your BP Energy talk. That was really great. I met a lot of new people at my table and it was really effective.

We came up with a lot of great ideas together. So I'm excited to further discuss how we creatively use land, repurpose existing buildings, and how we finance our building in our community, not just for financing for developers who are building multiplexes, but for the average person who's wanting to modify modify a single-family home into different units or add an ADU in their yard. I'm excited for the future of Anchorage as we come together to make our city a better, more vibrant, more affordable place to live. Thank you all.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, part of town, and you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Jana Zedike, and I'm a Rogers Park homeowner since 2013, and I am, uh, kind of betwixt and between. I want to thank Assemblymember Park for introducing the S version. I only looked at it tonight. I'm not prepared to make comments on it right now, but I do have some comments about the success that has been involved with TISDAW and MHOP.

Many things drew me to Anchorage, including what I knew of Anchorage's civic life, especially how it had created its 2020 land use plan. The plan, as many of you probably already know, took 5 years to develop and won an award award. And the plan was based on the work of literally thousands of citizens working together to form a vision, and then a citizen task force focused on goals and objectives. It was an inclusive process with citizens working together with municipal staff and elected officials. Uh, my friend was the city Planning Director at that time, Sheila Selkregg.

So even though I wasn't here, I got to hear about that in real time, and it was actually a reason I moved to the community, thinking a community that can function like this is where I would like to live. Fast forward to today, there is a lot of anger and disappointment and and a diminishment in public trust because of the lack of participation of concerned citizens in crafting the solutions to the housing problem. And it's important to know that the lack of process has angered people, which is understandable Communities are more divided and acrimony is building, but the end of this story hasn't been written yet. What might be expected at this point is more quick movement of— on mhop, but we humans are a surprising lot. We have the ability to take a chance and change course.

I'm here today in service of that chance, the chance that still exists to open up this process like has happened here, so everyone of different views are able to speak somewhere else besides in their 3 minutes in this Oh, so thank you for considering a pause and facilitating that kind of process. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. State your name, what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes. The microphone is on.

I didn't hear that. Sorry, uh, state your name, uh, what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is already on.

Good evening, my name is Pam Teschi. I know most of you, this is a small town. You've been to my home probably, and if you haven't, you're welcome to come. I've even helped Mr. Gekker on Facebook when I thought he was being a little too aggressive one time. I have had the fortune to own a home and live on J Street between 10th and 11th for 44 years.

I live 4 houses up from the Park Strip and the Tesche Pathway, named after my late husband Alan Tesche, who was a protector of this city in his roles as Deputy Municipal Attorney, Director of Property and Facilities Management, and as a member of this body for 3 years. Alan made the workplace and all of Anchorage safer by fostering through to completion our no-smoking ordinance when the assembly at the time pontificated that our boys were lighting up, uh, were fighting in the Middle East for our freedoms, to which Alan responded, Madam Chair, in all due respect, I'm sure our boys aren't getting shot at so you can smoke in a bar.

He fought and won against the mayor when they wanted to, uh, randomly get rid of houseless citizens who were walking or sitting downtown. Irresponsible liquor vendors and massage parlor owners and junk cars negatively impacting our neighborhoods are able to be dealt with now because of Alan's hard work.

As for me, I am a graduate in home economics from a small state college in California. That discipline researches and advocates for healthy family patterns and community well-being through the study of family dynamics, encompassing finance, psychology, nutrition, and housing. I want all people to have a home, their own home, where they have a safe place to sleep, eat, get well when they are ill, and live creatively. We can and should make it possible for people to have a home, but our decisions must not take away from others to make it happen. I know your goal is to make things better, not worse, and I hope you have the courage to vote against the ordinance as presented.

Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town, and you'll have 3 minutes. And I believe, Mr. Hanson, you testified before, or, or did you not? You said state your name and—.

Oh, I was making sure, did you testify on the 15th?

Oh, okay, sorry, then I was mistaken. So, uh, yes, so I had said microphone is on, state your name, what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes. Okay, good evening, my name is Martin Hanson, I live in the South Edition. Chair, assembly members, thank you for the opportunity to testify tonight. I will be introducing myself and the next, and one of the next, I am one of the next 3 residents, the Anchorage community, who will be speaking in one after the other.

We are all affected by the MMHOP overlay. We'll share our point of view with tonight. Testifying are myself, Martin Hanson, and Sharon Stockard, followed by Ellen Rosenthal. I am here tonight to testify regarding MMHOP. While the intent of creating housing options along transit supportive corridors aligns with the aspirational language of the 2040 land use plan, LUP, we must ensure that the execution of this overlay does not undermine the language of the LUP and its actual intent.