Anchorage Assembly: AssemblyRegular: Live

Oh.

You don't do that!

I hope it was not.

Good evening, everyone. We will get started in a few minutes, just getting things sorted up here on the dais.

Okay everyone, sorry for the slight delay. I think we are ready to get started, so I'm going to call this meeting to order. Tonight is Tuesday, October 20th. We are, uh, noticed in this room for our regular meeting of the assembly. So I will turn first to the clerk for roll call.

Member Daniel Bolland. Here. Member Martinez. Present. Member Jared Gardner.

Here. Member Jared Gardner. Here. Member Silvers. Here.

Member Perez-Verdia. Here. Chair Brawley. Here. Member Vice Chair Bolland.

Happy to be here. Member Baldwin Day. Present. Member Scout. Present.

Member McCormick. Here. Member Parks. Here. Member Johnson.

Here. And Student Representative McCullough. Here.

Chair Bell, you have a quorum. Okay, thank you, Madam Clerk. Next, we will do the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'll turn to Member Martinez to lead us in the pledge.

Thank you. Next, I'll turn to Member Scout to read our land acknowledgment.

Thank you. A land acknowledgment is a formal statement recognizing the indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present indigenous stewardship of the lands 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 contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina.

Thank you. Next, we will turn to minutes of previous meetings. We do not have any on our agenda today, so we will move past that. To the mayor's report. Madam Mayor, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening, everyone. Before we dive in, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of Mr. Whitekeys, beloved Alaska musician, entertainer, author, and Spenard legend. His irreverent wit, music, and Spenard spirit shaped generations of Alaskans. From the Fly-By-Night Club to the Whale Fat Follies, he brought people together and helped us laugh at ourselves. Few captured the spirit of this community with such humor and heart, and Anchorage is better for the joy he shared with us.

This week, we are excited to welcome Alaskans from across the state to Anchorage for the Alaska Federation of Natives Convention at the Dena'ina Center. Every year, AFN brings an unmistakable wave of energy and excitement to our municipality. It's a great opportunity to reconnect with rural neighbors, gives a big economic boost for local businesses and creates space to strengthen longstanding relationships and build new ones. As mayor, I'm deeply honored that Anchorage serves as AFN's gathering place, and I appreciate the energy, opportunity, and connections this annual convention brings to us. As the state's largest urban center, Anchorage is a lifeline and hub for our entire, entire state.

And we benefit in many ways from that role. People come here for healthcare, education, services, work opportunities, and major events and gatherings such as AFN. Anchorage also benefits greatly from the strength of the Alaska Native corporations based here. They create thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of economic activity in our community. This year's convention also coincides with the one-year anniversary of Typhoon Halong, a moment that underscored the deep and essential ties between Anchorage and rural Alaska.

In the aftermath of Halong, our community stepped forward without hesitation to support evacuees because standing with our neighbors is fundamental to who we are. Many survivors remain here in Anchorage and continue to navigate the challenges of displacement and recovery. It is vital for our community, along with our tribal, state, and federal partners, to keep supporting our displaced neighbors. Early voting for the statewide general election is now underway. City Hall is open for voting from 8 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday.

To accommodate those attending the convention and others who may be busy during the weekdays, City Hall will also be open for voting this coming Saturday, October 24th, from 12 to 3 PM. Thank you to all the election workers and volunteers. Turning to the agenda tonight, you all take up the confirmation of Loren Crawford as municipal treasurer. Loren will be a great asset to the team, and I respectfully urge you to vote in support of him in this critical role. We'll also have the first opportunity for public testimony on the 2027 budget proposal.

This budget uses one-time funds to preserve essential services for now but the municipality will likely face difficult decisions next year. I encourage everyone to take part in the upcoming Fiscal Future Summit conversation with Chair Brawley and Member Baldwin Day on Friday, October 30th, from 10 to 4 at the UAA Student Union. Lastly, I urge assembly members to approve my administration's S version of AO 2026-108 tonight, which is co-sponsored by members Silvers and Gerker. Technologies like the Real Time Crime Center are powerful public safety tools. They help APD locate missing persons, receive information from victims, and bring violent criminals to justice.

But we also have a duty to make sure these tools are used responsibly. The S version of the ordinance adds meaningful guardrails to municipal code. It protects the right to privacy guaranteed by the U.S. U.S. and state and Alaska constitutions while still allowing APD to use technology responsibly to keep our community safe. This version creates a clear structure for assembly oversight of surveillance technology use. It requires APD to submit its policies to the assembly, to promptly notify the assembly when policy changes, and to report any complaints about potential violations.

The S version also creates a requirement for assembly approval of any contract that would expand APD's technology. Together, the structure will give the assembly the information it needs in real time to provide meaningful and effective oversight. This ordinance will ensure data is shared only with state and federal agencies for criminal law enforcement purposes. This means APD can continue important joint efforts— the annual Operation Summer Heat drug crime suppression effort, the Chelsea Inn investigation, and human trafficking investigations like the major massage parlor bust last April. Other versions and amendments proposed tonight would effectively halt these joint operations, which are important to public safety and health, and get deadly drugs off our streets.

Alaska's constitutional right to privacy is one of the strongest in the nation, and our police department's own policies reflect that. APD is committed to using technology responsibly in line with its mission to protect and serve the people of Anchorage. But it's important that we codify our responsibility to protect the public's privacy to ensure that it has strength and permanence. The S version of the ordinance gives you a sensible and effective opportunity to do that tonight. That's all for now.

I look forward to seeing everyone at AFN later this week. Back to you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I don't see anyone in the queue, so I will move on to our next item.

So I'll deliver the chair's report this evening. So good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regular business meeting. I will cover some of the same ground that the mayor did, so I'll do it briefly. But again, wanting to highlight because these are all important topics.

So this evening we'll be taking up a few resolutions recognizing the Alaska Federation of Natives, or AFN, annual convention happening this week and the one-year anniversary of Typhoon Halong that the mayor just spoke about. There's also resolutions that I don't believe we're pulling this evening, but they are honoring the Alaska Territorial Guard and Indigenous Peoples' Day, which was last Monday, October 12th. So certainly a theme for this evening. So I'll note that the AFN Convention is the largest annual representative gathering in the United States of Native peoples. We're honored that AFN is again hosting the event in Anchorage on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina Athabascan people.

And we're also certainly marking the one-year anniversary of Typhoon Halong, which happened basically around this time last year when the AFN Convention was in town or shortly before that. In the words of Alaska Community Foundation President and CEO Alex McKay in a statement last week, the storm did not end when the weather cleared. And we know that there's many folks who are still struggling in the aftermath of that. So to our neighbors from across the state who are staying here in Anchorage, whether you're here for AFN this week or spending time here for a longer period of time until you can return home, we're grateful that you're here. On the subject of the budget, tonight is the first of our two scheduled public hearings on the FY 2027 budget.

Um, just a couple notes for members of the public and members of the assembly. First is, uh, that the— because we have two public hearings on these, you will hear me close each of those hearings tonight. That is our standard practice because there's already a notice to second public hearing, so we don't need to continue those hearings. And then we'll get to it in a little bit, but the leadership is going to be asking to change the order of the day on some of our items to be sure that we can take up our public or budget public hearings first and some other time-sensitive public hearing items, um, and so we'll get to that when we, when we get to it. But just to note, the agenda, uh, as published is not quite the order we're going to take it up.

Uh, so this, the public hearings on the budget are going to be, uh, for the operating budget, that's AO 2026-123, that's funding for our public services and programs, our capital budget, um, so the proposals for 2027, and then the 6-year Capital Improvement Program. The capital budget is AO 2026-124, and then the CIP— I don't have the item in front of me, but it's a resolution that follows on from there. And then we'll also be hearing, having public hearings on our operating and capital budgets for Enterprises, Utilities, and ACDA. So the municipality's budget is a reflection of the values, vision, and priorities of our community. This is the time to voice what you want to see funded next year.

This tonight's meeting and into November. Government budgets are certainly complicated, but you don't need to be an expert to provide input. So the assembly has a lot of information and resources to help guide you through the process. They can be found on our budget and taxes page, which you can find at muni.org/assembly under our priorities. And again, echoing comments from the mayor, so the Fiscal Future Initiative, beyond kind of the budget issues that we're facing this year and into the future, we know we've got some longer-term Challenges and long-term decisions to make.

Those decisions and choices are ours to make as a community, so we need to know your priorities as community members. So for the Fiscal Future Initiative, next week on Friday, October 30th, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., we'll be gathering at the UAA Student Union for our Fiscal Future Summit to dive into how the budget works, talk with neighbors, and have folks share with each other the perspectives, weigh trade-offs, and identify fiscal priorities for the future. We're expecting good attendance, so if you haven't already registered, you can do that online, and please do so soon. If you can't make it or you can only join for a short part of it, we'd still love you to come for any time you can, but you can also complete a short survey to share your thoughts about our fiscal future. The links to the survey and event registration are on our website, muni.org/assembly, again in the budget section.

Another reminder for elections and early voting. So as the mayor says, City Hall is now open. For early voting Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM, and will also be open on Saturday, October 24th, specifically to coincide with the AFN convention for convenience, from noon to 3 PM. And then City Hall is only for early voting, so as a reminder, do not plan on going to City Hall for your voting on Election Day, which is November 3rd, because all precincts across the city and state will be open. However, another popular location that we know was really busy yesterday is the Midtown Mall.

So you can also go there both for early voting and also for Election Day. They'll have ballots for all 40 districts, as will the Ted Stevens International Airport on Election Day. This is our last meeting before voting, so just a reminder to members, make a plan to vote, and that goes for everyone in the public. And you can find all the information you would want about our elections at elections.alaska.gov. And as a reminder, our next regular assembly meeting is going to be the day after Election Day, which is Wednesday, November 4th.

4Th, so not on a Tuesday as we normally do. Finally, one more brief remembrance tonight. Two more people were killed on the roads in the municipality this month. A man was killed on 15th Avenue on October 13th, and a woman was killed on Muldoon Road on October 17th, in addition to another recent death in September, on September 18th on 3rd Avenue. A woman was killed there.

That's a total of 8 pedestrian deaths this year. Each incident is an individual story, but this continues a larger trend that has been well documented in the municipality and across the United States. Uh, many or most of our roads are not designed for the safety of people who aren't in vehicles. Vehicles are getting larger and they're more likely to cause serious injury and death in collisions, especially at high speeds with folks who are walking and biking. And we cannot solve this issue alone through enforcement or by placing blame primarily on people who aren't in vehicles.

It's certainly a complex issue, but design and how we build our roads and what our vehicles look like certainly matters. Better design, reducing vehicle speeds, and better ways for people to get around town are the long-term solutions. Federal and state action is also necessary to make our roads safer, something the Muni has and will keep advocating for. In the meantime, as a reminder to all of us, September and October are the deadliest months for people walking and biking on Anchorage roads. There's more hours of darkness, ice and snow on the roads, and drivers are adjusting to winter conditions and that lower light.

So everyone can do their part to make our streets safer, whether you're walking, biking, or driving. Remember to drive the speed limit, stay off distractions like cell phones, look both ways before crossing, use headlights, and make yourself visible in the dark if you're walking or biking. So with that, I'll do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible with our usual reminders. This is a business meeting. We are here to do the work of the municipality.

Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers. Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing. Keep signs to 8.5 and 11 inches in size. Please keep the aisle clear unless you're lined up to testify. Please don't approach the dais.

If you do have something to share with members, you can hand it to the clerk for distribution at the lower dais. Please stop speaking if a point of order is called. So that I may rule on the point of order and the record is clear. And that's for both testimony and during debate. If rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance.

And 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'll save my public testimony reminders when we get to that. But finally, I'll say if there are any students in the audience this evening, high school, college, anybody Um, if you're here for a class, if you stick around until at least the dinner break, we'll call you up before we break for dinner to ask you to share your name, your school or group, and the class that you're here for.

And if you do need a signature to prove you were here, um, you can find your assembly members during the dinner break to sign your form. So I think I covered all of the items we need to. So next we'll move on to— sorry, one second.

Thank you. So next we'll move on to, uh, committee and liaison reports. So I'll start this evening with Mr. Johnson.

No report, Chair. Okay, next, Ms. Park. No report, Chair. Mr. McCormick. Nothing to report, thank you.

Ms. Scout. Yeah, the, um, newly formed Energy Enterprise and Utilities Oversight Committee of the Whole met on Thursday, October 15th. We had a great first meeting primarily focused on hearing updates about what's happening at Merrill Field and how the community can be involved. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, Miss Baldwin Day. Thank you, Chair. The Municipal Audit Committee meets tomorrow at 1 PM at City Hall. We will be hearing an overview of the Community Development Block Grant.

That's federal funding that's received by our Health Department for a variety of purposes, and we'll be understanding how administration of that grant is currently happening and how things have Anchorage. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Budget and Finance Committee met on October 15th. In addition to our normal reports and updates, one topic of discussion was the process for assembly members to bring amendments to the upcoming budget as we work with our new branch budget analyst.

On the topic of the budget, there are— we held our first sort of marathon work session That was a 5-hour work session on October 16th to discuss the general government and capital budgets. We will have another long work session on October 23rd, um, continuing the conversation about the general government budget but also enterprise and utilities budgets. And then on November 6th will be our work session on assembly member proposed amendments. To the budget. And then, as you all heard, uh, in both the mayor and chair's reports, October 30th at the UAA Student Union building is going to be the Fiscal Future Summit.

So hope folks will be able to attend that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Next, Mr. Perez-Verdia. No update this evening.

Thank you. Miss Silvers.

Yeah, the Health and Homelessness Committee meets tomorrow from 11 to 12:30, and we will be discussing Willow Commons shelter surge capacity update, a potential abatement in Far North Park, litigation update on abatement actions, and housing voucher program. Um, thanks. Thank you. Next, Mr. Girdwerker. No report.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Housing and Community and Economic Development Committee will meet on Thursday, November 5th. One reminder, committees are spaces, and especially this committee, for practical solutions, ideas, and we work on things in real time.

But we also plant seeds and connect dots. And recently we had Ferrande come and present an update on their economic impact And I just wanted to parallel something that the mayor described as how we keep our economy moving all year long. And today, Visit Anchorage in their update, their newsletter reports that year-round tourism means giving more people the opportunity to build a livelihood in the place they call home, providing jobs and connections all year long. And so at the next meeting, we're going to bring— we have the opportunity, thanks to the Anchorage Community Development Authority for making the connection with Kicken Randall, Olympian, and is also the executive director of the Nordic Ski Association of Alaska. And the hope is that her presentation on the upcoming Nordic ski season, we can begin to connect some of the dots between what our winter season looks like between Ferrande, some of the Arctic activity, and really begin to look at the year-round economy, especially related to tourism.

This year was a phenomenal year in terms of visiting Anchorage, but we would like people to stay a little longer and go a little further. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And next, Mr. Handeland. Nothing to report.

Okay. That takes us through our committee and liaison reports. Next, we'll go through our addendum to the agenda, and before we do that, um, we will take care of our late on the table items. I'll note that I'm going to read most of the supplemental items in the record now. There's one that I'll do when we get to that item later, and then there are three items for action.

They are resolutions, so they will need at least seven votes to lay on the table. And then for each of them, uh, they are items that would be in our consent agenda, but I'm going to turn to the municipal manager to speak to the timeliness for each of those. So first I will do the supplemental items, uh, so there are two of them for now, and that is, uh, unnumbered AIM 2026 that would become 10F11, administration's answers to assembly questions. And then the second supplemental item is, uh, unnumbered AIM 2026, articles regarding surveillance technology in relation to AO 2026-108 and its substitute versions. Okay, okay.

And sorry, I was just handed a late-breaking— uh, sorry, before I do that, uh, that item will be 11B and it's attached to, um, that item on our agenda. The second one is also attached to 11B. It is an unnumbered AIM, uh, regarding AO 2026-108-S1 from Vice Chair Volland. It is attached, um, uh, it's a, it's a statement, so it's attached to the S1 version. So those are the supplemental items, and then we will turn back to our— and as I said, there's one that I'll read later in the meeting, and then we'll turn back to our items for action.

So I'm going to read each of them into the agenda individually so we can speak to the timeliness and then take a vote. The first one is 10D23, or will be 10D23 if it's laid on the table, that is unnumbered AM 2026, recommendation of award of a contract to HDR Engineering. Inc. to provide professional engineering services for Downtown Transit Center, project number TR00028, for Municipality of Anchorage. So again, our— one second.

Thank you. So I'm seeking a motion to lay this item on the table and a second. So moved. Second. Okay.

There's a motion from Erin Baldwin Day, second by Mr. Volland, to lay this item on the table. I'm going to turn to the administration to speak to the timeliness of this. Thank you, Chair. All three of these laid on the title— laid on the table items that require justification have a similar construction timeline story. This is in order for the project to meet its overall constructability and bonding goals.

So we're doing design on a timeline, and then that will set us up for future success down the road.

Okay, thank you. Um, and next in the queue I have Mr. Handeland. Yes, ma'am chair, for, uh, the lay on the table memorandum concerning HDR, I've got a conflict of interest with them, and so I don't know if I need to leave for that portion or— okay, how that works. Yeah, so our usual procedure, so you have a substantial public interest, uh, or sorry private interest, can you just briefly describe that? Yes, so I used to work for HDR less than a year ago.

I also still own, uh, uh, stock in that company. Thank you. And then just for the record as well, um, did you have any— I guess, did you do any professional work on this particular project, and were you involved in the procurement process for this? No. Okay, thank you.

Um, so given the ownership, uh, share, uh, and, and recent employment, I'm going to find that you do have a substantial interest in this, or I should say specifically because of the ownership share. And so I'll ask you to step out of the room for the moment. And then I'll also note, I know there's a second item on our agenda, so we will deal with that when it comes up, but I imagine we'll hear a similar disclosure. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. And again, this is to lay this on the table, so it needs at least 7 votes and then it would be on the consent agenda, so someone is welcome to pull it if they do have additional discussion on this item.

So members may proceed to vote.

Oh yeah, and sorry, I was remembering we're supposed to do this first. Um, also asking the youth representative, what is your vote? Yes. Okay, youth representative votes yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, this item has been laid on the table. It will be item 10D23 if anyone would like to pull it later. Next, we'll do, uh, the first of our two additional appropriation items. Uh, this first one is unnumbered AR 2026, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly appropriating donation funds from the Anchorage Library Foundation to the library department in the amount of $150,000 $1,000 to the library department miscellaneous operational grants fund 26, uh, 1010 for furniture and equipment at the downtown branch library. This one similarly needs a motion for introduction to lay on the table.

So moved. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Vohland, second by, uh, Ms. Park, and I will turn to the administration to speak to timeliness. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the first of two items that we are hoping to lay on the table in order to enable the downtown to open this calendar year.

This one is for furniture and equipment. We are happy to receive a $150,000 donation from the Anchorage Library Foundation. This will allow us to procure all of that in time.

Okay, thank you. I don't see additional members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. And how does the youth representative vote? Yes.

Okay, and this is to lay on the table.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, this item is, uh, laid on the table. And then this will be item 10E5 for anyone who wishes to pull it. Uh, last one we'll read, uh, right now is Resolution Unnumbered AR-2026 A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly appropriating donation funds from the Friends of the Library and to the library department in the amount of $100,000, all to the library department, miscellaneous operational grants fund 26— er, 261010 for books and materials of the downtown branch library. Similar, seeking a motion to lay this on the table. So moved.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Bullen, second by Miss Scout. Again, turning to the administration for time. And thank you, Madam Chair. Folks may know there are two nonprofits that largely support the library.

We just put on the agenda one from the Anchorage Library Foundation. Now this is the Friends of the Library coming to the table with $100,000, which we would like to appropriate so that we can procure books and materials for the opening of the downtown library this calendar year.

Thank you. Don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. This is to lay this item on the table. And how does the youth representative vote?

Yes. Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, this item has also been laid on the table. This will be item 10E6 in the consent agenda.

Oops. That takes care of our laid on the table items for now, and so now we have our Laid on the table items, addendum to the agenda. So seeking a motion to incorporate the addendum including those laid on the table items. So moved. Second.

Motion by Ms. Parks, second by Mr. Boland. Any further discussion from members?

Any objection to adoption of this, uh, the addendum and laid on the table?

Seeing and hearing none, uh, the addendum to the agenda, uh, including those laid on the table items has been adopted. And again, of Folks wish to discuss any of those, they can be polled in a short time. So next we will move on to our appearance requests. We have an unusual full set of 3 appearance requests this evening, so we will take them up in the order they are on the agenda. So first I'm going to call up Ms. Michaela Franklin.

Hello. Okay, and then I see you're assembled here, so microphone is on. So state your name and you'll You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, thank you. My name is Makayla Franklin.

I'm a social worker and I'm the Youth Systems Improvement Manager at the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness. This is Kenny. I think you all know Kenny. He's my friend and he is my emotional support person because I'm scared to speak in public. The reason I'm here today is because I wanted to spread the word about Project Homeless Connect.

It's one of our largest community events every year and it's happening this Monday, the 26th. From 10 to 4 at the Egan Center. Last year we thought we'd get 500 people and we got 1,200 people experiencing homelessness come through the door to get services. I came here originally to ask for volunteers, but our community is incredible and we maxed out all of the volunteers this year. We have more than 70 service providers and community partners coming together to help the unhoused folks in our community get resources all in one place.

We're going to be having healthcare providers, housing resources, folks to help with IDs and birth certificates, haircuts, legal services. They're going to get a hot meal, meal prepared by Beans. They're going to get a winter jacket, and there's a lot more. I handed these to the clerk, so you should all have the little quarter sheet It has a short list of some of the things that will be provided. It's free PeopleMover bus all day that day, and the Third Avenue Resource and Navigation Center with Catholic Social Services will have their shuttle running as well.

Um, we're grateful for all the volunteers that come and are helping us. Our biggest request now is that we all make sure that the community members who need us and need these services the most know where to go and when we're going to be there. So on Monday the 26th, from 10 to 4, we're going to be at the Egan Center. We're going to have mobile vaccine clinics, all sorts of people there to help the, the most vulnerable of our community. I have many more flyers, many, many more, and I have more at my office, and if you want flyers, I'll email them out to anybody.

I just want folks to know that we're here to support them. As winter approaches, this is the opportunity to connect our people with practical support, with welcome and arms and a hug and a hello and a hi, my friend. You know, those are what our people need. So please, thank you for listening. Thank you for getting the word out.

And all of the members on the dais have a special invitation to come check out the space if you'd like prior to when we open. You got to email my boss. You all know Jessica, uh, [email protected]. And if you want to know more about Project Homeless Connect, go to aceh.org/phc.

Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, um, so thank you for, for providing this information. And again, Project Homeless Connect is on Monday, October 26. So thank you. And please see the folks down there during the break if you have questions or would like some flyers.

Okay. Next we will move on to our second appearance request, and that is Ms. Tanya Krochenko. Is she in the audience? Okay. Thank you.

Please come forward.

Yeah. Thank you. So first, please press the button on the bottom there, and then when the light turns green, the microphone is on. And then state your name and you'll have 3 minutes. Thank you.

Tanya Kurchenko. Dear assembly members, thank you for your time tonight. And it's my pleasure to be heard. My question: if a dog or cat were shot with a firearm, struck by darts and arrows, left paralyzed to suffer, would we accept this as just another day in Anchorage? My answer is unacceptable.

Then why are domestic rats rabbits any different? In recent weeks, um, 4 rabbits have been involved in 3 disturbing incidences. On September 26th, I was called to help a paralyzed rabbit reportedly shot with a .22 alongside his sister at midnight on a Friday in a private yard. The female bunny was killed. Gunfire woke several neighbors.

I spoke with witnesses, contacted police, animal control, all the other agencies, and I was deeply concerned by the limited response and the lack of clear path forward. I was left to care for the bunny for 24 hours and then just had to eventually get it euthanized. I noticed also from this incident that people are so scared to report the cruelty, the gunfire, just fear for themselves and for their properties. So I reported. A second incident included a rabbit with a dart lodged in its side.

A group of preteen teenagers came to a house, asked if they can look for rabbits in the person's yard. When they asked why, some guy who lives on another street was paying them to find, shoot, and kill the rabbits. This is breaking the law. And there's another photo I have in there with the bunny with a dart in it. Third incident began last week with animal control asking if I would just help with the rabbit.

They had health concerns. I adopted this bunny, thought there's nothing wrong, saw the vet the next day, clear health. And here this, this bunny was going to be euthanized for health concerns. They just didn't have the knowledge. And I respect animal control, but they just need help.

Rabbits require knowledgeable handling and appropriate veterinary care. Spaying and neutering is not provided at animal control because they believe there's a 50/50 chance of them surviving, but that's absolutely wrong. It's 99%. In 15 years, I have rescued rabbits. 80 Neuters— this is all out of our own pocket— and 20 spays.

We only lost one male bunny, and that was this year. In closing, we cannot solve the problem of loose rabbits through cruelty, neglect, or simply telling people to leave these animals alone. Domestic rabbits are not wild hares, and many are abandoned pets who cannot safely fend for themselves. I am asking our municipal leaders to take 3 steps, and first is to encourage— to ensure reports of cruelty against domestic rabbits to be taken seriously, investigated, and followed up. There's 2 other points, and you I have attached that to my handout if you want to look at them.

Yeah, thank you. I'll ask if you can provide it in writing, and then if you provide it to the, um, clerk's staff, then they can circulate it to everyone. So thank you for being here. I thank you for your time, everyone.

Oh, I'm sorry, before you walk away, um, I have Miss Scout in the queue for you. Yeah, um, I just wanted to ask what your two other points were. Oh, um, the second one is to improve rabbits-specific care, vet access, and adoption practices through animal control. They have the staff, they care, but they're shorthanded, and I come in there and get called upon just to help. And if I'm that person chosen, I'll help with every part of me.

The third one is support humane population control through education, spaying and neutering, and cooperation with experienced rescue Okay, thank you, thank you, thank you. And one more person in the queue, Ms. Baldwin Day. Yeah, I just first wanted to thank you. I know it's really difficult to come and stand in front of all of us. This is the first time for me.

So, um, so to, to you and also to Michaela, I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to come and speak. It's, um, it's my pleasure. Much appreciated. And And I know the intimidation factor is real. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. And one more, Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. Do you have an idea how many spay and neuter procedures you would anticipate needing to do?

For instance, on a yearly basis? For instance, on the last page, there's almost 20 bunnies at animal control right now, and everybody always ask, are they spayed and neutered? That increases their chances right now, today, to get adopted. So right now there's 20, but on a yearly basis, would you have an idea how many would be needed? Animal Control itself, or—.

Oh, for rabbits alone? Oh, hundreds and hundreds. It's, it's okay. Thank you. Just—.

Yeah, okay. It's too many numbers. Just definitely too many numbers. Every male that I catch, I will neuter. End of story.

And he's— they're happy. I mean, they're just— their hormones are under control. They're just happier animals. Thank you. Yeah.

So if you provide comments in writing, then I think members can digest them. And then if you provide your contact information as well in writing, then we can follow up. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Okay.

So we'll move to our third appearance request this evening. So I'll invite up Pastor Leon May.

And as you're coming up, I know we had some discussion last meeting, and just to clarify, the way that you had submitted your appearance request, it did appear that you were wanting to speak as a group, and I see there's a group of folks here, so I'm going to grant 5 minutes to speak. And I don't know if other folks are coming up as well. So, so we got the microphone is on, we've got the timing set, and please begin when you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the assembly proper, and to Mayor LaFrance and the administration. I am Pastor Leon D. May I, the first river in the desert community church, service president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of Anchorage and Vicinity, as well as the Martin Luther King Jr. Foundation of Alaska.

And with me, Dr. Andre Parker is our executive secretary of both of those entities. And these— Pastor Wilbert Mickens, Pastor Glenn Ratcliff— they are members of both of those organizations. And let me say up front, both of those organizations are fully aware of our presence and the position that we take. And I did in my request say that we were speaking also on behalf of the black community at large. And I would venture to say the president of the NAACP and the Alaska Black Caucus, all of them are in alignment with what we are here to discuss.

In our previous circumstance, we appealed to the assembly on the merit of grace and mercy as it relates to the censure of Assemblymember Martinez. Who just happens to be the only Black member of the Assembly. Uh, the Black community is very concerned, uh, concerning this censure of him. It's a blight on his record, and, uh, as I forestated, it's also a blight on the record of the Assembly themselves, in that there was not much precedent for this kind of thing, maybe once very early in the Assembly's history. And this is kind of negative.

I said last time that Assemblymember Martinez was basically censured pretty well by the public, by the community, in light of all that he endured as it related to that. And because of APOC and what their findings were, there was an opinionated finding, not really factual on that, on trip issues that were fully approved by the Assembly and all of that. And even though many didn't agree with that finding, Assemblymember Martinez paid the fine upwards of $5,000. And our position is that after that fine was paid, that should have been the end of all of this. And the Assembly did not need to go to the extent of putting forth a censure, and basically it appeared that it was put forth in light and in view of maintaining integrity before John Q.

Public, and which was really in our estimation very unnecessary. And I'll quickly move on for the sake of time, but in light of further renderings of APOC relative to Attorney General Trey Taylor, who's running for our governor, in his instance egregiously, egregiously did some things that weren't becoming as it related to APOC and their findings and all of that, to the point where they literally took him out of the race. It was so egregious. And because of, I guess, political pressure and other things, he was kind of given a slap on the wrist, so to speak, given a slap on the wrist, so to speak, to say that he was not fully aware, didn't really understand everything related to what he was doing. And I'm just paraphrasing, just going through it, fine lord and all of that.

Well, a former attorney general, how could you not be aware of all of that? And I would say in view of that, uh, uh, how would I put it? I would say it like this, uh, absent of knowledge, not understanding the law is no, uh, reason to forego the civil disobedience aspect of it all. And as it relates to all of that, with those kind of findings and the heavy-handedness of APOC relative to Mr. Martinez and yet not to Mr. Treg Taylor, our position is that it ought to give the assembly an enlightenment to see how APOC handles things when it comes to one and yet not another, and it ought to cause you to go back and look at this all over again and see how unnecessary that censure was. Our position is that it should be rescinded, and somebody ought to have the conviction to do that, and my prayer is that God would convict somebody to make a move to right this blight and this wrong.

And that is our position.

Thank you for participating. I don't see any—. I don't see any members. Thank you so much.

Actually, Pastor May, if you'd like to come back up, Ms. Baldwin Day in the queue.

Thank you, Pastor May, for being here. I just wanted to state on the record that I made a commitment to you, I think it's been several weeks ago now, to meet with you on this topic, and then I lost track of that request, and I just wanted to state here for the record that I do intend to follow through on that commitment to meet with you and whomever else would like to meet with me on this topic, and wanted that to be very clear that I dropped the ball on that meeting and would like to make that right. Well, well, I understand and I understood that and I know we all busy even as I am and we even have— we made time for this and we all going to have to leave. But, but I thank you for making that acknowledgement and I was not going to bother you about it again. I received—.

The bother is welcome, sir. Thank you. I received communication from Chair Brawley on behalf of this and thank you again for allowing the extra minutes. I was going to try to do it in 3, but thank you for giving me those extra minutes. Zone tonight.

Thank you. Okay, that concludes our appearance requests. So next we'll move on to the consent agenda, and so we'll go down the dais and some members can pull items. And one sec.

Okay, so I'm going to start this evening with Mr. Handeland. Uh, 10 Delta 20. 22 And 23.

Okay, I have 10 Delta 20, 22, and 23. And one second.

Okay, thank you. So, uh, next I have Mr. Martinez. I'll pull to item 10A1.

Okay, I have 10A1. Next, Mr. Girdwood. No items, thank you, Chair. Okay, next, Ms. Yvers. No items, thank you.

Mr. Martinez— or sorry, Mr. Perez-Verdia. No items, thank you. Mr. Volland. No items, thank you. Ms. Baldwin Day.

10 Bravo 4 and 10 Foxtrot 2.

I have 10B4 and 10F2. Next, Miss Scout. 10 Bravo 1. Okay, 10B1. Next, Mr. McCormick.

No further items, thank you. And Miss Park. No items, thank you, Chair. And Mr. Johnson. No items, Chair.

Okay, thank you. So I'll read them back. So I have 10 Alpha 1, 10 Bravo 1, and— or sorry, 10 Alpha 1, Mr. Martinez, 10 Bravo 1, Miss Scout, 10 Bravo 4, Miss Baldwin Day, 10 Delta 20, 22, and 23, Mr. Handeland, 10 Foxtrot 2, Miss Baldwin Day, and I believe those are the items. Is there any additional items to pull?

Okay, I don't see any. One additional direction on 10G2, that is just an item being introduced directing the clerk to change the public hearing date from November 4th to November 17th. That is in our continual effort to balance out the workload for our various meeting agendas.

Just 10G2. Okay. Any further discussion on consent agenda? Any additional items to pull? Any objection to adoption— abduction, sorry, adoption.

Oh yeah, we need a motion. Sorry. Uh, okay, um, I need a motion on the consent agenda. Move to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Second.

Okay, thank you. A motion by Mr. Bolland to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Second by Miss Scout. Now any further discussion on this?

Any objection to adoption of the consent agenda minus the pulled items?

Items. Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the consent agenda has been approved minus items that have already been pulled. I will also note there was one item for a confirmation tonight. The discussion was that that person will get sworn in, so congratulations to Mr. Crawford for being confirmed, and, uh, but that will not take place in our meeting, just for clarity. Uh, so we will move through— oh, and sorry, before we move to the rest of the consent agenda I forgot to read one late on the table supplemental item into the record, so I'm going to do that really quick so that I don't forget.

And that is unnumbered AIM for attached to Item 11B, AO 2026-108 and its substitute versions, articles regarding surveillance technology in relation to AO 2026-108 and its substitute versions. So that's been read into the record.

So next we will move to our first recognition resolution this evening, 10A1. That is Resolution AR-2026-297, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly and Mayor LaFrance welcoming delegates and attendees to the 60th anniversary of the Alaska Federation of Natives Convention, October 22 through 24, 2026. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Martinez to approve, second by Miss Baldwin Day.

Any further discussion on this item? Item. Any objection to adoption of this item?

Seeing and hearing none, uh, this item has been unanimously adopted. Um, and I'll check, is there anyone here to receive this evening?

Don't believe I see anyone in the audience.

I know we had reached out to a few folks, but I know AFN is always a busy, uh, event, so I think I'll suggest since we don't have anyone to present that we will skip reading tonight, and in lieu of that, I will just strongly encourage folks to attend the AFN convention later this week, whether you're stopping by City Hall and you have some time or you're going this weekend. So again, please go there, and great to see another anniversary being celebrated for their 60th anniversary of that organization and the first convening. So encourage folks to read it if you haven't already. And then I'll also note we did have a couple other recognition resolutions on the agenda, but we don't have folks to receive them. So we are just leaving them in the consent agenda.

So that will take us next to item 10B1, and that is Resolution AR-2026-298, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly recognizing the 1-year anniversary of Typhoon Halong, remembering the Western Alaska communities and residents affected by the disaster, and urging state and federal action to support disaster recovery. Community Self-Determination and Resilience in Coastal Alaska. This item was pulled by Ms. Scout.

Thank you. I wanted to make sure we publicly stated our recognition of the 1-year anniversary of Typhoon—. Sorry, Ms. Scout, first of all, we'll do our motion to approve. Oh, sorry.

That's okay. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Scout to approve.

Second by Mr. Bullen. Please proceed, Ms. Scout. Thanks. Yeah, as I said, one-year anniversary of Typhoon Halong, which is a somber anniversary and important for us in Anchorage to recognize, and wanted to really state that I believe we've learned a lot as a municipality from this experience, and I don't believe this is the last time that we will face a situation like this one.

And so as we move forward into a future where we are likely to see increased disasters and severity of natural disasters, I wanted to share that Anchorage is a welcoming place and a place that we can and must be building to adapt to the future we are heading into. Here in Anchorage, neighbors are welcome. We need more federal and state investment in disaster preparedness and recovery to ensure that, that, that neighbors are also comfortable. And this investment must meet today's needs and center the lived experience of impacted communities. We recognize the lives lost and the two who remain missing as a result of this disaster, and we'll be sharing this resolution with other levels of government and relevant entities.

So thank you. Thank you. And one thing that I realized in our publication, and, and maybe, uh, of interest, I guess I'll ask, uh, if the mayor and then if other assembly members would like to join on this resolution as a sponsor. Yes, I believe my name was on here. I'd love to be added back.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think that was an oversight on our part. And then, um, also, um, I guess I'll ask, do any members object to being added? Okay, great.

Yeah, thank you. Um, sorry, I forgot to do that a little bit earlier, and sorry for the oversight. This was—. We were doing this in partnership with the mayor's office, just for the record. Um, and then, uh, next I have myself briefly in the queue.

Miss Brawley. Thank you. Um, And thank you, Miss Scout, for offering kind of the why of this. It started as a recognition resolution, and, and, but why it's in the 10Bs, our kind of policy resolution statements, is because it is trying to echo a lot of what we've heard and, and seen in the news and what's been surfaced regarding kind of what happens when a community is relocated or has to relocate. And then there's restrictions on FEMA funding and other policies that really force that community to, to only look at going back to where they were.

And we know that that is not the will of at least one of the villages that was affected by Typhoon Halong. And we know other situations as well. The other thing I will note for members, if for those of you who were here last year, you may remember that this time of year we were— I was calling everybody on a Wednesday night asking, hey, we need to call an emergency meeting to pass a couple— well, to pass a resolution of an emergency declaration and a temporary code change. So I will also just note that sometimes those things do come up. And then at our last meeting, that will be on our agenda for November 4th, there is an item— I don't have the ordinance number in front of me— but essentially it is a follow-on to that action last year, and it is making a— proposing to make a more permanent code change that allows for declaration of an emergency that is outside of our— that happened outside of our boundaries but directly impacts Anchorage.

So that was a short-term change we had to make.

But we'll take that discussion up soon. But I wanted to also just underscore the gratitude for all of the folks who quickly responded in Anchorage and in Bethel and other communities, and also thinking of all of the folks who are still either still living here or elsewhere and wanting to go back to a more permanent home. And then next I have in the queue Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. While we often debate what our city is and what the future of our city is, we often— we sometimes get a glimpse into the truth of our purpose through practice.

And this particular resolution codifies a moment in time that is not unfamiliar with Anchorage, where we have been the place of physical refuge, providing safety and protection. That's the definition of a sanctuary. And so I wanted to just recognize that when we talk about housing, when we talk about the amenities of our community, when we talk about the quality of life here, and we talk about visitors and tourists, we for the state are the hub for a lot of reasons, and especially when things go bad in other parts of the state, And with the continuing changes to climate and the increasing nature of those catastrophes causing chaos in communities across the state, we will continue to be, and probably more often than not, the sanctuary place, the hub that this recognition, this resolution recognizes. And so I hope that we can continue to think about ourselves and we develop our city around that practical truth and, and that will be meaningful to our pattern moving forward. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I don't see any other members in the queue, so I guess I'll ask, is there any objection to adoption of this resolution?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, this resolution then is unanimously adopted. That's AR 2026-298. So next we'll move on to item 10B4. AR 2026-304, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly establishing a working group to evaluate seismic and other natural hazards and make recommendations regarding responsible development practices. This item was pulled by Ms. Baldwin Day.

Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Baldwin Day, second by Mr. Martinez. Ms. Baldwin Day.

Yes, thank you. I, I wanted to call this resolution to my colleagues' attention. This is a conversation that really emerged out of the Missing Middle Housing opportunity overlay discussion in which there was some concern raised by members of the community that potentially the development of multifamily housing in seismic zones 4 and 5 was perhaps irresponsible or not well-founded. And that led to a larger discussion at the Geotechnical Advisory Commission, who actually held two meetings on this topic, in which they issued a recommendation that really is very much along the lines of what's included in this resolution. And that was a larger evaluation, a larger discussion about how we treat seismic hazards.

It turns out that we are in the process of updating the seismic hazard maps, which were developed in 1979 following the '64 earthquake. The new maps will likely have different designations than the maps we currently have and may look a little different based on literal changes to the facts on the ground—no pun intended. So this This resolution suggests that an appropriate move for the municipality to make would be to assemble a working group to think through how we treat seismic hazards. Right now we do that primarily through Title 23, through our building code, which has very robust provisions made for any construction in a seismic hazard zone and additional layers of geotechnical engineering that are required. The thought that we might start including seismic and other hazard prohibitions in Title 21 in our zoning code is new.

That would be a very significant departure from how we have treated this topic as a municipality. And it merits, I think, a broader conversation among our planning department, certainly our building services folks, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Geotechnical Advisory Commission, those who we have assembled to sort of be our resident experts on this topic. So this calls for the establishment of a working group. And once those— the new seismic hazard maps are available, that a report would be published back to the assembly with some recommendations as to how we might move forward in a holistic way understanding that we are already doing quite a bit of work in seismic hazard zones 4 and 5, even as a municipality. In fact, 3 of the items that are before us tonight, 10E-5, 10E-6, and 10D-23, which treat both the downtown, the new Downtown Transit Center and the Downtown Library, are situated in seismic zones 4 and 5.

So this is salient, it is germane to the work that we are doing as a community, and I think something that we need to discuss in a more fulsome way as opposed to keeping it very narrowly tied to a potential zoning overlay proposal. So I urge my colleagues' support. Happy to answer questions. Thank you. Okay, next I have Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. I have just a quick statement and a question for the sponsor. I think this is important, and first of all, thank you to the sponsor for section, uh, the whereas section number 8. Uh, this identifies that this body has taken an action on preemptive emergency Development and Resiliency as one of the four guiding pillars of future development. This also recognizes that policy is iterative and takes place across time, and sometimes you plant a seed and then, as Member Baldwin Day described, this is a step in the direction of beginning to utilize that kind of framework of those types of questions into our planning and development process.

Forward-facing, not just reactionary. And I think that's important. Now, my question— so I support this wholeheartedly. My question, though, is to the sponsor. Do you think this call for a— the group, essentially, the working group, is something that interferes with current legislation that that overlaps the question?

Yeah, great question. I see this as a complementary conversation. So I think, you know, this group would hopefully be making recommendations that would extend to our treatment of seismic hazard zones 4 and 5 in a larger, more holistic way, as opposed to, you know, very narrowly dealing with what we might be doing in a zoning overlay. So to me, this is a complementary conversation, but also one that we ought to be having regardless. And that is, how are we in fact dealing with hazards?

How are we building resiliency into our community? And that really mirrors the recommendation that was made by the Geotechnical Advisory Commission themselves, is that this is the dialogue that's needed as we are updating our seismic hazard maps. Thank you. Yes. And, and just to piggyback essentially.

The parallel track to this I think is identified as the WISA project. The Wildfire Interface Service Area essentially is raising questions around where we develop and how we prepare financially for the challenges within those development areas. In this case it's the wildfire interface area. So I think the question is ripe for a variety of ways, and obviously the body has taken actions on the idea that we should be thinking about preemptive development and resiliency before we do development in the future. So thank you.

Yes, please respond, Ms. Baldwin Day. Thank you. Yeah, and to that point, you know, the idea that we would constrain development based on wildfire risk risk that we would say, well, we're not going to allow any more housing development on the hillside because that's the area of greatest risk for wildfire. Um, hasn't crossed the conversation yet. And, and so I think there's an additional question as to, you know, how are we dealing with all of these different hazards which we know exist in our community, and are we treating some of them differently than others?

And if so, why? And, and should that be the case, or should we treat all of relatively similarly. So thank you for that.

Okay, next I have Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I support this. I think it's a great idea. I'm a big fan of this collaborative working group approach.

As an assembly member, I've been able to kind of go through this type of process a couple of times, and I have— I found it very productive.

It was with the, the former administration that we were able to team up and do a working group on Title 21 and Title 23 changes to make it easier to build triplexes and fourplexes. That was a, I think, a 6-month timeline that we worked on, and that was with Planning Department, Building Department, fire inspectors, Traffic Department assembly members, members of the community, industry experts, and others. And our legislative services team, and particularly Ali Hartman, did a fantastic job of keeping us on track and taking notes and convening us. And I think really great policy was born out of that.

We did a similar approach on the removal of parking minimums. There was a, a working group that was led by our former long-range manager Christine Bunnell. Anna Brawley, prior to being an assembly member, was involved in that working group, as well as myself and former members Dunbar and Cross. And so anyway, I just think that it's, it's a great approach to take, and I want to see more of these productive collaborative dialogues between the branches. Um, I also think it's a good idea to, to have this conversation independently of MHOP, and I think there's a couple reasons for that.

Number one, some of the areas in— of town where we have said we are going to allow— allow the, the densest level of development.

I'm thinking of downtown, I'm thinking of Bootleggers Cove. Those are— much of that is in seismic 4 and 5. I think we also heard in a work session an explanation that, you know, maybe we should reconsider seismic zones 4 and 5 because there are less likely to be affordable housing. Well, I believe Elizabeth Place, which is a Cook Inlet development downtown, is in seismic 4 there on I Street and 6th, that intersection. So I don't think it's accurate to say that the seismic zone is going to have a direct impact on the affordability or attainability of housing.

So So having a conversation that is specific to, you know, how do we engineer in these seismic zones, how can we address health, life, and safety, I think taking that up separately and really I think it's more of a Title 23 question than it is a Title 21 question, but that can also be part of the conversation. What places in code do we want to touch? So anyway, I hope you all will support this, and I think it's a great idea, and I appreciate Member Baldwin Day for bringing it forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, next I have Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, question for the sponsor. Um, I know that this is, uh, kind of stems from, uh, MHOP, uh, with Title 21. Is there a reason why I guess Title 21 was not included as something, uh, kind of part of the review of, uh, with this? Uh, great question. I'm I mean, I think they're welcome, the working group is welcome to discuss whatever they like.

Title 21 is named in the whereas statements. I think the recommendation that was made from the Geotechnical Advisory Commission was specific to Title 23, so that's why I included that in Section 2 in the resolved statements, as they were particularly, and that their resolution is attached actually to this document. So there is, Title 23 named in their resolved Section B as a very specific call-out, and so I just utilized that in my own resolve statements. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue, um, so members may proceed to vote. And what is the vote of the youth representative?

Yes. Okay, youth representative votes yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, um, sorry, I just lost it. Um, hold on, I want to make sure I read the number. Thank you. Uh, AR 2026-304 passes the body unanimously. Tremendously.

Oh, sorry, it was right in front of me. Um, okay, moving on. Uh, so that takes care of our 10Bs. So now we're in the, uh, 10Ds. So first we have item 10D20, um, and I'm going to read it into the record, and then I'm going to turn to Mr. Handeland for a disclosure.

That is, uh, AM694-2026, recommendation of award of a contract for professional design services with HDR Inc. for the waste-to-energy facility. Mr. Daniel Volland. Yeah, same disclosure as, as before. I was not aware of this contract that they were bidding on it. I know I've made some comments about the waste-to-energy project as, as a whole, but I had, yeah, no knowledge of HGR reviewing this, but I do have a conflict of interest on this contract.

Okay, thanks. And just briefly for the record, were you involved at all in the procurement for this, uh, this contract? No. Okay, thank you. Um, then yeah, I will rule that you have a substantial financial interest, um, and I know you'll be stepping out of the room, so in the meantime, um, uh, looking for a motion to approve.

So moved. Second. Okay, there's a motion to approve this, uh, item from Ms. Baldwin Day, second by Mr. Bohlen. Do you want to speak to it further, Ms. Baldwin Day? Nothing for me.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue. I'm trying to get in the queue, it's not working. Okay, sorry, Mr. McCormick, go ahead. Um, I had some questions about the contract, if we had someone that'd be able to answer those for the administration.

Um, so in April 2025, the body approved $8 million for this project. Um, so I, I'd I would like to hear more of what that $8 million didn't cover, that we need the extra $700,000, and what, what the deliverables for that will be. Thank you. Yeah, and I see, um, Miss Toth walking up, and I also see Mr. Fauzi. So maybe I'll start with Mr. Fauzi to respond, or Miss Toth, either one.

Well, I'll let the director speak to it. I think generally I would take a look at the $8 million, but I suspect that was an appropriation and this is a procurement. So the $8 million established the bucket of money, and this is an expenditure from that fund. Okay, how much has been spent? How much is encumbered?

What's left? What are we—.

I can give you an accounting for it through the chair, um, Member McCormick, but I don't have it at this time.

Okay, okay. Um, also in the contract, so in April 2025 The Geosyntec update put the overall plant cost looking at $550 million. The May 2026 update from Tetra Tech put it at $750 million. And now the memo says to be determined. When will we see how much this is going to cost?

Like we saw it rising and now it's off the end. And we, you know, when will the ratepayers see what the debt is going to be and if it's going to be affordable for them to utilize. So through the chair, Member McCormick, the question basically you're asking what—. Sorry, I just totally lost what you just said. Oh, the plan of finance.

I apologize. The plan of finance is coming. So part of the design process that HDR will be looking at is all of the inputs that we've been working on over this last year, which will include inputs such as the watershed study, how much volume can come in to Anchorage, what are the contaminated soil volumes and inventory across the state that can potentially be processed through the soil treatment process, the PFAS destruction, and then also looking at what are the potential for recycling metals and other inputs such as that. All of those inputs will be part of the plan of finance that is coming in the spring, and all of the outreach that we've done over this last 6 months has said exactly that, that all of those inputs will help to inform the plan of finance that you're asking for. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. And Miss Baldwin Day— sorry, before you begin, I'll also note it looks like our We're dealing with the tech. I'll just visually scan, so flag me if you want to be in the queue. Go ahead, Miss Baldwin Day. Yeah, thank you.

Just wanted to, to note for the members' awareness that if they would like a more comprehensive overview of where we are in the waste-to-energy process and some of the timeline questions that are being raised tonight, the Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee of the Whole meeting from Thursday, August 20th is recorded, available on YouTube along with supporting documentation that answers a lot of these questions.

Thanks. Any other members wish to speak at this time? Okay, I'm not seeing any. Um, uh, one second.

Okay, uh, Mr. McCormick, can you just quickly test, um, if you can get in the queue or not?

Okay, looks like— oh wait, I see somebody. I'm in now. Okay, cool. Um, yeah, I know you were not intending to speak, but it looks like it is working. So I should also say, a little bit off topic, we are working on the IT issues, um, and we are, I think, getting close to a solution, so we don't have a repeat of last month.

Um, okay, I don't see any further questions, so thank you, Ms. Toth, for being available. Um, and, uh, I'll ask, is there any objection to adoption of this? And again, if A member can always object, object, and then we would take a roll call vote.

Okay, not seeing any objection, uh, to adoption, so, uh, then we will consider this unanimously adopted. 11-0 Vote, AM694-2026. Uh, so our next item, uh, that's been pulled is item 10D22, AM697-2026, change order number 2 to the contract with Granite Construction Company, or Granite for the SDS-001 and SDS-002 rehabilitation project number 2205, uh, for the Don Yung Port of Alaska. This item was pulled by Mr. Handeland. Move to approve.

Second. Second. Okay, there's a motion to approve by Mr. Handeland, second by— I think I heard Ms. Park. Um, Mr. Handeland, please proceed. Yeah, I just have a couple questions for the port director.

Thanks. So I know you answered, uh, some of my questions, and they are included in the assembly member questions. Um, so I had a question just on the, um, looks like originally was a 70 to 30 split, uh, for the federal award. Um, we've essentially exceeded the amount, uh, for the federal match on that. And so there's an extra $2.14 million that's coming out of the port storm drain capital improvement fund.

If with some of those missing bid items that were— or missing bid amounts that were included in that contract, would we have had the potential to, I guess, get more of a federal match or go after other grants, uh, to kind of capitalize on that, um, that extra $2.14 million? Through the chair, Member Handeland, the answer is yes. Had we known about these quantities, um, before we asked for the $10 million grant, we would have asked for more. But because we didn't know about these, uh, the soil issue and the pipe size of the pipe issue, Those weren't included, so we didn't ask for it. But I did make that call for our conversation earlier just to verify.

Likely would have had an opportunity to ask for a higher dollar amount in that grant had we known. And I guess there's— I'm assuming no way of, I guess, asking now after the fact, uh, through that? Not through that grant program. And certainly we're expecting to get Storm Drain 1, or yeah, 1, 2, and 5 done through this winter. So we're gonna probably expire this grant before we would ever be able to apply for another additional funds for this one.

Okay. And then, yeah, I really, really do like your guys's response on— I mean, because, I mean, uh, some of the details provided here, I really appreciate that. I mean, the unforeseen surface conditions, utility conflicts, those are the kind of things when we're dealing with engineering projects we can't always foresee, but when we have the incorrect bid items and stuff, I mean, having that through— I mean, following proper channels that we're reviewing those documentations so we don't end in a situation like that, because that is the— I mean, $1.8 million there, and it would have been nice to get, I guess, a 70% for the federal government to fund that. Yeah, through the chair, Member Handeland, the only comment I would make is we do annually, thanks to the predecessor and the administration, we put $2.5 million aside for storm drain utility just for these kinds of projects. So this money is accounted for.

We look for it every year. We put it away in the bank account just in case something like this comes up. So the preparation that the port and the leadership down there have made before my tenure there has kind of shored this up. Okay. Okay, thank you so much.

Okay, I don't see anyone further in the queue, so with this one I'll ask, is there any objection to adoption of this memorandum AM 697-2026?

Seeing and hearing none, then this memorandum has been adopted unanimously by the assembly minus the member who is— or sorry, never mind, misspoke. Okay, next we have item 10D23, so I'll read that into the record. That is recommendation— this is one of our late on the table items— recommendation of award of a contract to HDR Engineering Inc. to provide professional engineering services for Downtown Transit Center Project TR00028 for the Municipality of Anchorage Public Transportation Department. So with this one, I know this is pulled by Mr. Handeland. As previously discussed during the late on the table process, Mr. Handeland has a substantial conflict, and so go ahead and step away.

You don't need to additionally disclose. And then because Mr. Handeland was the one who pulled it, then we'll need someone else to make a motion. Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Vohland to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin Day.

Mr. Vohland, would you like to speak to it further? Nothing more for me, thank you. Okay, and anyone else? I don't see anyone else in the queue. Okay, no one else in the queue, so I'll ask, is there any objection to approval of, uh, this memorandum.

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, then this is adopted. And we don't have a number for it, but we will make sure that that is retroactively applied in the record. Um, so that memorandum regarding the Downtown Transit Center contract has been unanimously adopted minus the one recused member. So that takes us through our That takes us to attendees. So we have one more item, and that is item 10F2.

And so that is AM— sorry, one second. Sorry, there's a Scrivener's error on the item. It says AM 179-2026. That should be AIM. So just noting that for the record.

So this is AIM 179-2026. 2026 Memorandum Report on Third-Party Building Plan Reviews and Audit Results. Sorry, this item was pulled by Miss Baldwin Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to accept.

Second. Okay, motion to accept by Miss Baldwin Day, seconded by Mr. Volland. Miss Baldwin Day. Yeah, thank you. Um, I, uh, I wanted to be sure that my, my colleagues and also members of the public were keyed into the fact that this this particular AIM includes a couple of policy recommendations that I think are really important for us to pay attention to, especially as we are trying to, uh, do everything that we can to streamline housing production and, um, what's going on in our Building Services Department.

Uh, this AIM recommends that the sunset for third-party plan reviews, uh, is— be, uh, removed entirely. And so, uh, just wanted to note that that does require a, a a follow-on ordinance, follow-on action by this body, which I am very interested in carrying and wanted, wanted my colleagues to be aware that that is forthcoming, that we are— if we do want to continue to have third-party plan review in place in this format, we will need to take action together to do that. So I urge my colleagues to accept this report and look forward to doing the recommended policy work in here. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion from members?

Okay. Any objection to acceptance of this report?

Okay. Seeing and hearing none, then AIM 179-2026 has been unanimously accepted. That takes us through our consent agenda and— one second.

Madam Chair, I move to change the order of the day and take up all the items in the 14 section next, and, and 15. So 14A through 15A, to take those up first. And then resume the normal order.

So those items would go before the 11s and the item in, in the 13.

It's okay. So the clerk has it up on the board. So motion by Mr. Bohlen to change the order of the day is stated essentially to take up up all of the new public hearing items of the 14s, 15A, and then to roll back on the agenda to, uh, 11A and the rest of the agenda. And that's second by Miss Baldwin Day. Do you want to speak to it further, Mr. Wallant?

Yes, thank you. So, um, what that will do is allow us to have our first public hearing, um, on the budget items, and we are mandated to do that, um, as we approach the, uh, the budget season and passing the budget, we have to have at least 2 public hearings for these items. So there's a little bit of a time-sensitive nature there.

Additionally, there are some other time-sensitive issues in the, the 14s, and then I also wanted to highlight 14K and L. We should be able to move on from those pretty quickly because the intent of sponsors, which is myself and Chair Brawley, is to continue that public hearing, uh, to the first meeting in December. So I think we can get through these, uh, pretty expediently and then take up the, the items that may have a little more robust, uh, debate and conversation. Thank you. And next I have in the queue Mr. Handeland. Yeah, just a quick question.

So 11B, is that— would that be after this item? That seems to be missing on this Yeah, I can clarify. So, um, so essentially the, the screen is documenting what would change, and so the idea is if we go back to 11A, then we would move through— there's only 3 items on the agenda after that, but we would do 11A, 11B, and then 13A. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other discussion on this?

Not seeing any. I mean, I will note, um, just for the public's awareness as well, there is a long list of these new hearing items as Mr. Volland said the priority really is our budget items, and, um, we have reason to believe that, that the rest of these can move more quickly than it might imply on the page. And so that's the idea. Um, and of course we can— if we, if we are dragging in one place or another, we can change the order of the day again. So, um, okay, any, uh, I guess I'll ask, is there any objection to changing the order of the day as stated?

Yeah.

And I will note we're not sure who's on the phone, but it might be a staff person, um, not one of the members. So okay, I'm not hearing any objection to changing the order of the day, um, so thanks everyone for your flexibility there. And then I will note, um, that takes us to the end of our consent agenda, um, so that gives some clear expectations for the public how we'll proceed after dinner. And then I will ask just briefly, are there any students in the audience this evening who are not our youth representative?

Okay, I don't see any right now, so we always want to check, make sure that they're recognized if they're here. So with that, we will take our dinner break, and we'll be back in about 20 minutes. Thank you.

Okay everyone, I'm gonna call us back to order. Welcome back everyone. So, uh, we are— and as a reminder for folks who are tracking, we did reorder the agenda so that we are going to be taking up starting with 14A, moving through the rest of those 14s and into 15, and then we will roll back up to deal with the 11s and the one item in the 13. Before we do that, just a couple quick items of business. I understand there is a student here this evening And so before, before we get too far into it, I will ask if that student would please come forward, and then all you have to do is share your name, what school you're in, what grade you're in, and what class or what project you're here for.

So, uh, yeah, one second. So if you turn the— there's a button on the bottom there, so press that and then the microphone will The light will turn green. That means it's on. Okay, and then please say your name and what school you're from. I'm Natalie and I go to the AK Homeschool Program.

I'm—. Wait, what were the questions? I'm in 10th grade and I'm doing this for my government class. Okay, well, welcome. Thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Oh yeah, yeah, thank you for turning it off. Okay, thank you. So that is our— and you get the prize for being the only student here this evening other than our student representative who is here by choice, so Okay, uh, one other quick item of business. There's a late on the table item. It is supplemental to item 11B, so I'm just going to read it into the record, then we'll move into our hearings.

Um, so this is a, uh, regarding AO 2026-S108-S1, uh, the, uh, surveillance tech ordinance, and it is a letter from Rabbit Creek Community Council, um, submitted again as supplemental, unnumbered AIM, uh, and it will be numbered, uh, after the fact. So that is our supplemental item. So next, let's roll up to our public hearing items tonight. So starting with item 14A, and then as a reminder, I will be opening and then closing each of these hearings, but the second hearing for 14A through 14H is already on the agenda for November 4th, and I see folks lining up to testify. So we are first on 14A, Ordinance AO-2026-123, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage adopting and appropriating funds for the 2027 general government operating budget for the municipality City of Anchorage.

Public hearing on this item is now open. First person, please state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, Chair and members of the assembly. My name is Radhika Krishna. I'm the executive director of the Anchorage Downtown Partnership.

The Downtown Partnership is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 800 business and property owners within downtown Anchorage, and public safety is the top priority of our board and our members. I'm here to testify tonight in support of continuing the downtown foot patrols, which started this year into 2027 and permanently beyond that. The foot patrol began this last April as a pilot project, which was funded by the TIPS program, which was part of the bed tax. And those funds are— there's only a small portion remaining, and they're due to be spent down very soon. In just its first 6 weeks, officers made over 1,800 contacts.

That's over 40 per day. More than 1,000 of those contacts ended in voluntary compliance. 152 People were transported to care, such as the Anchorage Safety Patrol. 40 People were connected to services. And again, those impacts are just from the first 6 weeks, from April and May of this year.

This year, the foot patrol was structured as a voluntary overtime patrol, which meant that some shifts went unfilled. When the foot patrol was happening consistently, business owners absolutely saw a difference. A fully staffed patrol that operates year-round would do even more to improve public safety downtown, and that's what we'd like to see. 2027 Will be a big year downtown. Town Square Park and Paratovich Park were closed for construction this year, but they'll reopen next year, um, as will the new downtown library branch and the Ship Creek to Coastal Trail connection.

Uh, there are also municipal investments in wayfinding in facilities like the Anchorage Center for the Performing Arts, and we want residents to be able to access all of those safely and comfortably. Anchorage also hosts 1.3 million visitors each year, many of whom— most of whom come to downtown. We want those visitors to experience a comfortable environment so they stay longer and support our small businesses and restaurants. I also want to note and thank you because the foot patrol has been so effective because of the recent policy changes that the this assembly has enacted, from things like Title VIII changes to recent changes around camping. We have more resources today than we did 5 years ago, from year-round shelter, expanded services at ASP.

And then I know we're all looking forward to new crisis care stabilization that will open this year. The foot patrol is a really key part of connecting all these pieces on the ground. Making sure that the policy changes you've enacted are enforced and that individuals are connected to those services. In closing, I'll just say that the foot patrol has been really effective in improving downtown public safety, and we're asking for it to continue in 2027, be made a permanent program, and ensure that, um, every day it takes place and continues year-round. So we all want to see a safe and vibrant downtown, and this is an essential part of creating that.

Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see one in the queue. Next person, please come forward.

And you'll need— sorry, one second. I also know we accidentally forgot to start the timer for a few seconds on the last person, but thank you for being timely. Next, if you press the button on the bottom, it's for the microphone on. State your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Yes, hello, good evening.

My name is Kathleen McCardle. I'm the president and CEO at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce. I'm a resident of West Anchorage in the Turnagain neighborhood. I'm here representing the Anchorage Chamber. This is a nonprofit business membership association serving Anchorage since 1915, Alaska's largest coalition of business owners and their employees across the municipality.

I'm here to also support the continued investment and commitment to downtown Anchorage foot patrol as support for business and community safety that impacts all of the municipality. Our members have consistently cited public safety as a concern in our feedback surveys, with downtown at the epicenter. And this year's pilot foot patrol delivered both quantitative and qualitative results, as you've heard. The thousands of contacts, those resolutions, and connections to supportive services helped to stem the tide of larger issues that Anchorage faces for the state of Alaska. APD absolutely goes above and beyond to support the community.

I think it is fair to say that incident response times aren't where we'd like them to be yet. When public safety isn't available, it's our local businesses who must then invest in private security, hardening their infrastructure, survey their own surveillance equipment and services, and even relocating their services and amenities if they feel they must. Which ultimately is not sustainable. A safe downtown is essential to economic growth and stability everywhere. A visible, consistent police presence downtown keeps downtown safe, welcoming, and vibrant for residents, visitors, and people just trying to do their jobs.

The APD foot patrol has shown real results during the pilot. Please fund APD as much as we need it to be, and this program, making it permanent ensuring coverage for every shift. We'll continue to do as nonprofit organizations what we can to support positive activations in public spaces. Thank you so much for your time and all your service to our community.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Microphone needs to be turned back on, and then state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, Chair and assembly members.

My name is Sherry Gould. I'm the facility services and building manager for Santos, Alaska. Santos has around 230 people that work in our downtown office on Fifth Avenue and all of whom live in the Anchorage area. I'm here today to ask you to consider adding funding for the APD downtown foot patrol in the 2027 budget and beyond. As you heard and as you know, 2026 was the pilot year, but the funding is due to expire.

We would like to see the foot patrol continue next year and in the future years and ideally grow in scale. We moved to our downtown office in 2024, and we generally love being downtown. Our employees enjoy the walkability, access to restaurants and shops, and being in the center of the Anchorage community, arts and culture, and all the wonderful events. However, public safety has been the top question and concern of our employees, and we have had a few very worrying events over the couple of years since we've been downtown. We've spent a lot of time talking with APD over the last 2 years, and we're grateful for the time they've taken to talk to us and our employees and also the safety resources available.

Since the foot patrol began in April, we have seen it make a big difference in the safety and comfort of our employees as we walk through downtown and to and from our office. Our office is located across the street from Town Square Park and the Performing Arts Center, directly to the east of our building is the Egan Center, Paratrovich Park, the Log Cabin Visitor Center, and the new downtown library which is being constructed now. We're looking forward to all of these new improvements, but that starts with public safety. So the APD foot patrol has really worked in improving safety for our employees downtown, and we don't want to see it end this year. Please fund this program, make it permanent, and ensure coverage for every shift.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify. Thank you. Before you step away, Mr. McCormick in the queue for you. I had a question for you. Thank you.

Representing one of the largest employers in Anchorage, it sounds like concerns about safety for your employees. Has Santos had to hire like private security to help secure its property and personnel? Yes, we have. Okay. And it sounds— I think I saw earlier mentions of having to offer that security to transport people to and from their vehicles to keep their safety while just walking to, to the building.

That is correct. Okay, and so by establishing or continuing the foot patrols, believing that that would create a safer environment for your employees and walking to and from the building and going out for lunch and other daily activities? Yes. All right, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue. Thank you for being here. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone needs to be turned on.

Sorry, before you proceed, um, you'll need to turn the microphone on. Uh, oh, it's okay. Yeah, thank you. How about now? Yeah, please start again.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the assembly. My name is Jon Bittner, I'm with the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. I bet you can guess why I'm here today. I also am here to encourage you to fully support public, uh, public safety funding in this budget. We do a lot of economic studies at AADC asking about barriers to business, asking about what's, uh, top of mind for businesses across the town, and number one in the past few years has been public safety.

We really are making a lot of progress on this front, but we need to continue that momentum in order to continue economic growth. As we produce the community economic development strategy for the city that we've been working on for the last several months, We do a lot of community outreach as well. It's not just a business community concern, it's also a concern amongst regular community members, nonprofits, and others. Making sure we have a safe, vibrant community to operate in is going to benefit all of us. I also wholeheartedly support the downtown foot patrol.

I, I work in the downtown area and I, I believe it is a phenomenal program and a great use of resources. I hope that we can fund the public safety budget to the point where that's a viable option in the next year and going forward. I'd also like to just recognize the great work that you've already done on this front. We are making progress when it comes to public safety. I'm not here to claim otherwise.

I really do think that the momentum is going in the right direction, and I hope we keep that going through this budget and through next year as well. Thank you very much.

All right, no questions. Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry, Mr. Bittner, if you can come back.

Um, Ms. Park is in the queue. Actually, the question isn't for Mr. Bittner. I, I wanted to ask Mr. Fawzy whether the downtown foot patrols, uh, are included in the overtime for APD that we see in the budget. Yeah, thanks. So, so I want to hold us to— so we're in the middle of a public hearing, so this is not a time to really ask questions, but I would encourage you to ask offline.

I think—. Thank you, valid question. Thank Thank you. Sorry. So next person, please come forward.

Yeah, you can turn the microphone on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, I'm Laurie Mahana, District 5, and I want to make some comments over this year's budget. First thing, we don't have to go over a fiscal cliff.

We don't spend more than we take in. There are several, and we need to get over the idea that small cuts are not worth it. Lots of small cuts add up big. Some ideas I had was, first of all, an easy cut that lots of corporations have made is to cut travel budgets. In this day and age of Zoom and streaming, there is no reason for people to have to go out of state except for if they have to physically train in something that they can't do here, like the police and the firefighters.

Another, another one I would like to see is the assembly members' discretionary funds cut. There should be no discretionary funds that aren't accounted, accounted to taxpayers.

And I suggest to keep all services at current levels, just do a freeze for a year. I understood that we saved a lot of money this year by not funding a bunch of, of, uh, positions that were not, not filled. That should have been done a long time ago. I think there should be an audit of all administrative positions and compare it to other cities of our size, make sure we are not having— we don't have more employees than we actually need. There's also another way to help going over a fiscal cliff is to explore new avenues for funds.

Instead of pushing for sales tax or other taxes that literally take food out of people's mouths, we should make use of those 1.3— or I'm sorry, 3.1 million visitors. Number one, we could increase the room tax. Anchorage's room tax is 12%. And there's a— for— that's for 30 days or less. Other places like Maui has 18%, and that's for 180 days or less.

Oahu is 19%. Steamboat Springs, Colorado is 18 to 20%. Portland is 16%. So I think that would be an easy way to generate funds from our visitors. Um, and then other cities, we could also increase our taxes on marijuana.

Anchorage's marijuana tax is 5%. Colorado's marijuana tax is 30%, and Washington's marijuana tax is 37%. That goes up to 53%. With sales tax. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Don't see anyone in the queue. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone needs to be turned on.

My name is Charles McKee. I'm the beneficiary of the McKee Trust, and I want to point out to you that business that you're referring to, that you're conducting, is also referred to as commerce. And all mistakes in commerce could be rectified in commerce, and that's what we're talking about. So, um, I took it upon myself to have my birth certificate authenticated, triple triplicate, so I have beyond parity with the court system. And I have a bunch of this material with you.

I'll leave a copy of each. There's two. And what I want to talk to you about is the problem of the trust being the attempt, but everybody has a trust of value of $900 billion. So what the court's been doing is involuntary trust transaction. Point of order.

Yeah, can we pause the time please? Uh, sorry, who did the point of order? This testimony doesn't seem to be related to the budget. Well, it is, so I'll get to But it's related to it because what I'm trying to do is convey—. Please just pause for a second, Mr. McKee.

Um, so, um, we do generally give broad latitude to the public, but I will remind you, Mr. McKee, to please, please make sure that this connects to the budget. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What I, what I want to try to convey to the assembly is my, my trust is $900 billion, and the documents are showing that my intent is to help mitigate the shortfall that is coming, as has been pronounced, next year. So, um, and I have this, uh, recording, District 301 Anchorage, uh, 2026-036187-0, recorded, and I'll give you a copy of that. But what I'm trying to bring up is the fact that rather than having an involuntary uh, and junk, uh, track, track, dice with the trust, uh, or constructor trust, that I able to access that and mitigate harm done to me and others previously in court control.

So, uh, this, uh, activity is being exposed of the transaction that they do to people when they get incarcerated, it's an involuntary trust taking of the $900 billion amount per individual. I happen to have one recorded, but in their attempt in this paperwork of doing that to me in 2019, so I was jailed for 12 hours and I beat the rap. And that paperwork's in part included in this. I'll give you all a copy of. So to mitigate the problem, please read it.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Microphone is already on, so state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage.

Um, this will probably be a hot mess. I'm not prepared. So anyways, just giving this brief overview, and I will say I am concerned. There is going to be a tidal wave of people experiencing homelessness in the next few years, and you cannot police your way out of poverty. But apparently you think you can.

And so running people into the ground is no strategy to win because you will not have enough jails and jail cells to house all the people that will soon be unemployed. Whether it's for the rising natural gas costs that effectively, you know, you're going to have Chugach Electric competing with Enstar Natural Gas. And what's going to happen is they have commitments for commodities, obviously, until 2028. But at that point in time, it's going to continue to go up. And then also with the AI situation, with any number of industries being displaced.

But anyways, there is money for police. There is not money to help people, ma'am. Miss LaFrance. You really need to change the strategy. And I hope you glean something from this.

So if you look at the overtime actuals to date, pretty much it's, uh, over 9.1 million— excuse me, 9.1 million, 164, you know, thousand at this point in time approximately. And, uh, it's continuing to increase. And there's some officers last year made $357,000 a year— Christopher Wright. Most of them start $100,000 and they continue to go up. And sergeants, and same.

It's ridiculous. Uh, then you look at the travel expenses and some of the concerns that the previous speaker had. I do have concerns about that. And so you look at, you know, the police, um, basically $183,000 that was budgeted, $125,000 to date spent. Well, I brought this up at a previous meeting, and so you had the Deputy Chief of Police Brian Wilson, and he went to Basically, Oracle Connect VIP Summit 2026.

This was a panel. Scottsdale, Arizona. Tea time on the golf, you know, and you had a Super Bowl party. And so did the muni pay for this or did the company pay for this? Because clearly this looks like a really posh place to go.

And I have concerns obviously about something like that, especially when you're selling out, you know, your constituents wholesale for their product. And then you get to the last thing. Um, and I don't know if I have enough time to cover other things, but I was looking at basically, uh, the most recent budget to actuals. And so it talked about the ATAX funds, and it said Police HOPE Multidisciplinary Outreach Team, Third Ave Resource Navigation Center, $500,000 approved budget. And it says $500,000 total budget and $500,000 expenditures.

Uh, the HOPE team basically goes to Bean's Cafe. They do a Zoom call every day. What the heck do you need $500,000 for at Third Ave Navigation Center? Is it to rent a room? I am very curious to find what that is for, because why would you need to spend money there?

The meeting owns the facility, Catholic Social Services is running it, and what exactly is being done with that $500,000? Because clearly you have 2 people working on the HOPE team and the rest are, you know, other providers. So curious. Thank you. Okay, would anyone else wish to test to testify, please come forward.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, um, the first public hearing on AO 2026-123 is closed. And as again, a reminder to members, we do not need to take further action to postpone these items because they're already scheduled for public hearing, so you won't hear us do continuing or postponing the way that we have before on other items. So next we'll move on to 14B, Ordinance AO 2026-124, an ordinance adopting the 2027 General Government Capital Improvement budget. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward if you wish to testify.

And same deal, microphone's already on. State your name. Liberty for the chair for a second. I had something to pass on.

Okay, sorry, you're going to need to— yeah, you need to give it to the clerk staff. So I think she stepped away for the moment. If you just leave it there on the dais.

Yeah, yeah, if you— yeah, we'll have staff take care of it. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Yeah, staff will distribute that. Okay, so now back to testimony.

Um, so state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Okay, so Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage. So, um, just did a scan of this, and so obviously there was, uh, originally in the original proposal last year there was $2.5 million to renovate, uh, the 11 locker rooms and the police toilets over at Tutor No More at APD. And so I saw that and I'm thinking, people outside don't even have toilets. You had the mayor who suggested the Portland Loo for, you know, the general public.

And but there's $2.5 million for toilets. And so last year that got cut and then they tried it again and it got cut. And it's there again on the bond sheet for last year. So in the spirit, you know, of liberty and for your consideration, I propose APD Studios, VFX and claymation We animate crimes, you don't have to commit them. And so more or less, the Anchorage Police Department seeks approval and funding to acquire property to house a new division tasked for VFX and claymation.

AP Studios will deliver high-quality content with return on investment. Growth prospects include building trust and relationships in the community via parody, satire, and real stories, all brutality simulated. So anyways, this one's just a shot at humor, but You know, this is a budget. You spend your time on it. Sometimes you have to have a joke.

But anyways, talk to you later.

Okay, thanks for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify on the capital budget? Please come forward.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed, and we will move on to our next item, and that is AR 2026-274, a resolution adopting the 2027-2023 20— sorry, 2032 General Government Capital Improvement Program. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify, anyone at all.

Seeing and hearing no one, the first public hearing on this item is now closed. Next, we'll move on to item 14D, Resolution AR-2026-275, a resolution adopting the 2027 to 2032 Six-Year Fiscal Program. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. Then we'll move on to our next item, that is item 14E, 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. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, the first public hearing on this item is now closed. Next, we will move on to Item 14F, Resolution AR-2026-276, a resolution approving the 2027 to 2032 Municipal Utilities and Enterprise Activities Capital Improvement Programs. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, the first public hearing on this item is now closed. We'll move on to Item 14G, Ordinance AO-2026-126, an ordinance adopting and appropriating funds for the 2027 operating and capital budgets of Anchorage Community Development Authority. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing— our first public hearing on this item is now closed. Uh, next we'll move on to our last budget item of the evening, and that is AO 2026-127, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code chapters 1.35, 3.20, and 3.30 relating to the organization of the executive branch, setting forth the duties and responsibilities of executive branch agencies Amending related Anchorage Municipal Code to reflect the new executive management structure. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public, uh, first public hearing on this item is now closed. That concludes our budget items, items 14A through 14H. So we will move into our remaining public hearing items, uh, or the, the new public hearing items So moving on to Item 14I, that is AO-2026-118, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan Map designation of one lot containing approximately 0.19 acres from Compact Mixed Residential Medium to Town Center for Lot 22, Moorhead Subdivision Edition Number 4, Plot 72-122. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward if you wish to testify. And the microphone needs to be turned on. There you go. State your name, part of town, and you'll have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Kate Sauve.

That's S-A-U-V-E. I am the petitioner's representative for this case, uh, this case and the following case, number 14-J. These cases would amend the comprehensive plan's land use designation to town center and rezone the lots to B-3 general business. This would extend the B-3 zoning district from directly from the east and the south of the site. These cases are supported by both the municipal planning department and the planning and zoning commission.

The PCC found that this site is an appropriately located for this rezone. The proposals met all approval criteria and no members of the public or reviewing agencies were in opposition. I ask that you vote in favor of these cases, and I'm able to answer any questions that the board might have. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Don't see anyone in the queue right now. Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve, uh, by Miss Baldwin Day, second by Mr. Boland. Would you like to speak to it, Miss Baldwin Day?

I don't, I don't think I have any, any particular comments on this one. Just, um, I know that this is important to the Abbott Loop community. They're really interested in seeing their town center look and feel a little different than it does right now, and this rezone absolutely moves that particular area in the direction that they're hoping to go. So I urge my colleagues' support. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else? Don't see anyone else in the queue, so, um, uh, members may proceed to vote on this item. And I will also ask youth representative, how do you vote on this item? Yes.

Okay, and members may proceed Proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AO-2026-118 passes the body unanimously. Next we have Item 14J, that is AO-2026-119, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of one lot containing approximately 0.91— sorry, 0.19 acres from R-5 Low Density Residential District to B-3 General Business District for Lot 22 Morehan Subdivision, Edition Number 4, Plot 72-122. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Erin Baldwin Day to approve, second by Ms. Park.

Um, Ms. Baldwin Day, would you like to speak to it?

Um, ditto my previous comments. And, um, yeah, thank you for your support.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, um, so members may proceed to vote on this item. And how does the youth representative vote? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-119 passes the body unanimously. Uh, next we are on to item 14K, that is ordinance AO 2025-63S, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code chapters 21.04 and 21.05 to allow self-storage, storage yard, and parking lot or structures with 50 or more spaces, uses within a B-3 zoning district only if approved, reviewed and approved with a conditional use. Public hearing on this item is now open. Mr. Voland. Madam Chair, move to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of December 1st.

Second. Motion by Mr. Voland to continue the public hearing on this item and send it to the meeting of December 1st, seconded by Ms. Baldwin Day. Any further discussion?

Okay, no further discussion. Um, is there— I guess I'll ask, is there any objection to continuing this hearing to the meeting of December 1st?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, then this item will be continued to the meeting of December 1st. Uh, next we have Item 14L, Ordinance AO-2026-121, an ordinance amending certain provisions of Title 21 of Anchorage Municipal Code to allow shop house Residential structures with accessory garage or workshop areas larger than the principal residential use. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify. Mr. Wallin.

Move to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting on December 1st. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Wallin to continue this item as well to the meeting of the hearing to the meeting of December 1st, second by Erin Baldwin Day. Any further discussion on that?

Okay. I will just note briefly the intent of the sponsors is to request that this get discussed at the— whatever the next Housing Community Economic Development Committee meeting is in November. And so I will follow up directly. But just to state on the record that that may be discussed in the future. And otherwise, is there any objection to continuing the hearing on this item to December 1st?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then this item is continued to the meeting of December 1st, including the public hearing. Next we have item 14M, so I'm going to read it, the title, and then I'm going to read the laid on the table item that we didn't get to earlier, and then I'm going to turn to Mr. Handeland briefly. So AO-2026-133, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing a 5th extension of a ground lease at less than fair market value. For a parcel, parcel located adjacent to the Chugiak State Park Eagle River Senior Center in Chugiak, legally described as Lot 3, Section 16, Township 15 North, Range 1 West, Seward Meridian, 05119402. And then before I open the public hearing on that, I'm also going to read into the record the supplemental item.

It is information memorandum AIM unnumbered, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing a 5th extension of a ground lease at less than fair market value for a parcel located, uh, sorry, same title, uh, and then this is a collection of comments on this item. And so before we open public hearing, I'm going to turn to Mr. Handeland. Yeah, just a conflict of interest. In my eagerness to support the Chugiak Eagle River Senior Center, I signed up to become a member for $225 And so I just wanted to disclose that. I don't think that that is a significant conflict of interest, but I will defer to the ruling of the chair.

Thank you. Yeah, so that was a disclosure, disclosure of a personal interest in this facility. I'm going to rule at this time that this does not, does not constitute a substantial conflict of interest. I imagine there's a number of members. I guess another question, Mr. Handeland, are you currently engaging in any activities at the senior center?

No, I am not. Okay, okay. So, so again, I'm going to rule at this time that Mr. Handeland does not have a conflict of interest and therefore can participate in this item. And again, the ruling of the chair can be, can be appealed if people feel differently. So with that—.

Madam Chair? Sorry, go ahead, Mr. Girdwood. I don't believe I have a conflict either, but just in the interest of disclosure, I previously worked at the senior center. I was their public Public Relations Director. I do not work there anymore though.

I am not a member either. I am significantly younger than Mr. Handeland. Okay, thank you. And just again for the record, so when was your either last day or last month of employment? Last day of employment was December of 2025.

Okay, you said December 2025. Mm-hmm. So with that one, um, I— and apologies, I know there's somebody here to testify. I think because it's within a year I do want to get the advice of attorneys, because generally what we have said is disclosures are not required after a calendar year— or sorry, not calendar— a full 12 months of employment. But since this is within that, I just want to make sure that we are not overstepping.

So I will turn to the attorney. Can you please put that on the record? Thank you. Through the chair, or to the chair, I believe this is fine. Okay.

Thank you. And I will note there was a thumbs up prior to that verbal statement. Okay, so I'm also going to rule that Mr. Gerker does not have a conflict of interest in participating in this item. We read this item in the record, so now we will turn back to our public hearing. So again, I've read the item into the record, so now public hearing is open.

So if you would like to testify on this item, please come forward, and I will note the microphone is off, so you'll need to press the button when the light is on, then state your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. Yes, hello, my name is Andrew Fiero. I'm a member of the board of directors of Chugiak State Park. Citizens Incorporated, and I'm here to request by the board that the assembly approve the ground lease extension between the Municipality of Anchorage and the Chugiak State Park Senior Citizens Incorporated.

I want to say that we have an executive director, Amy Demboski, We have a staff that is very efficient, fully functioning, and we have a board of directors that have all come together and we've actually mapped out a concrete plan to go forward with this. As the assembly is aware, there is a growing need for, uh, services for senior citizens. Um, we have a growing population of senior citizens in the state and certainly within the municipality. That we actually have mapped out a program here where there can be actual checks. So some of this requires the initial lease extension process.

That's why we're here today. We've already done community outreach. We've gotten resolutions from all 5 community councils in the area to support this. We've gotten letters, letters from citizens. We've gotten letters from clubs and organizations.

I think one labor union has also agreed that we need to go forward with this. So I don't think there's any question that the services that are currently being provided need to be extended and that we need to expand housing for senior citizens. And the only way to do this to start out with the lease extension. We're actually working with the city to get water services extended to the new parcel, the 7.2 acres. We're also working on grant funding and tax credits to be able to finance this project.

As the assembly probably can guess, this is going to be a project that's going to require a lot of money. But because we do have a concrete plan, I think we can move forward, and we can move forward a lot quicker than probably we have determined the project flow and timeline. And we may be back here again requesting permits and whatever it's going to take to get the program and the project off the ground and fully moving. But because we have a game plan, because we have all parts of the Senior Citizens Incorporated working together, it's going to come together.

Any questions? Thanks for your testimony. I don't see any questions at this time, but I imagine people might call you up if— so stay tight or sit tight. Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to testify on this item?

Okay, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone's already on. Skyler Quinn, S-K-Y-L-E-R Q-U-I-N-N. I'm from Eagle River. Good evening, everyone.

Uh, I am the managing member of Q2 Partners LLC. We developed and constructed the most recent affordable housing mixed-use project in Eagle River. It's, uh, Our current project is, is a two-phase project with 30 units in each phase. We have 30 units that are fully done. We have a 0% vacancy.

They're all leased up, and we're envisioning something kind of similar to that on this parcel, subdividing it, two-phase project, trying to fit roughly 30 units in each phase. Where we have experience in this area, we're local to the community.

I think we're well versed on its challenges, and I would urge your support. Everything— I will say our plan is pretty preliminary right now. We kind of wanted to see if this were to happen, this extension were to happen, before starting to deploy significant resources into the project. But if you do have questions, I'll try to do my best to answer. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. I don't see any questions right now, but again, stick around. Um, okay, anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Sorry, second. Okay, motion by Mr. Handeland to approve, second by Mr. Girdwood. Um, Mr. Handeland, do you want to speak to it further?

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm glad to support this lease extension for the Chugiak State Park Senior Citizens. Uh, Chugiak Eagle River Senior Center does a tremendous amount of work in our community, and they provide senior housing, assisted living, Meals on Wheels, transportation to medical appointments and shopping, adult day services— not that I'm participating in those— uh, helping seniors and their families. Uh, they give back a tremendous amount to the community, and I think that's expressed in just the outpouring of support that we've seen, uh, both in the packet, in our emails here.

And so this extension gives gives the organization time to pursue financing, move forward with additional housing for the next center. The next phase would provide approximately 30 homes to seniors, building on the services that are already available there. And I just want to point out, I really appreciate the staff. I got to go on a tour there with Congressman Begich, and the amount of pushing that Executive Director Dombowski was doing there of, hey, how can we get our federal partners, our state partners, our local partners all on board with making sure that this project goes forward was really astounding, and I really appreciate that. So I would appreciate my colleagues' support in this.

Thank you.

Okay, next I have Mr. Girdwood. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to also add, you know, as the Chugiak State Park is a, is a jewel of the Chugiak community, everybody loves and adores the center. And it's so much more than just, you know, senior housing or senior programming. It's truly a community center where people from all different walks and every different walks of life, they're all coming there.

They're hosting events.

The Chugiak Chinooks board meets there. There's local organizations that come and meet there, political organizations. They're all there. Engaging, and it's a part of the— it's a huge part of the community, and it's desperately needed. We need more of this desperately within Anchorage to provide more housing and services for senior folks.

And also just want to thank you, Andy, so much for being here. It's great to see you and the hard work that you and the board and the executive team— and until last year, a very handsome PR director too, for all the hard work that's been going on there, guys. Truly appreciate it. We're, you know, we're in your corner. Appreciate it.

Thanks. Thanks. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I got a question to the sponsors and perhaps to the administration.

I think there are some points that the administration has identified in this in terms of some of the clauses. But the first question I have is essentially the clarification of what this particular land is and what this item is. I just wanted to make sure for the record that what we're talking about for confirmation is not the actual senior center— Senior Citizens Center today where that's operating. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an adjacent piece of property for a potential future development.

Just wanted to clarify that.

The sponsors could jump in as well. It doesn't really matter to me, but—.

Thanks. I guess it looks like Mr. Dole is ready to respond. Through the Chair, Bob Dole, Director of Community Economic Development, which oversees HLB and real estate. This is a vacant parcel immediately adjacent to the current senior center. It is land that has been on a separate— it's a separate parcel, it's on a separate lease for housing.

Thank you. I wanted to make sure that that was clear because I think that the difference between the successful and important operations of a senior center today and the developmental prospect of a parcel of land that's being potentially discussed, I think, are different. I think the nature of saying, for example, that this organization does really good work and then we would hope that they would continue that sort of good work with the next parcel is different than I understand it today. So what I wanted to get to is one additional question is where is this property located with respect to wildfire interface?

Through the chair, Bob Doehl, Director for Community Economic Development. Like many areas in the municipality, it is an area that may be considered vulnerable. Thank you. Is there an urgency today for this particular item? Does this item interfere with the existing operations of the senior center today?

Through the chair, if this item is not passed today, the lease lapses. We are at the edge— the reverter clause ends on the 31st, and at that time there is no forward path for this parcel to be developed into housing under the existing lease. Through the chair, that is correct. So there could be a new development proposal, a new lease, just a new process. Fundamentally that could be true.

It doesn't— not moving on it today doesn't quash this totally. Through the chair, Director Bob Doehl, it delays the movement forward on housing that is vitally needed. Thank you for that point.

What is being delayed if this is under proposal and there is no development plan? And so I wanted to get to something because we've disposed a few pieces of property, and one of the questions that have been emerged is How long will people sit on that property? Through the Chair, may I— I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. No, and I was going— thank you, because I was going to give you credit before you even spoke on it. And in the memo, it describes that the MOA is proposing a few milestones, and those milestones are to make sure that development happens.

Is that accurate? And can you describe some of those milestones publicly? Through the Chair, based on my experience in other organizations working with the development and financing necessary for a low-income housing tax project of this where— which will predominantly serve 0.6 AMI or less, you have to fit in with the AHFC rounds in which they make this available. Specifically, those are called gold rounds. So what the— what needs to happen for this to go forward now is there has to be an agreement between— They have to prepare for the November AHFC evaluation.

That's— they have to bring on board architects, engineers to develop that plan to go forward so this can compete with other projects from across the state. We put in two rounds of that. We didn't— because frankly, only about one-third of the projects submitted to the goal round at AHFC are selected. So we built in that. We built in what we thought were reasonable and prudent times after those rounds as the basis for funding for the design, the construction, and also split it into two phases, which is also the norm for these going forward.

So we took what was a normal development timeframe and rather than just saying get back to us in 8 years or 10 years, we took to heart what the body said as we discussed the last reverter clause and applied what we thought were reasonable and prudent deadlines so we can get on with contributing these to the 10,000 houses Mayor LaFrance has identified we need to do now, not us starting over, doing an RFP, pushing the process back a year or two, and then doing a slow start. So can you just describe the first gate? What is the first time— the timeline of the first priority that has to be achieved, the first milestone, before we know whether or not the reversion clause is going to be activatable.

And, and I thank you for the, the, the dialogue. These are precedent-setting in terms of how we dispose of property and the expectations that the community has for the development of them. Through the chair, the, uh, Member Martinez, uh, the first, um, goal is to identify financing by December 31st, 2028. That presupposes they get 2 rounds of going to AHFC to compete for those federal and state funds that are only allocated once a year in that competition. So in other words, by the end of December 2028, if the financing is not in place, the property reverts back to no lease?

To the— Chairmember Martinez, that is correct. And I wanted to put a finer point on that then as well. So this gives a— this, from my perspective to the administration, we should have a priority of developing properties independent of the particular operator of the moment. And so I would hope that if the property is suitable for development, if it's suitable for housing, that even if they don't reach the benchmark, that we continue to keep our eye on the ball of what potentially else could go there. But I think that it's adequate to have a milestone in writing that describes key points or properties get reverted back to us because we have a history of saying yes to less than market value property disposals and then sometimes like no projects happening.

And the properties language. And the school district is, you know, in my mind, one of those holders of land where schools were going to be built, and, you know, and we're still getting back some of that property. So thank you for the discussion. Thank you for the clarification. And I think my— I can support this today, but I appreciate the milestones to advance development.

Thank you. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. Uh, it is to approve AO 2026-133. And how does the youth member vote? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, uh, AO 2026-133 passes the body unanimously. Um, next we will move on to item 14N. That is AO 2026-135. An ordinance reauthorizing the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, and the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Hydropower to execute and enter into 3 agreements pertaining to the municipal public water supply and the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Program. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward if you wish to testify.

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

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Park to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin Day. Ms. Park, would you like to speak to it?

Okay, next in the queue I have Mr. Perez-Verdia. Thank you, Chair. I paused because I am— was there a work session on this that I missed?

I do not believe there was. Okay, I'm, um, I'm concerned that, um, I'm not sure, um, we're voting on something we fully understand, or at least I fully understand. Um, and so I, I'm not necessarily wanting to have that conversation tonight, but this is a— this has a long history, um, that, um, I would hate to make a misstep at this point with. Um, and so I'd like to, I'd like to make sure we have some time to look at this and have some conversation around it. So I would encourage the mover to withdraw their motion and allow us to move to postpone to give us an opportunity to have a work session on this.

So before we do anything further, I see Ms. Gardner in the queue, and I think she may be able to illuminate some issues here. Thanks. Thank you. Through the chair, uh, so these are agreements that the assembly has actually considered, had work session, at least one work session on, and voted on before. So you might recall that in December of 2025, these came before the assembly, and they were approved with certain conditions, uh, that were in the ordinance language itself, in the uncodified, um, ordinance language.

And so they're coming back. They're substantially the same. They're effectively the same agreements, some minor wording differences that are not substantive, but the main change is that now they would be coming back before the Assembly for approval without those additional conditions. And that is explained in the accompanying memorandum, but the agreements themselves have not really changed.

Right. Can I just respond? There's also a public presentation on the, the hydropower Isn't that coming up this weekend? Or—. Yeah, it's next week.

Is it not next week? Let me just ask this question. What is the— is there a risk? Is there any debt down— is there anything wrong with postponing? Is there—.

Is that to delay something? Is that going to create a problem? Can you give us a sense of what a delay of a couple of weeks would do to this? Through the chair, there is a report that are the co-owners of the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, have due to the governor, and they have been delaying that to see if the assembly will authorize— will approve these agreements. I will say when these came before the assembly in December of 2025, we had— the municipality had amended them and had redlined them and incorporated edits that provide for if pumped storage hydro power is the alternative that is ultimately selected, these would not actually go into effect.

And those provisions are still in there. And in fact have been strengthened. So they do not have an impact on or they wouldn't have any— create any risk to the pump storage hydro process or any other effort that's underway. But there is, I think, there is some time sensitivity to them. They were introduced, I think, 2 meetings ago and held over to this meeting.

So maybe just ask the answer to the question more and more directly. What would a 2-week delay do?

It would delay a report that I believe was due in early October to the governor. And then it does create some potential risk for litigation to force— ultimately potentially force a connection.

And if I can offer some additional information, or at least I know we have another person in the queue. So I, I am aware that Ms. Scout and Ms. Baldwin Day have been been tracking this more closely, working with the project team. So I wonder if, um, uh, Miss Scout might also have some illumination on this. Yeah, yeah, I can share a bit about this, although I will say I do welcome a 2-week delay, um, because I was concerned that we, um, weren't able to bring this in front of our colleagues, and I wasn't able to get this on the, um, agenda for the Energy Committee in time, so I apologize for that.

My—. Yeah, so I welcome a 2-week delay is my main point. My understanding of the updates here are simply to adjust for the current reality of where we are in negotiations. It sounds like there will be a forced connection anyways. And so it's a question of whether we do it on our terms or if we enter into litigation.

And, um, Municipal Attorney Gardner, you're welcome to correct me on that, but that's my assessment of the situation. So it really, um, I don't believe that this ordinance changes any outcomes substantially. It just allows us to move forward more on our terms and rather than being called into the court.

Any further comments, Mr. Persaudia? No, it looks like there's others in the queue though, correct? Yeah, I just like to hear from others, so I'll relinquish the speaking space. Okay, so then next I'll move to Miss Scout. I know you were answering questions, but if you have additional comments you wanted to add, or if that was that was it.

No, I, um, wanted to speak to those concerns because I assumed they would come up. So thanks. Okay, and then next I see, um, Miss Gardner in the queue again. Uh, thank you. Through the chair, I did want to mention that we did preview this in the July 16th, uh, formerly IEUOC committee meeting and did explain this approach and signal that it would be coming before the body.

So happy to answer any further questions right now that members may have. But again, the agreements themselves are the same. It's merely the lifting of a condition that has become obsolete and is now not useful to remain in there. And I will mention that AWU's assistant general manager is here and can speak to the importance of these agreements to AWU because one of the three of them does secure our long-term public water supply. We are currently operating under a short-term extension that goes through next fall.

And this would replace it with a significantly better contract that secures our water rights in the long term.

Okay. Next, I have Mr. Handeland. Thanks. I would echo my kind of colleagues' sentiment to have a little bit more time with this. So I will move that we postpone this to a time certain of the November 4th assembly meeting.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Handeland to postpone this item to the meeting of November 4th, second by, uh, Ms. Park.

Uh, do you want to speak to it further, Mr. Handeland? Nope.

Okay, Ms. Park, do you want to speak to the postponement? Yes, actually I was going to withdraw my motion and move to, to, uh, hear this at a time certain, so So, okay, that's—. Yeah, Amanda Clark can just take it to kind of the procedure. So our code talks about, um, well, a motion to postpone can be a main motion or it can be a subsidiary motion, and it's in the way it's functioning right now, it's a subsidiary motion. So, um, it would— we are postponing it if you vote on this to November 4th, and then when we get to the 4th, there will be a motion on the floor to approve.

So that you can move right into debate.

Okay, any further comment on the postponement? Okay, no, thank you. Okay, next, Mr. Martinez, on the postponement. I was just going to ask if that was enough time. I mean, considering the request is to have a pause to dig into it more, is the first meeting of November enough time?

And I'm not sure who can answer that question. Yeah, I think—. Maybe the scheduling of— maybe it's a scheduling question, Chair. Yeah, I think in terms of scheduling, I know we do have a tight timeframe, but I think we can find time if necessary certainly to do a briefing on this. I think the timing of committee meetings is probably— they won't line up properly, but we could do a work session.

So yeah, I think that— don't look at that as a barrier. Barrier to how we move forward. Thank you, Chair. Okay, and then the queue is frozen, but I could see at that point in time Miss Baldwin Day was next in the queue for postponement. Yeah, thank you.

Um, so I, I'm curious what the hoped-for, uh, what the hope for outcome of an additional work session to consider might be, and is there a thought that we might be substantively changing these agreements in some way?

Question for the mover and the second.

Yeah, so, um, question for the folks moving the postpone. I think it was Mr. Handeland and Ms. Park. Do you have further comments on that? Yeah, I mean, I, I mean, I've got a couple questions kind of on this, and I've, uh, me being a new member, want to kind of fully understand it. Before we're making some decisions and kind of just hearing from my colleagues on it and not wanting to belabor the point was kind of the purpose of it, of if people aren't ready to decide on this, let's do it and move on with the rest of our business.

And hopefully the 2 weeks doesn't cause too much of an issue there.

Yeah. So I, I appreciate that. I think for my part, and I realize that I've been a bit closer to this issue than the rest of the folks on the dais, and I absolutely think it's worth everyone being really familiar with, you know, the interplay between our hydropower utility, Chugach State Park, Matanuska State Park, and so on, that we have in fact We have in fact voted on these agreements once before in December of last year. And the terms that this body chose to include related to a pending case before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska with respect to the voting rights or the distribution of voting rights among the partners, that being AHP, MEA, and CEA. And at that time, we were hopeful that there could be some negotiation and that CEA and MEA would be supportive of our desire to have or to retain at least a partial vote, a partial say-so in the operations.

That, as Ms. Gardner pointed out, is now moot. That case is no longer before the RCA. And so these are fundamentally the same agreements that were negotiated in 2024. Before. We're just bringing them back around because the condition that we placed on them prior is no longer possible.

It's no longer effective. And so I appreciate that there's a desire to want to understand the contents here, and I'm sort of agnostic on the prospect of postponement. But I think it is— these, these three agreements, I mean, they are fairly thick, uh, have gone through a fairly significant process through the Department of Law, with AWU, with our hydropower director. And so, um, I, I guess I'm a little torn as to whether— I mean, if we don't intend to add additional conditions to these agreements, I, I'm not sure that postponing approval of this item is necessary to get to the level of clarity that we're all looking for. Um, again, if we intend to add new conditions, okay, sure, great.

But if we believe that these, you know, moving these agreements forward as originally envisioned is in the best interest of the municipality, I think there might be other opportunities to get caught up on the ins and outs of this whole very convoluted situation that we find ourselves in with respect to pump storage hydropower, the portal valve option, all of these sort of moving parts.

So I guess I put that out there to say a little— I'm kind of agnostic on postponement, but if we don't intend to make changes, perhaps there is a pathway to go ahead and do the approval tonight and then maybe have a more fulsome update on the Eklutna Hydropower Project as part of the Energy Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee in the future. Thank you.

Okay. I see Ms. Gardner, did you want to make further comments? Sorry, I'm trying to track the queue. The queue was frozen for a while. It looks like it's back.

So I was just clearing folks out if they had already spoken. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Through the chair, I am curious what additional information members would want on and if it's something that we can discuss tonight or is potentially covered in the AM that's accompanying the ordinance, because we would, you know, like to get these done. I do think, just for some additional background, we do have a legal duty to help the portal valve option go forward if pump storage hydro is not going forward.

And so there was a governor's order in fall of October of 2024 that directed the portal valve option at this location to go forward, barring success of Pump Storage Hydro. And so given that, I think that we could potentially be required to legally provide access, you know, and do some version of these agreements, but on terms that we haven't negotiated, on terms that could be ordered by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska or a court.

And so that's why we have brought these back, because they are a deal that AWU primarily negotiated on behalf of the municipality to protect the municipality's interests and its long-term water supply. I mean, I do want to point you to a couple of paragraphs in the AM for the background that acknowledged the history of these agreements with the assembly, kind of briefly go through it, and explains why the condition, which is is the only difference between what you approved in December of 2025 and what you're being asked to approve now, why the conditions are no longer applicable. Um, so yeah, appreciate if everyone could take a glance at the memorandum, um, and let— maybe share some thoughts on what additional information you would want before the next meeting to help you make a decision.

Okay, next in the queue I have Mr. Johnson on postponement. Yes, thank you, Chair. I, I guess my question, Ms. Gardner, With the 2-week postponement, what risks do we accept more specifically? So these were originally put in, I think, 3 meetings ago, and we had hoped to have them approved or decided on at the following meeting. They were pushed because things have been very busy, but I have been getting very steady contact from our counterparts on the other side asking about what's going on.

And as I think I think many of you know there is a, what I'll call, low level of trust between these particular entities and the Assembly when it comes to this issue. And I think that delaying another 2 weeks introduces more uncertainty and does not assist with that trust issue and does risk having these agreements go away because they aren't something that the other parties are obligated to honor unless until, you know, we are in agreement they're approved for execution and we sign them. So I think that there's the possibility that these could go away and we could end up in the litigation posture on this issue. Again, on terms that we would not choose. I think weighing that potential risk against the other side of this, I suppose the possible benefit that a delay might lead to some sort of substantive revision in our policy, I mean, I think I think for my part that when we don't have any clear direction that would take us different from what is already our current position, you know, when we're asking for the delay, I haven't heard any members suggest that we would come up with something substantively different.

I think weighing that against what feels like the very tangible risk of potential litigation and us perhaps finding ourselves ultimately in a position that feels worse to us the status quo, I think I'm inclined to suggest that we should not delay action on this. Certainly, I think it is reasonable and beneficial if we had a briefing for the members to kind of get up to speed on this, but I think as it stands, I believe we could do that and still approve what's before us tonight. So I would argue, my colleagues, to consider carefully the potential risk that we accept if we postpone action on this.

Okay, next I have myself in the queue. Miss Brawley. Thank you. So, um, I as a member am speaking, uh, in—. I would—.

Against postponement and in favor of passing this tonight, um, with the understanding— I guess I want to— I'm going to kind of put on the table and name 3 different things here. One is there is, as Mr. Perez-Verdia said, there is a long history with this item, those of us who are here, or even if you were not here and you watched from the outside, there was a lot of conflict. There was a lot of really trying to work out what the best agreement was in the municipality's interest, and the fact that the water rights, uh, our water supply issues are tied to this particular thing. So I think that— so that is all true. There is years of public meetings that folks can go to.

There was executive sessions, etc. So I recognize that new members We're not here for that. And so, but that is something that, and I don't recommend going back and digging through every single aspect of that. It was a lot. But anyway, so we're in a better place than we were.

That's one thing. The second thing is this is a big deal. It's obviously it's been going on since 1991. There is a lot of things to unpack here. You know, this pretty much predates, I think, most of us up here.

Maybe, maybe Mr. Perez-Verdia was, maybe you started before this whole discussion started, but I don't I mean, it was not 1991. So that's the second thing. And I think that is something that regardless of what we do tonight, certainly we can make a work session, we can make time in a committee. I think there— it is worthy to catch folks up to where we are. So, so let's plan on doing that regardless of what happens.

The third thing, though, is I want to underscore this is tied to our water supply agreement. And so I don't want to lose sight of the fact that it is not that we should just pass something for the sake of that. But I think this has been thoroughly vetted. I am not— I don't know what a material change to this would be that would not also require probably renegotiation or whatever it would be. You know, if we amend this, then it does have other implications.

And so I really encourage folks that I don't think we should— excuse me— we shouldn't postpone this tonight. Sorry, let me restate that. We should not postpone this tonight, in my opinion. But certainly the larger issue and the larger kind of history or current status of this project and where we are is certainly worthy of further discussion. Some of it may also need to happen in executive session, and so if and when we do that, that would not be a work session, but we can come to that issue when we come to it.

So those are my comments. Next, I see Mr. Perez-Verdia on postponement. Yeah, so I just have a few questions I think that would— might maybe help me. It says in here, however, the package of negotiated terms offered by the three agreements remains favorable to the municipality. So the remains favorable, you're saying that there were no substantive changes from the previous version.

Is that correct? Or no, what you would consider material changes? That is correct. So the versions that the assembly approved almost a year ago have not been substantially changed. We have done some minor refining on the effective date of these.

So once they are authorized and executed, we have done refining with the, with Chugach State Park on exactly when they would go into effect. And one of the things that we have been working out is like, by the time any construction starts, they have to be in effect, right? We want the water supply agreement to be in effect by the time anything out at Eklutna that affects AWOO is touched. So the— and we have put in some additional flexibility actually for AWOO to further protect its infrastructure. But in terms of material terms, they have not changed.

Changed. We have made some additional flexibility that can be invoked at EWU's request and only at EWU's request. And again, Allison Lang is here and can speak in more detail to the importance for EWU if someone would like to ask. Primarily in terms of timing and dates, nothing in terms of the rights of either party have changed? No.

OK. And then the second question I have is, just so I understand this, If the pump storage hydropower alternative is selected, these agreements would not become effective. But if the pump storage hydro is selected, then the Fish and Wildlife would proceed to make— that these are— so one question is why? Why would these become not effective if they chose the first choice?

Through the chair, so currently there is essentially what I'll call Plan A. For the Fish and Wildlife Plan, and that is the program that was approved by the governor. But the governor approved it with a condition of you should also study pumped storage hydropower. And if pumped storage hydropower is going to go— is, you know, promising and I approve it, then that will do that one instead. So I'll call it Plan A and Plan B.

So right now, these are— all these agreements were designed and negotiated as a package to effectuate Plan A. But if Plan B is selected, which would happen in about about it next fall. I think October 2027 is the date for the governor to make a final decision if it goes before him. If Plan B is ultimately selected, these agreements would go away because they would have been negotiated to effectuate a plan that is no longer moving forward. So if Plan B is selected, pump storage hydropower, we would then negotiate a new set of agreements.

And so these agreements have a provision saying, hey, if pump storage hydropower goes forward, we hit the brakes on these and we go negotiate something new. That makes sense. So last question. You say in here, and the piece that I'm struggling with is that this is really short and there's not a lot of detail in here, but it says that, it says that if the Fish and Wildlife program proceeds to make use of AWWU's infrastructure, these are good terms for the municipality. Can you give me more information about why these would be good terms?

Sure, and for that I would ask that we call up our AWU expert, if that is okay. Maybe give us some examples of what, what the terms are and why they would be good for us.

Yes, hi everyone, Allison Lang, Assistant General Manager at AWWU. First and foremost, one term that's really favorable to AWWU and the municipality and our ratepayers is that in 2055, AWWU would gain priority water rights. Right now, so we would actually own our water rights, which is a valuable asset to our operations. Right now we have a priority use permit, but we have to pay the hydro owners for our water. Owning that water eliminates an expense that right now all our ratepayers pay, and it also gives us just more the flexibility and privileges that come with ownership.

Um, these agreements, um, are also favorable because in multiple places they give AWU opportunities to weigh in on impacts to our infrastructure. There are going to be— whether we end up with pumped storage hydro or the portal valve, just having water back in the Eagle River is a major change or difference from how AWU has operated for decades.

So these give us opportunities to weigh in on engineering, design, safety, safety. As Municipal Attorney Gardner mentioned, one of the small changes is actually that we've made in the last few months is building in more flexibility around bridges and crossings in a way that favors us at AWU and lets us better protect critical infrastructure. Okay, just, just one last question, then I'll, I'll cede the floor. Um, throughout this process, we have worked, um, in tandem with the Native Village of Eklutna. Can you speak to us about their role in, in this agreement and whether they were consulted and whether they've had a chance to review this?

Thank you. Through the chair, so this particular round of it, no, but there was a meeting prior to when they came before the assembly last December with the administration and perhaps some assembly members. I'm a little fuzzy on the details of exactly who was in attendance, But at the time, the position of the Native Village of Eklutna was, if, you know, prioritization of getting fish actually in the river, but also if this is the path that needs to move forward, this path can move forward. And they did, you know, make clear that this is an acceptable path to move forward if that's what needs to move forward. So in this most recent round, we're not reconsulted.

But prior, the prior version, before it had the conditions attached to it, which were added during the assembly process but not before submission to the assembly, then they were okay with it. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so I've got a couple folks who have already spoken in postponement. Ms. Scout, you have not spoken in postponement, so I'm going to go to you first and then I'll come back through the queue.

Um, I'm not speaking to the postponement directly, so I'm happy to Okay, yeah, if you want to put yourself—. If you put yourself back in the queue, then I'll— I won't click you out of there. Okay, next, Mr. Handeland. I can, uh, rescind my motion here to postpone. We've been kind of getting into the discussion, um, thus far.

It sounds like members want to vote on this, uh, today, so I'll rescind my motion.

Okay, so, uh, the motion to postpone then has been withdrawn, so we're back now on the underlying motion, which was the motion to approve. And then I'll check again. Ms. Park, did you want to speak to it? Thank you. Um, just to clarify, uh, Ms. Gardner, what I think I'm hearing when, when we're told that the situation remains favorable, uh, for the muni, but that there are issues of trust, that makes me think perhaps that status of being favorable is fluid.

And, um, is that, is that what I'm hearing from you? Uh, through the chair, not exactly. I think the, the remain favorable language means even with the condition lifted, even without the condition that the assembly had put on this of requiring cooperation from Chugach State Park in our pending litigation on voting rights, even without that, this is a favorable deal for the municipality. Um, trust is if these are approved and executed, trust is less of an issue because we will then have a contractual relationship and the terms will have been set. Thank you.

Okay, sorry, next, uh, Miss Scout, go ahead. Yeah, just quickly, I wanted to put a finer point on this based on the discussion we've had. My understanding, the main change here is that we have lost the negotiation power about voting rights with Chugach and MEA, but we are very vigorously pursuing that in litigation. And so it's really just, we're still fighting for this, we're just taking it out of this specific document so that we can move forward on the connection and not say it's contingent, not make it contingent on something we're pursuing in court as well. And so I think, again, we're getting to the same objectives here, just in different routes.

And I would be happy— I will put this— plan to put this on the agenda for the upcoming Energy Committee meeting, and, um, we can revisit it, I believe. Then, okay, next, Mr. Handeland. Yeah, thanks. So yeah, my question was kind of on the voting rights, and that was kind of my main kind of hang up with this. And so I've got a question for Eva, um, With this, with our, with the voting rights, I know that that looks like that's still going through a continued appeal, and so whether we pass this or which, because it sounds like we're stripping that portion out, we're not, I guess, ceding our, I guess, assertion that, that we as a municipality still feel that we have voting rights with this, correct?

Through the chair, yes, that's That's correct. So at the time this originally came, or 2025 came before the assembly, we were in litigation before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska on the voting rights issue. We had filed to regain our voting rights, and the condition was placed on to try to convince and leverage these agreements to have Chugach State Park support our voting rights application, and they declined to do that. We lost before the RCA. We moved to reconsideration, and then we appealed we consolidated it with our previous effort to regain voting rights.

So we now have two consolidated appeals from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska on appeal to Alaska Superior Court. Those are going full steam ahead. This does not change that. It just recognizes that, again, this is a good deal for the municipality, especially for AWU and the water supply and managing the impacts of the project on AWU's infrastructure. And so there is no reason not to to go forward with it separate from the voting rights issue, because at this point the condition the assembly had placed on the agreements previously has become obsolete.

There is no procedural mechanism for Chugach State Park to go before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and support our voting rights application. That, you know, situation has expired and morphed into an appeal. But we are fully intending to continue pursuing the voting rights through appeal in Superior Court and the Alaska Supreme Court if necessary. Okay. And then just follow-up question, and if you don't want to answer it, cause you don't want it in a public setting, feel free.

But I guess what is, I guess, the assertion from the other side on why they feel that the municipality should not have these voting rights? Through the chair, that is a complicated— there's some complicated answers, and I would say we've seen a range of arguments. I think that the one that is currently leading in the issue that we lost on before the regulatory commission is that the RCA found that at the time the municipality surrendered its voting rights at the time of the MLNP sale, that it did so for a minimum term of 35 years. And we are appealing on— Chugach State MIA supported that interpretation, which was not the understanding of anyone involved at the time. We have some of them in the room here, but we appealed because that is an— we believe that's an incorrect interpretation.

Of the original surrender. And I will say, after we appealed, there was a dissenting opinion from 2 of the 5 commissioners that supported our view. So we are in a, you know, as good a position as we could be on appeal, having lost before the RCA. But it's a disagreement over the terms of the original surrender of the voting rights, which was done as a condition of the MLNP sale, because at the time we didn't have a qualified operator running Anchorage Hydro Power Utility. Okay, thank you.

2,000. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, um, and then again, I will say regardless of the outcome of this vote, um, uh, it sounds like we'll have discussion about this at a committee meeting, and then if there is desire to have a work session or if we need to be briefed in executive session on legal matters, then I will certainly schedule that as needed. So with that, members may proceed to vote. And how does the youth representative vote?

—Yes. Yeah, sorry, uh, so just for clarity, this is the motion to approve AO 2026-135. Uh, the motion to postpone was rescinded, so this is the underlying motion.

Okay, and I'm seeing a yes. Is that correct? Okay, youth member votes yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, item, uh AO 2020-6135 passes the body unanimously. And as noted, expect this general discussion or this topic to come up at future meetings and/or work sessions. So next we will move on to item 15A, and I will note briefly that because this is an alcohol, alcohol or marijuana item, we will ask the youth representative to briefly step away. But because we aren't done with our business and it is not quite late enough, then you can come back. So if you want to just wait in the hall.

Thank you. Okay. So we will be opening the hearing. So this is AR-2026-293, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating its conditional protest regarding the transfer of ownership of package store licenses 264-660-239— or sorry, 2386 and 3793 for Circle K Stores, Inc., DBA Circle K. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by Miss Scout, second by Mr. Perez-Verdia.

Miss Scout, would you like to speak to it? No. Okay, um, I'm— uh, Miss Baldwin Day, go ahead. Thank you. I do have, I think, a related question.

I understand that there's been some pretty significant public concern about a variety of Circle K locations and the fashion in which they are conducting business and how some of that is potentially contributing to problematic behavior. On the part of some of our residents. And I'm curious if there have been any conversations or discussions among members or representatives from the administration and Circle K leadership or Holiday leadership about some of those public concerns. I think that's germane to this item.

Okay. I'll invite someone from the administration to speak to this. And then I would also note, so just for everyone's reference, There is a— on the actual resolution, there is the list of 4 licenses and their locations. So, Mr. Doehl, maybe you could also specify if your discussions were relating to any of those locations, just for clarity. Thank you.

Through the chair, in collaboration with Member Park, there have been ongoing meetings with Circle K about conditions at some of their stores. The 4 on this application have not been those that have created issues that needed to be addressed in those meetings. We have had constructive discussions with them at addressing the issues at other ones, so at the corporate level.

Thank you. That's, that's good news. I understand that each store has been operating with slightly different parameters depending on their management and leadership. And so I'm grateful to hear that those conversations are happening. Thank you.

Thanks. And I have myself in the queue briefly. Ms. Brawley. Thank you. Yeah, and I was certainly also concerned when I saw this item, wondering where the locations were given these other discussions.

And I really appreciate the follow-up and work from my colleagues and— or colleague, at least— and administration. One thing I'll also note here, this is a conditional protest. So it's a statement to the State of Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control Board regarding transfer of ownership. And those are— I can't speak to this particular item's transfer transfer of ownership. It doesn't mean that the location is changing.

It doesn't mean that it's selling, or at least if it's— in this particular case, it's not a full sale. And there are certain requirements in state statute and in our code regarding having to go through this whole process when you do an ownership change. And so these are not uncommon to see. So just to note that as well. And there's opening a new license, transferring a location, or selling a license.

There's other things that often trigger a lot more discussion or that can trigger operational changes. So I just wanted to note for members in the public, um, that these things can be arcane to read, um, but when you see transfer of ownership and conditional protest, um, often these are really more, I guess, an elaborate version of paperwork, um, unless they are fully selling ownership. So just for everyone's clarity, thank you. And next, I see Ms. Park in the queue. Thank you, Chair.

Um, I guess to Mr. Dole or Ms. Gardner, do we know what are the nature of the, uh, incidents or violations that led to or gave rise to the conditional protest?

Through the Chair, Bob Dole, we do not know what gave rise to the conditional protest at these locations.

But again, they are different locations than the ones we have been discussing. Through the Chair, these are— Bob Dole again— these are different locations than we have been engaged with Circle K. Thank you.

Um, I could be wrong here, but my read of this when I was looking at this yesterday is that they need a certification from the Anchorage Fire Department. They need an inspection. Oh yeah, sorry, um, sorry, let me briefly recognize, uh, Miss Park had the floor, and then I think— oh no, it's okay. Um, and then I was also going to ask the clerk to speak to, um, this because this is an item, a type of item where licenses are dealt with by the clerk's office. And so, um, the discussions with Circle K have been the administration, but I'm going to defer to the clerk, Ms. Hynes, to describe, um, kind of the nature of this conditional protest.

Thank you. Through the chair, um, certain, um, certifications are required for these through the administration. Um, we get certification from the fire department, um, on their layout, whether or not they have a special land use permit in place, whether their taxes have been paid, um, that land use enforcement and Anchorage Health Department and Anchorage Police Department have signed off. And in this particular case, the certification had not been received from the fire department as of the date that we had to have this submitted to the agenda. And so, um, this conditional protest, um, holds this in a conditional protest pattern until we receive that from the fire department.

And then once we get that from the fire department, I have the authority in Section 3 to, um, release the conditional protest and let it move forward. And, um, very often we get the final items from the time that the packet is published until tomorrow. So she ultimately will probably tomorrow send a letter to AMCO letting them know that we approve of the transfers.

Okay, any further question, Miss Gallet? Okay.

Ms. Park. Thank you. To Madam Clerk, I guess, is this the type of action that could be postponed to a time certain?

Postponing this— so we have 60 days from the date of receipt from Amco. So we received these applications on August 31st, and so the last day that you guys have to file a protest is October 30th, and so this is the last meeting before that. If they do not receive anything from us, then we essentially waive, waive our right to comment on it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll just note, these are— anything really regarding state licensing has its own timeline that we're participating in versus our local licensing. Licensing. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. And then I'll note the youth representative is out of the room, so I'm not asking for their vote at this time.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-293 passes the body unanimously. So, um, next we are going to roll up to our agenda. So I will also note, um, I know we've got a whole stack of amendments for item 11B, so my intent right now is to, um, uh, there's a little bit of business to deal with 11A that we can explain shortly, so I'm going to suggest that we, uh, take care of 11A, and again, we'll speak to it shortly. I guess the very short version is we need to reopen the public hearing, so we'll get to why that is. So, so if there's any expectation we're voting on that tonight, that's not really possible.

We'll get to that in a second. And then after that, we were going to take a few minutes break so folks can step, step away, look at amendments, because I know that once we move into the debate, there's a lot of things to digest. So that is the plan as of right now. And so that also means we have gotten through all but one of our public hearing items. So everything else in the 11s is a closed public hearing at this point.

So next, let us move to item 11A. That is AO-2026-93, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly enacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.100, Tax Incentives for Mixed Use Multi-Unit Housing. Before I open the public hearing, I'm going to read— I believe it's probably on the printer, so it will get to us shortly, but I'll read the title into the record because it's in our email. There is an S-1 version being laid on the table. It is supplemental.

So I will just read. That's AO 2026-93-S1, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage— sorry, Anchorage Municipal Code Title 12 to enact a new Chapter 12.100, provide tax incentives for mixed-use multi-unit housing, and to clarify or modify other existing tax exemptions for housing and residential units in multi-family or mixed-use properties. So that title has been read into the record. I will note that is a substantive change in the title. Uh, so I'm going to, uh, so that there is no public hearing, I'm going to turn to Mr. Volland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to reopen the public hearing and set it for the regular meeting of November 17th. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Volland to reopen the public hearing on this item with its associated S versions and set that public hearing for the regular meeting of November 17th. Second by Erin Baldwin Day.

Do you want to speak to it further? Sure, I'll just say this was at the request of the administration And as you described, there's, there's a substantive title change on this newest version that has come forward. There's also, between some of the versions, the way that they touch code, a significant enough difference between the versions that there is a need to reopen the public hearing, as you've stated. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Handeland. Yeah, I was just wondering if there is a planned work session at all for this, um, in the future?

Uh, thank you. There, to my knowledge, there is not one scheduled, um, so there— so that certainly if we go until the 17th, um, there's certainly time to make, to make room for that, um, including on November 6th, which is an assembly work session on budget but does not take the entire time. Another option is to discuss this at a committee meeting, but either way, there is not something scheduled, but this would allow time to get it scheduled.

And Ms. Baldwin Day. Yeah, thank you. So I— apart from the changes that my colleagues see in the S version, the S-1 version also applies this exemption to properties that are developed in mixed use that are rentals as opposed to ownership models. And that again touches a different part of code which necessitates a change in reopening the public hearing.

I'm curious if my colleague is interested in a work session that would focus specifically on that, or if there is another piece of the S version that they're hoping will be addressed in a work session format or in committee. Thanks. And I think that was a question for Mr. Handeland. So if you have specific items or just in general No, I was just kind of curious, just schedule-wise. Okay, thank you.

Um, any further discussion? Miss Baldwin Day? Yeah, I think I just wanted to understand if, um, if there was a specific set of questions, or if a work session format or a committee format was the, the most effective way to deal with member questions, or if there was another potentially more expedient and less time-consuming way to get that done. Happy to hear comments from others.

Okay. So— sorry, I lost my train of thought for a second. So also note, just for the record to be clear, so there's this new version that is expanding some pieces, but regardless— even if the new version— or I should say, even if we had not had a new version and there was only an S version, we still would have been required to reopen the the hearing, there was a technical error in the S version that we didn't catch back in September, and so that's why— so either way, I think certainly opportunities to discuss this in the future. We can talk offline about what that would look like in terms of format. As the chair, I'm always happy to direct things to committee if it's not a work session.

So, okay, any further discussion on this? Okay, then I will ask, is there any objection? Oh, sorry, Mr. Martinez, go ahead. Just make sure for the record, Chair, that I think this would be a good conversation for the housing and community economic development committee for November 5th. Okay, yeah, I think that is a great candidate.

So we will, um, I'll leave that to the committee chairs to schedule, but that seems like an acceptable time. And.

Okay, sorry. So, uh, then with all that said, um, is there any objection to this motion, which is to 1, reopen the public hearing, and 2, set it to the meeting of November 17th?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, then we will consider the public hearing on AO 2026-93S, uh, original version S and S1, for the meeting of November 17th, and we will look at scheduling some time to discuss that in the meantime. So with that, we will take a 10-minute break. It's 8:55, so we'll come back at 9:05. And I'll also remind members in the public, we have a number of amendments. They're in your email.

I believe they're probably on the printer getting printed, and so that'll give chance— folks a chance to step away and take a look. Thank you.

It looked just how he always wore them back in high school or college days. So much time has passed since those old times, but nothing changes him today. What do you mean by "nothing"? Don't tell us your life story right now. We'll get through all these interviews later tonight after our show ends, okay?

Okay guys, let's go ahead and wrap up filming for today. Thank you everyone who joined along online during live chat section 1A. As usual, thank you both once more for joining us. Please stay tuned tomorrow morning because next week will be another exciting episode of Behind Closed Doors Live Showdowns featuring two amazing actors named Ryan O'Connell and Sarah Lynn Morrissey. See ya soon everybody!

Bye-bye!

Okay, let's call ourselves back to order. So this— we are moving on. We are on— well, I should say we have two items left on our agenda. The second item, 13B, we may or may not get to tonight. We'll We'll deal with that when we get there.

But before that, we will deal with Ordinance AO-2026-108. I'm going to read the title again, and then I'm going to offer just a couple orientation comments in terms of process, and then we'll go from there. So this is Ordinance AO-2026-108, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly repealing and replacing Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.02— sorry, 102. And amending AMC Section 7.15.040 to clarify existing restrictions on surveillance technology and establish new restrictions on automated license plate reader systems. I will note that there is an S version and an S1 version that makes substantial changes to that title.

I'm not going to read those all into the record. There are also some information memorandums and other items. Public hearing on this was closed. And then the other thing I will note, just for folks in the public and for members, so we have, as I said, there's an S version, an S1 version. There are also a number of amendments.

And so those are available if you're in the room on paper there at the front of the clerk's office or the clerk's dais there. And so I'll just note that there is a package of them stapled, and there is one additional amendment on its own, just so that we're clear. And then I'll also ask members, when you are moving amendments, to be clear which one you are referring to. So please use the, the last name or sponsor's names as well as the number, just so that— because there's a lot of them to keep track. And then the last thing I will say is just a reminder that we do not have an infinite stack of amended, uh, amendment motions possible.

And so a motion to substitute with one version or another is also an amendment. It allows for additional amendment to the amendment of that, but we cannot go deeper than that. So just in terms of process, just reminding folks for that, because I imagine this could get a little complicated. So with all of that said, as I said, the public hearing on this item is now closed. There is—.

One second.

Correct. There is no motion on the floor. So what is the will of the body? Move the S version. Second.

I heard a motion by Mr. Vohland to move the S version, second by Ms. Silvers. Is that correct? Okay, so there's a motion to move the S version, second by Ms. Silvers. Mr. Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, so I think what we should do in the interest of time is get to some of these amendments. I will say, um, I believe all but one of these amendments was previewed at a work session that we had on proposed assembly member amendments to this item.

Um, with that, I'm going to move Brawley Amendment Number 2. Second. Okay, there's a motion, uh, by Mr. Volland to move Brawley Amendment 2, second by Miss Scout. Mr. Volland. Thank you.

So this to me is the most important amendment, and without it, I don't think I can support the S version. I moved to the S version because my sense is that is the platform that some of my colleagues prefer to work off of, and the mayor has stated that it's her preference as well. Um, I do want to thank the municipal attorney for working with myself and my co-sponsors on the original version, members McCormick and Scout. Um, I think we almost got to a place of agreement where we felt like we could endorse this S version, but there were a couple sticking points, and this to me is really the one that I need to, to be able to see move forward in order for me to support the underlying item. And that is the requirement that no, no municipal agency may share surveillance data for a known purpose that would be prohibited if undertaken directly by the municipality under this chapter, unless required by law, judicial warrant, or court order.

I have another amendment later on that I will likely move that ratchets that up a little bit and requires a warrant, a judicial warrant to even do an ALPR search.

You know, I really think this one is an effort to strike that balance between public safety, have— letting law enforcement use a tool that can be valuable, but preventing an unlawful search and seizure, preventing an abuse of someone's constitutional right to privacy. There was a recent court case United States v. Kyle.

And members, I think, will have seen some information about this that I requested be circulated via our alleged services team.

But I think essentially in that case, a judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled— this was on October 1st— 2026, that law enforcement's warrantless search of historical automated license plate reader data violated the Fourth Amendment.

What happened is that a Tulsa County deputy sheriff ran an out-of-state license plate on Melissa Susan Kyle's SUV through ALPR networks.

That single query generated more than 50 location sightings that tracked Ms. Kyle's movements across multiple states over a 30-day period.

The judge suppressed the resulting evidence, describing the multi-week, multi-state digital reconstruction of travel history as a form of indiscriminate mass surveillance that breached a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So the other thing, the sort of interesting layer to this case is that it was a drug trafficking case, and I think we've heard the mayor say, you know, we need to be able to have law enforcement— Point of order.

What's your point of order, Mr. Pritchard? I'm struggling to understand where this is going related to the the motion. Can you help us bring this back to what you're— the amendment to—. That requires a warrant? Yeah.

Okay, so yeah, it's a long story. I'm losing you, so I'm just trying to understand what the point is. I'm speaking to a recent court case that found that using ALPR surveillance violated constitutional rights to privacy, and okay, and so this amendment would require, would have a prerequisite that in order for the municipality to share surveillance data, that there be a judicial warrant, or unless required by law or court order. And so, and the reason I think this is important is because the other layer to that court case is that that drug trafficking case was not able to move forward. That evidence was actually not able to be used despite the fact that they found— they used that ALPR search to find that this Ms. Kyle was in possession of meth.

And so I think without a warrant, there are multiple pitfalls that the municipality may fall into. One is violating someone's constitutional right to privacy. Another would be litigation and, and potentially expense incurred by the municipality as part of that litigation. The third is that this is an example of where actually what may happen if someone does commit a crime but you do a search without a warrant, and then that evidence is not able to be used. So not having a clear purpose for utilizing this technology can actually be detrimental to the public safety goals of the municipality, and it may actually result in people who did a crime walking free.

So all that to say, I hope that we can support this amendment. You know, some of the other ones I think we can have discussion on, and if, you know, they don't pass, they don't pass. But I think this is really important in protecting both the municipality and the rights of our residents. Thank you. Thanks.

And I'll note, I'm going to run through the queue if you intend to stay in for the main then I won't click you out of there. But Mr. Handeland, on the amendment. Yeah, just a question to the administration, uh, on this. Uh, sounds like this was discussed between you and the sponsors of the S, or the, the original version there. Is there— what is the, I guess, reason why you guys chose not to include this in your guys's version?

Uh, through the chair, thank you for the question. This precise amendment actually was not discussed in that original conversation. This is an amendment that was put forth by Member Brawley at the work session last week. And what this does is clarify the S version has multiple circumstances where it says you can't share— APD, you can't share data with another agent, with anyone, except in these limited circumstances, unless you have a duty to do it by law, unless required by law, warrant, or court order. And this makes a good edit to that, and actually just adds the word judicial before the word warrant to make clear that the warrant has to be be one from a court, not just, you know, any warrant from, you know, like the EPA, an administrative warrant from the EPA, for example.

So really making clear, it's like you have to have a real legal, like, court-ordered obligation to— before you share this data for other purposes that we don't otherwise approve, just to clarify the strength of the legal obligation. So this amendment is one that, that we do support. Okay, that was my next question. So you could— there's no objection from, from the administration on this? No, this is—.

Okay, thanks. I would urge my colleagues in supporting it as well then. Thanks. Next, Ms. Silver is on the amendment.

Yeah, I was just going to say I would consider this one a friendly amendment and would welcome your support. Thank you.

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

Oh, sorry, and the youth representative votes, and this is again on amendment, Brawley Amendment 2. Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, uh, that Brawley Amendment 2 passes unanimously.

Sorry, one second, I need to confer with the client.

Okay, sorry, we're conferring about order of speaking. Next I have in the queue Mr. Voland.

Okay. Yeah, I think— so what we are conferring about, just for clarity, is, you know, we have the general rule that members can speak twice to each item. I know there is a number of amendments, some of which are sponsored by multiple folks. So— When you— sorry, one second. Okay, sorry, so just for clarity, we are making sure there is a distinction between speaking to something substantively versus making a motion.

And so just Okay, sorry, so back to Mr. Voland. Yes, thank you, Chair, for that clarification. Um, I move, uh, Amendment Number 4 in the packet from myself and members McCormick and Scout. Okay, there's a motion to move Amendment Number 4, uh, that is one by, uh, McCormick, uh, Voland, and Scout. Uh, is there a second to that motion?

Folks are talking to it. Second. Second by Miss Scout. Please proceed, Mr. Bowen. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So this one just removes some language in the S version regarding the suspension of use.

In the, in the S version, the municipal agency has to have had knowingly, materially, and consistently violated this chapter, um, dot dot dot, or failed to take reasonable remedial action after identifying a knowing material violation of the chapter in order for the assembly to suspend use of technology.

For me, I just, I feel like that's too high of a bar to allow the assembly to temporarily suspend use of technology if there is a violation, if there is an issue.

I think we have an oversight role as a body, and if there is a violation of the rest of the guardrails around the use of this technology, that violation may happen on accident, but I think that might be a time for us to hit pause and say, hey, actually, something, you know, we need to fix something. We need to shore something up. Let's put this technology on pause until we fix whatever caused that. You know, it could have been something, I guess, purposeful and insidious. You know, in other jurisdictions, for instance, law enforcement officers have been found guilty of using technology to track, you know, former romantic partners.

For instance. But it also could just be, you know, that there was a tech issue and information got shared when it shouldn't have. And that might, you know, be a time to say, you know, this happened by accident, but in order to restore public trust, we need to make sure that it won't happen again. And until that issue is fixed, we're going to say, hey, we're not going to use this right now. This doesn't— and this came up in the work session too— this is not punitive.

It doesn't have any penalties for a violation of the chapter. It just says the assembly as a body, essentially by resolution, we can suspend a municipal agency's use of the surveillance technology.

So yeah, I guess, you know, an oopsie could have detrimental effects, just like somebody doing something on purpose, and may cause us to want to reevaluate things. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, uh, Miss Scout on the amendment.

Thank you. Um, echoing Vice Chair Volland, I believe that this language creates too high of a bar— knowingly, materially, and consistently. Um, With the technology of this power, the actions that we take and the way that it's used should always be done knowingly. And so, you know, as the assembly acts as the oversight body for this and really every department in the municipality, we need to think about the bars that we're establishing and the powers that we hold and the responsibility we have to the public to ensure that this technology is used responsibly and in the way that it's intended. And so, yeah, this is an amendment that I feel strongly about.

I believe this language creates extremely large loopholes that basically any violation of this policy, somebody could say, I didn't know I was doing it, oopsie. Um, and I don't want to create that option. I believe, um, we can do better than that. So I urge my colleagues' support. Thank you.

Okay, next, Miss Silvers on the amendment.

Um, I have a question. I guess this would be for the municipal attorney. Uh, do we need this entire section that this amendment exists in for the assembly, uh, to suspend, uh, any policy at any given time? Um, or does the assembly have the power to suspend policy at any time for any reason, uh, including some of the policies that we're discussing here?

Uh, through the chair, I know the assembly could do this by ordinance at any time.

And, um, on this section here, the, the language is may. So does anything in this section require the assembly to suspend any technology if there's a material— even if there's a material violation? Through the chair, no, it would be at the assembly's discretion. Okay. So basically what I'm hearing is that really this entire section doesn't serve much purpose except to maybe possibly make contractors wary of doing business with us because it introduces an uncertainty.

Through the chair, I think That is accurate potentially for contractors, but also— although if we have signed a contract, we would probably still be subject to some contractual obligations, because it does say suspending until the violation is— oh, I thought it—.

Yeah. The original version said until the assembly finds the violation cured. So it wouldn't necessarily be a permanent cessation. It would be a suspension until the problem is remedied.

But, but I think that it also introduces uncertainty for departments who want to utilize technology. If they do sign a contract and tie up budget funds for it and staff accordingly, to have the possibility of suspension of the use of technology hanging over their heads even for minor violations seems problematic. So it could be that something in between the two, the S version and this amendment, is appropriate, but I do think that removing any standard so that suspension could occur even for a minor technical— any minor technical violation is problematic.

Okay, thank you. I mean, what I'm hearing is that we have the power to suspend any policy we want at any time for any reason. So I mean, I'm actually kind of tempted to come back to this maybe and bring an amendment to the amendment to remove this section in its entirety since it seems to serve no practical purpose. Thank you.

Okay, next I have Mr. Handeland on the amendment. So just a question, maybe, maybe for the sponsors on this. So this doesn't form, I guess, anything automatically. If we didn't have this provision in and there was some accidental disclosure of data, we would essentially have to go if we wanted to suspend the policy, we would have to essentially go through a brand new ordinance, and so that requires public hearing where we've got to notice it. And so the, the amount of time for the— us as a legislative body to take action is somewhat hindered, uh, versus just doing a resolution.

Maybe this is more for the municipal attorney then. Through the chair, there's a reason we put this in the S version. So the original language prior to the amendment did still retain the suspension provision allowing the assembly, giving a clear pathway for the assembly to do it, and putting departments, right, on notice that it could happen. Um, but we did modify the language. This was originally in the original version of the ordinance from the original sponsors, but we did modify it to make it more practical by including an element where it has to be, you know, consistent, material, and knowing.

Department has to be on purpose essentially flouting the law for the suspension to be triggered, or fail to fix a really bad violation within their department when it comes to their, to their attention. So it does serve a purpose. It does provide a path. It's a more streamlined path than just doing it by ordinance without this pathway in code. But I think that you want to strike the right balance that allows operations to continue without undue uncertainty.

But I mean, I guess it's still, I guess, what this body would, I guess, would determine a violation. If it's, hey, something was accidentally shared in an email or something, that would probably be not something that the, the body is going to sit there and say, hey, we're going to go and suspend everything, uh, for that. I mean, there'd be a hearing, and it sounds like some kind of, kind of process on that. And so it's whatever this assembly or a future assembly essentially would be— would determine of, hey, we, we want to kind of pause the breaks and we want to take a little bit of time to review this, correct? Yes, I would recommend keeping the final language no matter what you do with this provision, until the assembly finds the violation cured in there, because then it's more of a pause instead of just an indefinite suspension.

Okay, maybe that would be a question to the sponsors. Was it their intent to have that portion removed? Yes, question to Mr. Voland-McCormick or Scout. Um, thank you. So I mean, if the administration would rather retain that language until the assembly finds the violation cured, I'd be fine with that.

Yeah, there's a— the intent of this and the purpose of this being in the S version, as I understand it, it's by resolution. The assembly, acting as a body subject to the will of the body, has to pass a majority, um, can suspend the technology by resolution. That is not something that we can currently do in code. It would have to be an ordinance process like you described, Mr. Handeland, which is very different than a resolution. Um, and I, I think we've seen that there's a whole lot of discussion generated when you do something via ordinance.

So yeah, if that is language that the administration finds helpful, to me, you know, what would that look like? Then that would just mean the assembly would pass a secondary resolution, you know, on saying, okay, well, this has been presented to us, the issue is fixed. And then we could say, okay, you can use the technology again. Does that answer your question? Yeah, and I mean, if there's some draft language, I would certainly support, support an amendment to do that.

Okay, well, I have, um, I'm in the queue and I'll stay there for now, but, um, I'll go back to the chair. Okay, next on the amendment, Mr. Perez-Verdia.

I'm not sure what we're doing here. I'm just really concerned by this whole thing. I'll speak specifically to the amendment. But so I don't support this at all. I think that the process of developing good policy, developing good law doesn't happen in this way.

It doesn't happen when administration sits down and works with legal and works with the department and works with us to develop an S version. And then we tweak it on the dais. And so I don't support this. I think there are a lot of unintended consequences that come from tweaking this language on the dais. I think the language that came forward from the administration is reasonable and meets, I think, the original intent that was brought forward by the sponsors.

And I have grave concerns that this is going to create more problems. And so I would prefer that we dispense with this. I'm particularly concerned about the reduction of the assembly finds the violation cured because it leaves it open. That concerns me. It concerns me that knowingly, materially, and consistently is taken out because that creates a clear understanding of of the severity of that violation.

The term was used earlier of a high bar. It should be a high bar before we get involved. We are policymakers and we are oversight body, but we do not get involved in the day-to-day operations of other departments. And so this concerns me because it feels like it's crossing over into managing this department as opposed to being an oversight and policy body. So I would reject this, this, this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Thanks. Okay. Next, I have Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Question for the sponsors.

What is the tool that by which we— the findings are made?

So question for Scott McCormick or Molt. I think findings could arise in several ways. I think you potentially, you could have a whistleblower alert the Assembly to an abuse of this technology. You could have a department themselves say, hey, this happened. You know, and briefly assembly either them or the municipal attorney in executive session.

Yeah, I guess I could envision multiple ways that the, the violation could surface.

The—. Then the assembly would, acting as a body, um, take action and essentially state its position on that finding via resolution.

So what I gather is there's not a standardized mechanism or a standardized tool by which the assembly would be monitoring in real time, essentially, violations of the policy that essentially uses technology in real time. And so, there's, there's, that doesn't make sense to me. Just on the face of it, it seems like there's an element missing to be able to have a regular report of some sort that doesn't rely on a potential whistleblower or a potential random way in, because essentially what that would mean is that we would find out about the violation after the fact. And it would, there would be a violation happening for how long? Essentially, this is what that would lead to.

And I think that that's problematic for two reasons. One, I don't think that The tool, I don't think that the resources for us to have that tool specifically related to this particular body of work is enough. I don't think there's enough value in that pursuit to develop a new tool when this particular body, for example, has not taken similar aggressive approaches toward police oversight in the first place, right? And so we've taken, we've taken some steps away, away back, and we've thought about what does oversight mean, because it's very difficult to do those oversight conversations from the dais. And so we still haven't gotten to a place where some of those lingering questions about civilian oversight, for example, haven't even addressed.

And so And it's not to say that we should have that conversation instead of this one. It's to critique this particular item for what it represents in that way. So I think the tool is problematic, both if we had one, how much resources would we invest into that tool for whatever oversight, standardized oversight. And then on the other side of that particular question around the tool, is also back to the nature of taking action. And what good is stopping something that we can't know about unless there's a mechanism to report regularly?

So it's kind of waiting for the problem to emerge doesn't mean that we're solving or protecting the municipality from the implementation of that problem. On the other side, then I go to Mr. Perez-Verdia's point around process, and I just think to myself, we earlier tonight had a conversation around a task force for— or a workgroup for housing questions. And I wonder about this type of oversight these types of really substantial questions being developed in this forum versus taking a very long, deliberate community process that engages a task force, a working group. And so that— I think about that as a different type of process that potentially leads to an oversight conversation of the larger question. But this amendment flags that for me with respect to the tool and the lack of a tool and, um, and when we find out about problems.

So I think that that's a challenge for me with, with respect to this particular item on the amendment. Um, and I also think it's important that until the Assembly finds a violated— the cure, uh, the violation cure, I think is, is interesting to to really noodle through. And then the last point I'd make is, Member Silver has mentioned the idea that by resolution we already have— this calls for the Assembly may by resolution suspend the agency. By resolution means it usurps all public process, or by resolution means— because I think the question around taking action being delayed If the assembly has the ability to take action without this item today because we found out through open-ended channels that there could have been a violation or that there has in fact been a violation, how would we confirm the violation and then how would we be able to— why would we not be able to take action and why would it delay action if we didn't pass this today considering we have resolution power. So that's to the municipal attorney.

Is there something that I'm missing with respect to if this passes today, any future resolution associated with this item does not have to come before the public? Uh, through the chair, I'll note that the language here does require a public hearing. So it says resolution, but it says upon a finding by the assembly after public hearing, uh, then they would do that. So this does contemplate a public hearing aspect. And I think that there— I will say there is some question about the use of resolution as a mechanism to restrict the executive branch's functioning.

So if you're having a public hearing anyway, I think an amendment that replaced resolution with ordinance wouldn't functionally make a difference necessarily to your process since you are voluntarily— would be voluntarily agreeing to a public hearing anyway on this issue, but would be more secure in terms of a mechanism to move forward. Thank you. So for clarification, I think it was presented earlier, but it was done so fast that I think it was the impression of a presentation that if this passed today and we found the problem, we would have direct line to not have to go to the public and that would save time somehow. I think it was called like, how would we take action and would action be delayed if we saw a problem? And it just— I, I don't see that that's actual.

I see it as all resolutions still have to go through the normal process, and that would require a public hearing. Is that a miss of, uh, the interpretation? Uh, through the chair, I did hear that comment earlier, that characterization earlier, and I think it was overlooking, briefly overlooking, the public hearing requirement that's in the existing language. So this is— I mean, this as drafted would have to go before the public. Okay, so thank you for the clarification then.

This or without this, if we didn't vote this up and we didn't approve this particular amendment, the assembly still has and always retains the power of resolution that goes through the normal process for a public hearing to address any of the issues that this item is focused on in the first place? That's what Member Silver's point was in terms of the redundancy of the tool. Is that, is that a fair characterization of that?

I, I think it is a fair characterization. I think that if the Assembly wants to communicate to the public that it does have an oversight role in this technology, then putting it in code does makes sense, but functionally the process would be similar. I do also want to highlight that this provision in the S is intended to work together with the enforcement provision at the end of the S, which has a process for members of the public who believe that there has been a violation to file complaints that then have to be investigated, and all complaints, whether substantiated or not, have to be reported to the Assembly. And so this provision is intended to be informed by that process. It makes sure the Assembly gets information information about violations or alleged violations, regardless of whether they're, you know, found to be true or not by the department.

But the Assembly will get that information in close to real time, and then we'll get the tools to take further action as needed. And so that's one of the reasons why the standard here was set higher. So the standard is set in the S version at knowing, material, and consistent, right? Has to be a really problematic violation for to trigger this suspension provision. And that's because the Assembly will be getting quite a lot of information about any even alleged violations, so it will have the tools it needs to take action through this or another mechanism if needed.

Last question. Knowing materially and consistently sounds pretty subjective as well. And so again, what are the measures contemplated in this particular amendment and section to be able to determine the problem in the first place? How do we measure that? Through the chair.

And just to clarify, the amendment here, most of the language on the screen is in the S version. So the amendment is just showing me doing the strikethroughs and the strikethroughs and the additions as shown here. So knowingly, materially, and consistently. So in the S version. Because this, this amendment would remove those words, correct?

Okay, got it. So in the S version, knowing is a legal standard. It means you have to, um, you have to be aware that you're engaging in a violation. So it'd be a department is intentionally, like, knowingly violating the restrictions the Assembly has put on it. You have to understand that that's what you're doing, not just, oh, I forgot to, you know, I negligently did this, I didn't realize I doing it.

So that's knowingly. Materially means in a substantial way. So not just, you know, oh, whoops, we were supposed to keep the data for 14 days, but some setting got tripped, and we kept it for 14 days and 30 minutes. I don't know that anyone would think that's a material violation, but that would be a judgment for the Assembly to make, whether something is material or not, based on your interpretation of how important the different provisions in the chapter are. And consistently would be, you know, a repeated pattern.

So I think these are, these are real standards. I think materially is the one that would be at the Assembly's discretion. For measurement purposes, consistently seems like it's the only quantifiable one because you can see if there was a repeat offender or repeat action. The others seem subjective. Is that, at least from the policymaker's perspective, from the legal perspective you may have a legal definition but We're not obligated to follow that legal definition.

We're obligated to follow what makes sense to us.

Through the chair, I mean, I think you would still have to follow code, and knowingly does have a legal definition, and it is all over other parts of code. Um, and so I think that you would have to make a factual finding that the department knowingly, materially, and consistently violated it. And I think that if you didn't have any basis to— it would be difficult for you to make a knowing to find that a department did something knowingly if you didn't have any indication that they didn't know. But I will say one amendment to those terms, if the assembly feels like that standard, all three of those together, is too high— a simple amendment to the existing language in the S, not the full scope of what's done here, is you could just replace that and with an or. Knowingly, materially, or consistently, because each one of those things I think would be cause for concern.

Thank you, I appreciate that, and thank you for the feedback on that. No, no additional time.

Okay, um, and then I neglected— just very briefly, I neglected to say before, um, I believe we started this at about 9:15. I'll confirm with the clerk the timing, but just to note, we do have 1 hour for debate. However, we can move to extend debate, so we don't need to do that right now, but I'm keeping track of the time. Just something for folks to to keep in mind. Next, Mr. Volland, did you speak to this amendment already?

I believe you did. Yeah, so I'm gonna— I need to come back to you. Miss Baldwin Day.

Thank you, Chair. So I really appreciate Miss Gardner's last comment. I think I'm inclined to retain knowingly, materially, or consistently because that gives some latitude, which I think is important.

I also really think that that last clause, "until the Assembly finds the violation cured," is an important piece, and it sort of indicates the pathway for reinstatement, which I think is important. So I think I have a question, though, because The language of a finding by the assembly, as I'm reading this, what I'm seeing here is a sequence that looks something like this. There's a report of a violation, there is a public hearing, and then the assembly makes a finding after the public hearing.

And then may by resolution suspend that agency's use of the surveillance technology at issue. And I want to be sure I'm understanding correctly that the finding is a separate measure from the resolution to suspend, because that's how I think this reads. And so I'd like to hear from counsel if that's what your understanding of this mechanism is. And if so, how is that finding determined? Is there a separate deliberation that happens?

Who writes the finding? Is that, again, is that different than the resolution? How—. What does this look like in practice for us? Yeah, so I invite counsel to respond, and then I will also suggest what might be helpful is to use an analog example, which is alcohol or marijuana licenses, in which we've made findings.

Which is not the same, and I'm not invoking the name of any particular license at this time. But if you can just— because maybe it's a similar process. So maybe if we can answer Ms. Baldwin Day's question, but also just wanted to make sure that's part of the discussion. Through the chair, it's a great question, and this is something that I have had to work through as well. And again, this is a provision that was actually largely imported from the original version of the ordinance because the original intent intent, as Member Voland, or Vice Chair Voland, explained, was to try to reach agreement on, on a version, and we did make a lot of progress on that together.

But this, I think that the way it would work would be a draft resolution would be put in, a concern would come to a member's attention or the Assembly's attention as a whole, a resolution would be drafted that identified the, the, the alleged violation and would propose suspension until, you know, cured. And then a public hearing would be held. The assembly would then decide whether to adopt that resolution, which would have that finding and suspension in the same document, I think would be the mechanism.

Okay, thank you. That, that, that's much cleaner than what I was reading, so I appreciate that very much.

Um, I would like to move to amend the amendment and reinclude knowingly, materially, consistently, but with the or rather than the and. So it would read, a municipal agency has knowingly, materially, or consistently violated this chapter. Second. And, and, and also reinclude until the assembly finds the violation cured. Second.

Second. Okay, I'm hearing multiple seconds. So motion by Miss Baldwin Day to amend the amendment, um, and I'm going to restate it, make sure the clerk has it correct on the board as well. So point of information—.

Sorry, what's your point of information? Is, is this amendment to the amendment literally just going back to what was essentially already in there except it's saying or instead of and? So did we just spend— I mean, how many freaking—. Like, how long—. How much time have we spent on this just to change the word to or?

Is that, is that really what we're That right now? The only other thing that would be different is the words knowing material are struck.

Knowingly, materially, or consistently? No, in the fourth line, remedial action after identifying a knowing material violation. Knowing material remains redacted. Okay. Okay.

So let me make sure the record is clear and then we can deal with— so the amendment to the amendment As moved by Erin Baldwin Day, seconded by— I think I heard many people. Was it Mr. Girdwood? No, it was Mr. Handeland. Sorry, sorry.

Okay, okay, so I'm going to restate this and I'll ask Erin Baldwin Day to confirm and then we'll move from there. So the amendment to the amendment is to restore the words knowingly, materially change the word "and" to "or" and consistent— keep the word consistently, or restore the word consistently. And then can you restate the other part of it? If I might, perhaps a cleaner way to do this would be to dispatch with this amendment and then simply go back to the S version and do a verbal amendment to change "and" to "or" and strike "knowing material." I think that would be much cleaner in terms of process, if folks would be open to that. So I'm going to turn to the clerk in terms of procedure.

So I—. Are you going to ask about this being withdrawn and then going back and making the amendment? Because if you make this amendment and then go back and re-amend it, that's asking the same question twice. I think I was— I was— to Member Gerker's point, I was thinking that if this amendment in its entirety Right? If I rescind my amendment to the amendment and the movers of this amendment rescind their move to amend, then we could just amend the S version directly very simply and move on.

Or no? Is that— I'm just trying to save us a few steps if that's possible.

I will defer to the clerk on—.

Okay, well, um, I guess let's stay the course if it's ultimately the same number of turns. Okay, great. Um, yes, so, uh, Chair, so I'm going to restate the motion. So restore the word knowingly, restore the word materially, change the word and to or restore the word consistently, and then restore the last phrase until the assembly finds the violation cured. Is that correct?

Correct. Okay, that is the amendment as amended. There was a motion by Erin Baldwin Day, second by multiple people but Mr. Volland. Um, uh, anything further on that?

On that, on that amendment? Yeah. Okay. Hold on, on the amendment to the amendment. Okay, so gonna move through the queue.

Okay, Mr. Bowman, amendment to the amendment. Thank you, I support this. I think, you know, it does— when we are making these small language tweaks, it can feel ridiculous, but in law there is a big difference between an "and" and an "or." There's a big difference between a "shall" and a "may." these things have real consequences, even though they're just can be one-word changes. And for this, this would solve for me, um, a big part of this, and, and is addresses, you know, my impetus for wanting to bring this forward is that previously you had to meet all three of those criteria for the assembly to, to exercise this oversight role.

And I think For me, the biggest issue is not the materially and consistently portion, but the knowingly. I think if we find that there's an egregious violation, that it shouldn't matter whether or not we knew about it. We still need to address it before we should move forward. And so I think that, that or, I'm appreciative of the, recommendation, or the suggestion from the municipal attorney, that gets me to where I can support this, and also happy to support, you know, until the assembly finds the violation cured. So yeah, I hope my colleagues can support that.

I also, you know, in terms of doing things from the dais, you know, this is part of our legislative process, and I just want to state that for the record.

And I want to go back to my assertion that we did work in good faith with the administration and particularly the municipal attorney. We weren't able to reach agreement on everything, so I don't— I guess I have to push back on this, um, this characterization that we somehow are working in bad faith or that we weren't collaborative with the administration. I believe we were. We just didn't reach agreement on everything, and that is the purpose of assembly member amendments. That is our role as policymakers.

We make amendments to things that we pass. So, um, yeah, anyway, for what it's worth, I, I think this is important, but I think the amendment to the amendment certainly addresses my concern. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to run through amendment to the amendment, Miss Scout, and if, if you don't— if you want to stay in the queue, then let me know as well.

Thanks. Just noting time here and the other— the number of amendments we have left to consider, I would like to call the question on the amendment to the amendment.

Okay. The question has been called by Ms. Scout. Is there a second?

Second. Okay. One second for the clerk, but I will note the question has been Called. There is a— from, sorry, from Miss Scout, second by Miss Baldwin Day. The procedure on this is it is not a debatable motion, and so we would move straight to voting on calling the question on— and to be clear, this is on the amendment to the amendment, so not the entire item.

And once the clerk catches up, then we will be voting on that. So it looks like— okay, voting is open. And, uh, what is the youth representative's Oh, she left. Okay. Sorry.

So, okay. I will note it was after 10:00. Yeah. Okay. So that makes one step a little faster.

So, okay. So members may proceed to vote on that.

Okay. On a vote of 8 to 4, the question has been called. Members may proceed to vote on the amendment to the amendment of number 4.

Okay, on— oh wait, hold on, sorry.

Okay, okay, sorry. So on a vote of 12 to 0, the amendment to the amendment number 4 has passed. We are back on the main amendment, so I am again— I'm going to be starting with folks who have not spoken yet on the amendment. So, Ms. Park. On the amendment.

And again, we're on Amendment Number 4. Thank you, Chair. My question a little bit echoes, uh, what was asked by Member Martinez and Member Perez-Verdia. And, um, under Part C where it says upon a finding by the assembly, um, I don't know whether I heard clear metric for finding of intent, and I'm wondering what the standard would be. Is that by a preponderance of evidence?

Is that a cognizable legal standard that we already have?

Through the chair, it doesn't necessarily reference intent. So it says knowingly, and that would just be something for the Assembly to determine based on what's presented to it. But there— it is a, you know, legal standard that the finding would have to state that you— here you have found that it was knowing. But I don't know that you would have to apply like a specific standard. I would say probably, uh, more likely true than not true is the typical civil standard, which I think is a reasonable one for the Assembly to apply generally.

Okay, um, next, Mr. Gerker on the amendment to the amendment. Yeah, I appreciate that. Um, we've done some, some jiu-jitsu up here, so I'm catching up a little bit. Um, the— I think the concern I still have with the— this overall amendment is the identifying— is eliminating that knowing material violation of this chapter.

Just having— if the concern is that the bar is too high, I do worry that by taking out— or by making this, the bar is too low on the flip side. And that does create some ambiguity for department operations. And, you know, to Member Perez-Verdia's point earlier, we're legislators, we're not, we're not department staff, right? The mayor ran an election, the mayor got elected, she filled the executive branch with people to do the job that she wants to do the job. That's, that's not us, that's not our role.

So I will be a no on the main motion, on the main amendment here, and I urge my colleagues to also vote no. Okay, and I misspoke earlier, so I'm sorry, the just Just for clarification on the record, the motion to amend the amendment is what passed, so we're on the amendment for— I said the amendment to amendment earlier, sorry. So next, Ms. Silvers on the amendment. Yeah, I have another question for the municipal attorney. You keep saying things like the assembly based on what is presented to it, or there would be a resolution drafted.

Who would draft the resolution and under what circumstances? Who would be presenting something to the assembly and why?

Through the chair, I think it would be like any other resolution for action the assembly wants to take. I think somebody on the assembly would draft it, so a member would be drafting.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I mean, I guess I just don't really see the point of going through a different process. And, you know, I— at one point, I think it was said that it would be streamlined, but I don't even see that it's really streamlined because there would still be a public hearing. And so I assume there would have to be some notice for the public hearing. So I don't understand what's streamlined, and I don't really understand what the point of going through a different process is.

So I don't support the amendment to the amendment And I mean, I still think that I don't even really like this section altogether. I think maybe there are benefits to going through our standard processes and using our standard powers to deal with these types of issues. Thank you. Point of information. What's your point of information, Mr. Volland?

This language— prior to any amendments was in the S version, correct?

Is that the case? Okay. Yes. Who are the sponsors of the S version? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, I am a co-sponsor of the S version, but we're up here making sausage on the dais and I'm just like, you know, I don't know, maybe we should go through the regular. We're speaking for an hour about it and about amendments, about whether we have an or or an and. Extended. So I don't see the point of any of it, of your legislation.

Okay, so, um, I want to be careful that we're using points of information for procedure. So we did verify that information. Um, so I think Ms. Silver, you still have the floor. Oh no, I'm done.

Thank you. Okay, the clerk has reminded me that we are 3 minutes out from an hour of debate, so I would entertain a motion to extend. I will also note that the meeting ends at 11 unless we further extend it. So I would recommend that if we extend debate, it would be not past 11 until we make another motion. Thanks.

Motion to extend until 11. Second. Okay, I hear a motion to extend by Ms. Park, second by Mr. Handeland. Well, by multiple people. Is there any objection to extension of debate till 11?

Yes, I object. Okay, then we will vote on that motion to extend.

OK, on a vote of 10 to 2, we are extended debate to 11. I'll note that for members of the public who are here, we may end up extending the meeting past 11:00 PM, but I would not count on it. So just for folks' awareness, um, the meeting may end at 11 or it may get extended. Okay, uh, next, um, moving back to, uh, the queue, we have Mr. Martinez in the queue for the amendment. And I will know everybody who has spoken here has spoken before, so I'm going to go in the order that's listed.

Before I go into my question on the floor, I have a point of information about that, what we just did. Sure. Yeah. Okay, um, what if we didn't approve the extension until 11, what would in fact happen at the hour mark for this particular item? Um, good question.

That would essentially end, um, debate. And so unless someone made any motion to extend, I believe we would end up just voting. I guess, to the clerk, would that mean we would end up voting on the underlying item with no further amendments? Okay, yes.

Yeah, or there could be an opportunity to postpone the item or make any other motion. Right on. Okay, thank you. So, uh, to this particular item, uh, and to this amendment here, the, the, the follow-up question I have, and it was mentioned earlier, it was an interest— it was an interesting point that the municipal attorney, uh, articulated in passing, but I think it's substantial. And they said the tension between the legislative branch compelling the executive branch or the implementers.

What is the mechanism by which the Assembly forces compliance? I picture a time when administration has a department that says, "I don't care about the finding of the Assembly. I don't care about what the Assembly wants to tell us not to use technology for. We're gonna do it ourselves." And I feel like there are some folks on this body who have of recollection of the tension of municipal governance when that was such. And so I wonder, what is the actual mechanism to force compliance from, from the assembly with respect to making the administration or departments stop actually doing things?

Through the chair, the safest mechanism would be an ordinance. You still have to respect separation of powers up to a point. You know, there only So many— any ordinance you would issue would have to comply with charter, but an ordinance is the mechanism for that, subject to charter. So to my colleagues, what I heard was the hope is that an administration and departments would take our ordinance because of the alignment and of the integrity. But I also recall sitting with a municipal attorney telling us that, "You all don't even— you don't have the power to compel us to do these sorts of things.

You just make opinions and then you pass laws, but it's debatable." And I think that that's challenging to me when we don't have the tools to both measure and then also to compel beyond the existing tools that we do have, the power of the the purse, the power of the ordinance, but we don't actually have the power to compel directors to do their jobs in different ways. In practice, the administration does. And I think that's something that we should consider as well in terms of the, the operations of departments and how we get compliance and the pathway to build an ecosystem for alignment versus the pitting and playing the gotcha game, uh, essentially from, uh, from a legislative branch to an executive branch. But thank you for the discussion there. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, next I have Mr. Perez-Verdia on the amendment. And just before I begin, making sure of the information that currently the amendment as it stands is is— has knowingly, materially, or consistently, and then reclaims the last sentence, but still strikes knowingly, materially. Is that correct? Yes. Is that where we're at?

Okay. Yes. So I think that this debate is really about just lowering our standard, lowering the bar, and I think that's— we've heard that from the sponsor, that that's the idea. And I believe that this bar should be high. I think if we are going to act as a body on something like this, it needs to be significant.

And so that's what I'm concerned about. And I'm also concerned about it being confusing.

I would like to ask the municipal attorney specifically about the two terms knowingly and material. With the removal of that, then a violation could be literally anything. There is no standard at which we're being asked to assess whether it is something worthy of acting on. Is that correct? If we take out knowingly material, then any violation of any kind could be considered, is that right?

Through the Chair, so looking at the amendment, which is not up on the screen right now, but in the second line of this paragraph, there was— there's a phrase, knowingly, materially, inconsistently, and that applies, you know, if the department, municipal agency, as an agency, right, as a practice, knowingly, materially, or consistently, or and, depending on whether the amendment passes, violated the chapter, right? That's one finding the Assembly could make. Or there's a second finding, or the agency has failed to take reasonable remedial action after identifying a knowing material violation of the chapter. And I think that's where, you know, you expect the agency to be responsible and accountable. So if you discover your agency, somebody violated, you know, an employee violated the rules, then you should take appropriate action.

So any failure to take appropriate action for any violation without those words in there would then trigger this provision. So that is it. So I'm trying to figure out if it's necessary or not, because we already have knowingly, materially, or consistently, so that sets the standard for the violation violation there. And so is it necessary to have a second standard in identifying a knowingly material violation, or is that violation already been— the standard already been established by the previous line? Through the Chair, I think you could remove the second line, the second part of it, after the— or failed to take reasonable remedial action after identifying a violation.

Or fit—. No, I'm asking specifically about the term knowing material. I'm wondering if by removing that, if we're removing a standard and it allows it to be any violation, or if the previous line that has knowingly, materially, or consistently, if that already establishes the standard for the violation. So those are two separate tracks. Okay, that's what I thought.

So yeah, so the Assembly's Suspension power here would be triggered either because the agency itself knowingly, materially, or consistently violated, or because the agency failed to remedy a violation. Then that's— I'd like to move to amend the amendment to put back knowingly material into this.

Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Presvedia to restore the words knowing material in the amendment. And then second by Mr. Gerker. And just briefly, I think that it's important that the standard is high and that the violations that we're talking about are material. And so I think that this was put in for a good reason. I think we should honor that.

Thanks.

Okay. I know we got a few folks in the queue. Is this Mr. Volland on the amendment to the amendment? Okay. I'm not in for the amendment to the amendment.

Ms. Baldwin Day, amendment to the amendment? To the amendment. Okay, please go ahead. Yeah, I think I take a slightly different reading on this, because this clause is about failing to take reasonable remedial action. And to me, it's immaterial whether it was a knowing material violation or simply a consistent accidental violation.

If there— if reasonable remedial action was warranted after a violation was identified, and that action was not taken, then that's also an issue. That's something that we ought to be mindful of. It's something I think we ought to be made aware of. And so I'm— I am less inclined to include knowing material violation. If there's been a failure to take reasonable remedial action, the nature of the violation to me is less important.

So I— I would not be supporting the amendment to the amendment.

Chair, can I ask the municipal attorney to just respond to that, if that's—. If that's— if that—. Yeah, there's no one else in the queue, so I'll consider that. Are you back in the queue, Mr. Persinger? I'm happy to capitulate that.

I'm—. That was not my understanding, so I want to make sure I'm getting this right. Yeah, I'll invite Ms. Gardner to respond. Through the chair, so the reason that knowing material was originally put in that line was to clarify that, you know, if there's a very, very minor violation, right, and maybe there is no remedial action required, is it really something that should warrant Assembly attention and action? So this is indicating like, hey, if you have somebody in your department or the agency discovers that there was a knowing, right, material, like an actual meaningful violation that somebody did on purpose, they should really discipline, take action, you know, correct that.

And so that would— if they failed to do that, right, that's on the agency, then it should trigger this provision. So it does do some work there. It's a policy call for the Assembly, but this, you know, was originally designed as a tool that would not be super easy to use. It should— because again, it introduces uncertainty into operations and contracting. Okay, thank you.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue for the amendment to amendment. Again, this is to restore the words knowing material, uh, in Amendment Number 4. So members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a motion of 6 to 6, that amendment to the amendment has failed on Amendment 4. So we're back on Amendment 4. Mr. Buland?

Yeah.

Okay, there's no one further in the queue on— no, sorry, just for clarity, I'm in the queue, but it's for the main motion. Um, so, uh, no further members in the queue for Amendment 4. Some members may proceed to vote. This is Amendment 4 as amended.

On a vote of 8 to 4, um, Amendment number 4 as amendment has passed. I will also note maybe this is why we are not allowed to amend 4 things deep, because we would all get thoroughly confused. So that's a blessing. Okay, uh, next I am on the main motion again. One second.

Okay, sorry. Next, Mr. Bolland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to move Amendment Number 5 on behalf of myself and Member Scout.

Okay, there's a second motion to amend, uh, with, uh, Voland-Scott Amendment Number 5, uh, by Mr. Voland, second by Ms. Scott. Mr. Voland. Thank you. So, um, this is something that, as I recall, it was neither in the S nor the S-1, um, but was in the original version. And, and I frankly just heard a lot of feedback from the community that they want to keep a retention, a data retention limit in code.

And so that is just me being responsive to that feedback that we've received. Thank you. Okay, and then again, I'll note I'm only in the main motion, not the amendment. So, Miss Scout. Thanks.

I'll add to that, um, that the intent of this motion is to reflect the retention limits that I understand that we have an internal policy at this time. Chief Case can feel free to correct me on that, but in our work sessions on this policy and on the Real Time Crime Center, um, I believe that the 14-day limit was what was shared with us is what exists internally. And so just hoping to to codify that practice. Thanks. Okay, Mr. Perez-Verdia on the amendment, Amendment 5.

Yep, if we could have the municipal attorney or someone from the administration speak to, to the rationale for removing this, um, in the version that they put together.

Uh, through the chair, I actually do not recognize this language, um, so I do not think— if I'm looking at the right one, this This is number 5, uh, and this is adding additional requirements. You said it was in the— I'm sorry, Mr. Vohland said it was in the original version. We had a retention limit in the original version. The municipal attorney did not help draft that version. She helped draft the S, and that was not in the S, right?

So when you drafted— the question to you, Mr. Municipal Attorney, is when you drafted that version, you had access to the original version, and there was decision made to not include this, I would assume, and that would— I'd like to understand why you did not include this from the original version. Got it. Thank you. Yes, that question I can answer. So the original version did have a lot more specific restrictions and rules, like much more granular regulation of APD use of information, and the S version took an approach approach, a much earlier approach, but a similar approach to what the Assembly did with body-worn camera video release policy and body-worn camera policy, which was to say you need to have a policy, it has to contain certain things, but it doesn't get into the specific details of— and it has to say XYZ.

And so that's the approach that the S version took. If you look at the sections on the license plate reader and Real Time Crime Center policy, it says you have to have policy, it has to address these things. And then it further says you have to give it to us and you have to tell us when it changes. But this level of granular detail of what exactly the policy has to say, um, we just did not take that approach with the S to allow some operational flexibility while ensuring that the Assembly would be promptly notified of any changes and would have visibility, and the public would also have visibility into the policy. Thank you.

So would it be fair to say that this— that, that a robust discussion about whether this should be in department policy or not would be the proper place for it?

Yes, which I think would be best suited to be a departmental decision because this level of, you know, this affects operations, this directs operations at a much more detailed level. And Chief Case is here if you'd like to hear from him on this. I don't know that it's necessary, but that is, you know, generally why we did not take this approach or put this in. Yeah. Thank you.

I don't need to hear from Chief Case. Thanks. I would just encourage my colleagues to vote no on this. I think there's a justifiable reason to not have it in the piece going forward, and I do think that there's a real opportunity for us once we maybe eventually get through this to have another conversation about department policy. I think that's an ongoing and continuous conversation that that we should be having, and that's likely where this conversation should be.

So I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Okay, next, Ms. Silvers on the amendment.

Yes, thank you. And so I'm looking at this, and it appears that it does a lot more than just requiring a 14-day retention limit on automatic captured plate data. It says it requires all video, audio, and sensor data collected by, routed through, or recorded by a real-time crime center, blah, blah, blah. Would this also include like body-worn cameras, dash cameras?

And I believe that's a question to the sponsors. So, yeah. Mr. Vohlandt or Ms. Scout, if you want to respond when you are ready.

It is all— it is plate data and then it is all video, audio, sensor data collected by, routed through, or recorded by—. Okay, so it is including body-worn cameras and dash cameras?

Yes, other— I would— I mean, I defer to the municipal attorney. I don't think so. That was not the intent. So we don't know what this includes. Okay, I have another question for Chief Case.

It's written in the language what this includes, and it also excludes evidence that is being used in an investigation.

Or anything that has been requested by the public. Thank you. I have a question for Chief Case, please. Okay. And as he is walking up, I think just for everybody's awareness, we were looking at AO Section 5 on the back there.

Go ahead, Chief Case. So it was stated that you have a 14-day retention limit. Now I know you have a 14-day retention limit on license plate we need our data. Do you have a 14-day retention limit on all video, audio, and sensor data collected by, routed through, or recorded by a real-time crime center? What about 911 calls?

Would that be— I mean, what about body-worn camera and dash camera? I mean, do you have a 14-day limit in internal policy on all these items that could be captured under this?

Through the chair, Member Solvers, the policy— and I want to kind of anchor this to policy just for a minute— we're specifically talking about camera feeds coming in. It would exclude body-worn camera feeds, it would exclude our dash camera feeds. I think there's certainly some legislative intent as well as some public intent that those two particular feeds, which technically could be viewed in the Real Time Crime Center but are not actively monitored, we don't tap into those, uh, that we keep that data a little bit longer than that 14-day for a whole host of reasons. Uh, so that's what the policy says, and anything outside of— or anything that's of evidentiary value associated with any case, a criminal case that gets stored under evidence retention. And as we store it, we know who stores it, we know when they store it, we know how long the retention period is on, on that.

That's all part of the retention process that we have. And so I think the policy in how we retain the data, that this really language is unnecessary because we anything we don't use is gone in terms of camera feeds. And then the ALPR policy, we specifically have the language on the retention that that data is deleted, and it's automatically deleted within that, or at that 14-day period as well.

Uh, also of interest is that we don't actually pull— we can't take that data, like for instance that picture that it captures the plate we don't ever take that out and then stick that into our evidence retention system. We just— that's not how— that's not how that works. There's really not anything to retain after that 14 days. We can find it and we can use it as a piece of an investigation, but it doesn't— that stuff's gone after 14 days.

Okay, I guess what my concern is, is that this amendment would inadvertently apply the 14-day retention limit to things like body-worn camera or dash camera or other things that may have a longer retention limit. And I'm particularly interested in protecting our body-worn camera and our dash camera ability to use them to their fullest because these are voter-approved, right? This is what the public wanted for transparency. And so I'm particularly concerned with any amendment that may kind of jeopardize our ability to use those to their fullest. So I guess the question that I'm trying to get to is, would this amendment limit retention on anything that you don't already limit in your department policy?

I think that question may be more suited for the municipal attorney. It's a bit of a legal question.

Okay, I invite Ms. Gardner to respond. Through the chair, so this, as I understand this amendment, it actually amends the two sections— one section on ALPRs and one section on the Real Time Crime Center. And I think it amends the sections that say you need to have a policy that does XYZ. And so this would add a section, um, in those policies that require— that has mandatory, um, retention time frames. So I think it would only apply, as I read it, to Real Time Crime Center and license plate reader data.

I will say we have a consistent theme in some questions we've gotten has been, why aren't you why are you resistant to putting a specific number of days in code for the retention timeframe for the mandatory deletion? And the answer to that is, well, if operational needs change slightly, right? If for some reason the setting changes and you need to retain it for 15 days instead of 14, or 13 instead of 14, or 14.5 days instead of 14, then it requires an ordinance in order to not be in violation of the chapter. And so allowing some degree of operational flexibility there with, again, the requirement to notify the Assembly of any change to the retention timeframe, which in the policy, which is a requirement in the S version, any change to the number of days or the amount of time you keep data in these sections has to be reported promptly to the Assembly. That gives the Assembly, again, the ability to step into its oversight role and say, well, actually, you need to put it back.

You know, you can't have it be 300 days. That doesn't sound good to us. Or, oh yeah, 15 days sounds fine. A minimal change, uh, thanks for letting us know. But it would give the assembly, again, close to real-time information that it could use to take further action if needed without requiring an ordinance to make minor changes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, next I have, uh, Ms. Scout.

Thank you. Um, I adding on to what Municipal Attorney Gardner just shared, um, I want to note that right now the retention of video from body-worn cameras for, um, at a minimum non-crime and traffic incidents is 2 years. And so that's the internal policy that would continue forward, which is unrelated to this amendment or unaffected by this amendment.

Thanks. Okay, next, Mr. Handeland. I've got a question for Chief Case.

So, uh, with this, are body cams— or do those go through the Real Time Crime Center currently?

Through the chair, Member Handeland, yes and no. Yes and no. Um, generally no. However, we can because the body-worn camera as well as the dash camera has— each have individual cellular feeds, and we have tested this, so we know that we have the capability to do this. We can, uh, remote turn on, off, or watch what's happening on those two devices in real time.

There's some reasons why we don't do that on a regular basis, but so— and that would be viewed in the Real Time Crime Center. Okay, and then so I mean, as you— I'm not sure if you've had a chance to kind of look through this amendment fully, but I guess there are— are there aspects of what's currently in department policy that we would essentially have to change to comply with this?

Well, I think the department policy would have to reflect all of the, the subsections of this, so not just the 14-day, it's then all of the requirements about evidence and who logged in the evidence that's in this particular amendment. So we'd obviously have to put that in policy so that the policy reflects the exact language in the code, because we certainly want to unintentionally violate the code because we didn't have the exact verbiage in there. Okay. Because, yeah, I mean, it sounded like from the sponsors, and maybe I confused this a little bit, it sounded like this was, I guess, kind of what is currently in department policy and putting, putting some of that into code. And so maybe I'm incorrect from your guys' characterization on that, so maybe I'll defer a question to the sponsors there.

No, I appreciate that. That is the intent. What is listed here in the subsections is when it can be kept for longer, and so maybe there's a little bit of confusion confusion around that.

So the captured plate data, for instance, shall be permanently deleted no later than 14 days after capture unless specified in, in this section. It may be retained beyond in the case of XYZ.

Yeah, and okay, so yeah, that's the, the end of any of the questions. So I just have some comments that, I mean, I think that us having a I guess minimum amount here or a maximum amount is not a bad thing. I mean, hearing from the municipal attorney of, oh hey, that might need to be adjusted in the future, that's something that could come before the assembly. But essentially, I mean, department policy, we're setting, hey, here's the maximum amount that us as members of the assembly representing the public are okay with. So I'm not necessarily opposed to a set time.

Is 14 days the right number? I'm not sure, but I think that us having some number in place should be important.

Okay, next, Erin Baldwin Day.

Chief Case, please don't go far.

Thank you, Chair. Chief, in this amendment where we're amending Section 6, license plate reader data, how does this— how does this encode square with existing policy at APD?

To the Chair, Member Baldwin Day, I always ask that we make this stuff as simple as possible. The policy that we have is very simple on this section. It is 14 days, it's deleted unless it's attached to a criminal case. I believe that language within the policy, which is very simple and clear, is going to comply with the spirit and the intent of everything in this particular section. Gotcha.

And then also Just to add on to that, of course, the notification I think is important that we always remember that if we want to change this to 20, you folks are going to know. And that's in the, that's in the S version. Yes. And I think I'm going to have some things to say about that later, actually.

So I think, so it seems to me that policy existing policy squares with what is being listed here as requirements for captured plate data. With respect to video, audio, and sensor data, um, and this may be less of a question for you and more of a question for Ms. Gardner, um, I think I'm a little perplexed by the inclusion of the phrase a camera owned or operated by the municipality, because that feels like we are now expanding we are now expanding the scope of what is actually coming to or through the Real Time Crime Center to a camera owned or operated by the municipality, or an integrated camera feed, which is a separate question. And so I'd like to understand how that clause does not implicate dash cams and body-worn cameras, because I think those have a longer retention lifespan on purpose, and I would not want to abrogate that. And I also feel like that is like zooming us out into a place— I also don't want us to be in a situation where, where other cameras owned and operated by the municipality are now constrained by this 14-day period, for example. When our traffic engineers put up their own cameras to do traffic counts and to look at pedestrian movements and turning movements and crossings and then send that information elsewhere to be processed so that we have good data on traffic and pedestrians.

I, I don't want us to create a catch-all, and I'm concerned that this particular clause starts to tiptoe into that territory. So would you clarify how you read that clause and whether we have just broadened the scope again to include things that we didn't potentially intend to include?

Sorry, could you repeat the last bit of the question? I heard most of it, but—. Yeah, I'm curious. I'm wondering if the clause, a camera owned or operated by the municipality, does actually include dash cams, body-worn cameras, cameras that traffic uses for data collection. Uh, are—.

Have we just zoomed out to something that's much broader than all video, audio, and sensor data collected by, routed through, recorded by a real-time crime center? Uh, through the chair, Chelsea, I mean This language is not something that we have workshopped, but this, this section is located within the section of the S version that addresses Real Time Crime Center policy. So it would be within an APD policy. I think that the language is maybe not as tight as it could be, uh, and I would say do not support this amendment. Should put that up there.

But I think it would only apply to feeds that are part incorporated into the Real Time Crime Center or that come through the Real Time Crime Center in some way. Um, so I don't think it would apply to, you know, any camera owned by the municipality as a whole. Okay. Um, however, in the event that a body-worn camera was accessed via the Real Time Crime Center, this 14-day retention would apply then to that specific footage unless A through D— A, B, C, or D were met. Is that correct?

I think so. And again, the language is not super clear because you'd think that if the body-worn camera footage came through the Real Time Crime Center in some way, then it would be covered. Under the first two, the first part of the sentence. So again, not entirely clear what is intended by that, but I don't think it could— so I think it would apply to body-worn camera footage that was routed through the Real-Time Crime Centre or that came into it, but that would already be covered by the first sentence. I'm not sure exactly what work that the clause about municipally-owned cameras is doing.

Okay, thank you, that, that's helpful. I'm, I'm I'm really, I'm acutely aware that dash cams and body-worn cameras have a longer retention on purpose, and it is because we want to be able to see, we want transparency into APD operations. And I am really wary of anything that starts to get us into territory where we might be aggregating that, because that is for the purposes of, again, transparency, which is the point, I think, of a lot of this. So I think I'm really— I'm pretty disinclined to support this sort of second chunk of the amendment. The fact that the first chunk squares with existing policy and seems to be a fairly straightforward item is, I think, fine.

But the second bit is a little squishy, and I don't think I can support that. Thank you.

Okay, next, Mr. Voland.

I think— okay, so I guess I want to hear, maybe just for all of our edification, one more time from the municipal attorney on how this— essentially what this is amending, how this interacts with code that sort of ties it to— essentially that brings it away from, you know, just any other random camera. I think you've said that a couple times, but can you restate that? Through the chair, this amendment would be located within the section of the S version that addresses the Real Time Crime Center. So it would be a component replacing currently subsection 9 of a component that would be required to be an APD policy for the Real Time Crime Center. Right.

Okay, I think— I guess I just want us all to maybe hear that, you know, this is not— I don't think that this is opening the door to body-worn cameras or other, you know, traffic cameras. I think that this is specific, um, and sort of like where it lands in the ordinance. But, um, maybe an opportunity, because I feel like we've heard quite a bit from the municipal attorney, which I'm grateful for, but we also have assembly attorneys, and you guys have been kind of quiet. We're letting you off the hook too easily. Uh, do you want to maybe speak speak, um, in, in terms of how you, uh, your assessment, um, of that question of, you know, how would this impact traffic cameras or, um, things that are maybe not in the scope of work, what we're trying to do here.

Uh, so first I would concur with the Municipal Attorney's assessment that this amendment is only affecting the policy regarding Real Time Crime Center operations. So I think it would be a stretch to read it as affecting anything outside the scope of Real Time Crime Center operations. Additionally, I think there's a limiting, um, factor of the definition of surveillance data used initially up front. And while the term data has a lot of modifiers in it in this section, I think it's fair to read that as within the definition of surveillance data, which excludes things like traffic cameras and other things like that.

I mean, yeah, if the sponsors wanted to be entirely clear regarding that it was supposed to be limited to the Real Time Crime Center, then deleting the language following the routed, recorded, or sent through the Real Time Crime Center, uh, might aid in clarifying that. But to answer the member's question, yeah, I agree with the municipal attorney's opinion that this is confined to Real Time Crime Center operations.

Okay, so then, um, I think what I, I'm hearing you suggest is that there could be a removal of the phrase a camera owned or operated by the municipality, and the rest of the intent of the amendment would be unimpacted? I think that would clarify, yes. But more clear. Okay, thanks. So I think I will make that amendment to the amendment then, to strike that language, a camera owned or operated by the municipality.

Okay, there's a motion by Mr. Bowen to strike the phrase in the amendment, um, the phrase a camera owned or operated by the municipality under Section 5 of number 9. Is there a second? Second. A second from, uh, Ms. Scout.

Um, any further comments on that? No, thank you. Okay, um, Ms. Baldwin Day, I'm not in for— I'm in for the main. Uh, is Ms. Baldwin Day, are you in on this amendment to the amendment?

Okay, uh, one second.

Okay, and the clerk is catching up on this verbal amendment, and then once it's up on the screen, we'll proceed.

Okay. Does that match the intent? Or was that— I think that is correct.

Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue on this amendment to the amendment, so members may proceed to vote. This is amending Amendment Number 5.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 2, that amendment to the amendment passes. Um, back again, I'm on the main motion. Miss Baldwin Day.

Yeah, thank you. Um, I, I think I have a follow-up question for the chief.

Sorry, what's your point? Yes, I'm for the underlying motion, not the amendment. Thank you, and apologies for dragging you back up here. Can you envision a scenario in which in which license plate reader data would be retained beyond 14 days? Through the chair, Member Baldwin Day, yes.

Um, I think there's really two things that we would consider. The first is some version of public outcry. Uh, we have an incident that members of the community want, you know, someone died, someone's missing, one of these cases where potentially that data could have been used to help locate that person or solve a case, and that becomes of significant public importance. And then for general public safety, general public safety changes. So for example, today one of the things that was brought up in an early meeting that I was in today at the Alaskan Youth Conference was more use of cellular tracking ability, because obviously what's of high importance to that community is the MMIP response, not only here in Anchorage, but throughout the state of Alaska.

And so, although I understand the intent of a lot of this, you know, I mean, your job is different than mine. My job is to address public safety needs. And so that would be an example of you know, a community that's suffering, you know, a substantial loss or, or criminal activity that we would consider changing the date, uh, or changing some of these policy considerations that we have so we can better address their needs. I do think that, that, that one of the things that is important is that the requirement to have that conversation. That's also part of my job is to educate the public and educate the elected body on some of those changes that take place.

Some of the, the challenges like missing people or, or, you know, homicide rates in certain communities that we need to change our approach to better respond to those types of crimes.

Fascinating. So I just, I want to repeat that, repeat back what I think I just heard from you, and that is that you were in a meeting today at the Elders and Youth Conference where folks were concerned about murdered and missing Indigenous persons and were asking you for additional timeline, like longer, longer timelines to be able to look at this data or use specific types of cell tracking technology to be able to locate missing persons in their community. I assume specifically the ask at this conference was more tools to be able to better track cell phone data so that we can use, you know, generally any, any tool that we could find to be able to track things that are in their phone that has GPS locations in it. So not just an AT&T ping, which we know that exists, then we can use that under certain circumstances, other carriers as well. There's certain reasons why we can do that, but to use other technologies that could help us.

It doesn't always work. Phones get turned off. There's other technologies that can help us. That essentially what they were asking for is we have these cell phones abilities that can help us find our loved ones. And, you know, can, can law enforcement tell the entire state of Alaska their request is, can we invest more of that technology so you can help find our loved ones?

It was, was part of the conversation. Madam Chair, I just want to break in because we need to extend for any continued debate. So I move to extend the meeting and debate on this item to 11:30. Second. Okay, there's a motion to extend by Mr. Bollens, uh, both the meeting itself and the debate to 11:30, seconded by Mr. Handeland.

Um, is there any objection to that? I object. Okay, then we will take a vote.

Okay, the motion to extend the meeting and the debate to 11:30 PM needs 8 votes to pass.

Motion to postpone debate till the next regular meeting. November 4th. Second. Okay, there's a motion from Mr. McCormick to, uh, continue, uh, or postpone this item, continue debate to the meeting of November 4th. Seconded by Mr. Volland.

Uh, any discussion on that, Mr. McCormick? No. Okay, I will say, um, it is very unrealistic that we would, um, probably get through this and the other item that's already on the meeting of November 4th. So as long as the expectation is this could go further out, um, so I would also suggest we consider a future meeting. I know it's hard because we're getting stacked up on a number of other things.

Just for consideration.

I guess I'll ask, is there anyone else who would like to speak to this? So I'm not in the queue for this. Mr. Perez-Verdia, are you in the queue for this item? Yes, I would like to speak to it. Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, I think—. We have 2 minutes. I think we have maybe an a narrow view of what the Real Time Crime Center is, and so I just want you to speak to this, is that what it is now and what it could potentially be in the future as a center for—. Sorry, Mr. Regent, right now we're debating—. I don't understand the amendment.

Right now we're debating to postpone to a time certain because the motion to extend the meeting has failed, so we have 2 minutes to make some kind of decision. Oh, sorry, then I don't need to speak. It's okay. Ms. Silvers on extension, Mr. Volland on extension, Ms. Baldwin Day on extension. Yeah, I'm curious, uh, what else we have on the docket for November 4th and if we ought to look at the 17th instead.

Okay, um, I will note on the docket we do have AO 2026-85 MHOP. We also have a number of items that we moved the public hearing to the 4th. Uh, we have our budget hearings, which as we saw did not take that long, but we don't know if that will be the case next time. On the 17th we have the budget, um, and so far we have not put a bunch of other items on that. So the gamble would be how long would it take us to do the budget on the 17th.

Thank you. Mr. Volland. We should vote. Okay, uh, members may proceed to vote on this.

All right, we're voting on the motion to postpone to the next meeting.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, um, this item is postponed to the next meeting. Point of information. What is your point of information, Mr. Girdwood? If we had not passed that, wouldn't have it automatically have gone to the next meeting as well? No, we have to vote on it.

Yeah, well, it could have rolled to the next meeting. Um, the practical reality is that someone could have chosen a different time, so there's still some— or different meeting. Okay, so with that, we— it's 10:59. We do not have sufficient time to do audience participation. This meeting was not extended, so it is 11 PM.

We are adjourned.