Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - September 1, 2026 - 2026-09-01 17:00:00

The past lives documented to the closest topic. At what time does the conversation start and end? Yeah. Always the good guys coming to save us. Promise a good life, thank God that you can.

Always God Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came. Thank God you came. Thank God you came.

Good evening, everyone. We'll get started in a couple minutes.

Okay everyone, let's go ahead and get this meeting started. So folks, if you want to continue conversations, please take them outside. Today is Tuesday, September 1st. Happy September! And we will move through roll call and then we'll get to our business.

So Madam Clerk, go ahead. Member Handlin. Present. Member Martinez. Present.

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

Here. Chair Brawley. Here. Vice Chair Voland. Happy to be here.

Member Baldwin-Day. Present. Member Scout. Present. Member McCormick.

Here. Member Park. Present. Member Johnson. Here.

Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next, I will ask Mr. Gerker to lead us in the pledge.

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

Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day, will you please read the land acknowledgment?

Yes, Madam Chair. 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'll move on to our minutes from our regular meeting minutes from previous meetings. We have one set of minutes from the regular meeting of October— sorry, October— August 18th, 2026.

May I have a motion to approve? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Bullen to approve the prior meeting minutes. Second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Any discussion about the minutes? Any proposed changes? Any objection to adopting the minutes as written? Hearing and seeing none, the minutes from the August 18th meeting have been adopted. Next, we'll move to the mayor's report.

Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening everyone. This last weekend, a memorial service was held for Karen Branga, former assembly member. What a wonderful outpouring of community love for this remarkable person who was a true public servant Karen is deeply missed. Last week, my team and I held an open house and community conversation centered on housing in the municipality and our 10,000 Homes in 10 Years strategy. It was truly inspiring to see over 100 residents from almost every neighborhood across the municipality come together to talk about our shared future.

We heard direct, honest feedback from residents about the rising costs of living, building, and buying a home. We heard from community members who are supportive of the progress we've all made, as well as those with more ideas on how we can further boost home construction and rehabilitation. My team is consolidating all the community feedback from the event so we can integrate the information into our next steps. Building on that momentum, I went to Fairbanks last week for the Alaska Defense Forum and Alaska Municipal League. Participating on the Defense Forum housing panel underscored just how vital housing is to our regional economy.

With the upcoming J-Bear Fighter Town expansion, our target is moving even higher. We now estimate the need is closer to 12,000 homes rather than 10,000. It is more critical than ever that we stay focused on incentivizing development. Shifting to tonight's agenda, I want to address some of the misinformation shared on social media about the Anchorage Police Department's Real Time Crime Center technology. This is an incredibly important community conversation about privacy rights and the future of public safety and policing, and it's vital that this public conversation is grounded in facts.

I want to be clear on a few key points. It's important for the public to know that municipal use of facial recognition technology was officially banned by the Anchorage Assembly in 2023. APD's technology does not and will not use facial recognition. APD does not use flock cameras nor does APD currently have equivalent technology. None of the camera feeds available to APD can automatically track or search for a person or object.

Real-time crime center staff must manually review footage to identify matching descriptions of individuals or vehicles. There's been some alleged footage shared on social media of a municipal surveillance system from Municipal Camera 4. There is no Municipal Camera 4. This footage is fake. And every step of the way, we've built in privacy protections and worked with the assembly on these.

Alaska has exceptionally strong privacy protections in our state constitution, and working alongside APD We have created strict department policies governing technology use. These include clear provisions on data access, storage, and other standards to protect privacy and our constitutional rights. APD's policies also require regular audits to ensure compliance and disciplinary measures for violating policy. APD committed to share its policies that govern technology use at the Assembly's Public Health and Safety Committee every month to ensure policies align with Assembly direction. These technology policies are accessible to the public on APD's website, and I encourage everyone to review them.

Like most Alaskans, I believe that protecting privacy is a fundamental responsibility of government. My administration shares the Assembly's commitment to safeguarding our constitutional rights and civil liberties. Between the state constitution, what is already codified in APD's policies, our privacy protections are strong. But I also believe we should take every opportunity to make them stronger and show the public that we're doing everything we can to safeguard their privacy. Further codifying these protections makes sense.

However, I do have concerns about the draft code changes that are on the agenda tonight. As I reviewed this draft with the municipal attorney, we've identified many significant unintended consequences that we're working to address together with the sponsors. As written, the AO before you would unduly limit some core functions of APD operations including misdemeanor enforcement and joint operations with state and federal partners on illicit drug enforcement. Broad definitions could also impact functions outside of APD, including the ability to record assembly meetings and for municipal staff to use iPhones and camera technology. And clearly, um, that's not the intent of the, the ordinance.

It's real important to fine-tune the approach to get it right. I'm very well aware that our community faces some big public safety challenges. I hear concerns from residents daily. The municipality has limited resources, and we are using these resources as efficiently as we can. The Real Time Crime Center is a tool used by other communities to make police response to critical incidents safer and more effective, and to increase the likelihood that we solve a crime.

I look forward to collaborating on this ordinance so we can accomplish our shared dual goal of protecting the public's privacy while ensuring our police officers have the tools they need to keep us safe. Because these technical details are so critical to get right, I urge Assemblymembers to give this legislation the attention it deserves. It's too important to rush. That's all for now. Back to you, Chair Brawley.

Thanks. I'll note just a technical issue. We are working through some on-base issues, our usual story, so the clerk is actively working with IT. So the queue is not working, but I know Mr. Bolland is in the queue, and then— sorry, so I have Mr. Bolland and then Mr. McCormick in the queue, and then I'll just visually scan to see if others want to jump in. So first, Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mayor, for your report. Um, I, I just, uh, in light of the mayor's report, wanted to let my colleagues know that the intent of the sponsors of that ordinance, when we get to it, is going to be to continue the public hearing. Um, we plan on this week meeting with the municipal attorney, um, as well as Assembly Council, getting the attorneys in a room and going through that ordinance and doing more work on it. So just want to say that.

And I, I guess I, I want to ask, because I think what I heard you say, Madam Mayor, is that you support potentially putting guardrails in code on responsible handling of video recordings from the Real Time Crime Center and preventing the types of potential abuses that we've seen with surveillance technology in other cities such as stalking of private citizens. Um, is, is that— do I have that under understanding correct?

Yes, as I've said before, I think that anything we can do to strengthen our already strong protections is important that we do that. Okay, appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, next I have Mr. McCormick. I guess my question was similar, uh, for the mayor, in that if it sounds like you feel APD's policy is sufficient enough to protect the public's privacy?

Through the chair to Member McCormick, at this time we have very strong policy, um, privacy protections in place between the state constitution and APD's policy. I fully understand the need to update code as we move forward with new technology, and again, I 100% support strengthening privacy protections and showing the public we're doing everything we can. To safeguard privacy whenever we can. Thank you.

Okay, any other members in the queue? Okay, not any right now. Um, then we will move on, um, from Mayor's Report to Chair Report. So, uh, and as I said, uh, we are working through the tech issues. Uh, we will continue through our business for the time being.

If we get to the point that we need to be taking votes and we're still having issues, then we'll deal with it at that point. So my actual chair report. Good evening everyone, welcome to our regular business meeting. Um, first, uh, it is, uh, as of today, already September, uh, driving in I saw some termination dust up on the mountains. Uh, we know school has already started and fall will officially be here in a few weeks.

For many of us, Labor Day is the traditional end of summer, but also it's a great reminder of the hard-won benefits, safety protections, and even the holiday itself, thanks to workers organizing and advocating for our rights. Hopefully everyone has a safe and enjoyable weekend and take time to remember it's all thanks to labor. Youth Representatives. I'm excited to announce that we've officially chosen our Anchorage Assembly Youth Representative cohort for the 2026-2027 school year. The Youth Representative program gives Anchorage students ages 16 to 19 a firsthand opportunity to learn how local government works, participate in assembly meetings as if they were a member, share their perspectives, and cast a non-binding preferential vote during our assembly meetings.

The program is established in municipal code and is specifically designed to give young people a direct role in the legislative process. So we're thrilled to welcome, uh, this next group of young leaders. They aren't here tonight, but they will be here at our next meeting on September 15th: Rakeek Ali, Malachi Cochran, and Rebecca McCullough. We're looking forward to hearing their ideas about the future of our community and working with them over the next several months during the school year. So big thank you to all the students who applied.

We had a lot of terrific applicants, and of course way many than we were able to include in our program this year. We're looking forward to another learning year of learning leadership and making sure Anchorage young people have a place at the table. We'll form— as I said, we'll formally appoint and welcome those new representatives at our September 15th meeting, and then you'll see, uh, one of them participating in each of our meetings on a rolling basis through the fall and into the spring. Um, I'll also note that I know because school has started, we might have some students in the audience tonight. I'll ask, is anybody here tonight who's a student?

Okay, I see a few. Um, so not right this second, but we'll ask you to come up and introduce yourselves, um, in a little bit. We always love to hear from folks So we'll be asking for just your name, your grade, school, and what class you're here for. So stay tuned for that. And then I know often folks need signatures as proof, receipts that you were here.

So usually during the dinner break we do that. So students, please feel free to come up and, and I'm sure a member is happy to sign, sign your papers. So next, move on to housing action. So last week was a big week for the municipality's work in housing development and really encouraging that to happen. As the mayor shared, the 10,000 Homes in 10 Years workshop last week was well attended, very productive.

And this past Friday, August 28th, the assembly held a work session to review progress on our housing action plan and really understand what, what is the impact of the work we've done so far and where could we go from here. So we were joined by municipal staff from Planning, Development Services, and the mayor's office, as well as staff from ACDA, the Community Development Authority, and a few housing developers to reflect on those impacts of policy changes and again, where we could focus now and into the future. It's great to step back and see how much progress has been made in the last few years, and the session also helped us focus on what is needed next. Excuse me. So it's clear that while specific policy changes have made a difference, whether it's cutting red tape on 3- and 4-plex development to pausing residential design standards, it's really the impact of doing multiple things at once and focusing on removing or relieving the barriers to housing production that people keep getting stuck in And I think we'll, we'll continue to see that work happening up here on the dais and out in the community with our great development partners and the municipality.

So we also discussed taking some time to update that housing action plan. It was first passed in 2023 and really needs another look to make sure it reflects today's priorities and projects underway so it can still be useful for the assembly and the community at large and what we can do in our legislative lane. So we've got our work cut out for us, but the community's housing crisis is affecting our neighbors, our businesses, our schools, and our economy. So it's critical that we do this right and that we keep working on this critical topic. A couple other branch business items to share.

First, after some discussions this summer and giving members a chance to settle into new roles, we are shortly implementing some changes to our committee structure, including shifting some of the committee topics from one, one place to another, appointing new leadership, and adjusting our regular schedule to be more efficient and predictable. Such as stacking more meetings on the same days to make sure that folks can really focus on Assembly business when they're here and make time for all the other things happening in our lives. So we'll start rolling out that as soon as possible, likely after Labor Day, as soon as I work out with staff the final version and some logistics as far as a couple specific meetings. And then the other item of business is on Saturday, as the Mayor mentioned, many of us were able to be present for the remembrance of Karen Bronga out at the Native Heritage Center. It was organized by her family and friends, and it was really meaningful to be part of that, to be with so many people from different parts of the community who knew her.

And I remember several people saying at that event how much Karen loved bringing people together. So I think it was a really meaningful event. Thank you so much to the Bronga family for sharing that with us. I'll share also on the branch side, legislative services staff and I are working with her family to organize a formal recognition resolution in the coming weeks of, uh, in the coming weeks of, uh, to recognize Karen's contributions to our community. Uh, more on that soon.

And I'll also note, for those interested, there is a proposal to honor her, uh, being considered by the Public Naming Commission, naming an Eastside Trail connection project. Uh, that is moving through our Public Naming Commission. Their next meeting is Wednesday, September 9th, at 4 PM in City Hall, Room 155. So follow that if you're interested. And with that, I'll do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we may conclude at the most reasonable hour possible, uh, knock on wood, with our OnBase system, uh, the voting system.

So this is a business meeting. We're here to do the work of the municipality. Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers. Refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing. Please keep any signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size.

Please keep the aisle clear unless you're lined up to testify. Um, please don't approach the dais directly. If you have something to share with the members, you can hand it to the clerk for distribution. Uh, and then I'll ask if a point of order is called, uh, I'll ask everybody to please stop speaking so that I may rule on the point of order and the record is clear. If the rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance.

If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. And if there's an actual disruption, I'll give a warning. If that disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. And then I'll just briefly remind folks, for public testimony, when we get to that point in the meeting, um, we'll ask you to state your, your name, what part of town you're in, and, uh, you'll have 3 minutes to testify. Community Council folks have 5 minutes.

And then I will just remind folks to stay on topic for the subjects of those public hearings. So I think those are the updates I have right now. So next we will move on to our committee and liaison reports. And I will start this evening with Mr. Handeland. Nothing to report.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee is this Thursday, September 3rd, at 9:00 a.m. At the permit center. Thank you, Chair. Okay, Mr. Gerker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing to report. Uh, Miss Silvers. Nothing to report. Thank you, Mr. Perez.

Thank you, Chair. Two updates: the next meeting of the Public Health and Safety Committee will be on September 9th at 11 AM in Room 155, and the next Housing and Homeless Committee meeting, um, unless it's changed before then, will be on September 16th at 11 AM in room 155. Please join us. Yeah, thank you. And again, I'll note, um, as I said, we'll be publishing our new committee schedule, and you'll see a lot of things are staying the same, some things are changing.

So we'll make sure that that gets out and that the notice is updated for folks who track those meetings. Next, Mr. Bullant. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Budget and Finance Committee met on Thursday, August 20th. We began but need to finish a presentation on service areas, so that presentation will be will be picked up again at the next meeting on Thursday, September 17th.

Thanks. Thanks, uh, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Assembly's Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee met on Thursday, August 20th. In addition to a regular report about the Port of Alaska Modernization Project, we also heard a presentation from Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility.

It was a pretty sobering look at last winter's operations and an uptick in system emergencies that were really due to colder weather and less snowpack. And one of the, one of the stats that I found particularly interesting was that last year there were 250 reports of frozen service lines, which was a massive increase over the prior year, which was less than 20. And so our colder weather and reduction in snow is taking a toll on our utilities, both the, both the infrastructure itself but also the personnel who maintain it. And so we are absolutely hoping for a more mild winter. This winter there were also 3 actual water main freezes last year, which no one can remember that happening in recent memory.

So as our winters get more severe, so too does the impact on our infrastructure. The Municipal Audit Committee met on August 28th to discuss the 2024 annual consolidated financial report. That discussion will be ongoing. We barely scratched the surface of the 2024 audit, and so it's to be, to be determined whether we're going to continue that conversation at a special meeting of the Audit Committee or whether it will, will be built in piecemeal to Audit Committee, uh, meetings going forward. But, uh, stay tuned, there's a lot to say about the 2024 ACFR.

So, uh, those are my reports for this evening, Chair. Thank you. Thanks. Uh, next, Miss Scout. Nothing to report, thank you.

Uh, Mr. McCormick. Nothing to report, thank you. Miss Park. Thank you, Chair. On, uh, April, uh, 26th, Wednesday at noon, I met with the the ASD right-sizing committee with the school board.

The right-sizing committee will consist of member Paul McDonough as the chair of that committee, include Rachel Blakeslee and Margot, um, as, as the members, and will include the administration of ASD. Um, and as the committee is just being formed, we look forward to another, um, another meeting to determine what will be the criterion that will be used for assessing whether a closure or consolidation of school is necessary. Thank you. Thanks. Next, Mr. Johnson.

No report tonight, Chair. Thank you. And I'm going to hand the gavel over for a brief moment. Thank you. Yeah, just giving my report.

So as one of our Alaska Municipal League liaisons and member of the AML board, I traveled to Fairbanks last week along with the mayor, Member Park, and some others in the community for the Alaska Defense Forum, which was held up in Fairbanks mostly for military, but also involved local leaders. Economic development legislators were there. And then, of course, for the board meeting for AML and the summer policy conference. Of AML. So at the conference, I presented a panel on property tax education with representatives from Juneau and Fairbanks.

And then as far as the board meeting goes, Anchorage— basically, the Alaska Municipal League board has representation from elected officials from various local governments across the state. Anchorage actually has a dedicated seat on the board. We are one of the founding members all the way back to 1950 of that organization. So continuing the work to make sure that we are participating in AML and contributing to its governance. And so we discussed ongoing issues such as health insurance costs, board— or sorry, not board— member dues.

Of course, we pay the maximum because they're based on partly on population, but for many other communities, there's a sliding scale, and other issues of business related to AML. So it was an interesting experience overall, and looking forward to continuing the policy work with with our peer local governments in other places. So that's my report. Uh, so I believe that takes care of committee and liaison reports. So next we will move on to the addendum to the agenda, and before we do that, we will address late on the table items.

So, uh, I have a number of them tonight. So what I'm going to do, uh, so most of them are supplemental, a few are for action, and then of course I will turn to, um, the relevant sponsors or, or, um, folks who involved to speak to the timeliness of the ones that are not supplemental, but I'll start with our supplemental ones, reading them into the record. The first one is associated with item 10B2. It is Resolution AR-2026-254, S version, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly establishing policy guidance and prioritizing housing production and the development of preferred housing types and the disposition of municipal real property. That is an item on the consent agenda currently.

Uh, the next one, supplemental, is item 10F5. It is unnumbered Memorandum AIM 2026, Answers to Assembly Questions Received for Items on This Agenda. The next one that's supplemental is an S version for item 10G.6, which is being introduced. It is Ordinance AO 2026-114S, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 16.120, Emergency Shelter Plan for Homeless Persons Code, to reduce barriers to shelter and align code with current practices. Um, that one again is just being introduced.

Uh, next one I have that's supplemental is, uh, unnumbered information memorandum AIM 2026 associated with 11B, and that is, uh, AHD food access and anti-hunger programs for, uh, the resolution that's currently under 10B. And I believe the remaining items that I have are for action, so we will start actually with the ones for introduction. So, um, I'll note also, uh, this was something I again had to ask the to the clerk for clarification. Um, so for items that are being introduced, it does matter whether it's an ordinance or a resolution because of the way our code and our charter is written. So resolutions for introduction require 7 votes at minimum, even if they're being introduced, as is the case for the one I'm about to read.

And then there's also ordinances being introduced only need 3 votes. And so just to be clear, I will read them in the order on our sheet. The first one is unnumbered resolution AR-2026, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating State of Alaska Community Assistance Program revenue to the area-wide general fund 101000, uh, in an amount of $2,813,529 for homeless shelter support and electronic health records, EHR, and electronic medical records, EMR, system software subscription in an amount of $400 $57,725 as a transfer and appropriating said transfer to operating projects committed general fund for the setup of EHR EMR system and amending the 2026 Capital Improvement Program CIB. Um, for that one, that long thing that I read, I am seeking, um, uh, a first and second, and then this will require a majority vote.

Move to lay on the table. Second. Third. Motion to lay on the table by Mr. Bolland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. This one doesn't need a third right now, but we will need— I guess I'll ask, is there any objection to— actually, let me back up.

Sorry, this one is for introduction. I will turn to the administration to just briefly speak to the timeliness of this. So Mr. Paulsey, if you have an answer. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are backfilling some health department budgets that were necessary to keep us in a good operation for wintertime shelter.

And so these were funds that were received mid-year, and now we are putting them in the appropriate place. I think that the timeliness is that if we do not catch this meeting for introduction at the next meeting, then we may end up being upside down on some contractual responsibilities.

Okay, thank you. Uh, Mr. Voland. Yeah, and then, Madam Chair, I just want to refine my motion. Move to lay on the table for introduction, set the public hearing for 9/15. Yeah, thank you for that clarification.

Does the second agree? Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you for catching that. Um, so again, the motion on the table now with the rationale presented is for this item to be introduced and the public hearing set for September 15th. Is there any objection to this item being laid on the table?

Any at all? Okay, hearing and seeing none, then this item has been laid on the table by unanimous vote. So that was the first introduction. The second one is an ordinance, so it will take a first, second, and third. It is Ordinance AO-2026, unnumbered, an omnibus ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending and updating Anchorage Municipal Code Title 28, Elections.

Move to lay on the table for introduction, set the public hearing for September 15th. Second. Third. OK, we have a motion from Mr. Bohlen, second from Mr. Handlin, third from Ms. Scout to lay that one on the table for introduction, public hearing on the 15th.

So that one has been introduced. The last one that I have on the list is for action. And so this one, if laid on the table, will be on the consent agenda and can still be pulled, but it does require 8 votes for action. So, uh, this is Resolution AR-2026 Unnumbered, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage approving an amended agreement between Anchorage Library Foundation and the Municipality of Anchorage and appropriating donation funds from the Anchorage Library Foundation to the library department in the amount of $41,000, all to the library department miscellaneous operational grants fund for staff positions at the downtown branch library. Uh, is there a motion?

Move to lay on the table.

Second. Okay, a motion by Mr. Volland to lay on the table, second by Miss Scout. I will again turn to the administration to speak to the timeliness. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a happy item.

We are looking to appropriate some of the items that have been— monies that have been given to us by the Library Foundation. This is intended to allow us to hire the branch manager for the future downtown library so that we can get that library open in time to meet grant requirements.

Madam Chair, point of information. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Handlin. Yes, you said, is it 8 votes or 7 votes? Uh, yeah, this one would need 8 because this is potentially for action, and then of course when it goes into the consent agenda, then it's subject to the, the regular rules.

Um, so I'll see if there's any further discussion on this item. Um, is there any objection to laying this item on the table?

Okay, hearing and seeing none, uh, this item has also been laid on the table. And I'll note this is item 10E.7 in our agenda, so if somebody does want to pull it for further discussion, um, that can be done through the consent agenda process. So with that, I think we've taken care of our laid on the table items, and so I will ask for a motion to incorporate the addendum to the agenda including those laid on the table items. Addendums. So moved.

Second. Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to incorporate the addendum and laid on the table. Second by Mr. Boland. Any further discussion on that item?

Any objection to incorporating the agenda?

Hearing and seeing none, that has been incorporated. And of course, we will come back to the consent agenda for any specific items that folks would like to pull.

Okay, um, and then so next we have, uh, two appearance requests. So I will call them up in order on the agenda. First we have Mr. Charles McKee, if you'd like to come forward.

And then I will remind you to turn on the microphone, make sure the light is green, and then I'll ask you to state your name, what part of town you're in, and then you all have 3 minutes. Thank you. My name is Charles McKee. I'm a beneficiary of the McKee Trust, a Susticay Trust, a business platform that you also use. It is cultivated from this protective act, the Bankruptcy Act of 1935.

To avoid constructive action against me, QE TAM, I am in competence, not deceptive as the use of the officer that typed up this incident report. It must have been a typo, but he, he wrote he struck the vehicle. In this case, what— before you— I was stopped, I was not moving. The manufacturing certificate of origin is owned by the state of Alaska, which ties in this whole problem. The business platform in use to govern the members of this trust estate as if a credit union of shareholders of Anchorage.

So the members here, me included, as a member of a credit union business platform, as I sent to you people and also posted on the state recording Anchorage 301. So the distinction in law not to use hard bargaining or business shrewdness towards the principles.

So toward the principles, me and everybody else, I ask this body, the past, in good faith to release my endowment. And instead I receive arvis. And so I'm here to again, um, ask through use of QE TAM not to throw me and my trust application into constructive notice and deny me access by throwing it in that legal parameter. It's where the court has access to it, which is indeed what they're doing. And that's why I'm claiming, uh, QETAM.

Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. McKee.

Okay, next we have our second appearance request of the evening. Miss Sharon Jackson, please come forward.

Hello, I'm Sharon Jackson, and I'm from Scenic Foothills. I've been here 3 times, and again, I will talk about gang stalking and APD. For all the people who are gang stalked, I want to tell you, never give up. Document, document, document. And if you can afford to get a psych evaluation, do.

When something happens to you, look and obtain witnesses. Take photos, photos, photos, and then go to your city hall, your assembly, your lawmakers, the ACLU, or the NAACP. Never give up. It has been 3 times, like I said, I've been here, and I was unheard by the APD and given the name of their behaviorist like I was crazy. I'm fortunate, after 12 years, 8 months of being stalking, I am now— I now have a pending meeting with the chief of police and the president of the NAACP.

I hear Sean Case is a good man, and I love Cheryl Cox Williams. Society is so confusing. Canada and Greenland are enemies. Putin, Kim Jong-un are admired. Monsters are made out of teenagers toting a candy bar.

That's crazy. Religious fanatics follow a person wherever they go while hacking all of their devices. APD is given evidence, witnesses that include 3 mental health experts. APD is also provided with a negative drug test, a letter from an IT expert that says this person is being hacked, and numerous witnesses. 3 Mental health experts.

Experts have looked at numerous pieces of evidence and have determined the person is sane.

Does APT— ABD talk to the witness?

Freudian slip. No, there was a decision made that this person needs help, the help of their APD behaviorist, implying she was insane while two people were working at the municipality who could support the claims of the individual were promoted to state jobs. Law-abiding me was gangstalked by members of APD and their zealot friends off and on for years. Should APD be given devices to provide surveillance? I think not.

I've received a text message one day after sexual activity in the privacy of my bedroom. And the text said, "I know what you were doing last night." There were cameras that appeared to be taking pictures, 3 of them, traffic cameras. It was registered that I was going 20— I was going 25 miles an hour, it said 52. I went to the FBI and my glass shower exploded. My counselor was robbed of her paperwork and she believes it was because I went to the press.

My counselor went to the police and she was treated like a criminal. Another incident in Anchorage, like I said, was the cameras. APD is responsible— should be responsible, but they're not. So for them to use surveillance tools to increase it, it's crazy. And there's 9 other people like me that I know of.

Thank you for participating. I will also ask if you would like to provide additional information, you can please do so by— if you would like to provide your statement in writing as well, you're welcome to email us. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Okay, next we have the consent agenda. So as a reminder, the consent agenda is items 10A through 10G, typically routine or non-controversial items such as bid awards, new business information and reports, as well as ordinances and resolutions for introduction. The items on the consent agenda may be approved by the assembly by a single vote in a motion to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, items may be pulled by assembly members for discussion and separate vote on each of those items. And so, uh, and then a note, uh, anything that is an ordinance has a public hearing at a future date, as well as some resolutions depending on the purpose.

So we will next move down the dais and ask folks what we'd like to pull on the consent agenda. So I will start this evening with Mr. Johnson. 10A1. That is all, Chair. Okay, I have 10 Alpha 1.

Uh, next I have Ms. Park. 10A2. Thank you, Chair. Okay, 10A2, Ms. Park. Uh, next, Mr. McCormick.

10F1. Okay, 10F1, Mr. McCormick. Uh, next, Ms. Scout.

Nothing to pull. Okay, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. 10A3, 10B as in Bravo 2.

Okay, I have, uh, 10 Alpha 3, 10 Bravo 2 for Miss Baldwin-Day. Uh, next, Mr. Boland. No items, thank you, Chair.

Scratch that, I'll pull item 10B1. Okay, 10B1, Mr. Bowens. And next, Mr. Perez-Fredia, who is on the phone. Thank you, Chair, no items tonight. Okay, next, Ms. Silvers.

10B1. Okay, that one has been pulled. Oh, sorry. Any additional items? Okay, uh, next, Mr. Gerker.

No items, thank you, Chair. Mr. Martinez? No items. And Mr. Handeland?

Uh, 10A.4 for reading and 10D.3.

Okay, I have 10A.4 and 10D.3, Mr. Handeland. So I'll read back the items, and I will also note, um, this seems like a good time to do it. 11B is a recognition resolution that is not in the consent agenda. It was last time and we postponed it to this meeting. So I'll just state, um, for those who are here for that, we are going to move that one up with the other recognition resolutions, but we need to move through this procedure first.

Um, so the items that have been pulled so far is, uh, 10A-1, uh, Mr. Johnson, 2, Ms. Park, 3, Ms. Baldwin-Day, and 4, Mr. Handeland. And then we have in the 10Bs, uh, 10B-1, Mr. Boland, 10B-2, Ms. Baldwin-Day, and then 10Ds 10D3, Mr. Handeland, and lastly the 10Fs, 10F1, Mr. McCormick. Are there any additional items to pull at this time? Uh, Chair, I'd like to pull 10B03 as well. Okay, and then I'm going to add 10B3, Miss Baldwin-Day.

Okay, so I believe those are our items.

One moment.

Okay, Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you. Um, I would like to request, um, that the chair direct the clerk to set the public hearing for item 10G7.

For the meeting of October 6th. Okay, uh, so not pulling that one, just changing the public hearing? Correct. Okay, uh, so I will direct the clerk to make that change. Um, so 10G, uh, 7, the public hearing date should be October 6th.

Okay, uh, so those are the items. Um, one second. So, um, next I'll be seeking a motion to approve the consent agenda minus the the pulled items. Move to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Second.

Okay, uh, motion by Mr. Bolland to approve, second by Mr. Gerker. Any further discussion on that?

Okay, uh, any further discussion on this? Any objec— any objection to the adoption of the consent agenda?

Okay, hearing and seeing none, the consent agenda has been adopted. For folks who were here for any of those items that were listed, unless they were pulled, then those items have just been approved. Unless they were set for introduction, then they will be back at a future meeting. So next we'll move on to our recognition resolutions, but before we do that, Mr. Voland. Madam Chair, I move to change the order of the day to take up item 11B immediately after item 10A4.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Vohland to change the order to move up 11B to be after 10A4. Second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any objection?

Okay, not hearing any objections, so that item will be reordered. We will take it up, um, uh, after the other recognition resolutions. So next we will move on to our first of those recognition resolutions, and that is Second is 10A.1, so that is AR 2026-249, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September 2026 as National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. This item was pulled by Mr. Johnson. Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Johnson to approve, second by Mr. Boland. Any further discussion on this item? Like to be added as a sponsor. OK, yeah, it looks like there's some members.

I know this is one of our annual resolutions, so we have not gone through and updated with all members. Is there any objection by anybody to be added if you're not already? OK, not seeing any objections, so we will add all members. And is there any objection to approval of this one?

OK, hearing and seeing none, then this resolution AR 2026-249 is adopted. I believe we have Mr. Johnson reading and Mr. Martinez presenting. So if you're here for these National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, please feel free to come forward.

Whereas National Suicide Prevention Month unites mental health advocates, prevention organizations, survivors, allies, and community members to promote suicide prevention awareness, to reorganize suicide— excuse me, to recognize suicide as a preventable national and statewide public health problem. World Suicide Prevention Day is September 10th, which aims to raise awareness, bring attention to the issue, and reduce stigma. And whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, reports suicide was the 10th leading cause of death overall in the United States and the 2nd leading cause of death among individuals aged 10 to 34 in 2024, 48,824 Americans died by suicide, with an estimated 2.2 million suicide attempts, an increase from 2023. And in 2023, the CDC reported that people 85 years and older had the highest suicide rate of any age group. And whereas Alaska's suicide rate remains among the highest in the country at around 30 deaths per 100,000 people, more than double the national rate of 14 per 100,000.

The Alaska Department of Health reported that 213 Alaskans died by suicide in 2023. And according to the Alaska Mental Health Analytics and Vital Records Section, Region 8 comprising the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Municipality of Anchorage, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough has the highest number of suicide deaths of any region in the state. And whereas everyone has a role in preventing suicide and can learn suicide risks and warning signs and encourage and assist those who struggle to seek help, and whereas the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention Alaska chapter focuses on eliminating the loss of life from suicide by delivering innovative prevention programs, educating the public about risk factors, and reaching out to those individuals who have lost someone to suicide. And encourages anyone who is experiencing suicidal thoughts to call the Alaska CareLine 24/7 crisis hotline at 877-266-HELP or the Suicide Crisis Lifeline at 988. And now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month and encourages all Anchorage residents to help promote suicide prevention awareness passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this first day of September 2026.

Thank you.

Yeah. And if there's anybody who would like to speak, please. Madam Chair and Assembly, thank you for the recognition for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and recognizing September as Suicide Prevention Month. The Alaska chapter of AFSPA works really hard as volunteers. We're all grassroots.

We self-fund and reach out throughout the entire state to support suicide prevention. We've gone as far as the North Slope, out to Dutch Harbor, into Southeast Alaska, and here in Anchorage. On September 19th, we have an event coming up called an Out of the Darkness Walk. I would challenge every member of the assembly to please attend. When we in Alaska have the highest rate and Anchorage is one of those highest numbers, it's important that we're all part of the same team, whether you're Republican, Democrat, whatever denomination you are, recognition and political out, you know, wherever you're from.

This is one common cause to save lives. And without your support and the community, we are not able to do what we do. But thank you for the recognition.

Thank you. Dennis Lassley, South Anchorage. Members Johnson, members McCormick, thank you guys so much for your continued support. The rest of the assembly, thank you guys as well. Mayor LaFrance, thank you to you and your team.

Much appreciated. Unfortunately, Alaska continues to have some of the highest rates With that said, we're continuing to make great strides, uh, partnerships with you guys, partnerships with the Anchorage Police Department, partnerships with the Anchorage Fire Department, recognizing the importance of proper response for those that are in mental health crisis. Uh, that matters, and that's because of you guys and the direction and the leadership that you provide. So thank you guys so much.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you so much for your work. Thank you. Yeah, important, important issue.

Next, we'll move on to our second recognition resolution, 10A2, AR 2026-250, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage recognizing September 20th as LGBTQ Veterans Day. This item was pulled by Ms. Park. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

A resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage recognizing—. Sorry, that's right, first we need to do the motion to approve and then we can do this. Okay, thank you.

Would you like me to speak to it?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Park to approve, a second by Mr. Boland. Would you like to Or I guess, are there any additional— I guess if anybody would like to be added as a sponsor, any additional comments? Okay, see Miss Baldwin-Day, Miss Park, Mr. Bolland, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Martinez.

Okay.

And Miss Scout, sorry, I saw you, I did not verbally say your name, so thank you. So we'll get those members added, and then I see folks are coming up to the front, so I'll see if there's any objection to adoption of this resolution.

Hearing and seeing none, um, this resolution is adopted. So I believe Ms. Park is reading and Ms. Silvers is presenting. So please proceed, Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. A resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage recognizing September 20th, 2026 as LGBTQ Veterans Day.

Whereas Anchorage is home to a proud and diverse community of veterans, service members, military families, and civilians who contribute to the strength, security, and civic life of the municipality, the state of Alaska, and the nation. And whereas lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other LGBTQIA+ Anchorage residents are part of the city's military, veterans, and community— civic communities and have served the United States Air Force in every generation, and whereas LGBTQIA+ veterans and service members have committed to the defense, resilience, and prosperity of the United States through their courage, sacrifice, professionalism, and commitment to duty, and whereas September 20th marks the anniversary of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an important milestone in the history of military service and public life in the United States. And whereas recognizing LGBTQIA+ veterans affirms the dignity of service, honors the contributions of all who have worn the uniform, and strengthens the bonds of community belonging and civic trust. And whereas Anchorage recognizes the importance of honoring veterans from all backgrounds and celebrating the many ways veterans continue to serve their families, communities, city, state, and nation. Now therefore, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly resolved that September 20th, 2026 is recognized as LGBTQ Veterans Day in Anchorage and commends its observance to all residents.

Passed and approved by Anchorage Assembly this first day of September 2026. Thank you.

Yeah. And I'll invite anybody who would like to speak, please come forward. Representative Gray. Thank you. Andrew Gray, Campbell Park.

I want to say that LGBTQ folk have served in militaries since militaries existed. But we've only served openly in America for the past 15 years. I'm grateful to the Anchorage Assembly and the mayor for acknowledging September 20th, the 15th anniversary of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which allowed me to serve openly and allowed those who were already serving to do so honestly. Thank you. Thank you.

And anybody else would like to make remarks, please feel free to come up.

I served with Captain Gray. My name is Mike Grunst Muldoon, 35-year veteran. I've served in on every continent except Antarctica. I've served in combat. I've jumped out of airplanes for 24 and a half years, and there is no greater bravery than to walk in every day in a uniform in which you are shamed for your existence.

So these soldiers, airmen, these sailors who have served privately our country to defend our freedoms despite being shamed for who they are, are the bravest I have ever served with, and I'm grateful eternally for what they have done for us. Thank you.

I want to say thank you to the assembly. I'm Denise Sudbeck. I'm a Vietnam-era U.S. Navy veteran from the submarine service. And no, I did not jump out of airplanes.

So it was my pleasure to serve the United States in that regard. And thank you for honoring us tonight. Appreciate that.

I had the distinct privilege of serving with both Sergeant Major Grunst and Captain Gray for many years in the Alaska Army National Guard. I just want to say that in the next 10 years, 20 years, that soldiers have the same privilege of serving as I did. Thank you.

I am not a veteran, but I'm a healthcare provider for these veterans, and so I'm humbled in their company, but I am proud to serve all who served. No matter what they believe or who they are. And even though it's very scary to work in the federal government right now, I continue to provide healthcare even in these times when it is very difficult. And these are still very brave humans who approach me in order to continue to get treatment for all of their health conditions because their providers are often lost even though their bodies work just exactly the same as everybody else's. They're like, I don't know how to treat hypertension in these people.

And I'm like, I don't know why you don't. And so it's left up to me to, to handle these people. And I am proud to continue serving their health care needs no matter what.

Thank you. And before you sit down, there's one person in the queue, Mr. Martinez. Thank you. I just want to express my appreciation for being here today, for you all showing up today. Thank you for your bravery in uniform and in your civvies.

Thank you for holding space for the others and for your bravery in the face of continuing culture wars. We will not go back into the shadows. Thank you for being here.

Yeah, thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. Uh, next we'll move on to item 10A.3, AR 2026-251, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September 2026 as Library Card Sign-up Month. Um, I don't know, we might have some, uh, some of our colleagues from the library showing up for this one. Uh, this was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve, seconded by Mr. Gerker. Any further discussion on this one?

Any—. Okay, any objection to adoption?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then this item is now adopted. I believe this one will be read by Ms. Baldwin-Day, presented by Mr. Gerker. So go ahead, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Whereas Library Card Sign-up Month has been celebrated by libraries each September since 1987 to unite in a nationwide effort to ensure every person signs up for their own library card.

And whereas the library is a cornerstone of lifelong learning, offering free access to reading materials that support growth, curiosity, and education at every age and stage of life. And whereas early literacy begins with access to board books and picture books that help young children develop language, imagination, and social-emotional skills, and whereas school-age children benefit from chapter books and other materials that encourage independent reading, academic success, creativity, and discovery, and whereas teens rely on a wide-ranging collection of materials to explore different perspectives, develop the language needed to understand new concepts, and engage with stories and information that support their educational, personal, and social growth, and whereas adults depend on robust collections of fiction and nonfiction that support lifelong learning, skill development, leisure reading, and engagement with a wide array of ideas, cultures, and experiences. And whereas older adults benefit from accessible, engaging reading materials across all genres that support continued intellectual growth, recreational reading, and overall quality of life. And whereas a library card serves as a gateway to all these materials—board books, picture books, chapter books, adult fiction, adult nonfiction, and more. Available in multiple formats including print, digital, and audio.

And whereas Library Card Sign-up Month encourages community members to connect with their library, explore its collections, and celebrate the role of reading at every age and stage. Now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes and celebrates the month of September as National Library Card Sign-up Month and encourages all residents of the municipality to visit their nearest Anchorage Public Library location to get their own library card. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this first day of September 2026. Thank you. Yeah, and I'll invite Director Harrison and your staff if you'd like to say something.

Hi, thank you so much. Thank you for celebrating Library Card Sign-up Month with us. We have an amazing crew here that helps our community make the most of their library card, working across 6 locations including Garish Library in Girdwood, Chugiak/Eagle River Library, Muldoon, Mountain View, our Express Locker in Diamond Center, and of course here at LUSAC. Our new mobile library is extending service to South Anchorage, and coming in 2027, we can't wait to expand full library card access to downtown. We have a goal of 1,100 new card signups in September.

So if you don't have a library card, now is the perfect time to get one. If you have a library card and haven't used your card this month, we invite you to see what you're missing, whether it's the latest audiobook, your favorite print book series, or your next bedtime story. For an extra scoop of library fun, we invite you to help us create a book-themed ice cream flavor with our friends at Wild Scoops now through September 13th. You can get a scoop sheet from your youth services here at Lusak or from any library location You get a limited edition sticker for participating, and you can taste the winning flavor chosen by our community at the end of the month. It's lots of fun.

And if you're into kombucha, join us for Bucha for Books next Thursday, where we'll be pairing craft beverages with library books for our fourth annual book tasting at Sip Kombucha. And of course, we're signing up folks for library cards. So we can't wait to see you here at Anchorage Public Library. For 907. #907LibraryLove.

Thank you. Thank you. I have, uh, before you go, I have, uh, Miss Baldende in the queue. Yeah, thank you. Um, I, uh, I would— I don't know that there's a spot that's on this actual resolution, but I'd like to be added as a sponsor for this if possible.

Um, and then I also, uh, wanted to, um, just thank you all for the work that you do. Uh, the this library was a really, really special place, especially for my daughter. She's been a lover of libraries since she was very tiny and was so excited to get her very own library card when she was basically a toddler. So thank you for that. And just to the rest of the community, if wild scoops and kombucha isn't enough to incentivize you to participate in Library Card Sign-Up Month, perhaps the legacy of Dolly Parton might be enough.

And I think as someone who was a champion of early literacy And of course, the Imagination Library, that is another way that we can honor someone who has passed, a giant really in the world of young people's education. So may that be an invitation. Thank you.

Okay.

And I'll note, again, if anybody else would like to be added as a sponsor. Okay.

Okay, see, is that everybody, or— okay, I think everybody's good with being added as a sponsor to that one, so we'll get that one reflected in the record. Um, and I will say, last time those guys were here, I had not updated my library card, but I did remember to do that this year, not because of this, but thank you. Um, and then I'll also note, so we have 2 more recognition resolutions. We will do those. Uh, the clerk has informed me, uh, that we will need to do a system reset of our system.

So what we're going to do is go through those 2 things, then take just a 5-minute break, um, so that we can do the computer magic so that it doesn't just drag forever, and then we can come back to our meeting. So, uh, so next we'll move on to 10A4, uh, that is AR 2026-252, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September 26, 2026 as National Preparedness Month. This one was pulled, uh, by, uh, Mr. Handeland. Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Handeland to approve, second by Mr. Boland.

Any further discussion on this one?

Any objection to adoption of this resolution? Okay, seeing, hearing none, then this resolution has been adopted. And then I believe we have Mr. Voland presenting and Mr. Handlin reading. So please go ahead, Mr. Handlin.

Yeah, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September 26th, or September 2026 as National Preparedness Month. Whereas National Preparedness Month observed each September creates an important opportunity for Municipality of Anchorage residents to prepare their homes, businesses, and communities to best respond to— to best respond to, mitigate against, and recover from emergencies including natural and human-caused disasters. And whereas the Municipality of Anchorage experienced significant disasters in the history, including the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake, one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded in North America, causing widespread, widespread destruction and loss of life, heightening the importance of preparedness. And whereas Anchorage also faced recent emergencies, including severe winter storms, urban Inference wildfires, flooding, the 2018 Point McKenzie earthquake, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Highland avalanche, and severe— and suffered the host city— served as the host city in the evacuation of western Alaska communities during the 2025 Typhoon Ha Long, demonstrating the resilience and preparedness of our community, and whereas these events underscore the importance of the shared responsibility of robust emergency planning through community-wide preparedness efforts to mitigate the impact of future disasters, and whereas the Municipality of Anchorage Office of Emergency Management, State of Alaska, and Federal Emergency Management Agency work together with numerous other federal, state, local, tribal, private industry, and volunteer agencies to increase public activities in preparing for emergencies and to educate and encourage individuals to take action to safeguard lives, property, and the environment. And whereas invest— investing in preparedness of ourselves, our families, businesses, schools, and community organizations can reduce suffering, fatalities, and economic devastation in our community and our nation.

And whereas the Municipality of Anchorage residents are encouraged to and empowered by participating in individual and household preparedness activities, creating disaster supply kits, developing and practicing emergency plans, and staying connected to public safety alert and warning information messaging messages and services for critical information about potential hazards to strengthen our community. And whereas the Municipality of Anchorage is committed to enhancing emergency preparedness through comprehensive planning, community education, and collaboration. And now, therefore, be it resolved, the Anchorage Assembly resolves that residents are encouraged to support community preparedness efforts by working together with neighborhoods towards creating more prepared and disaster resilient community. And be it further resolved that the Municipality of Anchorage will continue to prioritize and promote emergency preparedness initiatives, providing resources and supporting and support to help all our community members prepare and be ready for an emergency. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage and approved by the assembly.

And I see we have our Emergency Operations Director. Please feel free to speak, Miss Loach.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Amanda Loach. I'm the director here at the Office of Emergency Management in the municipality. Um, I just wanted to say, um, thank you to all of you for supporting us. I know I've worked with you guys during disasters and emergencies recently, and then as well just day to day around the city.

You guys are always working hard to make things safer and Any little, every little bit counts. As far as preparedness goes, we do have a lot of planned events. We're lucky enough not to be in an emergency right now, so we can work on some of the preparedness events that we have. We have several planned events such as weather talks here in the library. That's always a really popular topic, is to work with the Weather Service ahead of a disaster and, and learn how to spot extreme circumstances for weather and then report those and be part of citizen science.

We also have events out in the community with our nonprofit partners, and we have several professional and volunteer engagements that we're going to do training out in the community as well. But I think the biggest focus that we wanted to have for this Preparedness Month is that of our alert and warning system here in Anchorage. Despite our best efforts as a community, we are below the national average as far as registering for that system. We hope that, that people can start engaging with that local information that's available through the emergency system to really engage with our biggest group of first responders, and that's all of you out in the public. So, um, we have this alert and warning system that you can register really easily by texting 67283, the word Anchorage.

So text the word Anchorage to the number 67283, and you will be registered to receive local emergency alerts from our agency. Um, we do hope that you can pass that information along, and certainly the Office of Emergency Management will be reaching out through social media all this month to tell you more about it. Thanks. Thank you. Um, and I have Mr. Martinez in the queue.

Yes, thank you so much for your work. And just a note to the public, uh, preparedness is not just a month-long activity for the Municipality of Anchorage. I know you all do work work all year long. But this assembly also embedded the language of preemptive emergency development and resiliency into our policies, a practical acknowledgement that Anchorage must prepare for disruptions by strengthening systems and processes now rather than relying on reactive or externally driven responses. If we can be in front of the next problem, the better off we are.

Thank you for the work you do in our community.

Okay, thank you again for being here. Um, so, okay, and then, uh, one heads up, so we have one more recognition resolution. We still need to do the reset. Um, I think it's also will be after that resolution a good time to invite our students to come up and do a brief introduction. Um, and then if we still need more time, uh, then we will still take that break.

So next we have item 11B. A reminder, we changed the order of the day. So this is AR 2026-244, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September as Hunger Action Month and supporting the elimination of hunger in Anchorage. There was no motion pending on this item. So what is the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Johnson, second by Ms. Scout. Any further discussion on this item?

I guess I'll also direct my colleagues, um, to item 11B1, which is a complementary informational memo related to this resolution. Okay, thank you. Yeah, that's in the late on the table items supplemental, so, and it will be associated with this item. Okay, is there any objection? Well, also I'll ask, I see there's an incomplete list of sponsors.

Is there anyone who would like to be added as a sponsor? Okay, I see Ms. Baldwin-Day. Or does anybody object to being added?

Okay, then please direct— we'll add all members.

Is there any objection to adoption of this resolution?

Seeing and hearing none, this resolution has been adopted. So if you were here to accept the resolution, please come forward. And then I believe we have Ms. Scott Reading and Mr. Johnson presenting. So please go ahead.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September as Hunger Action Month and supporting the elimination of hunger in Anchorage. Whereas Hunger Action Month is a national campaign held every September to raise awareness and inspire action to end hunger in America, launched in 2007 by the Feeding America network of food banks. And whereas Anchorage is home to a network of food banks and pantries and food distribution partners which collectively serve thousands of residents across the municipality through innovative programs, partnerships, and community outreach, and whereas hunger continues to impact people across Anchorage, with nearly 40,000 residents facing food insecurity, including more than 12,000 children, and whereas the overall food insecurity rate in Anchorage has risen to 13.8%, with childhood food insecurity exceeding 18.4%. And whereas Anchorage relies on a variety of resources including emergency food assistance, community-based initiatives, and federally funded programs that work together to help residents access the nutritious food they need. And whereas the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, remains the most effective anti-hunger program for Anchorage residents, helping families access nutritious options essential for health and well-being.

And whereas Anchorage residents also benefit from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, which provides nutritious foods to moms, babies, and children under the age of 5. And whereas despite these critical supports, hunger is on the rise reflecting the persistent challenges families face in accessing enough nutritious food. And whereas Hunger Action Month is a time to raise awareness, inspire action, and recognize the tireless efforts of food banks, volunteers, programs, and advocates working to end hunger in Anchorage. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly resolves September is Hunger Action Month, encourages all citizens to give their time, and financial resources to the Food Bank of Alaska or other entities in Anchorage's anti-hunger network to help our neighbors in need. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this first day of September 2026.

All right, yeah, and if you'd like, if you'd like to say a few words, uh, please just push the button on the bottom to turn the microphone on, say your name, and then, uh, feel free to speak. Thank you. Grace Haglund Lohmann, South Edition. I am the advocacy manager at the Food Bank of Alaska. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the assembly, to the mayor for passing the resolution tonight recognizing September as Hunger Action Month.

Since 1979, the Food Bank of Alaska has worked toward ensuring that no Alaskan goes hungry, but after nearly 50 years, food insecurity remains a persistent and pervasive challenge. Facing our community. Food Bank of Alaska and our network of over 150 partners statewide, nearly 40 of those based here in Anchorage, work every day, every week, and every month of the year to feed our neighbors. During September, we extend this call to action to each of you to join our fight to end hunger. Our partners include faith-based organizations, community centers, tribal organizations, soup kitchens, and food pantries.

Outside of our network, community members feed their neighbors through private donations, community gardens and meals, farm stands and school meals, meal delivery programs, just to name a few. I'd also like to special shout out the community resource group librarians who help people sign up for SNAP every day. This work doesn't happen in isolation, and I want to take a moment to recognize the work of the Anchorage Health Department, including the incredible impact of the Fresh Bucks program, which helps increased the purchasing power for locally grown fruits and vegetables at Grow North Farm and Muldoon Farmers Markets. I also want to thank, to thank the municipality for supporting Food Bank of Alaska's annual Thanksgiving Blessing event, which provides a complete Thanksgiving meal for participating families. We at Food Bank of Alaska are so grateful to this community for the support we receive and redistribute to our neighbors in need.

But with food insecurity continuing to rise year after year, we can all do more. I invite you to dive deeper into the conversation about hunger, uh, in Anchorage this month and to think creatively about how we can ensure that no one goes hungry and to view potential policies from public safety and transportation to emergency preparedness and suicide prevention with a food access lens. Our neighbors— our neighborhoods are better for it when all our neighbors are fed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and with that, I know members are seeing the, the yellow bar of our dysfunction at the top of our screens, so we will take a break if needed. Right now our computer system is going to reset, but as I said, this is a great opportunity to hear from our students. So if I can invite students to come up to the podium, you can line up, and then again, you don't have to say that much, but just asking you to, uh, say who you are, what school you go to, um, what grade you're in. And I know members often want to know what class you're in, uh, who your teacher is, uh, who brought you here today. So please feel free to introduce yourself.

And then again, uh, you can turn on the microphone, so the button on the bottom turns the light green, then you know it's on. And you don't have to hold it, you can just press it once. There you go. Go ahead. Hi, I'm Nadia Everard.

I am in 11th grade at Lumen Christi High School. And I am here for my U.S. government class. My teacher is Ms. Hazlett.

Hi, my name is Natalie Storr. I'm in 11th grade. I go to Lumen Christi High School, and I'm here for Ms. Hazlett's government and U.S. economics class.

My name is Elizabeth Anderson. I'm in 9th grade, and I'm I'm from Grace Christian School.

Okay, thank you for being here.

And of course, um, at the dinner break, if you guys need paperwork signed— sometimes that's the case— feel free to approach us at that point. So, um, so I'll check with the clerk really quick if our tech is on order.

Okay, it sounds like we are maybe not confident that it's going to work, but we will proceed and see if, see if it breaks. So doing the best we can. So next we'll move on to the rest of our consent agenda. So first we have item 10B1. Let me read that into the record.

So A resolution AR 2026-253, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly requesting a comprehensive audit of Assembly individual spending accounts from January 1, 2023 to the present and of governing policies and procedures. This item was pulled by Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to move to postpone indefinitely.

Second. Okay, there's a motion to postpone this item indefinitely by Mr. Voland, second by Mr. Martinez. Martinez, do you want to speak to that, Mr. Bowen? Yes, um, so I, I, for my part, I feel like this is, uh, duplicative of an already ongoing effort.

Um, leadership did request a special project audit looking at recent assembly member travel, more recent than this. This is very broad in scope, and I think would, um, really demand a lot of staff capacity and, and time. And essentially, um, actually I should say potentially, if this were to pass, um, this would I think bump other priorities off the list. We have some, uh, already things that are planned in terms of audits and things that we need to take a look at. So My colleagues, Assembly members, will have received in their inbox today an email from Chair Brawley that outlines an interim policy.

Essentially what that interim policy states, paraphrased here briefly, is that we're going to be putting a pause on Assembly member travel outside of the main conferences for AML, NLC, and NACo.

That I think will allow us to have this, this conversation that has already started at a recent Rules Committee meeting. Leadership did solicit feedback from members on their ideas on how we can improve our travel policy and put some things into place. So I think we can do this in a way— I think we can get to a place policy-wise with the input of all of our colleagues where we feel like there are some clear parameters around using ISA travel funds without making this incredible demand on our municipal staff. So I look forward to doing that. I know I have some ideas.

I put some of those forward in, in our rules committee meeting, and we are certainly listening to the ideas that our colleagues bring forward. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks. I'll note, uh, so next time Miss Silver's in the queue, and I'll note the queue has been moving really slowly, so I'll just keep visually checking too, and I'll try to keep track if it's not working. I did see when I tested it came back in, now it says it's disconnected. Anyway, um, in the meantime, we'll proceed. So Miss Silver, go ahead.

Yeah, I think I would just ask my colleagues to have the discussion and vote yes or no at the end of the discussion rather than postponing indefinitely. So that's what I would ask. Thanks.

Okay. And again, I can see that we're having an issue, so I can also keep an eye on my phone if folks are texting to get in the queue. It looks like Miss Scout, go ahead.

Thank you. Um, I echo Member Silver's thoughts. I'd like to have the discussion on this. I will not support moving to postpone this indefinitely. Um, when we took up previous resolutions related to this focusing on just one member, um, I personally asked that we look at, um, the actions, the individual spending accounts of all members.

I believe this speaks to this. I know I wasn't the only one on this body who wanted to see this, obviously. Um, and so I, I believe there are other ways that we can shift the workload of the auditor's office to accommodate for these special projects. But I don't believe that moving to postpone this indefinitely is the way.

Okay, next I have Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just echo what, uh, my colleagues, uh, have already said about not postponing this indefinitely. Um, look, any conversation we want to have about prospective changes to our policy needs to be rooted in understanding what has happened in the past. So I do think I think this is an important audit to pass to make sure that we fully understand how this has happened and where we're at exactly.

There are amendments to narrow it down, to narrow the scope of this a little bit because it is, you know, as initially presented, it is a lot. And so in talking with internal audit to try and find ways to, you know, reduce the workload because there's a tremendous amount of important work. I don't know if Alden's— yeah, there's Alden. There's a tremendous amount of important work that he's doing, and him and his team, and we don't want to delay that too much necessarily, but this is also really important. This is an important thing for public trust in this institution that we're capable of governing ourselves.

So I do encourage folks to vote no on postponing this indefinitely and then yes on the main motion to approve it if that comes up.

Okay. And I know the— Q is messed up at the moment, but Mr. Volland actually is the next one in the queue unless I see somebody else.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I think I'll just take another crack at this. This is an enormous workload. In fact, in the responses to assembly member questions, we heard from the administration an estimate of about 250 hours. This would bump very important audit information, audit plans that are already in process.

So I think it would be an enormous request of staff time. We're talking about, I think we calculated 27 Assembly members, current and former, records would have to be pulled.

At least one of those members who is now deceased. I mean, going back that far and I just don't see a lot of productivity in that. I think we have the information from what municipal staff already did for us. They already did a special study, more limited in scope, and I think from that and from reviewing the existing policy and past policies, we can make the tweaks that we want to make.

Yeah, I just don't see, in terms of having a conversation, I don't, I don't see this leading down a productive a very productive path.

I'm sorry, the audience is not participating in debate. Thank you.

Yeah, I think we have the information that we need to be able to better inform our policy and to maybe put more guardrails in place. We've already talked about limiting the amount of the ISA that can be spent on travel. We've already, you know, I put forward the idea of maybe getting rid of per diem. Other members can bring forward ideas to improve the policy. I don't think we need to go back and be looking at assembly members who, who aren't even in service anymore, who maybe served a decade ago.

So for me, this is just— I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze. I think we can make real meaningful progress on our policy without this piece. Thank you. Okay, next I have Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair.

I, I'm— want to be clear, I'm fully in support of the adjustments that the chair has made in the interim to our ISA policies, our individual spending account policies. And I, as the chair of the Audit Committee, I am absolutely mindful of the workload of our internal audit and likewise want to be respectful of the clerk's time, who will also be factoring heavily into this project. That said, there is an amendment that I've drafted that would reduce the workload considerably, at least constraining this audit to the immediate members— or the special study, I should say. It is not a true audit. I want to be careful about that language.

Constraining this special study to the sitting members of the assembly and the immediate past members, which is 15, not 27. So I, I think that that narrows the workload in such a fashion that it is worth considering. And I encourage my colleagues to think about that as they're determining whether or not to vote to postpone this item indefinitely. Thank you. Okay, and the queue is semi-working, so I just want to check.

Mr. Gerker, you were in the queue, but was that from earlier? Correct. Member Bolden-Day said what I was going to say. Okay, thanks. Um, okay, and then, uh, so Mr.

Bolden. Yeah, Madam Chair, in the interest of efficiency, I think I will just withdraw my motion and we can vote.

Okay, after further debate. Okay, so the motion to postpone indefinitely has been withdrawn. So now currently there's no motion on the floor. So is there a motion? You don't need to be— to approve.

Second. Uh, the clerk is asking, do you mean the S version or the original version? The S version, please. Okay, so motion by, uh, Member Silvers to approve the S version, uh, second by Member Gerker. Uh, Miss Silvers.

Okay, so, um, what this resolution does is it calls for a special study, um, and it would go back to January 2023 and examine all spending, um, not just travel, by all assembly members.

We've narrowed it a little bit because of the workload, and it looks like we have an amendment to narrow it a little bit more. But what it does look at is it looks at if there's any misuse of assembly spending accounts that has occurred, and then the second thing it looks at is to make recommendations for improving our policy. I do want to really actually make something pretty clear here. I believe in the integrity and the professionalism of our assembly staff who manage these accounts, and I do not believe that any substantial misuse has occurred. That being said, I also don't believe that the public should have to take my word for it.

I believe that transparency is the key to trust, and so I would like to move the study forward so that the, the public can have that trust and can know and not have to to take our word for it.

Yeah, and so that being said, I guess I will let Erin move her— or Member Baldwin-Day move her amendment.

Yeah, sorry. So the queue is being slow. I had intended to put myself in the queue. But also note that if, if you are intending to put yourself in the queue, I'm going to continue trying to catch, and I'm keeping, keeping a paper list if I have to. So, um, so if I could be recognized in the queue.

Chair Brawley. Thank you. Um, and, and again, I'll keep track of for others in the queue. Um, I, I guess I'm going to say some things about this. Um, one is It is frustrating that this is meeting number 4 that we are on a slightly different topic, but essentially the same topic, which is our internal business and how we spend the funding, um, that we use to do our legislative business.

I think it's a valid topic. I do want to note that there have been 27 people who have sat up at this dais since January 1st, 2023. I recognize that there's an amendment that may narrow that scope, um, but I think the question is really What can be learned that would inform our decisions now that are really about how we govern ourselves, this assembly, from people who served 3 years ago, 2 years ago, folks who, you know, maybe were finishing up a service that started a decade ago. I think that's a valid question because I think while having information in the abstract is helpful, I think we should not underestimate the amount of time this will take. It's not because I am worried about what those records are.

I genuinely don't know what they are. Because most of them I had no involvement in or no awareness of because the spending of an individual member is their business and through the chair approval, the chair's business at that time. I think the question really is if there was misuse of funds, how does that really impact what goes in a policy that is supposed to design against those things anyway? And if we do find misuse of funds, say from a member 2 or 3 years ago, What is the body's interest in pursuing corrective action against somebody who is now a private citizen? I think that is the question.

We, we continually come back to this question of we are making decisions for now and for the future, which can be changed by a future assembly, but we're really looking back and questioning the decisions of people who are not here anymore in one way or another and are not really germane to the discussion. And I think the other question is, again, to the point of corrective action, This body is a legislative body. We are not a court. We are not a board of appeals. We are not an entity that is set up to mete out judgment on other people.

And in fact, we've had multiple meetings again on a different subject where we spent hours talking about our legal authority to do that, whether that was a good idea, what the edges of that should be. So I think even when we get anywhere close to trying to correct something that already happened, It's really unclear how this body can do that. So I guess I question the members' interest in really spending this much time, especially staff time, digging through emails of people whose emails have been archived, trying to figure out if there was— I guess whether a given $50 expenditure has been properly accounted for or not. And I don't want to say that we don't care about the use of public funds, but it does make me start to wonder what is the best use of our public resources now? Are staff time, the time that it would take to go through these records, and really that all of our time collectively when we are moving into a very busy budget season and we have very serious problems.

We have housing issues, we have budget issues, we have public safety issues. So, so the question is, how many more hours is this body going to spend on that? And I would really just ask as one of the members and probably the person who would be most impacted by the time cost of this to really seriously consider the marginal benefit that this additional study would bring versus continuing the work to change the policy that Vice Chair Voland already laid out. Thank you.

So next I see Ms. Baldwin-Day in the queue.

Thank you, Chair. I think for my part I want to be clear that I'm not necessarily interested in corrective action for past members. I'm interested in patterns. I'm interested in trends. I'm interested in— I'm interested in the public trust.

And I think one of the things that we heard loud and clear over the course of the last several meetings is that the public does not trust us when we say that we have our house in order. And I think that that makes the rest of our work exponentially more difficult, both now and going forward. And so I do think it's worth the investment of time and resources to be able to demonstrate clearly to the public that yes, we are in fact operating in an aboveboard manner when it comes to the funds that have been entrusted to this branch and to these individual members. And I don't know that we can do that without an independent entity saying that such is the case, that independent entity being not us. And so that is my, that is my only rationale for bringing this resolution forward.

It is not because I think that there is going to be wrongdoing discovered. I think what is going to happen is we are going to find that, that there is no pattern of wrongdoing or misspending ISA funds. And, and that is, that is the crux of the question, is will the public trust us if we say that we have our house in order without an external entity saying that that is, that that is true? I'd like to move Baldwin Day Amendment Number 1, please. Second.

This amendment constrains, as I mentioned earlier— oh, sorry, there's a motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to move Amendment Number 1, seconded by Mr.— I'm sorry, Miss Silvers. Miss Baldwin-Day, go ahead. Thank you. This amendment simply constrains the parameters of the special study to current and immediately past members of the assembly rather than from the date of January 1st, 2023. And that, as I understand from our internal— our director of internal audit, reduces the time frame by approximately one-third for delivering the special study.

And I urge my colleagues' support. Thank you. Okay, I'll note, um, I— so the queue is frozen and it's showing Mr. Voland in the queue. I just confirmed he's not in there, so— but I think the others are, um, in there on purpose. So I'll ask if you're in for the amendment or the main.

Mr. Martinez? Do you want to speak to the amendment or the main?

Okay, uh, Mr. McCormick, amendment or main? Uh, I guess a question to the sponsor on the amendment: what is the difference of the comprehensiveness of an audit compared to a special study? What's the word change vernacular? Uh, that's a great question. I'll take a crack at it, and then I'm happy to ask our Director of Internal Audit to come up and elaborate.

So a formal audit requires that there be a particular set of parameters that are followed. There, there's actual step-by-step guidance as to how an audit is conducted, and part of that means that there has to be a responsive party. So anytime you see an internal audit coming to us from the internal auditor's office, it has management feedback, right? There's comments that are made, there's corrective action suggested, and then there are management comments to respond. And with the Assembly, since there are 12 of us, it is unclear who would be the management authority to respond to the, the findings of an audit.

So we're both constraining the scope in some ways with a special study, and we're also avoiding some of the procedural challenges or the question of who will speak for the Assembly, essentially, if we were to do this as a formal audit process. And if I have captured any of that incorrectly or inaccurately, I invite Mr. Alden Thurn to come up and say otherwise.

Good evening. I think through the chair, Member Baldende, I think she summarized pretty good, but I would also go back and say what you see on the AIMs, there was one tonight as well, that is a full-blown audit. Where we, we do a deep dive into a specific topic. We prepare a formal report. We ask the leader management of that particular department or area, once we have findings, to issue what they're going to do to fix those particular findings.

There is challenging because I believe in this particular endeavor, all 12 of you would like to probably get involved in what might be the, the the results of what you want to do. So that's where my concern has been, is who is going to be the person. Historically, when we did the first special study, it was, it was done by Chair Brawley. On this particular one, if it gets approved, I probably will write the memo that it's to the assembly as a whole who is receiving this, and it does not go in front of the assembly. Like the one did tonight.

So there is a lot of, uh, more programmatic things, but the real, the real crux of it is, is you don't have to respond in writing on what, what you're going to do to fix whatever we find or whatever our recommendations are, and it does not go in front of the assembly in a formal AIM like this one does. It will just be written up in a report. We will give it back to the assembly as a whole, and you can use that report to as you see fit.

Perfect. Thank you. With that knowledge, it seems appropriate to look at trends and make sure that we know how to correct issues going forward. And as some other members have said, we can't do that if we don't know what's broken. So I'll be in support of the amendment and the main.

Thank you.

Chair Brawley.

Well, yeah, I'll note, um, so I'm in the queue, and then because the queue is messed up right now, um, so myself in the queue with a question, then Mr. Martinez, then Mr. Bolland, um, and then I'll keep checking because it looks like people can get in and then maybe can't get out. So, um, my question is, um, to the sponsors. So when you say current and immediately past members of the assembly, can you clarify? Uh, so for example, I am currently in the seat that was previously held by, um, member Austin Commissioner Ashton Quinn Davidson. So does current mean, um, everybody who is served in the seat that is in there right now plus the person immediately before them, so up to 24 members?

Is that right?

Uh, the intent here is that it would be the 12 current members and then the 3 immediate past members who have just rotated out of service, so 15 members. If that's not clear, I'm happy to correct language in such a way that makes it clear. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think it just— if the intent is only the 3 members that left the body in 2026, then I think right now this reads that it could be any— all 12. Each seat has somebody that served before that, so I would welcome clarification.

So I don't like amending on the fly. Well, I think there's some folks in the queue, so I'll have to come back to it. Um, but yeah, I just— I wanted to put that question on the record, and I have concerns. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair.

Just following along with the sense of curiosity, especially considering where the initial version started and then kind of the subsequent versions, my question to the sponsors is— and I don't know this genuinely, um, but it'll help me understand the intent of the amendment— when were the ISAs instituted in the first place?

I haven't the foggiest idea, but I bet the clerk does.

So, I think—. Well, I wouldn't— yeah, I would ask. I'm not sure that there's somebody up here who knows the origin point of those. Well, presumably, it would be one of the members who presenting this forward would have that information. I wouldn't want to put the clerk under a follow-up question, but it highlights similarly the— you know, I think we can go back.

I think if curiosity is ordering the day rather than suspicion, I think curiosity says I would love to know how other members spent their time and their resources on legislative priorities since the start of ISA. I have no clue when that is. And then additionally, Chair, I just think of, is the ISA a branch priority or is it the Chair's prerogative? What is the ISA?

So I can, I guess, answer that. That's the Individual Spending Account. It is an amount of funds that are in our budget every year for each seat, so essentially each member, and then of course So if you're serving a partial year because of the election, then each member that's serving at that time of the year has a portion of it. And it is generally intended for members to carry out their legislative business, including hiring contract aides, because we don't have full-time staff, engaging in travel, engaging in communications activities, and a number of other uses over time. Just to confirm that, so the body essentially appropriates the resources, but it's chair's prior— the chair sets the policy for the ISA, and then we follow that policy.

We don't vote on the policies. It's the chair's prerogative. Is that fair? Yeah, generally policies adopted about the Assembly, for the Assembly, are done by the chair, similar to how— well, I guess it's different on the executive side, so it is the chair.

So this raises an interesting question because I just think that I would be really curious to know if we're looking at the way folks have done kind of invested in their legislative priorities. I would be really curious from over time. I would imagine that first there would be widespread compliance, normal compliance, because I just believe in the staff and I believe in the processes. But also I think the prioritization of time over time— every member, every assembly member's priorities change from year to year and And then also different bodies have different leadership and those priorities change. And I think they shape the way members' roles take on roles.

So if I were going to— and I'm still holding on to an amendment, my other— it's a, it's a, it's a 10— it's a question related to this also in terms of the type of information that we currently keep. And it is my understanding, and this is a question to the chairs, I mean, to the clerk. So, Clerk, I'm going to put you under a little bit of, a little bit of a spotlight, uh, to the Clerk's Office. But it is my understanding, for example, that attendance, members' attendance on this body has only been— we've only taken attendance at the, at the level of a direction of the chair to, to the clerk for a year and a half or two years.

I believe so. We are not currently tracking attendance to that level. So to find the records of attendance of members, one would have to go through all of the meeting minutes essentially to see if a person was in attendance, even to the period of the study here? Yeah, that would require looking into the—. So we don't currently track attendance paralleling the request for the years of the study.

I just wanted to highlight that because I think that from my vantage Curiosity is— curiosity is a good thing. I would want— I would have an amendment to have this special study from the beginning of the ISAs without a time certain because I don't think we have that information today. But that would be where I would head toward if there's really curiosity here on what these things have meant to folks, how they have invested their time. And I don't know necessarily that there's a way to determine trends beyond understanding legislative outcomes. And I don't know that we track legislative outcomes as well.

So just, again, Chair, I don't know the answer to this question, but do we have a legislative tracker somewhere that I have been not aware of that basically counts the number of legislative actions that members have introduced, advanced resolutions, ordinances. Do we have a legislative tracker? Point of order. Is this germane? What is the point of order?

Or is this germane to the amendment?

That is a good question. I will ask the member to—. Yes, it's germane to the scope. This is introducing an amendment changing the language from audit to special study, and it also identifies the immediate proximity. And so for me, the vantage point is, are there questions enough to say that this is too small of a scope?

Can it be larger? If it's larger, does that create other challenges? I think that's a different question. But when I ask the question about whether we have legislative tracking, I just want to know what type of information we already have that's going to help us with this particular question of this amendment. So I'll answer that question, then I will ask members to stay within the confines of the amendments.

And I need to make one correction as well. To my knowledge, there's not a legislative tracker other than all of our records are in the documents portal and available. And then also, I do need to make one correction. We are actually tracking attendance per the direction of the prior chair. It is for regular meetings, special meetings, and joint meetings where we are required to take votes.

Mr. Woods. Thank you, Chair. I think I've asked several questions enough to just raise the concern. I think there was a concern about the scope as is it written and the amount of folks that would otherwise be included in this particular amendment. But it also raises— the question of this amendment raises the scope of the entirety.

And I just think that if folks want to be curious, I think curiosity at a level of Historical analysis is warranted, and I think that is something valuable. But my challenge with this particular thing is I believe from the starting point, the language of investigation, it speaks to suspicion over curiosity. And I'm not exactly sure that this helps, uh, with the amount of investment that has already been identified— over 150 hours potentially of investments additional to the work that the chair requested, that this amendment doesn't get us any closer to, uh, uh, an item that I think warrants, uh, support tonight. So thank you for the opportunity for the questions, Chair. Okay, next in the queue, I have Ms. Silvers on the amendment, and then also— okay, and then Ms.

Scout on the amendment.

That's right. I'm sorry, Mr. Bullen reminded me, but first I'll check. Ms. Scout, are you on for the amendment? Okay, so then I have Mr. Boll and Ms.

Scout. Sorry. Okay, thank you. So, uh, regarding the prior discussion, um, I, I think attendance and/or legislative productivity would probably not fit in as an amendment to this. I think that the title is a little bit too narrowly construed to the topic of individual spending accounts.

But with that, I do want to make an amendment to this amendment, and that would be to strike— and I need the clerk on this because it's going to be a floor amendment—. Amendment to the amendment to strike 'and immediately passed.' Okay, so that's a Motion to amend the amendment and strike the phrase "and immediately past," basically so it reads "current members." Is that correct? Yep. Okay, is there a second for that amendment?

All right, okay, that one dies for lack of a second.

Any— anything further, Mr. Bohlen? Okay, so next I have Miss Scout. Thanks. I would like to propose a floor amendment, amendment to the amendment, um, to I think get us to the legislative intent here, which is to strike, um, current and immediately past members of the assembly and replace it with all members who served between January and September 2026.

So that would get us to those 15 folks, the 3 people, Chris, Felix, Scott from this year, and then those of us now.

Okay, the, um, uh, clerk is catching up, so, uh, one second.

Yeah, okay, so I think the clerk will put it up on the board there. Is that correct?

No, so it's assembly members who served between January and September 2026. Point of information, do you mean January 2023 and September 2026? No, it's anybody who was on the dais this year so far. But I— yeah, I think if I, if I heard correctly She had said the intent was to capture the 15 people total who served. Okay, so anybody who's been on the assembly as of January of this year to September of this year, which would incorporate the previous 3 members who tried.

So first I want to make sure the language is correct, and then we will need a second for this amendment to proceed as well.

Uh, so does that look correct, Ms. Scout, on the board? Uh, she's fixing the order. Yeah, but is that, is that the end? Is that the general intent for time frame if we switch January and September?

Yes. Yes, perfect. Thank you. Okay, so there's a motion to amend the amendment as written on the screen by Miss Scout. Is there a second?

Point of information, does this indicate for the duration of their service or just during— No, at any time. That's the intention.

We could also— Okay, so I mean, information. Yeah, one second. So Miss Baldwin did a point of information, sounds like There's an unclear part of the wording. Um, Mr. Gerker, you have a point of information? Yeah, I guess I have just a really quick clarifying question.

This is something we're passing directing internal audit to do, uh, to do a study. Um, does internal— is internal audit confused about our intent here? Okay, well, so I also want just procedurally, we're in the middle of an amendment that only has a motion, does not have a second. So second for purposes of discussion. Okay, thank you.

So now motion by Ms. Baldman-Day to amend the amendment as written on the board. Um, and then I believe there's a question, so I'll ask, uh, first, does the sponsor want to speak further to the amendment to the amendment? I'd love to hear from Mr. Thurn. Okay, um, so I will go to Mr. Gerker, um, because there right now is not a queue, and I'll just ask you to restate your question on the record. Yeah, uh, Mr. Thurn, is there any question about the intent of who we want being included in the study from the amendment from Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Through the chair, Member Grover, I believe we've got— this is— I have a point of order.

Sorry, just to be clear, so we had a motion, a second, The point of information was raised, we had to dispatch with the motion, and so now I've backed— Mr. Gerker is in the queue in a general way. So sorry, just to clarify. Thank you, Mr. Thornton. Go ahead. Uh, as I would read the amendment that is before us here, we're looking at anybody in 2026 who was on the assembly.

So that would be the current 12 plus the 3 that rolled off in April. So that means the pool of people that we would be analyzing would we're looking up would be the 15th. I still think that the date goes back to January of 2023 for the time period, so some assembly members would have a very short period of time, the new ones, because they would— they came on in April, so there would only be a small one. And then some who've been here 8 or 9 years, they would be— we'd be looking at them back to January 1st of '23, so it not be equal amongst the assembly, but it would gather the 15 people, which was to reduce from the 27 that was in the original document that was prepared to try to reduce the scope, to try to get the study to take less time for the internal audit department. That's how I am currently interpret where you're all at.

That's, that's where I'm at. That makes sense. Okay, thanks. Okay, um, so I'll note, uh, I don't actually have the floor. I was trying to test if the queue is working, and it is.

So I'll just check if there's anyone else in the queue for the amendment to the amendment.

Okay, then members may proceed to vote on the amendment to the amendment.

Member Perez Verdia.

Okay, on a vote of, uh, 10 to 1, the amendment to the amendment passes. Um, so now we're on the amendment as amended. Um, any, uh, looks like Mr. McCormick, are you in the queue for the amendment? Okay, not for the amendment. Anyone else on the amendment?

Then members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

On a vote of, uh, 10 to 1, that amendment passes. We are back on the main motion, and so now I think we had, um, Ms. Silver is in the queue, and then Mr. McCormick.

Yeah, I think also the part of getting recommendations is important. I think changing policy just because you want to do something without really having the facts underneath you to figure out what you actually should be doing isn't a great way to do business. And I do, you know, acknowledge and realize that it is going to take some time. It's going to take some money. And I guess I would just really ask members to consider before they vote.

How much is public trust worth? Thanks.

Okay, next, Mr. McCormick. I will withdraw from the queue.

Okay, and just confirming, Mr. Voland is not actually in the queue, so we keep trying to clear him out of there.

We want him to speak. Let the man speak. Yeah, yeah. Um, also know, as I said, we are having technical issues, so I'll do one more visual scan. Um, okay.

Um, well, I guess members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Perez Verdia.

And I'll just note, Member Perez Verdia had a, um, conflict. He intends to be back in the meeting, um, but if he misses some votes, then, um, that's how it goes.

Okay, on a vote of 9 to 2, this item passes the body. AR-2026-53S as amended. So as members have been experiencing, we have been having a lot of technical issues. So rather than continuing with the consent agenda at this time, the clerk has requested that we take our dinner break now, and then we will pick up where we left off with item 10B2, and then we'll move through the rest of our agenda. Thank you.

Point of order, Chair. I believe somebody's causing a disruption.

Okay, everyone. I think we're ready to go. Our system has been restarted. So fingers crossed. And we will proceed.

So we are back, and then again, I'll ask folks to take any conversations you'd like to continue outside because we're starting our meeting. So we are still on the consent agenda and have a few more items to go through. Excuse me. So next we have item 10B2. That is a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly— or sorry, AR 2026-254, resolution of the Anchorage Assembly establishing policy guidance prioritizing housing types or sorry, prioritizing housing production and the development of preferred housing types in the disposition of municipal real property.

There is also an S version. This was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move the S version. Second.

Okay, motion to approve the S version by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Voland. Do you want to speak to it, Ms. Baldwin-Day? Absolutely. So this resolution is an attempt to frame municipal property disposition in such a way that it reflects both the Assembly's Housing Action Plan and goals that have out— been outlined by the administration. There's a whole lot of receipts in the whereas statements that I would love for my colleagues to consider and digest.

Essentially, what we are asking for is that when we are considering disposing of municipal property for housing production, that we consider land use efficiency, we consider density, that we prioritize multifamily and compact housing types, And we are doing all of this with an eye towards both affordability and also taxpayer density. We are also asking that there be preference given for creative proposals that bring new types of housing ownership options on board, and also that we are prioritizing long-term energy efficiency and design, understanding that we are in fact facing an energy cliff, and that is going to drive up the cost of housing in terms of of what it costs to heat and maintain a home. So this is, this is what we're requesting. I will direct that the S version includes a fourth section which requests collaboration with the Assembly to actually create a preliminary housing development strategy. So in effect, to try to do a bit of matchmaking with the property that we know is either in the process of disposal or will be disposed of by the muni, and to link those properties with the types of housing that we know we actually need in the municipality and to begin to create a strategy for ensuring that we, while we are developing housing, that we are doing so in response to the, the, what the data says the community needs.

And we've, we've also included a section to direct the chair of the Community and Economic Development Committee to add this particular point of collaboration as an item on the October 1st CEDC agenda so that we can have a more fulsome conversation with with the administration about how this collaboration could unfold. We did invite comments from the administration about this resolution in advance, and Mr. Clowder was very kind in responding to the resolution and was generally in favor. And we have incorporated a few edits that reflected some concerns that the administration— I wouldn't even say concerns— comments that the administration made and have endeavored to make this a document that reflects both our priorities and what the administration would like to see happen as well. I'm happy to take other questions but would encourage my colleagues' support. Thank you.

Okay, next I have Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to say I really appreciate this coming forward.

Particularly, I appreciate the emphasis on maximizing housing production and efficient use of land and public infrastructure. I appreciate the prioritization of multifamily over lower-density detached residential development, and that is something I think builds upon prior work and prior policy of the Assembly, whether that's triplex and fourplex reform, the PAWS on design standards, other policies that we brought forward. And I really— I hope that collectively we can kind of, as we are looking at disposing municipal property, maybe get away from a mindset of, you know, of single-family homes or low density, because we need a lot of homes. I think we all know that. I do have one on the S version, one question.

I'm looking at the original version. So in Section 1, um, I think it, it adds the language: meet a demonstrated need from Anchorage Housing Inventory Assessments or other studies that identify housing types where supply is insufficient to meet demand. Um, All right. I guess I'm curious about the addition of that particular clause, what is intended there, how that is helpful. Yeah, so maybe I'll turn it over— I'll ask that question of the sponsors.

So this was in response to a comment that was offered from the administration that perhaps dwelling units per per acre would not always be the best measurement of maximizing production and efficient use of land. And so they were seeking some flexibility such that if dwelling units per acre was not necessarily— or we weren't accomplishing the greatest feasible number of dwelling units, there might be another reason or rationale that would still meet the demonstrated need and be responsive to studies that have identified housing types where we do need supply. That they were hoping that we would be flexible in that request.

Hmm. I don't know if I love that particular addition. I guess I'll just say that for the record. I'm not going to move an amendment or anything, but I do want to see us not water down a focus on the need for multifamily. And the need for, for greater density in more parts of town.

Um, I guess the only other request that I'll make, um, is I would like to be added as a co-sponsor to this and strongly support the resolution. Thank you.

Okay, and then, uh, yeah, I can direct the clerk to add Mr. Bolland as a co-sponsor. Any additional discussion on on this item. I don't see anybody in the queue, but it does— Mr. Handlin, go ahead. And I think the queue was working, so folks, please try, but also flag me down. Go ahead.

Yeah, I was trying. It was not on. So I've got a question for the sponsor. So on Section 2, I'm a little, I guess, kind of confused on the intent of having Anchorage School District property, after it's turned back, go to the Heritage Land Bank inventory. Can you kind of explain some of the intent find that.

I can actually respond to that one, and then I'll note, um, I'll then I'll do a flag for the queue. Um, so this was, uh, from, uh, well, the changes really are about timing, but I think the discussion is, so by default, if something comes to the municipality in ownership, it will go to the Real Estate Department. So that could be a house that's been foreclosed on, it could be a major property like this. The, the policy kind of intention here is HLB specifically has more kind of built-in process. It has a work plan.

It has processes for doing that. In fact, right now on one particular property, they are going through a public process of gathering, you know, what are potential uses for this, you know, market demand, community interest. And so the changes here are really saying it's not that as soon as the property comes to the municipality, municipality, it goes to HLB because there may be some other procedural steps that need to happen. But it's saying that, that if and when a property from the school district comes back to the municipality, or I should say, you know, we already own it but the management authority comes back to the municipality, that prior to initiating disposal it would go to Heritage Land Bank to ensure that there is that, I guess, public process that is followed for— not that we don't have, I should say, we have processes for disposing of property in real estate, but not as much of the really public engagement and the intentional kind of thinking. And, and, um, you know, otherwise it might just go for auction, for example.

There's, there's other ways that we dispose of property. So that's the thought, is because there's an elevated public interest in these, um, that HLB, the way that it's set up now, has more, um, I guess, ability or capacity to engage with that. Okay. And then just to kind of follow up question on that, I'm not as familiar with, uh, uh, HLB and stuff, but I mean, I mean, as I kind of do understand, it's more, I guess, managing land than actual, I guess, like buildings and stuff with it, or is HLB— they do them? Okay.

Yeah, and I think I would invite, if someone from the administration would like to speak to— I know we don't— I don't think we have Ms. Briggs here today, but it might be helpful to speak to kind of the scope of Heritage Land Banks beyond just holding on to our lands.

Excuse me, Member— to the Chair, Member Hanlon, could you restate that to make sure I get it right? So yeah, I mean, I, as a new member, I'm not as familiar with the Heritage Land Bank, and so I was more focused, I guess, on the land part. And so I didn't know, I guess, how they— I guess having assets and stuff that are buildings and stuff that they're also managing. So I guess it is that Through the chair, Member Hanlon, they do now manage buildings as well as lands and look for the best uses of those going forward, either through that public process study, which is going on now for like West End and some other properties. And then through that, they did look at the— and also comment from the agencies.

But that's part of their scope. That's by code now. My understanding is properties go to HLB. When they come back, they don't go to real estate. Thank you.

If I might add a bit more context for that. So HLB does hold our land, but there are also developed parcels in the HLB inventory. So for example, the state crime lab is actually held by HLB, the Woodland Park School, which we're in some conversations about. The Alaska Botanical Garden is also an HLB property. So, and the Elizabeth, the Elizabeth Place project downtown is on former HLB land, but HLB still owns the promissory note and the deed of trust.

And so HLB actually does hold developed land, and especially for a building like, for example, the Campbell Stem School, which we expect will be returned to the municipality and will not be, you know, redeveloped for some other use, but will just be used as another municipal facility, it makes a lot of sense for HLB to hold that parcel. Thank you. Okay, next I have— and I recognize the queue's not working— I miss Scout and then Miss Silvers.

Okay, I actually was just texting you a question, but, um, I— is there a limit to the number of co-sponsors?

No, so now that we're in a public meeting, there's not a limit. It's really more about who can you can talk to each other. Oh, cool. Great. Can I also be added?

Yeah. Thank you. So I know the clerk is currently doing some IT support, um, but we'll make sure, um, to add Member Scout as a sponsor. I see the clerk is nodding. Um, okay.

And then, um, uh, next I have Miss Silvers. Go ahead.

Um, I guess I'd like to ask the administration a question. Um, Does this take into consideration what is realistically possible? Does it add any unrealistic constraints to development or does it reduce your flexibility in a material way?

Through the Chair, this we believe, one, with properties transferring to the municipality like from the school district for management authority will slow the disposition of them them. For instance, we cannot start some of those preliminary actions before it is in the inventory, and that takes time. More so, we see it constraining as drafted, recognizing just the emphasis on housing is noble and important to where we have to go, but there may be properties where it is the weighing of those factors will be difficult under these criteria to demonstrate part of that, maybe should be a commercial use under part of a parcel.

And by slowing the process, will you end up losing the ability to develop certain things, or will you lose opportunity, do you believe?

Through the chair, Member Silvers, it is admittedly speculative to look at where we're at, to say how this will play out in a given circumstance. But opportunities arise at a certain time where a particular developer and a particular plan and finances align with a particular property. And if you miss that window, you may wait a substantial amount of time before another opportunity presents itself.

Thank you. Um, I would like to move to postpone this until, uh, the next meeting. I guess it's September 15th. I would actually really like to have a work session on this and discuss a little bit more some of the unintended consequences. Okay, so there's a motion to postpone this item to the meeting of September 15th.

Is there a second? Second. Okay, second from Mr. Johnson. Um, go ahead, Ms. Silvers, do you want to continue speaking to it. Um, I think I've already said why I want to postpone.

Yeah, I'd like to have a work session on this and really just consider it a little more, get some more information on it. Okay, um, so, um, on the amendment I heard, um, Mr. Boland, then Ms. Baldwin-Day. So go ahead, Mr. Boland. Sorry, yeah, not in the amendment, sorry, on the motion to postpone. Yeah, thank you.

I don't, I don't see a whole lot of utility in postponing this. I don't think that's necessary. We actually had an entire work session on housing policy where this was provided to members, and we had some discussion on it. I also don't see a whole lot of risk of unintended consequences coming from a, a policy position resolution as opposed to an ordinance. So I will not be voting to postpone this at this time.

I think the folks who have worked on this have done really good work. I think we've had it, we've been able to take a look at it. I said one thing in the S version that, you know, I don't love the addition, but that's okay, willing to overlook that. There's not a whole lot of substantive additions in the S version, so I think we can dispense with this, this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, and then I neglected to ask earlier, Mr. Martinez, do you want to be on the postponement or the main?

Okay, and so next I have Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you. In response to questions that have been raised here, Section 1 indicates fairly clearly that this resolution deals primarily with municipal— well, exclusively with municipal real property that has been determined to be appropriate for residential development and subject to exchange or disposal. So if a determination has been made that a commercial piece of property is going to remain commercial, then this resolution does not apply. I also think that there's significant latitude in Section 3, where we are not directing the administration, but we are urging them, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to incorporate this policy guidance.

And this is not a directive or a mandate. It is a very strongly worded suggestion and an expression of our desire, understanding that ultimately we are the body to whom property disposals will come for approval. And so we are essentially stating our priorities up front and hoping that when the administration brings us proposals for property disposal, that they have considered these things because we have said this is what's important to us. So we are not— we are not tying anyone's hands. We're just expressing our values and our priorities as a body when it comes to how we are leveraging land.

And I want to remind my colleagues that When it comes to the development of housing, land is one of the only levers we have to impact the ultimate cost of housing in our community. And so I think we ought to be very careful and very judicious about how we invest that resource because it is finite. And if we want to have a community where people can afford to live, then we need to be careful stewards of one of the assets that leads to housing development and housing affordability. So I urge my colleagues to move this forward. And I do want to say that we, as my colleague Member Voland pointed out, we had a 2-hour work session on assembly housing policy on Friday, and where there was a really lengthy discussion about how, what policies we have moved as a body and what's important to us and where we might be headed moving forward.

And so I think that an additional work session on this resolution would be duplicative. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, any other members in the queue for motion to postpone? Okay, so members may proceed to vote.

One second.

Member Handlin?

Yes.

Member Martinez? No. Member Gerker? No. Member Silvers?

Yes.

Chair Brawley? No. Vice Chair Voland? No. Member Baldwin-Day?

No. Member Scout? No. Member McCormick? No.

Member Park? Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes. On a vote of 7 to 4, that fails.

Okay, and as the clerk said, on a motion of 4 to 7, um, the motion to postpone fails. We're back on the main motion, and I have Mr. Martinez in the queue. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate this particular resolution, and I do have a small amendment, but first let me just describe that the amendment is, uh, helps us frame the 4 pillars of our economic development framework into this, into this item. Those 4 pillars, just for recognition, are truth.

So I think this particular item identifies some practical realities of our context today. That's the truth element, so it hits that lever. Also, stackable return on investments, one of the other pillars of our economic development framework. This particular item draws out that language. It doesn't say stackable return on investment.

It describes what that means. That's aligned.

The last piece that's aligned very well is also the equity piece, very strong alignment, recognizing that we have different burdens in our community, different needs, and they require different tools. I think that's very accurate to understanding the diverse needs in our community and the equity element. I do have one additional item on— for an amendment on page 4, Section 5, line 11. It would be to add additional language to strengthen the final element of the pillar around preemptive resiliency. And again, this is a floor amendment.

I apologize to the to the, to the clerk and to anyone else who's going to have to do that background work on it. But it would be on page 4, line 11, Section 5, where the municipality should consider the proposed— and it describes the elements that it should be considering there.

Before it gets into the number of dwelling units, should consider— and my amendment would be, quote, "Life cycle municipal costs, infrastructure maintenance obligations, and hazard resilience characteristics." I could write that up for the clerk and send it in a message. Absolutely. I just wanted to put it on the record. This would just enhance the, uh, the elements identified in Section 5. Sorry, Mr. Martinez, so we have a motion to amend, so we need to make sure that we have a second so we can proceed, and then, um, making sure the clerk, uh, can write it down.

So maybe you could just repeat it and then we'll go for a second. There's a motion to amend in Section 5 Page 4, line 11, to add lifecycle municipal costs, infrastructure maintenance obligations, and hazard resilience characteristics prior to considering proposed number of dwelling units. So it adds on these three preemptive resiliency elements into this particular clause.

Okay, one second, and I'll share the language with the clerk if there's a second on the—.

Okay, yeah, in the meantime, while the clerk is writing it down, is there a second for that amendment?

May I ask a question of the amendment sponsor? Uh, we need a second to proceed if we're going to discuss it.

Okay. I'm not hearing a second for that amendment. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Sorry.

Okay, uh, I don't know if the queue is working, so I'll see if there's any other members who want to be in the queue at this point. Okay, uh, so we are back on the main motion. The motion is to approve, uh, AR— sorry, one second— AR 2026-254S, um, as— I guess not as amended. Um, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Handlin.

Is this on the main motion? The main motion to approve AR 2026-254S. Yes.

Member Martinez. Yes. Member Gerker. Yes. Member Silvers.

Yes. Chair Brawley. Yes. Vice Chair Boland. Yes.

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

Yes. Member Park? Yes. Member Johnson? Yes.

That passes 11 to 0. Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, AR 2026-254S has passed the body. Next, uh, we are moving on to item 10B3, that is AR 2026-255, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly establishing a fiscal future initiative to engage the assembly and community on long-term fiscal education and strategic visioning, and calling for a community fiscal future summit in October 2026. This item was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Move to approve.

Second. Motion to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Boland. Would you like to speak to it, Ms. Baldwin-Day? Yes, I, I believe this is content that my colleagues have seen before. Um, there is— I want to point out a a, um, a scrivener's error on page 1, line 25.

Um, Anchorage should be capitalized, so if the clerk would mind fixing that in the record, thank you. Uh, this is, this is a summary of some of the conversations that we've had as a body about the fiscal present of the municipality and where we may be headed. So this is a summation in some ways of my work with Chair Brawley to really bring this issue forward to the community and help help everyone understand how we have gotten to this place as a municipality in terms of our financial reality and the options that may or may not be available to us as a community. So this— we hope for your support as we continue to move this work forward. We do intend to host a Fiscal Future Summit in collaboration with a couple of administrative departments this fall towards the end of October in an effort to really expand this beyond the, the our Muni, our budget meetings that we held last year and to bring this conversation to the forefront as we are also entering into our fiscal year '27 budget cycle.

So happy to answer questions and would really appreciate everyone's support. Thank you. Okay, I know the queue is still not working, so I'll just visually scan if anybody would like to be in the queue.

Chair Brawley. Thank you. Yeah, just one additional comment. Um, thank you, uh, to my colleague for summing this up. I will also note, um, that the summit that we are discussing, um, is something that would fit within our existing budget, so we are not asking for additional funds.

Um, this can be covered, uh, with the resources that we have, um, and is part of our work of convening folks on topics. And I'll just reiterate, um, really would love to see, um, all members participate in this in the way that you would like to. So we certainly can talk about that in future conversations, but I think there's a lot of— hopefully there's going to be a lot of opportunities for community engagement, not just at this one summit, this one event, but in other venues with constituents in your area. And I know Legislative Services would be happy to work with folks on that. So just to say, this is not intended to, to say we're all doing the one, one specific thing, but really leaving a lot of opportunity to imagine, you know, how you can again engage your constituents, your district, and different stakeholders in this discussion.

So thanks. Okay, any other members in the queue? Not seeing any, so members may proceed to vote on this item, and, uh, we'll have to continue doing voice votes for the time being.

Member Handlin? Yes. Member Martinez? Yes. Member Gerker?

Yes. Member Silvers? Chair Brawley? Yes. Vice Chair Voland?

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day? Yes. Member Scout? Yes.

Member McCormick? Yes. Member Park? Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes. That passes 11 to 0. Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, uh, Resolution AR 2026-255 passes the body. Uh, next, so that takes care of our, uh, uh, 10Bs. We'll move on to our one item in 10D, uh, 10D3.

This is AM565-2026, uh, plating board appointment, Mr. Christopher Blitz, and this was pulled by Mr. Handeland. Move to approve. Second. Motion by Member Handeland to approve, second by Member Baldwin-Day. Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, I just wanted to pull this because I personally worked with Chris and he's a great guy, great stand-up guy, and so I think that as far as the survey community and stuff. He's very well respected and will do a great job on this board. Thank you. Okay, any other comments, folks in the queue? Okay, not seeing any, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Or actually, I'm going to ask, um, I'll save the clerk some time. Is there any objection to, uh, approval of this item? Okay, not hearing any. And of course, uh, I'll just remind folks too, procedurally, um, if there is an objection like this should have when it comes before the assembly, and we accept it, and then the public can see it on the agenda. So I think that there is more work to be done, which is again why I'm happy to postpone it.

But not only in the missing information, but also the quality of the information that we have here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks. I will note, as I said, we're having tech issues. I'm also getting a couple notes that the audio on YouTube has YouTube has stopped working, or the livestream.

So I will note that there is a separate— there's always a separate recording happening of the meeting. And so in terms of the recording— oh, now we have 6 folks in the queue, so it must have finally caught up. Anyway, so we are addressing the YouTube issue, but I think if we can finish out this item and then we are going to take a short break anyway to deal with tech issues again. So, but just a note for folks on the phone, we— if if there's anything that is missing from the live stream tonight, it will get re-uploaded in the recording. So, uh, let me make sure— next, I have Ms.

Scout in the queue.

Thank you. Um, I, I did just want to note that I asked for the definition of the term search, um, and it's in, in advance, and then that's published in the AIM, Answers to Assemblymember Questions. For folks curious about that. However, I will say that there are— there seems to be a lot of categories within the broad term of search, and I appreciated the detail provided about some of the different cases here. So I hope that when we receive the more detailed report, it will be—.

The term search specifically will be broken down.

Okay, um, any further discussion on this item at this point? Mr. Handlin. I've got a question for the police chief.

So with these, are these each instances of a drone being used? So I see uh, like on here there's 5 instances, uh, at the same address, same case number. Is that 5 separate drones that are being used, or is each touchdown like thing listed as a separate one?

To the Chair, Member Hanlon, I think, uh, once we send you the full spreadsheet, that'll be a lot more clear. Uh, there is a— there's going to be a note on every single line in that spreadsheet, each note on that line of the spreadsheet is going to indicate what that drone was used for. So without going over the exact line with you, which I have all the spreadsheets here in front of me, but maybe an offline conversation between now and next week would be more helpful. Okay. That way we can be looking at the same lines on the spreadsheet.

Okay, perfect. That sounds good. Okay, thank you. Okay, and then Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you, Chair.

Um, while, while we're making a wish list for version 2 of this, um, I think it would be helpful— and, and this may be part of the spreadsheet, Chief— but if there could be an explanation as to how a search results in an arrest. If a search is missing persons, Amber and Siller alert, search and rescue, how does a search actually result in an arrest would be a salient question. And then I'm And I'm also interested, candidly, in other important public safety outcomes beyond arrests that ought to be highlighted in this report. And again, if that's in a comment field, fantastic. I think it would be interesting to see that as well, understanding that drones aren't just used for potentially conducting criminal investigations.

So I'd be interested in that information as well. Yes, ma'am.

Okay, and then I see Ms. Silver is in the queue.

So I'm looking at this list and it has cross streets, sometimes it even has addresses, and we're asking for all this detailed information. Is the information that we're asking for connected to people's addresses a violation of people's privacy in and of itself? Is this something that we want to publish? All this big wish list?

And was that a question for me or is that just a—. I think it's a question for everybody. Like, we're just— this great big wish list and we're saying, "Yeah, give us all this information. Give us all this information." We have people's addresses on here. Like, can we consider this?

Chair. Valid question. So I see a number of folks in the queue. It does look like the queue is working again, and I believe everybody in is already— sorry, to the attorney, Mr. Hurt, go ahead and respond. Looked like you wanted to respond.

I was to respond to Member Silvers, through the chair, um, the actual requirement code doesn't require the level of specificity of an address or anything like that. The requirement is for a general description of the type, purpose, and each use— each instance that sufficiently explains how the use was not prohibited by the chapter, and if applicable, whether the use was pursuant to a warrant, court order, judicially recognized exception, or to the warrant requirement in the final disposition of evidence. But to be clear, the code isn't requiring that level. So that wasn't mandated by code.

All right. Well, if we are going to be fulfilling everybody's wish list, let's at least take the addresses off maybe.

Okay. So just double-checking that these are real. Mr. Bolland? Point of information. So what's your point of information, Mr.

Martinez? What is the actual item on the floor of right now? I thought it was a motion to postpone. It is a motion to postpone. Thanks for the reminder.

I think if members can keep, um, at least frame your any requests for information. And then I will remind folks, we are having significant technical issues, so we're still going to move through it, then we'll take a break after this. And hopefully can reset the system again. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I, I hear the point about constraining our comments to the motion to postpone, but this is an interesting one because it's a report that we're accepting, and I think that some colleagues, myself included, have some concerns about the level of detail that's provided in the report.

So how do we telegraph that to the administration if we're going to postpone? They can bring it back in a manner that can then be more readily accepted. And I think for me, I just want to highlight again on that, that term search, because when I'm reading Code 3.102.10, Section 3, an unmanned aircraft system shall not be used for warrantless searches that are specifically seeking evidence as part of a criminal investigation. So, I think when a member of the public or even myself as a policymaker sees a broad term like that, search, okay, is that a search and rescue? Is that— what is meant by the term search?

And to Member Silver's point about addresses, I guess I would be maybe more interested in a description of what happened, of why the drone is being used in the instance, Was there a warrant? Sort of, sort of the details, and maybe less about where there's— where those details were geolocated in time. So anyway, again, for all these reasons that have been discussed, I think it is appropriate to postpone this and, and have a second version of this report come back before us. Thank you. Okay, next I have Ms.

Scout, then Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I'm I was wondering if there's a way to take our wish list requests and just share them between now and the next meeting with the chief so that we can move this conversation along.

And I—. Yeah, I guess that's my first question.

So, Chair Brawley would love your thoughts on that. Yeah, I think I encourage members to speak to anybody they would like to and, and Rick, make that request. I will note our two agenda deadlines. It's a little bit sooner for the administration folks, so I would certainly urge reaching out this week because they'll have to put something on the addendum to accommodate these. But that's— yeah, that's the answer.

Thank you. Okay, and I guess I'll say in terms of postponement and what the future report could look like. I'd be open to having the location removed or having it broadened to neighborhood, or I'd be open to hearing this in an executive session as well to protect people's privacy. Thanks.

Okay, next I have Mr. McCormick and Ms. Sowers. I would say that I have no wish list. My only demand is that the executive branch follows the law. This is governed by code and state law. There is no wish list.

This report is due in full June 1st. It is now September 1st, and we are given a laughably vague report with no information, 3 months late, at a time when it's very germane as the police department wants more capabilities, more funding, and with the mayor saying that their internal policies can protect your privacy, but we're seeing they don't follow the law that's written, the oversight of this body.

Maybe perhaps if we're having trouble following code, we need a charter amendment so that these laws are followed, because we're seeing some disregard happening. And if we're going to fool ourselves in saying that that their internal policy, their internal promises to themselves are going to uphold people's privacy. We're seeing it fail right now. And that would be misinformation to say that it will. Thank you.

Sorry, clapping is not in order during debate. Next, I have Ms. Silvers in the queue.

Okay. And then I see Ms. Baldwin-Day, but you've spoken twice to this item, so I've been trying to keep track. So, uh, I believe there's no further members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. Again, the vote on this is to postpone this item to the meeting of September 15th.

Member Handlin? Yes. Member Martinez? Yes. Member Gerker?

Yes. Member Silvers? Yes. Member Perez-Verdia?

Yes. Chair Brawley? Yes. Vice Chair Voland? Yes.

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

Yes. Member Park? Yes. Member Johnson? Yes.

That passes 12 to 0. Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, this item, uh, is postponed to our September 15th meeting. And with that, we are going to take a second brief break for purposes of resetting the system And, uh, we'll be back shortly. And then I'll also note for the record, we know we were having, um, some audio issues on, uh, YouTube. It sounds like there's a separate link if you click on that and it is working, um, uh, so there's still a way to access it.

And again, we are already recording and have the ability to upload the recording after the fact if we have issues in real time, um, because the— again, the meeting recording is the important part. Thank you. We'll be back shortly.

Okay. I'm going to ask everybody to return to their seats. Again, take conversations out in the hall if you would like to continue them. So we are— let's see, where are we? And I will say just a couple of things on the record.

One is multiple restarts later, we think the technology is working.

Um, so yeah, I hear some wood knocking, so, um, there's that. And then also I will note that there was a brief interruption in the YouTube stream of the meeting. Again, not the recording, which is separate, but the YouTube stream. Uh, so I know we got some alerts from folks, so just to note, um, that happened shortly before we went on break. Um, so that portion of the meeting that was not captured in the live stream, again, that was recorded, uh, will be uploaded sometime tomorrow, uh, to replace it.

And then It seems like folks can see and hear us online again, so, so we're back on track. So let's move on then to our next item. That is 11A. This is AM524-2026, cooperative purchase from Thundercat Technology LLC through Omnia Partners, contract R250609, for the purchase and installation of a real-time crime center audiovisual system for the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Police Police Department, uh, not to exceed $598,988.10.

Um, there's— this was postponed from the meetings of August 4th and August 18th. There's no motion pending. What's the will of the body? Move to postpone to the meeting of 9/15. Second.

Uh, Miss Scott, was— which motion was your second to? There was a motion to approve and a motion to postpone. Oh, it was to, um, Vice Chair Vohland's motion to postpone. Okay, so we have a motion to postpone this item to the meeting of September 15th, motion by Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Scout.

Mr. Vohland, do you want to speak to it? Yes, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yeah, so I think, uh, the discussion around building out the real-time crime center has raised a lot of questions in the public, particularly the effort to to have APD work with private business owners, be able to access their footage, has raised questions around, you know, how, how is that footage handled? How is that data stored?

Who has access to it? What are the guardrails there? And I think we heard, you know, we had a work session on this. I think in the work session we heard Chief Case talk about policies and procedures that exist, but we also heard him speak about his ability to, to change those at really any given time. And I, I've been hearing from folks who would like to see some guardrails in place in code that are, that are not just internal policies and procedures.

There's a, an item that's going to be before us tonight that I think is an effort that can be complementary to this effort. And so I would just like to take a little bit more time on this. Um, as I indicated earlier on the subsequent item that'll be before us tonight that is sort of related to this, um, this item, we plan on bringing back a substitute version, working collaborative— collaboratively with the municipal attorney on that And for me, I think having some pieces in code would really help me individually as a policymaker support the completion of this effort. Without those guardrails in code, I don't know that I can do that.

So just, I guess, asking for the indulgence of my colleagues to postpone this a little bit further and allow us to take up the substance of the other item in a more meaningful way. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, next I have Miss Silvers.

I guess I'm just tired of pushing this off and holding it, um, basically desks and computer screens, uh, for technology that we approved a year ago, holding it hostage for an AO that we have not had a work session or anything on yet. I'm ready to vote on it tonight. There seems to be a story being told that we have all this surveillance technology and it's unregulated and this and that. And, you know, the use of any technology, it's currently governed by the United States Constitution, by the Alaska Constitution, by federal and state statutes, by federal and state case law. By rules of criminal procedure, rules of evidence, existing provisions of Anchorage municipal law, and then department policies, which actually must conform to all the applicable constitutional, statutory, judicial, and other legal requirements.

And so this is not an unregulated environment. We have had 3 or 4 committee meetings where APD— where Chief Case has has gone over the internal policies that they operate under right now. We're not sharing data with federal law enforcement agencies without a warrant. We don't have Flock cameras. We don't have facial recognition technology.

And so, you know, it's just that there's a story being told here and part of the story is using videos that are not true.

So I'm just, you know, I'm ready to vote on this. I am ready to let APD have some computers and desks and continue this conversation, but I'd really like to continue it on the basis of some truth, uh, and, and not a bunch of made-up stories. Thanks. Next, Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am, I am speaking in opposition to delaying funding for our police department. Just last week, the Department of Public Safety released its latest statewide crime report, and in Anchorage, crime increased 14.6%, with property crime up nearly 20%.

Delaying resources for law enforcement while crime is surging is completely backwards and unacceptable. We all say we want APD solving more crimes and holding more, you know, offenders accountable. Yet, so great, here's a vote. You got a chance to prove it. The Real Time Crime Center was introduced, publicly debated, and approved last year.

If members still have questions about what it does do or doesn't do, showing up to those work sessions last year probably would have been a great start. I'm not interested in delaying needed resources for the men and women we're asking to keep the city safe. Give APD the tools to do its job. Urge a vote to not Postpone. Next, Mr.

Perez Verdia. Thank you. I won't repeat the comments of my two colleagues before me, but I agree with them. And, and I think there's a couple of things going on here that concerns me. One, that there's a, there's a process challenge here that if there's a concern about the policies and, and wanting to look at and putting those into our code and looking at the effectiveness of those policies and all of those things, Those are conversations we should have, and I think the mayor has said clearly that she and her administration are willing to have those, and so let's have those conversations.

But holding back funding for audiovisual equipment for a center that's already functioning, already working, already processing the information it needs to process, it doesn't make any sense to me. So one, I think it's a precedent of holding funding back for something that is not directly related, right? It's not related to the policy conversation that we need to be having. The second piece is, I agree that this is something that's already been approved, it's already in place, and we need to make sure that we're giving them the equipment they need to do their job. So I would really encourage us to vote down this motion to postpone and let's pass this, and then let's have the policy conversation about, about privacy and about the, the real-time crime center, and let's do that in a separate way.

Thank you.

Next, Miss Scout.

Thank you. Um, obviously I seconded this motion, so I will be voting in favor of postponement, and if that fails, I will not be voting to approve this funding. Um, without real regulations in place. And I'm eager to have that conversation and continue that conversation with my colleagues, but it becomes real hard to put the genie back in the bottle if one— even if we build out basic infrastructure. And I think this is actually something that we can compare metaphorically to a lot of the other infrastructure challenges we're having municipality-wide.

When we build something out without intentionality, without guardrails, we end up with a huge sprawling city that now is a huge liability, um, and has failing systems. And so I, I have made my position on this clear publicly. Clear in our past meetings. Um, I will not vote in favor of this funding. I would like at this time and at any time when we don't have real guardrails in place— um, we've done the work to propose some real guardrails, and I look forward to that conversation.

But right now, um, I still have too many questions, um, including just recently, um, a constituent of mine asked How can somebody disenroll from the system? When you go to the website to sign your camera up to be part of it, there's no clear way to remove it from the system. So we see these big numbers of people adding their cameras into this network, um, and no clear way to opt out if the system is built in a way that actually the person who owns the camera didn't mean to consent to.

I don't feel like there's a very clear definition of what AV means in here. And I also regret and reject the narrative that we're holding this funding hostage. We have approved plenty of other APD funding in the past meeting. We approved millions of dollars of both funding and allocations. This particular real-time crime center deserves more time and attention to make sure we get it right, and more so to make sure we don't get it wrong.

Thank you. Okay, Mr. Vollen has spoken before, so I'll come back to him next. Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. Um, I would like to ask the chief a question.

Thank you, Chief. Um, you've—. I think we have talked before about the number of times that I have called the 311 number for police assistance for various, um, situations, uh, such as some of the drug activity along Chugach Way and those, those types of problems. When I talk to constituents, I am hearing consistently that there is a slow response time to those non-emergency calls, and I would like you to articulate how this equipment might facilitate a better response time for those kinds of complaints.

Through Chairmember Park, it It's a little bit of a tough question to answer without a specific detail. I mean, you mentioned drug cases. So generally, the technology that we're talking about right now specifically to drug cases are mostly not going to be applied to that. You know, we're not going to— we don't have drones as first responders, but based on the code, we're not going to send a drone up in the air and send it across the city to come and check someone's alleyway for drug offense. That's outside of kind of the purview of what that code really allows us to be engaging in that type of activity for.

But, you know, there are circumstances where potentially some of the cameras that exist in terms of intersection cameras may become applicable depending on the information that we have come into the center. So if we have a legitimate crime that comes in, drug dealing, drug selling, a little bit more difficult, to, to access this type of data for something like that that's not verifiable. You know, somebody calls and said that they, uh, you know, or there was a burglary in progress at a residence or robbery that took place outside of the residence. That's certainly something. And gave a description of a vehicle leaving the area.

That's something we definitely look at the traffic cameras and see if we can't see that vehicle leaving the area, uh, so that would assist officers in locating that vehicle and pinpointing the the exact vehicle that left the area. So, the particular question you have, a little bit difficult to answer, but there are ways in which we potentially could use the technology. And maybe drugs was a bad choice, but maybe, as you say, a burglary, domestic violence, other kinds of situations where some assistance is required and there is a delay in receiving it. So thank you for your response, and I, I don't see any reason to delay giving audiovisual equipment that's already been, been approved, and I will be voting against the postponement.

Okay, next I have— well, I see Mr. Fauzi in the queue. Are you responding to a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. With the body's indulgence, I just wanted to provide a quick assist. It was mentioned that a constituent was unclear how you could remove your camera from the registry, and I do want to provide that the body information that is on the website.

So if you go to safeanchorage.org and you register your camera and say I'm not obligated to but I'm willing to offer it to APD, and later you change your mind, if you click the FAQ button, there is an FAQ, can I unsubscribe for the camera registry or change or delete my information, answer yes, and then there is an email listed there to accomplish that aim.

Okay, next, uh, going first to members who haven't spoken yet. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Chief, I asked the question a, a while back at the last meeting.

I'm going to ask it again, but maybe it's in a different way. You describe this funding coming from, uh, the joint operations with with seizures and forfeitures essentially, and this is a piece of that action coming to the municipality, APD, for capital investments. Is that accurate? Yes, sir. And I asked a question at that time when you gave me that answer, and I'm going to ask it again.

What else could be done with those resources?

Through the Chair, Member Martinez. So there are some some limitations on that funding. Generally speaking, that funding can't be used for normal operating budget that we have in our budget right now. So things that are outside of our normal operating budget, which is why these expenditures, which are one-time fixed costs for desks, computers, those types of things, the, the federal funding or forfeiture money can be applied. Outside of that, anytime we want to use that federal forfeiture funding, we have to do 2 things.

We have to first get that money appropriated, so we have to ask permission, which happened at the last meeting. And then if we're going to spend that money, uh, over a certain dollar amount, we have to also ask the assembly if we can spend it in that particular way, which is what this is about. So there's multiple different touch points, if you will, both with how we can spend the forfeiture money outside of any sort of assembly rules, and then there's also a couple safeguards that in place that also dictate how we can spend that money.

It's been presented that these funds for buying desks, as you described it, will solve crimes or reduce crime, will have an impact on crime. Is it your vantage point that these investments help support the work that's happening, or these are germane to reducing crime on the streets, or is it that we need people on the streets as officers?

To the Chairman Martinez, I think, I think it's all of the above. We need more officers on the street. You know, I've been pretty clear about that. We have a large city, we a lot of miles we have to cover. We have an extremely high demand on, on the police department and what actions this community wants us to be involved in.

The levels of activities, we need more officers. We're also— we do have an operating real-time crime center that's very small in a concrete box, and I do say concrete box, that's what it is, which means sometimes you can't get cell service out of it. This equipment that we're talking about today is to move it in a location that is going to be able to house enough desks to put all our workers that are going to be in the real-time crime center, computers and that sort technology. And then when you say, is that going to have an impact on crime? Yes, that absolutely is going to have an impact on crime.

If you look at what Real Time Crime Centers have done around the country, having access to information, data in the field for officers, it substantially increases the arrest rate, it substantially increases the rate at which we can get convictions. And that's been tried and true, not because of some data points that police departments have put out there, but because university professors have studied this and have had them in peer-reviewed journal articles. So we know that, that having this equipment so that we have a place to put our officers, that they can access multiple screens and have access to cell phone service, uh, is going to give them access to the data that comes into the Real Time Crime Center so they can give that information to officers responding to the scene. So I would say all the above is true. This is also again to the postponement, so I'm going to continue to follow Chief It's also true that rec centers and youth programs help prevent crime, and investments in young people, for example, have substantial, meaningful impacts in crime reduction across the country.

I mean, it's also demonstrated that way as well. Is that fair? Through the Chairman Martinez, I would agree with that.

If this is postponed, one of the requests had been made were additional information. And I think what would be interesting would be the, the additional information should be able to demonstrate that when RTCC was activated, we saw a demonstrable dip in the amount of time it took to close cases, resolve cases. It would— we would see a demonstrable level of of impact from my vantage point. And if this was something that has been in operation for some time, it would seem that a postponement could also make that information available so that we can actually see the practical implications of this particular work. Additionally, just for my colleagues, I think people— I think conditions do change, and I think minds often change.

And from my vantage point, we have invested substantial amounts into technology, but I don't know that we've invested the same amount of resources into wellness, into cultural understanding, and I certainly know we have not invested the same amount of prevention resources into our young people. As I sit, we continue to look at Muldoon, for example. We've had an increase in inactivity in Muldoon. We've had a number of violent crimes happening in our community, and we don't have a rec center, and we haven't had a rec center. And I would love for $500,000 to go to our young people to make sure that they have a safe place, that they don't have to run into the wolves of the street or an unfortunate incident with APD as well.

So just for vantage point to my colleagues, I think what's being requested here is an opportunity to have more information. From my vantage point, I'm going to continue to move toward investing in the different areas I think that are really important. But today I do encourage a postponement so that additional information that may be available can come to this body. Some requests that I think are fair, and fundamentally it doesn't seem that crime is going to take us swooping dip in any direction with the— in— with this particular action item tonight, uh, of whether it moves or not. But I do recommend that, um, from the chief's vantage point and from the administration's vantage point, I would love to see $500,000 of confiscated money go into basketballs, go into rec centers, go into the safe third place for our children.

And I'll leave it there. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Clapping is not in order during debate. Um, next, uh, we have folks who haven't spoken yet still, so, um, I have Ms. Baldwin-Day. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um, our first work session, or actually our one of our the first discussions about the Real Time Crime Center, uh, as a concept and also as something that was being implemented was in August of last year. So it's been over a year that we've been discussing this, and I want, I want to point out what I think is a real, a real public misconception around what the Real Time Crime Center is and is not.

There are not 750 live camera feeds coming into the Real Time Crime Center. That's not happening. There are people who have registered their cameras to be accessible to APD in the event that a, that criminal activity or that a report of criminal activity or that an investigation pending is somewhere in the neighborhood of one of those privately owned cameras. Those cameras are not piped into the Real Time Crime Center.

The camera feeds that are currently accessible from the Real Time Crime Center right now are traffic cameras and some cameras in Town Square Park and some cameras at Peratrovich Park.

And I think there's like 5 or 6 that are pointed at an APD storage lot. That, that's, that's what the Real Time Crime Center currently has access to. Now, I want to be really clear. I am, I am not a, I'm not a surveillance apologist. I'm not a police state supporter.

But I want us to please be clear and to deal in facts, because that's really important. So the Real Time Crime Center currently exists of 3 people in a basement who do 2 things.

When a request come— when a call comes in, they try to do as much research as possible to support the officer who's responding to the incoming call. And in their downtime, if they have any, they do research requests for investigators, for members of the public who are trying to get information.

The traffic camera system requires a separate login. The cameras in Town Square Park require a separate login. This is not a, like, this is not a seamless touchscreen experience like we've seen on cop shows.

And the reason that I think we need to be clear about this is, is that I think we are pretending that the Real Time Crime Center doesn't exist yet, And if we hold up this appropriation or this funding, that we are somehow stalling out development of this work. The crime center, this, this is already operational and it has already functioned not just to solve crimes, but to find missing seniors and find missing children. And so I, I think we need to be honest about that. I'm not suggesting that we don't need really reasonable and clearly delineated guardrails and code when it comes to policing technology. But I think we're deceiving ourselves if we pretend that postponing this is going to somehow stymie or change the fact that the Real Time Crime Center exists.

It's operating within very specific guardrails with very specific data retention policies.

And it's doing the work it was designed to do.

I, for one, am not willing to pretend otherwise. And I think the fact that we're buying some desks, some better monitors, and allowing them to move out of a concrete box is actually a step in the right direction. And I think that that is a helpful counter-argument, counter— I would say counterweight to the consideration of the item later tonight where we're going to be talking about what policies— what needs to be a policy of APD and what needs to exist in code for the assembly in the municipality.

But to my colleague's point, if there's a genie, it's already out of the bottle and it's not going back in.

And I don't believe that we can— I don't believe that we can sit here and reasonably say that the real— that this particular conception where APD has access to traffic cameras and has access to cameras in other parts of town is fundamentally a flawed system. I don't think that that's true. So I will be— I will be opposing the action to postpone. And I will also be paying— I will also be engaging in this coming conversation about what needs to happen to ensure that technology is utilized responsibly, because that's a real question. But if we're going to have this conversation, we need to have it with facts at the center and not with fabrication, because that doesn't serve anybody.

It doesn't serve a better community, and it doesn't serve a reasonable dialogue about these things. Thanks. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, I have Mr. McCormick in this queue who hasn't spoken yet, then Mr. Voland. Well, I think my position on this is pretty widely known. Um, I've never once voted to delay, uh, or withhold funding from APD, so this has been a first-time issue for me. But there's just so many red flags around this. Um, we're talking about expanding resources for an asset that we've had the chief say he can change the policy on tomorrow, and they just update on the website and you can find it if you, if you know about it.

And then tonight we hear, oh no, no, their policy is going to be able to keep you safe, it'll keep you so safe, yet they don't follow the law as written in code.

But what we're supposed to trust but we're supposed to trust their internal policy. We're supposed to trust that. I wonder how, how we ever solved crime before this. How did Anchorage feel so safe before? And now as we're going downhill, downhill, now we need the cameras.

You have to give up your privacy if you want this feigned wish of security. And if we're going to talk about facts, yeah, we're piping in all the traffic. Traffic cameras, hundreds of them. Hundreds of traffic cameras are getting piped in. Point of order.

And we can—. There's been a point of order called. What's your point of order, Miss Baldwin-Day? Hundreds of traffic cameras cannot be piped in simultaneously. That's a fact.

It's a fact. You can disagree with it, but it's not a point of order. I'm going to ask members— I agree, it is not a point of factual inaccuracy. It's mine to say because you're wrong. You're factually—.

I'm going to ask members, please keep order. I know it's getting late. I'm not ruling that this was in— I'm not ruling that Member McCormick was out of order, but I'm going to ask to again please speak to the postponement of this item.

We can put the genie back in the bottle. We didn't get it the first time, my mistake, I apologize for that, but I'm going to do it now. And this body has the authority to do it, no one else does. We can put the genie back in the bottle. This isn't our city, This is the people's city.

Listen to your constituents. This is between you and your constituents. I hope they reach out and talk to you, because if you've got another thing coming. Look at the nationwide news, the ADN editorials. People do not want these cameras.

They voted in '97, they didn't want the traffic, the red light cameras, and maybe we need to give it back to them again to show you that they don't want this now. Thank you.

Okay, next I have Mr. Voland in the cube. Thank you, Madam Chair. So first off, I just want to categorically reject any premise that says we made a prior decision, we can't undo it, or we funded something one time so we need to keep funding something. That's called a sunken cost fallacy.

And I just— the framing by the member from West Anchorage, I just— I do not buy into.

I think we need to be policymakers who are responsive to the people we serve.

The member from Midtown mentioned very specific guardrails in place. That's an appeal to internal policy.

That is not something that is currently regulated by code. And as a policymaker who wants to be responsive to my constituents, I'm hearing a lot of questions arising about the Real Time Crime Center if we're going to continue to build this out.

We've also heard from the mayor in her report, from a member in this debate, we don't have flock cameras. Okay, well, if we're going to speak accuracy accurately, Flock cameras are the Coca-Cola brand, but it's all soda pop.

We have contracts with Axon, which is Flock's direct competitor.

The member from East Anchorage mentioned that we've had a work session on this and that we heard that we have policies in place I'm surprised by that part of the debate because I thought that that member asked pretty thoughtful questions of the chief in the work session that we had on the Real Time Crime Center.

And what I heard gave me more pause, made me want to take more time with this, made me more persuaded that we need guardrails in code before we continue with this effort.

The member from South Anchorage spoke and he said this is sort of a new issue for him. Well, this is not a new issue for me.

On June 9th, 2020, when I was a private citizen before I was elected to the Anchorage Assembly, in the wake of George Floyd and the conversation that was happening in our community, I wrote an email to the Anchorage Assembly. This is the first time I had ever corresponded with the Anchorage Assembly. I know Member Perez-Verdia received it because he replied to it.

I said, dear Anchorage Assembly members, in his recent Facebook statement titled The Power of Peaceful Protest, Mayor Berkowitz wrote, Chief Dahl and I believe policing depends on securing and maintaining public trust. We must hold those accountable who fail to live up to that standard. It is why APD officers are prohibited from using chokeholds and strangleholds to detain people.

I went on to write, is the banning of chokeholds and strangleholds permanently codified by the municipality or simply a matter of internal APD policy which is subject to change? Change. Today, in the mayor's joint press conference with APD, Chief Dahl stated that internal policies regarding use of force by APD are a, quote, living document and, quote, constantly changing. He commented that they may change weekly or even daily.

So the questions that I had When did the policy prohibiting chokeholds go into effect?

If internal policies are constantly changing on a weekly or even daily basis, what assurance does the public have that chokeholds will not be unprohibited tomorrow?

It's been asserted that this funding is just for computers and desks.

What I am reticent to do is continue any funding for computers, desks, AV equipment, when the product of what is being recorded— we don't have clear guidelines in code for who can access that data.

Can it be sold to third parties? When does it have to be deleted? How is it securely stored? There are questions that I think we owe the public answers on when it comes to the Real Time Crime Center, if we're going to be building this out. And so what I am asking is that we take a little bit more time to be able to put some of those answers in code, not just internal policy.

Before we move forward with this. I'm asking for 2 weeks. I think it's a reasonable request, especially in light of the public focus on this issue. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks. Sorry, everyone else in the queue at the moment has already spoken, so I'll just move through. So next, Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair.

Um, this is in the nature of a point of information. Are we voting on cameras, or are we voting on an AV system with a 6x2-foot video wall, a conference display, an 86-inch conference area display, video processing, touch panel controls, audio processing, ceiling speakers, and, uh, user training freight Uh, documentation, warranty coverage, and service support.

Okay, next I have Mr. McCormick. I just have a quick question, uh, if Chief Case could come up. Uh, Alaska Public Media quoted you, Wesley Earl, on August 21st, 2026, stating the Real Time Crime Center, separate entity from dispatch, the crime center would staff to connect as many as 750 cameras. That includes more than 250 traffic cameras around the city. Is that correct?

That's your quote in the article here.

Repeat the question, sir. Um, you're quoted saying that the crime center includes more than 250 traffic cameras around the city. Is that correct? The real-time crime— well, even without the real-time crime center, uh, through the chair, Mr. McCormick, the Officers in, in certain capacities could access some of those cameras. We can't access them any at one time.

Yeah, thank you very much. Um, just wanted to prove that traffic cameras, 250 quoted in the media from the police chief, 250 cameras at least. Thank you very much. Point of information. What's your point of information?

Just to clarify, Chief Case, were you saying that all 250 are being piped in at once or Can you clarify that a bit? Because I think that's being misconstrued. To the Chair, Member Gherkert, uh, no, we, we can't pipe that many camera feeds into the Real Time Crime Center for a whole host of reasons, but we can't.

Just real quick, actually, I'm going to call a point of order, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think if you have substantive questions, you need to get in the queue, Mr. Gherkert. So I, I believe in this meeting, Madam Chair, if I may, a point of information has been used incorrectly a few times. A point of point information is really to raise procedural questions, not to take the floor for substantive debate.

Thank you. Thanks for the clarification. And yeah, I will say some— there is edges to the idea of point information, but it really is meant to be about procedural. But, um, uh, so I see two folks in the queue. Mr. Gerker.

Look at that, I'm right back in the queue. Uh, Chief, how long have you guys had those traffic cameras?

And you not— obviously not being APD, those aren't APD's traffic cameras, but how long have those cameras been around?

Uh, through the Chairmember Gerker, that they've been around a while. I mean, the city that has had traffic cameras for well over a decade, uh, we have had access to those cameras through various means for many years. Okay, thank you.

Okay, and then I have Mr. Johnson in the queue. Question for you, Chief, or just a point that I hope you could clarify for me. We've talked about the role of the Real Time Crime Center. You talked about documented evidence that it increases arrest rates and convictions, but also provides real-time information for officers who are responding to calls, correct? Through the— through Chairmember Johnson, that's correct.

And a lot of these calls that they respond to, I mean, not all of them, but on a daily basis, a lot of these are inherently dangerous. Incidents that they're responding to. We've seen our officers find themselves facing tremendous risk in the line of duty, and it's my belief that having this information available to them, having these tools that the Real Time Crime Center provides, helps keep them safe, right? I mean, if they have more information about the circumstances they're going into, I see that as a benefit to the safety of the officers as well as the public. That they are not simply running into a blind.

I mean, I'll tell you, as a law enforcement officer, I didn't have these kind of tools available, and it is a much more difficult thing when, when you are going into a circumstance without a clear sense of where the person is, what you're looking for, or even whether or not the information that's being provided to you is, is accurate in even the most basic of circumstances. So as I read this, and again realizing we're not talking about new software or cameras. We're simply talking about adding some basic functionality to a facility that has been in existence for some time. I read through this and I see this as an opportunity to make our officers responding safer and perform their jobs, and by proxy also making the citizens safer. Do you think that is a fair characterization?

Through the Chair, Member Johnson, I, I think that's fair. There's certainly two things that I've mentioned over and over again about the Real Time Crime Center is the ability to respond in real time to active crime that's taking place and to do so in a safe manner for both public and police officers responding to those calls for service. Okay, thank you. I, I welcome the, the robust debate that we know is coming about what we should codify when it comes to how we use surveillance technology. I think that is, is a meaningful thing for this body to consider.

But even if it's 2 weeks if this is a tool that just helps keep our public and our officers safe, I don't see a reason to postpone it simply because we wish to tie it to something that is not inherently related in my mind. So I appreciate that clarification.

Okay, next, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you.

So I want to return to this question of how we present information to the public because I think it matters.

The traffic cameras in Anchorage are owned by the traffic department.

When they are accessed, they are so old that they require pane-by-pane viewing. It's not a stream.

And the system, the connectivity of the system is such that the only place that those cameras can be accessed is actually from Elmore because the system is so old that it's hardwired.

And if you pull up more than 4 cameras 4 cameras at a time, the system crashes again because it's so old.

So I would like for you all to hold that up against what you have been sold, or what has been portrayed to you tonight, that there are 250 live feeds of Anchorage traffic cameras coming into the Real Time Crime Center. That's not accurate, and accuracy matters. That it also matters to say that there are going to be 750 live video feeds coming into the Real Time Crime Center at some point in the future. That is also an inaccurate statement, and the way that this conversation is represented to the public is actively shaping our ability to have a grown-up conversation about it.

And I am not suggesting— I'm gonna ask I'm going to ask the audience to please, if you would like to make comments, they need to be outside this room. Thank you. I am not suggesting that this is not a worthy conversation for us to have. I'm not suggesting that we should be cavalier about policing technology. We absolutely should not.

However, we have got to keep facts at the center of the conversation.

And I'm imploring my colleagues as we move this thing forward to please be accurate in your representation to the public about what this technology is, what the current capacity is, what the reasonable near and long-term capacity is based on the very real personnel and technology— technological and financial constraints that we are under as a municipality.

I— we have got to stay tied. We've got to stay tethered to what is true. And I realize that that has not been a popular stance of late in political circles, but dammit, can we please tie to the facts and keep it there? We will be able to do this work together as a community so much better if we are actually aligning ourselves with what is factually true.

Again, I say I am disinclined to postpone this action and, and tie it to something else, which is a separate but and very worthy conversation. But postponing this action tonight does not fundamentally change the reality of what is happening in Anchorage today with respect to policing. And I would posit that this conversation that we are embarking on about policing technology and surveillance should take longer than the next 2 weeks. I would imagine it's going to take longer than that, and may— and that's fine.

But let's not pretend that the— that we are having— that these are— these— these— this conversation about this particular technology purchase is fundamentally the same as the, as the conversation we're going to have about what the— what guardrails and code need to exist. We can do two things at once. Thank you.

Okay, uh, there's several folks in the queue. Um, two of them have not spoken yet, so I'm going to go to those two first and then come back through the queue. So, Mr. Handeland, I call the question. Second.

Okay, a motion, um, a motion has been called to call the question and seconded. Um, that is not a debatable motion. Again, the motion on the floor right now is a motion to postpone to a time certain. Uh, so that question has been called, uh, so, uh, members may proceed to vote on the screen.

On a vote of 8 to 4, the question has been called, and so now the, the body will vote on the motion to postpone this item to the meeting of September 15th.

On a vote of 4 to 7, um, that motion to postpone fails. Move to approve. One second, sorry, we have to fix a vote. Uh, Member Silvers, point of order. Yeah, sorry, before we proceed, we need to fix this vote.

Um, Miss Silvers, I voted no.

Okay, thanks. Sorry, we have to make sure that the vote is correct. So on a vote of 4 to 8, um, this item was not postponed. Um, there's currently no motion on the floor, so what is the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Okay, there was a motion to approve by Member Gerker, second by Ms. Silvers. Mr. Gerker, do you want to speak further to it? Call the question. Second.

We're going to do two votes.

Okay, the question has been Or I should say the motion to call the question has been called and second— or motion, sorry, moved and seconded. Members may proceed to vote on calling the question. And again, takes 8 votes.

Yeah, 1 minute. The clerk is catching up, or the system is catching up.

Okay, um, on a vote of 7 to 5, um, this motion has failed. Uh, this is— again, it takes 8 votes to call the question. So now we are back on debate. Again, there's a motion to approve on the floor. Um, so I will, I guess, continue moving through the queue because Mr. Martinez, because we track who has spoken already on each motion, the queue is basically reset, meaning no one has spoken before, so I will go to Mr.

Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I just want to make sure we are clear on the record. It has been described that one of my colleagues described that, and Chief Yost just confirmed this or not, but I took it from my colleague's words. The real-time crime center is in action, in effect today.

Is that yes or no? Through the Chair, Member Martinez, that's correct. And it was also described that this doesn't fundamentally change that.

Through the Chair, Member Martinez, I think To your previous question, and also leading into your second question, yes, the Real Time Crime Center is active. The technology that was voted on last year with the Axon contract, all of that technology that, that this body voted on, the only piece of technology that is an active testing phase right now is license plate readers. Everything else existed prior to. What this money helps us do is put the infrastructure in place that months and months down the road— because this isn't going to happen tomorrow— there's a possibility that this infrastructure can be in place, uh, so that if we do have more feeds come in, or we do have— eventually we get to drones as first responders, uh, that, that we have a facility that can operate that technology.

We often ask, ask directors in other departments this particular basic question that I don't think anyone has asked you tonight.

And unfortunately now it's a yes or no question.

But the basic question was, uh, if this was postponed for 2 weeks How does that change the calculus that you just described potentially takes months to see the investment work? And it's a rhetorical question because the answer is self-evident. There is no investment within the next 2 weeks based on this particular item that's going to change the landscape of what we're talking about, particularly with turning more activation online. I mean, it's going to take a while to get ramped up. And so I did— I don't understand why we didn't pause.

I think it's intriguing to separate the baby from the bathwater and then call them two different actions, but essentially we're talking about the way police and community interact, the way technology is rolling out, and we've had these conversations pretty robustly, and, and I think it's, it's a miss that we We didn't have that extra time. But now today, the— it leaves people like me in a particular situation where I've really described already the type of investments I want us to make, the more thoughtful approach to those investments, and I recognize that— I mean, just considering this, and this is not a knock on individuals, but technology advances, our culture doesn't, and then the ability to use technology still questionable. I mean, presumably when body cams went into effect, we would always have access to what people in the public mind's eye would be is full recordings, full identification, but the implementation doesn't always work like that. It's a little more difficult at implementation level than just saying this is what we want to have happen, happen. And so I Unfortunately, Chief, like, again, I want to just put these two frameworks together for you to understand where I'm coming from with this.

Technology is not better than investing in the human, and I believe that we are supposed to be investing in the wellness of our municipal workforce in a way that provides more trust, that provides more, um, just a different depth of, of, of of resources than just saying our law enforcement folks just need better desks and cameras. I just think there's more investments that need to be made broader, and it's unfortunate that we didn't have the time to have this conversation in that way. And then the second part of that, Chair— Chief, is that I do believe that, um, we have outpaced the investments in youth in prevention. We've just not invested in the same way, and it becomes very, very challenging when I know that the lease of the Boys and Girls Club Muldoon expires this month, and I know that we haven't operated any youth services in that particular space since the Boys and Girls Club pulled out, but we've invested lots in in our law enforcement. I believe I've voted to invest lots of resources and additional training.

I'm not going to be able to get there today, and I just wanted to be real clear about that. I think it's unfortunate that folks would not give more time to conversations because they perceive them as not connected. I don't know that all people in the public perceive things in the same way. And I think that when we're here with two action items, I think we've made commitments, but I think commitments need to always be reviewed. Need— that's what oversight does.

And I think there's a crisis of public health that we're not taking better care of our workforce. I think there's too much trauma in law enforcement that we're not actively de-escalating within that particular space. So I'd love to see more investments into mental health, wellness, as well as making sure we have better desks. Now I know this funding is not for operational stuff, and that the other— that what I described as a category might be operational. But if I have to choose tonight over basketballs, footballs, and a rec center— and I think that's not— it's not the fair choice because this money is not going to go to kids tonight.

Fine if I choose no. But at some point, we got to start sending the signal that we are not doing enough on these other categories. And I don't know that we're any safer because of technology. I think human relationships make things better. I think decreasing the distance from technology makes communities more cohesive and consistent.

And that's why I think investing in our young people continues to be the benchmark of me tonight. So I'm going to just leave it there, Chief. I appreciate you being here. I don't think— I really, first of all, just want to appreciate you standing there and taking all of the different questions, the range of this sort of stuff. It's a fluid, dynamic conversation.

I think there are real concerns with privacy, but I mostly think there are major concerns with the way we prioritize the investments that help reduce the stress on law enforcement, and prevention continues to be one of those particular areas. You're going to have to get there tonight on the— with the cameras and the desks without my vote, unfortunately. I would have hoped for more time to get this— these things, all the questions worked out, and also to see if we can find another way to use resources coming down the pike. Because if we don't hold the line at some point, people who spend money— and no disrespect to you— you're going to want to spend $500,000 on your folks. Similarly, if that $500,000 could be used in another way, I'm going to want to find that as well.

And I think time helps that conversation. Thank you, Chief, for the work you're doing. I appreciate the folks in our community who have raised both the issues, but on both sides. But today I just think that we need to reprioritize these conversations moving forward. And, and I— we have— I mean, there's 34 kids in the classroom today.

I mean, you know, desks. And so there's a lot going on. You're not gonna have my vote today to support this. You do have my continued support to support our men and women who do this work and find how we can take care of them and their families. But thank you for being here, and thank you, Chair, for indulging this speech.

Time that I took. Thank you. So we have, uh, 1 minute left in debate. We're almost at an hour. I'll see if there's any interest in motion to extend.

Move to extend debate by 5 minutes. Uh, there's a motion to extend by 5 minutes. Second. Second by Mr. Martinez. Um, any objection?

Okay, Member Kirker objects. Then we will vote on it.

Member Martinez.

Okay, on a vote of 6 to 6, um, that motion to extend has failed. Uh, so we are, uh, ending debate as it is 9:50, and members may proceed to vote. The motion on the floor is a motion to approve AM524-2026.

On a vote of 8 to 4, AM524/2026 passes the body. Um, before we move on, I want to make one clarification on the record. Um, uh, there was discussion earlier about, um, an annual report, so I had a chance to go back and look in my emails. Um, the chief case had, had reached out to me in my capacity as chair, um, originally on May 18th, 2026, and then again on May 24th. Um, I was speaking with the municipal manager, so I did provide, um, those emails and making sure that those are in the record regarding the— was it UAS, the drone information?

So, so look for that as that other item comes back. Next, we'll move on. We have our new public hearing items. So we have 4 new public hearings tonight. I will go through them in order.

So item 14A, AO-2026-100, and anchored—. Madam Chair, actually, if I might, I'd like to make a motion to change the order of the day to take up item 14D before 14A. Second. Okay, there's a motion to change the order to take up 14D before 14A. Second— or sorry, motion by Member Volland, or Mr. Volland, second by Miss Scout.

Is there any objection to that changing the order? Well, if— could I speak to it first? Yeah, so, um, I don't believe 14A, 14B, or 14C are time-sensitive or must-pass items. I know there are a lot of people here who would like to testify on item 14D. They've stuck around the meeting a long time.

It's almost 10 o'clock. I think it'd be nice to give them the opportunity to be able to participate meaningfully in that discussion as they came prepared tonight to do so.

Okay, any— with that rationale, any objection to changing the order?

Not hearing any. Okay, then we will then next take up 14D, and then we'll take up, uh, the rest of our items in order. Um, so this is AO-2026-108, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly repealing and replacing Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.102 and amending AMC Section 7.15.040 to clarify existing restrictions on surveillance technology and establish new restrictions on automated license license plate reader systems, real-time crime center operations, and live camera monitoring, to limit the retention of surveillance data, and to prohibit participation in external surveillance data networks. Public hearing on this item is now open, and I will note, as folks are— so please walk up. We do have a few folks on the phone.

We will be calling as well. If there's a lot of folks to testify, I'm going to switch the order at some point to take up those folks on the phone so we don't have to call them too late at night. And then lastly, I'll note, um, uh, that if there is, uh, in— if there is intent to bring back a substitute version, an S version, then I will remind everybody, um, that if you testify tonight, if you testify again, you will need to limit your testimony to a new version and the changes in that version. So if that changes anybody's minds, just making that available. Chair, point of information.

Yes, Mr. President. Did you not say in the beginning of the meeting that there was the intention to there was action of an intention for this item? Was there, was there not, not a note at the beginning of the meeting? Uh, yeah, there was a statement that the item isn't, uh, the sponsors would like to continue the item. Um, but as I understand it, there are folks who want to testify tonight.

I just want to make sure the folks knew that that was the intention, that it was not intended by the sponsors to vote on it tonight. Yeah, and I'm hearing not. So, so again, um, folks can plan accordingly, and you may have another opportunity to testify So, okay, so we'll move to our public hearing. So first, please turn on the microphone, state your name, what part of town you're in, you'll have 3 minutes. Good afternoon and thank you.

My name is Mike Grunstad, I'm a resident of Muldoon and a member of the Scenic Foothills Community Council. I'm here speaking on my own volition. I'd like to remind everyone on the dais of the Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 22, which states the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. That is clear language. While Alaska's right to privacy is not absolute, Alaska courts have long recognized that privacy deserves serious protection, especially against expanding government surveillance.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution also still matters. It protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be based on probable cause to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. I would question Police Chief Case. What is the probable cause to read and track my license plates? I'm sure that Chief Case will no doubt reference Knotts v. United States.

And no, the Supreme Court decision has not yet directly decided whether a government ALPAR network is itself a Fourth Amendment search, but the court's cases point to a basic principle. Technology can turn isolated observations into pervasive surveillance. US v. Kott, not— the courts allowed police to monitor a radio transmitter, determining that people's right to privacy on a public road does not exist. But that involved a specific criminal investigation and limited tracking, not a citywide system that records the travel of everyone whether they are suspected of wrongdoing or not. In US v. Jones, police attached a GPS tracker to a vehicle.

That court held that a search was the search because the government physically trespassed on private property. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, warned that GPS tracking can create a precise, comprehensive record of a person's public movements, revealing familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. Justice Alito, joined by 4 justices, wrote that prolonged GPS monitoring can invade reasonable expectations of privacy, and that line was surely crossed before 7 days. That is the mosaic One photograph of one license plate says little, but hundreds or thousands of timestamped photographs stored in searchable computers can reveal where a person lives, works, worships, seeks medical care, visits family, attends meetings, seeks legal advice, or buys guns. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that acquiring 7 days of historical cell location data information was a Fourth Amendment search.

The court recognized that location data lets a government travel back in time to retrace a a person's movements. ALPAR cameras recreate the same risk. Not ordinary observation, but searchable retrospective surveillance at scale. Public safety is important, but safety should not mean recording the movements of every law-abiding— sorry. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I will note also, we had forgotten to turn on the timer about a minute in, so— I used it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. No, so just to know, because we want to make make sure we're giving folks a fair 3 minutes.

So it's—. So if it said 2, it's because there was some speaking before. Anyway, now we have our timer reset. So next person, you already come forward, mic's already on, you have 3 minutes. Sorry, one second, Miss Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, sorry, I think there was a question for you, Mr. Grunst, if you want to come back. If— yeah, yeah, Mr. Grunst, I, um, I noticed that you have some additional words to say. I was curious if if you'd be so kind as to email your comments to the assembly so that we can read them in their entirety. Um, I will try and read it as fast— that was all in one—. I mean, like, will you, will you email all of us that document so that we can, so we can read it?

Uh, yes, I will. Believe me, I missed some of that because you were, you were speed running, which was lovely. Um, but I'd like to read the whole thing if you don't mind. Great, thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, and as a reminder to folks, um, even if you do testify, you're always welcome to send something in writing. So, okay, so back to the next testifier. Microphone's already on. Please proceed. Hi, good evening.

My name is William Burke. I live in Midtown Abbott Loop, represented by Park and Baldwin Day. On 11/25/2024, my buddy Josh, he's a small business owner here in Anchorage. He had $500,000 worth of equipment stolen from his business while he was on vacation in Maui. Right.

Came back. Back. It was longer than 14 days. Uh, Floyd Hall, some of you guys might know who he is. His team, along with APD and some very overzealous detectives that did very good work, got most of Josh's equipment back, got 5 people charged on felony theft, burglary, car, car theft, all of it.

They did it with traffic cameras. They did it with private surveillance videos from businesses, and that was Josh's livelihood. He almost lost his business that day. Because of those detectives, because of those cameras, he got most of that equipment back. Made a big difference.

My wife and I were down in New Orleans about a year and a half ago, and I noticed they have the RTCC down there, and I felt really safe as a tourist in that city. Right. I was looking at some of their statistics, and since 2022, when they implemented their RTCC, homicide down 72%. I wish we could say the same in Anchorage. Non-fatal shootings down 65%.

Armed robbery down 67%. This is all online. You can read it. Carjackings down 79%.

Uh, there was a terrorist attack January 1st, 2025, 14 people lost their lives, including one of my cousin's best friends that was in town that day. The RTCC provided video feeds in real time, helped law enforcement track the suspect's movements, and aided the FBI in constructing a timeline. So what I would encourage you guys— some of the language I saw in here was around 14 days. Without some of that surveillance video, Josh wouldn't have got his stuff back. So I would say, you know, I mean, most of you go on vacation.

I know I do, right? Maybe make it 30 days. It's worked for New Orleans, you know, and it worked for him. It saved his business. So thank you.

Thank you. You have a question from Member Scout if you want to stay up here. Go ahead. Yeah, I guess. Thank you for sharing this.

And I think we all want to solve crime. Sure, on this dais. Um, how— my understanding was that the current internal policy at APD is that the footage goes away in 14 days already. How do you know how APD was able to access that footage over 2 weeks later? So I don't think the RTCC was, uh, in place at that point, but I know that from what Josh told me, the detectives were able to get the traffic camera footage from DOT, from the traffic department, as well as 5 neighboring businesses that were provided that, and it was key to the case.

License plates, vehicle information. Before the Real Time Crime Center? Uh, yeah. Okay, thank you. Yep.

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

My name is Clara Shapiro. I I live in West Anchorage. I'm an assistant public defender, although I'm here on my own capacity as a citizen. I'm in favor of this ordinance as it would protect the privacy interests of people in and around Anchorage. And honestly, this is barely enough.

We should be— we could reasonably be asking for no surveillance cameras in this way. We already banned the facial recognition technology. These are the bare minimums. I'm against the implementation of this mass surveillance program for 3 reasons. First, they don't work.

The research shows that there is a minimal causal relationship between these cameras and finding people who perpetrate car theft. Second of all, it doesn't prevent car thefts. At most, it finds it after the fact. This does nothing to prevent, um, crime because policing in this city is fundamentally reactive, not proactive. If you are attempting to solve crime.

A camera does not stop that. This is the point that Mr. Martinez has been making consistently. Um, we have seen, um, Officer Case refer to increase in arrests, increase in convictions. Again, that is not prevention. That does not prevent crime.

Moreover, a conviction does not mean that is not going to happen again. That is merely the result of someone who's working within the system. And in terms of what a grown-up conversation conversation would look like and what would actually be happening, we need to implement the fact that this does not stop anything and that the cameras that are in existence already are about to be massively upscaled by this, by these expansive new networks. Second of all, these are going to be expensive. They're not constitutional.

The litigation that is going to flow out of this from the fact that people are going to have to be— when they are prosecuted, the evidence will be litigated. Ultimately, these, I think, are going to go to the Supreme Court. And then we're going to have the constitutional basis that shows these were not constitutional. And then every single conviction that is earned because of this is going to be vacated and retried. So we're going to be doing two trials for every person, for the people who don't plead out to coercive nature of time served.

And in the meantime, people are going to be wasting away in jail, something that costs our state $200 a day per person. Off, uh, Ms. Silver's reference specifically that we have the rules of evidence and the criminal code of procedure and the Fourth Amendment. Here we are saying that the Fourth Amendment is telling us not to have this technology. If you take her point seriously, we should not be implementing these cameras at all. And third, frankly, wrongful accusations exist.

There's much more to say, but the Alaska Constitution is more protective of our privacy rights than the federal Constitution, which means we should err on the side of privacy and caution as a matter as Alaska says. And thank you.

Next person, please come forward to testify. Microphone's already on. State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Linda Sharp, and I oppose. Oh, and I'm sorry, do you mind pulling the microphone a little closer to your mouth? There you go. Thank you. My name is Linda Sharp.

I live in Midtown Anchorage. Baldwin Day and Park are my representatives, and I oppose going ahead with this until the municipality has the codes in place to protect the public properly. This is not something that is going to be retroactive a priority. You've got a priority, some of you do, to get this done as fast as possible. Well, go ahead and make the codes updated to protect us first and then allow it.

It's like the data centers. Get everything protected in place first. Don't do like Dunleavy and Trump are doing and push it through as fast as you can because there's something for somebody at the end. Get the protections in place first and then allow technology or resources or mining to go ahead. Whether it's Bristol Bay and the gold versus the fish, fortunately the fish are still there and the gold is still sitting in the hills.

But once the water is polluted, it's too late. So unless there's bigger penalties for abusing a system, then whether it's the oil companies or anything else— I grew up in the Bakken oil fields. They can pollute the farm fields and a small penalty compared to what it benefits them, all the costs to prevent the problem. Um, so I do respect this police department, and I believe most of them are very good people. I do think some of them need better training or more training or more supervision or some reporting inside when there's problems.

And I don't think that we can count on everybody to be honest all the time and maybe even see the facts all the time. For example, this past year, Representative Hannon put in a bill to have masks precluded for law enforcement while working actively in Alaska. And Chief Case wrote a letter, which I saw, And it said, "We've always had a good relationship with the Anchorage public and we've never worn the masks." And in the end he said, "Please don't pass this law because it will hurt our relationship with the public if you pass it." Well, that was right in the middle of Minneapolis with 50,000 people out in the streets at 20 below protesting for weeks because two people, two innocent people were murdered. So I just say, get your acts in order. Get the protections for us first.

And the consequences be big for any infractions. As the Daily News said recently, more than 50 police around the country have misused this, spying on their girlfriends or their ex-wives or whatever. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward.

And then I'll note also, as I said, um, it— I know it's getting late. I know folks have waited a long time, and we also have folks on the phone to call. So, um, after a few more testifiers, I might start alternating on the phone. But please go ahead, uh, microphone's on. State your name, what part of town you're in.

You have 3 minutes. Thank you. My name is Lincoln D'Very, and I'm a resident of District 3. While I appreciate the assembly's performance when it comes to them attempting to care about the privacy of its citizens. AO 2026-108 isn't actually providing any real protection for its citizens' privacy.

It's simply adding a way of somewhat reducing the already existent mass surveillance that is being put into place. I know I can speak for myself, and I think that I am able to speak for others when I say Anchorage citizens and the people standing out here tonight don't want restricted mass surveillance. We don't want lesser mass surveillance. We want no mass surveillance whatsoever. If you want to actually serve the people and protect the citizens today, what you need to do is not to just have some mass surveillance, not to edit this bill, not to approve this bill, or not to approve this ordinance.

What you need to do is to end every and all form of mass surveillance in Anchorage, not just lessen it.

And I think we need to have more actual conversations with the people here today on what the citizens of Anchorage want with their own rights and with their own protections. The answer to this question, of course, is no, we do not want mass surveillance in here. And to the member that claimed that people are simply misinformed about what this does or like how this works, I'm sorry, get the fuck out of here with that bullshit. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone's already on. State your name. You have 3 minutes. Hey, I'm Adrian Valentine.

I'm from Northeast. I mostly support this just because I walk the city, I bike the city, and you kind of see it a little different than people who are in their cars all the time. There are a few things I did notice that I would like to see, like, in writing itself, more so about who's accessing it. Like, if we have, like, multi-factor authentication in it, non-repudiation, those are, like, cybersecurity things, and it would kind of help settle, like, who's accessing this, who can and who can't, I think that needs to be in writing a little more. But yeah, I live in Northeast and I've definitely noticed a lot more shootings and stuff closer.

I think the line kind of moved south of us. And it's always— it's the same people all the time.

And the other thing is a lot of people are pointing out like major events that happened. We've been very fortunate that we haven't had a tragedy or a crisis here in Anchorage. And I think if you wait until it happens to react, it's too late. I don't want to be a part of that. It's terrible.

It destroys communities.

Yeah, that's, that's kind of my thing. Just, uh, don't wait until it's still too late. But, um, yeah, just, we do have time to talk about it. But, um, yeah, that's, that's all.

Okay, next person please come forward. Um, state your name, part of town you're in. Microphone's on. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Michael Patterson.

Uh, I live in District 1. I had a whole thing written out, but then I attended this meeting. I think the irony is that you've been having technological problems all day with your meeting. You had a report, a drone report that violated municipal code and law. And then now you're asking us, which you also voted to expand mass surveillance in Anchorage, and you still You still didn't put protections in place first.

You are very naive to think that these are just office tables and desks. Chief Case said it here. This is the infrastructure for mass surveillance. You don't have to feed in 250 cameras to track somebody. I just need to see 4 over and over and over again.

It's very naive. Do not call people children because you think we do not understand what is going on. Just like Chief Kay said in the work session last week, the people don't understand their right to privacy. That is false. I don't ever really talk about my time in the military, uh, but I was a military intelligence soldier, and a lot of this equipment that we used in Iraq in 2008 is the equipment we're talking about right now.

So let that sink in. This is very— I was 11 when 9/11 happened. This is a very similar conversation I think that's happened. "We have to be tough on crime. We have to be tough on crime.

You don't need privacy. You don't need your rights. You want to feel safe, don't you? You want to feel safe, don't you? Then sacrifice your right to privacy." And the reality is, is that when the municipality, when the LaFrance administration is saying, oh, APD is not using facial recognition technology, well, if you take 10 seconds to actually investigate what the Real Time Crime Center is, what Axon is doing, what Aura is, is it still facial recog— is the city still receiving facial, uh, using facial recognition technology?

If, say, a big retail store is creating a data package from the technology that they're using inside their store, where they're collecting the evidence, where they're putting it all together in a nice data package, or the aggregate data, and then giving it to APD, is that technically the municipality not using facial recognition technology? Gosh, I really wish we had a conversation about this before we started expanding things. And just to be clear, there was no public conversation about this. It's not been a year. Having a performative work session at 10:40 AM is not accessible to the public.

The public is not included in the conversation.

Next person, please come forward. State your name. Microphone is on. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Jade Powell.

I'm a homeowner in Northstar, but I'm speaking on behalf of my myself today. I'm here to testify in support of this AO, which I think is a good start as a baseline expectation, but it does not go far enough. I am pleased to hear Member Vollen mention that he is proposing an S version, and there's some changes I'd like to see, and I think my neighbors would like to see, but I'll get to those in a moment. Right now, at a political— we are at a political moment in this country, and I want to talk about that. The recent surge in scrutiny for ALPRs is a very important thing to me because we had ALPRs They were widespread around the country, but Flock and people that are pushing this technology overstepped their hand.

People stopped and said, wait, what the hell is this? What is going on? This is way too much. But the gap, the step between ALPRs that people had quietly and tacitly accepted and the overreaching technology that Flock and other companies have been pushing is a very small procedural step. Chief Case said it himself, we have these cameras in our traffic lights and in our SWAT cars, and all we had to do is flip a switch to turn on the ARPR technology.

And that is the slope— and I hate the slippery slope thing— but that is the slope that we are on right now. The next state-of-the-art— Chief Case says we want to be the most technologically advanced police department in the country. I don't think we should. I think that's a really bad idea. The state-of-the-art in the country right now is a product called SignalTrace, which is a product that is being added to ALPRs that allows departments and federal law enforcement to track Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals.

I have renamed my phone from Jade's iPhone to just iPhone because I don't want them collecting my name along with this dragnet of surveillance. This is the state of the art. It is LRADs, long-range acoustic devices, that are the, the 21st century version of fire hoses and police dogs that we set on people during the civil rights movement. The state of the art is not what we should be seeking. We as a city have the opportunity to to lead the country, not in the state of the art of privatized surveillance and even public, public surveillance.

We have the opportunity to lead the country in the most protective rights for people in the country. I think that's a great opportunity that we should take. And I think if we don't take this opportunity now, we might get to the point where we wake up one day and realize we are in too deep and we have to claw things back, but there's already been harm that has been done. Chief Case in the work session said, "The reason why you should trust us to have this in policy and not need to put it in code is because people will be pissed if they change the policy without telling anyone." That is a ridiculous point that proves why it's important to put it in code. We are here now.

We are pissed. We do not think that the policy is adequate and we would like to see something even better put into code. Chief Case also said, that people don't care about surveillance, what they actually care about is speed bumps and the safety of their communities from speeding cars. I think this also proves my point. People might not realize this, but once they find out about it, they are mad.

My community council, people I don't agree with, they're mad about this, and we're going to pass a resolution on it. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next person please come forward. Um, and then I'll also note, um, that again, I don't want to be calling people close to 11 p.m., so after this testifier, we'll switch to one person on the phone.

We'll alternate in-person and the phone to take care of those three on the phone. So please proceed. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town. You have 3 minutes.

Thank you, members of assembly. My name is Josh McCose. I live in East Anchorage. I'm the communications director for the Alaska Libertarian Party. I will flatly say it.

1984 Is here. The infrastructure does not care about your intentions. It only cares about who controls it next. Today is the Sean case. The next administration gets the same keys.

You guys pushed against the Bronson administration in 2023 against the facial recognition software. I worked with you on that, and now you want to expand the surveillance on the city.

Everyone is absolutely certain that they've identified threat and have a cause worth pursuing inherits exactly what you build tonight. The Real Time Crime Center preemptively collects location data. The moment a camera reads your plate, the search already has happened. No warrant, no probable cause, no suspicion required. A military police officer I was close to told me something I haven't forgotten: police have the authority to respond to a crime, not to predict it, not to preemptively surveil everyone who might commit one.

That distinction matters. The system collects data on every person regardless of suspicion before any crime occurs. That is not policing. APD's own governing policy says it plainly: violations will only form the basis for departmental administration sanctions. This system has already run for nearly a year under a document that creates no enforceable right for the people to collect— for people it collects data on.

Assemblyman Gekker said this week that Anchorage does not have flock cameras. These are ALPRs. Assemblyman— member Ballin said they're just like the Coca-Cola of ALPRs. We all know this. You are flatly lying to the public.

It governs the, uh, APD's own ALPR policy defines the technology it governs as specialized camera system, automatically captures license plate images using optical character recognition, cross-references them against databases. That's what "flat climbers" are. You cannot run that system and claim it is the thing that a word describes.

I may add that the federal ethics disclosures disclose an account— disclose— show an account in the President's name purchased up to $5 million in Exxon stock. February 10th. 14 Days later, ICE posted a $220 million contract matching Axon's exact specifications. Mark Begich is a registered Palantir lobbyist as of June 1st, and Palantir has an— holds an active ICE contract. We know M. Sam Luman-Gecker has been pushing against this because he knows this, that it will be corroborated with ICE.

Surveillance infrastructure built for public safety does not stay within its original purpose. During COVID we saw this expanded across Europe. Thank you. And as well, I do have about 500 comments from the public opposing this that I can submit to you guys. Thank you.

Yeah, again, if anybody would like to submit comments in writing, you're welcome to do so. Next, we're going to switch to one phone testifier. So can we call, um, Mr. Thorne-White, sorry.

And then again, we'll go back to in person.

Okay, went right to voicemail, so we will try them at the end again, I guess. Uh, but we'll move on to the next person in person. So please come forward, microphone's on. Please state your name, what part of town, and you have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Miranda Walso and I live in Chugiak/Eagle River.

I strongly support establishing enforceable rules around surveillance technology. There are several provisions within this draft that I believe should be refined before passage or reconsideration. First, I have concerns about the 14-day retention limit in AMC 3.102.030. 14 Days is a very short evidentiary window. Investigators may not know within 2 weeks that a vehicle recording or event is relevant.

A suspect may be identified later, an offense reported late, or evidence may become significant only after investigators connect multiple incidents. I encourage the Assembly to consider tiered access rather than automatic destruction. Those safeguards could become progressively stronger as data ages without prematurely permanently deleting evidence potentially relevant to a case. Second, AMC 3.102.020 broadly restricts participation in external surveillance data networks. I understand and echo the concerns about indiscriminate tracking, but the focus should be on preventing bulk sharing, generalized searches, and access without a legitimate investigative nexus, not eliminating legitimate interoperability potential itself.

There's an important difference between creating a system capable of tracking ordinary residents and allowing investigators to obtain relevant information from another jurisdiction in a serious investigation. Third, the acquisition provisions are extremely broad. Assembly oversight before deployment of a new surveillance capability is reasonable and prudent, but controlled demonstrations, sandbox testing, or evaluation using synthetic or nonpublic data should not necessarily require the same legislative process as actual operational surveillance. These evaluations are often how privacy, cybersecurity, contractual, and interoperability risks are identified before technology is purchased or deployed. I also have concerns with the categorical prohibition on ALPR use for every misdemeanor.

I support preventing ALPRs from becoming an automated enforcement mechanism for minor violations, but not every misdemeanor presents the same limited public safety concern. Permissible use should reflect investigative need and seriousness of the conduct, not solely whether an offense is labeled a felony or misdemeanor. Finally, I believe the private cause of action, AMC 3.102.050C, warrants particular attention. I support meaningful consequences for misuse of surveillance technology. Without enforcement, those protections have little value.

But this ordinance provides liability for any violation while also creating highly detailed technical and procedural requirements. The law should distinguish between intentional or reckless misuse of surveillance authority, material violations of a person's privacy rights, and technical or administrative non-compliance that causes no actual privacy harm. I'd also consider the, some urgent I urge the assembly to consider the practical consequences of the liability it's creating, the potential cost to the municipality from claims, real or imagined statutory damages and attorney's fees, and whether existing protections are sufficient for municipal employees acting in good faith and within the scope of their duties. Those issues should be clear before creating a new cause of action based on any violation of an ordinance this technically detailed. Municipal Code should establish substantive boundaries, authorized purposes, prohibited use supervisory controls.

All right, thank you. Next, we are going to try the second person on the phone. I will also note that if we are not able to connect with them tonight and we do continue the hearing, they can stay on the list. So next, can we call Ms. Cheryl Rosa?

Hello, this is Cheryl. Hi Cheryl, this is Assembly Chair Brawley. We are doing public testimony for AO 2026-108. You had signed up, so please proceed when you're ready. You have 3 minutes.

Oh, are you still there? Yes, I am. Okay, yeah, please, uh, so go ahead, uh, state your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes and we're keeping track. My name is Cheryl Rosa.

I reside in South Anchorage and I'm speaking tonight of my own as a citizen. I want to make it clear that it's not my preference to have mass surveillance. No mass surveillance is my preference. But with respect to the rules for operation of the RTCC, um, APD utilizes software and integration via Axon to pull in feeds which include registered private and public security cameras connected to real-time monitoring. Do not expand this system until safeguards are determined, and there should be a draft of safeguard recommendations provided with time for public comment.

The system should not be operating without rules of use. Key safeguards that should be governing the use of the RTCC include: there should be defined law enforcement public safety purpose, searches should be associated with authorized case-based public safety purposes, and that mass surveillance and tracking individuals should be prohibited. No generalized tracking of people. A camera should not be used simply because an officer wants to see where a particular person's vehicle has been going, absent a legitimate investigative purpose. 3, Every search should require a documented reason.

4, Access should be limited. Only specific authorized personnel should have access with role-based permissions and individual logins. Searches should be logged and periodically audited. 5, Data retention should be short. And 6, data sharing should be tightly restricted.

This is an especially important issue. As an example, FLOC says customers control sharing, but recent reporting has raised concerns about broad interagency sharing and the ability of participating agencies to access data from other jurisdictions. Finally, we need data on efficacy of these systems. Earlier we heard that the genie is out of the bottle from assemblyman from West Anchorage. This is not the case.

Create license plate reader restrictions, live monitoring limits, and data retention guidelines that the community agrees to, or get rid of this system. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Um, next person we will have in the room, so please step forward. Microphone is on. State your name. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, my name is Adrian Canino. I'm from Nunaka Valley.

So I'm also here to talk about the surveillance technology because I'm angry. But first, let me say thank you to the chair and the assembly members for having a code that we could look at and read ahead and provide comments on. The accountability and self-awareness is much appreciated.

I also want to say that I appreciate the clarification earlier today that facial recognition technology is already prohibited, but I also agree with some of my neighbors here tonight because what's the difference between a camera looking at something— oh, it doesn't use facial recognition technology, but it'll look at my hair or it'll look at my tattoos or it'll look at my jewelry or my shoes and it'll still identify me, no problem. So I want to encourage us to expand the definition of what technology is not allowed in the proposed proposed code from just prohibiting facial recognition technology to prohibiting all digital biometric data so that there can't be any pattern matching of my gait or habit tracking of my person as I walk past all of these license plate readers. But actually, if we just rejected surveillance technology and license plate readers altogether, that would be my first ask. But I'm a bit of a pessimist, so I'm here with a list and I've also provided it in written testimony. Of things that I'd like to see be stronger in this proposed code.

So that's the first thing, is that we expand our idea of facial recognition technology to biometric data and prohibit the use of biometric data and detections, especially any algorithmic biometric data detection, because we know that algorithms are biased, trained on bad data, and subject to, let's which just say a salesman's hype. So the next thing I'd like to also point out is that one section of the code should update what a query is of the data that's being held. I appreciate what my neighbors have said about data retention, so I won't repeat some of that. I'll let you read it. But we should update what a query means so that it's a query with good old-fashioned keyword searches and filtering and fast faceting.

We should not allow the interface of an LLM or an AI agent or any kind of AI or programmatic algorithmic query to this data, because as we've seen in a lot of recent high-profile news cases, those AI agents jump the bounds all the time and they go on to do totally unscoped things. So the least to say, they're unstable systems and they shouldn't shouldn't be included in any way in our police and safety. I'll leave it at that because I have already sent things to you, and I look forward to continued discussion.

And thank you for your testimony. Um, let's call our third and last person on the phone this evening, Mr. Daniel Bayer.

Hello, is that Hi, Dino, this is Assembly Chair Brawley. I'm calling because we are doing public testimony on AO 2026-108, and you are next on the list if you'd like to testify. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so please confirm your name and then you'll have 3 minutes. Dan Bear, Eagle River.

I'm strongly opposed to this. Please do not expand the surveillance system and call it safety. More cameras and plate readers are a file on where people go. Without hard limits and public record of who looked, that file will get used for whatever the next majority wants. That is not a left or right problem.

It can hurt immigration. It can hunt immigration status, can enforce mask rules, protest zone, gunshot parking lots, clinic visits, church lot, Same tool, different target. You will not like every administration that inherits it. You will not like every chief police who inherits it. Right now, live access sits with APD's Real Time Crime Center.

Bape camera video, plate reader images can already go to other law enforcement agencies. If the chief approves it. No oversight other than the chief. Plate hits already run against state, national wanted and stolen systems. There's no public log of who asked, when they asked, or whether anyone outside the city got it.

That is a policy choice sitting in one office. Policy is not law. The next mayor picks the next chief. Private cameras do not stay private after APD copies to file. The owner sets the terms.

The city then holds the record. Code, not a chief's memo, should say how long that file is kept and who outside the city may see it. Warren's and Alaska's privacy clause exists because chief watching always outruns the original excuse. Funded first, rules later is the wrong order. Until access is logged in public, who asked when and whether anyone outside the city got it?

Do not add feeds or spend the extra money. Pass the strongest 108. Do not grow the network on a promise. Thank you. I'd also like to say, Miss Scout Boland got mad respect from me.

Goker has lost significant— we're trying to fund this first. Thank you, have a great evening.

Okay, that was our last phone testifier. We'll continue with in-person. So next person, please come forward. The microphone is already on, so state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Elizabeth Anderson and I come from the Sand Lake neighborhood. As a— for thing, I despise I despise mass surveillance and I despise these cameras. I appreciate the effort being put into this ordinance. Using a people's hard-earned money for data that entrenches the idea that mass surveillance is a positive thing instead of something that is quite obviously immoral as well as unlawful is despicable. Furthermore, spending millions of dollars to fund your ridiculous this power monopoly is irresponsible, deeply flawed, and remarkably concerning.

Using taxpayer resources to fund what I believe is just such an unconstitutional, unlawful breach of our human rights is especially vile. I despise those cameras, drones, and plate readers. I despise the insinuation that they lay in one's mind. Mass surveillance enforces a belief that one must be proven innocent instead of guilty. Multiple times they have been used with horrendously poor judgment, causing a victim to misplace technology, to spend vast sums of resources and their mental health to defend themselves against a flawed legal system.

Last year I read and studied the book 1984. I am horrified and distraught by this revoltingly dystopian scene. The largest theme in the book seemed to be mass surveillance fueled by cameras, telescreens, and microphones in every conceivable location. I wouldn't have thought I'd need to be here on this subject for at least a couple more years, and yet here we are. My overall position on those cameras, license plate readers, and drones is that they are unlawful, and quite frankly, that they violate the human right to live without being constantly surveilled.

They violate and lessen my quality of life. I am not an animal or criminal to be constantly recorded. Recorded. I do not care how many cameras can be used at once. My issue is that I, again, am being treated as a lesser being than you.

I am now going to use my constitutionally protected right to silently protest.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, next person please come forward. Um, state your name. Microphone's already on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hello, my name is Jonah Rothletter. I live in the North Star area of Anchorage. And I hate following people like I just gave the presentation because they gave such wonderful presentation and I did not come nearly prepared as they did. So thank you for that, the previous speaker. Mostly I came here just to say I truly hate this idea of the surveillance state.

I too read 1984. I think about it all the time. I think about how it did It didn't even take the full surveillance state to silence the citizens. It just took the idea of the surveillance state. We see the main character sitting in a field of grass, just wondering if Big Brother is there listening, and thinking he has to, because he said he was.

We see it in all sorts of speculative fiction. We see it in V for Vendetta. We see the police cars driving around, surveilling their citizens, black bagging them in the middle of the night. I understand this is a deeply slippery slope, but at the same time, police are here to react to crime. We saw that in Minority Report, the cost that it does when you start getting into precog.

I have— I work in the world of geo-informational systems. I work in the world of wildlife movement. I think about how little information it takes to start building an idea of where someone go or where a not someone, where an animal goes, how often it's going there, what its preferences are, what its selection is. I think about this and I ponder the ramifications of where did this research that people that I am using have gotten from. I have spoken to other GIS researchers about where GIS field is stretching out into and they've gone to conferences and they listen to people talk about how they have built these models models that describe crime in their cities.

And I think an element that was spoken in this particular situation that hasn't been spoken here is that when they started looking at these maps that this researcher was making, they realized very fast that the researcher hadn't looked into redlining, and that redlining was still the substantial— what was feeding that model. And that we were seeing a perpetuation of crime— of the model saying this is a high-level area of crime that was based on choices that were made in the 1930s when we had the New Deal, that were based on previous ideas that were founded when America was founded. I think— and then, so I think about that aspect, that these crimes that we're saying that we're surveilling against aren't always fully spread out across the population, that we strategically target populations, whether it's a conscious conscious bias or unconscious bias. And this is something that needs to be talked about and needs to be thought about when we start looking into the surveillance state. So are we going to surveil some communities harder than others because, oh, well, there's a history of crime there, or has there always just been disenfranchisement?

Do we— why is it— and I want to— my final point is, why do we always have money for this kind of things and not for community building? Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone's on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. 5 Minutes.

Hi, my name is Cynthia Kachapin. I'm a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation Anchorage. I live in District 1. So in 2025, when we first had the, uh, RTCC come before you guys— and some of you may not have been here, but some of you were— I gave testimony about the concerns. One of the main concerns I had at that time was that they were wrapping the body cameras into that whole bundle of money.

So obviously I had to come and say I wanted the body cameras. I clearly did not want the, uh, RTCC, but of course it passed as usual. One of the things that I mentioned as a concern back then, a year ago almost now, was that you guys were not concerned about any policies for the RTCC. It seemed like you kind of all generally do. You pass something and the consequences come later, right?

And now here we all are. You have the community upset and you only like half listen to us even when we're upset. Um, I know earlier it was spoken about you'll do a work session at a time where normal working people cannot attend. Please keep that in mind for us that work jobs, um, as most do. Maybe try to reconsider that a little bit.

But in any case, you know, we're back to this coming, you know, looking at this, and I'm saying, well, a few things from this meeting popped up that concerned me when I'm looking at this ordinance. One, I think calling people children or they're not adults in the room because you think they don't understand what mass surveillance is or expansion is, is kind of, I mean, that's just rude. And also, these are your constituents, right? Yeah. People aren't stupid.

They understand that expansion of RTCC is going to end up being mass surveillance. They don't trust you all with having any of these policies because look at what you have already done. So, I mean, it's just, it's naïve to think that that FLOC and Axon are two very different things. They clearly are not, and anyone who's done research knows that. It's naive to think that when we are giving them more and more money over and over again to expand this technology and expand these programs, that we won't eventually have a mass surveillance that none of us in this community are comfortable with.

So I guess I'll stand here again. A year later, uh, and say it's still a concern. Um, I think this needs to be paused for not just a work session, not a few weeks. You guys need like at least a couple years to have a really good conversation about what these policies need to be. And that means also that there's a pause on any more things that they do with this technology.

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

Hi, good evening. My name is Mike Garvey. I, uh, live in District 6, but I representing the ACLU of Alaska tonight. We appreciate the sponsors for bringing this ordinance forward. Um, when the government considers whether or not to deploy certain technology and how it deals with data generated by that technology, We need to be assured that these tools don't violate our constitutional rights.

It's important for Anchorage to establish guardrails in code for how the city uses technology like ALPRs and the Real-Time Crime Center for a couple of reasons. First, hundreds of thousands of people live, work, seek services in the city, and travel for tourism. The technology we're talking about is capable of widely surveilling a huge population. Second, laws provide permanence and are more resistant to change than department policy. Enacting protections in code shields them from being unwound, protecting Alaskans' constitutional rights that include privacy, freedoms of speech and association, due process, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches.

Third, the legislative process allows for greater participation from and accountability to the public. Assembly members are representatives of the people, and the process offers opportunities, requires opportunities for the community to be heard. Finally, establishing protections in code provides greater legal accountability. An AO would establish explicit legal expectations, and potential violations of the law can be pursued through legislative oversight or the courts. Different technologies may require different policy treatments, as this AO reflects.

As you continue to work on the ordinance, we urge you to take the time necessary to evaluate how it deals with common components of surveillance technology policy. Consider how to minimize data collection. It's harder to control how data is collected, stored, and shared once it's been generated. The use of surveillance technologies by law enforcement should be specific, narrow, and require a warrant. Ensure data transparency.

The community must know for certain what data is collected, how it's being used, and by whom. Consider requiring enforceable agreements that would govern how the data is shared with third parties, whether they're government agencies or private entities. Think about accountability and enforcement mechanisms like a private right of action and routine independent audits that are functional. When the government has tools to record or see in real time where we are, when we were there, what we were doing, Over time, it can reveal deeply personal information. These tools also create the potential for data they collect to be used or shared inappropriately.

For example, in other jurisdictions, surveillance data has led to wrongful arrests or been selectively used in criminal prosecutions, engineering guilt where exculpatory evidence may exist. That's not to say that Anchorage is going to use the tools this way. Technology can assist people tasked with keeping our public safe. But responsible governance requires us to establish reasonable guardrails. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward.

Member Silvers has a question. Mr. Garvey, if you want to come back, please reapproach the podium. Thank you.

Hi, thank you. Yep. I just wanted to ask you a couple questions because I know that you're the ACLU's model legislation is a part of this, um, community control over police surveillance. Um, and I want to say I agree with many of the points in your model legislation. Um, one thing though that I had a lot of questions about is that this, what we're looking at, um, goes well beyond what your legislation proposes.

Um, there's a lot of additions, departures, and changes. What is your take on some of those changes. Have you had a chance to review and kind of identify those? And we're still giving a deep dive to that. My understanding is that the CCOPS legislation is not word for word, but so we're taking a deep look at it and evaluating it because it is a very complex piece of legislation and there's a lot to consider, make sure that it's right for Anchorage.

So, I'd be happy to follow up later on that as this deliberation continues, but I want to make sure that folks here are able to have their voice heard tonight. So— And I guess I had one other question. What are your thoughts on allowing some of these technologies to be used for felony crimes, but not for investigation of misdemeanors, which would include some serious crimes such as assault and stalking? I think I'd go back to this. You have to have a purpose specification and reasonable use.

You have to have, again, and different technologies will require different treatments, but you have to have a clear delineated purpose, and it has to be based in probable cause warrant standard kind of thing. So you wouldn't put a distinction between a misdemeanor versus a felony. You would put the distinction distinction on the probable cause?

I think it's pretty late at night, if I'm honest. I might have to follow up with you on that. Sorry, I'll talk with you offline. Yeah, happy to do that. Okay, okay, thanks.

Yeah, I think, um, there might be interest from members to hear ACLU's position. Next person, please come forward. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Sure. All right, uh, name's Joseph Oblender. I come out of East—. Sorry, do you mind standing just a little bit closer to the microphone? Thank you.

Joseph Oblender. I come out of East Anchorage, and I appreciate you guys taking time to listen to all of us. You know, it's surprising there's some states that will arrest you for doing this in an assembly like this, like you're a crazy protester for like showing that you have an opinion that is different than all of you up up here. And so it's commendable that you guys give the respect to the community, and I hope that you try to listen to what we're saying about being accountable. So I think there's a big disconnect between accountability and what goes on these pieces of paper.

For instance, I don't know if any of these officers— they make an oath to our federal constitution and to our state constitution, which is higher than any statute, legislative, whatever you guys put in these little pieces of paper. Which means that, in my opinion, I think that means that if you guys are up here trying to push for something that's unconstitutional, you know, they should probably have something to say about it instead of trying to promote it. The second thing with accountability is I don't think they've ever spent a night in jail, right? They're arresting people and taking them to a facility that they have no control over. They don't know what happens in there, right?

And I don't think neither of you guys do. And so when you see a statistic, a statistic that says 10 to 15% of people in prison today are in there falsely arrested, Go spend one night in jail. How about three nights in jail, right? And then have a public defender who has so many handcuffs on them with a little administrative stuff here that they can't even do their job and protect anybody. They get 150 cases, so it's impossible for them to actually have any justice, which is what prosecution is, is an administer of justice.

Right? They're not there to get convictions and arrests. We're here to bring peace to the community and de-escalate things. And I can assure you, I have some very direct personal experiences here locally in the last few years just trying to protect the mental health that turned into false allegations, false arrests. There was no innocence.

They were guilty until proven innocent. And in the meantime of being proven innocent, they had every constitutional right violated. They had their life put at risk and no access to medical care, right? And it's possibly because of lack of training, right? But I can assure you that with all the tools that they have, they should have some accountability that gets them more than a 1-star rating before we go give them more power to come and give false arrests because they make a statement that it's a crime.

So I hope you consider and maybe go lock yourselves in jail for a few days. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Howdy, my name is Daniel Darbyshire. I ran from South Anchorage.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I don't believe we can preach freedom, liberty, and justice for all while our institutions entrap us in debt, compromise, slave wage, and surveillance. Now, Officer, you are correct that crime is rising. That is correct. That's only because people are getting more desperate, and as people become more desperate, they become more dangerous, sir. Now you've got a lot of desperate, dangerous people.

Sir, can you please speak into the microphone? Sorry, come forward a little bit. Thank you. You can hear me? Now, as I said, we are entering a very dangerous, dangerous period of time.

Now, in my opinion, manipulating the public through means of intimidation is akin to terrorism?

What room is there left for honor when we're all motivated by fear?

Would doing the right thing— could doing the right thing put me in prison or homeless?

That is all I have to say, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen.

Madam Chair, before we go to the next testifier, I'd like to move to extend the meeting to 11:30. Second. Okay, there's been a motion to extend the meeting to 11:30 by Mr. Bullen, second by Miss Scout. Um, any objection to extension?

Hearing and seeing none, the meeting is extended to 11:30. Next person, please come forward for testimony. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town, and you will have 3 minutes.

Uh, thank you for allowing me to make a comment to this body and the mayor. My name is Brian Hall. I'm from Chugiak, Alaska. This is the first time I've commented to this body. I felt compelled to do that because of this subject matter.

Which I believe is, um, unfortunately going to become worse over time. I don't think this is a problem that's going to get solved tonight. I think this is a long-range issue. Uh, I respect every one of you here who's trying to combat this issue. I think you're trying to put your best mind forward.

I understand why many of you might be confused used on this issue, but for me it's clear.

Um, I'm a vet, and a long time ago, about 1976, I had to take an oath to protect the Constitution, and I took that oath without really even reading it or understanding it. So I took the time later on to read it, and one of the amendments in there was the Fourth And that was to protect ourselves from these kinds of activities which are happening. In China, they don't have the Fourth Amendment, and they have mass surveillance.

In the media, we see probably weekly how China has given their citizens zero rights. They're soldiers, they're minions, they do the work for a few people. Their rights are violated daily. It's my hope that we stop and think about the freedoms we do have and respect them. And it's something you should consider daily, and we should be thankful that we do live in a country we do live in.

And that we have that right. I'm thankful that I'm be able— I'm here today to be able to speak to you folks and have that right. In so many places, that's not the case.

So with that being said, it's no mystery that in places like Winona, Minnesota, where this system and a similar system went up and was in place, every single one of those cameras was stolen off the streets. There were quite a number of cameras that were stolen off the streets, and they didn't hold anybody accountable. So how do you steal these surveillance cameras off the street and the police force in Winona sees it but no one's prosecuted? What does that tell you? That tells you that they're not in favor of it either.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, next person please come forward. Microphone's on. State your name, part of town, 3 minutes.

Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez, formerly Coalition, formerly homeless. So speed round. Uh, I'd like to thank my therapist, Mr. Michael Patterson, for bringing it hard so I don't have to. Um, From the free books cart, we have Making Great Sausage. I think it represents this well.

So, those who trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. You could not postpone the thing for 2 weeks, yet you're charging straight ahead, and that is why you are failing. We have always been at war with East Asia, or in this case, we could amend it to say the poor. You have been hunting the poor for the past 2 years and show no signs of slowing down. And there are people that are basically suffering as a result of it.

So I'll try to get through this as quick as possible. Uh, AO 2023-35-S1. No, later on June 1st of each year, the mayor or a designee shall transmit to the assembly and cause to be publicly posted on the municipal website a report with all the following: the UAS report, and then facial recognition tracking 2023, 2024, 2025, Nothing posted. You've shown you cannot be trusted because you did not actually look to verify the information, and it was me who brought it up basically in an audit committee meeting last month. And it is not Bill Fawcett's fault, it was the people before.

But the police chief knows better, the mayor should know better, and you know, that's kind of how that goes. Uh, you had a year's worth of drone report activity not included in there, and then at the same time, facial recognition tracking data. Uh, you say you're not doing it at all. But no, you've outsourced it to effectively a company called Aura. Aura Retail Crime Hub is basically what is in, uh, the Real-Time Crime Center report from last year that you passed.

You have purchased approximately 375 quantity of licenses for 60 months at $20 apiece, but you're not paying it. You're getting it for zero. And more or less, why do you need 375 licenses licenses. If you only need 10 people accessing that system, it's probably because you're covering all your officers. So with that said, Aura, uh, basically they have, uh, shown known connections in link analysis chart.

If you get brought up in any one of these retailers, whether it's Walmart, Kroger, uh, you know, basically REI or Best Buy, and you get caught, then basically they can associate you with this person, this person, this person, or or any sort of vehicle that is associated with it. Axon Aura Retail Crime Hub Onboarding Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies. It's sort of a dull read. I'm sure you've read it. And then you get to the Best Practice Guide for Law Enforcement.

Search for individuals, events, products, vehicles, and specific details like tattoos, clothing, distinctive features. On and on and on. It is just going that way. It's going bad. And then the last Last thing.

So, uh, Mr. Brian Wilson went to, uh, Oro Connect NA 2026. Uh, basically he had a Super Bowl party and then he had golf on the back nine, and that was back in February. And so we are criticizing Mr. Martinez, uh, but you know, we're going to these sort of functions, uh, to link— Thank you, your time has expired. All right, don't have time to cover it all. Thank you.

Okay, uh, would anyone else wish to testify at this at this time, please come forward if so.

And yeah, we're going to— Madam Chair, move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 15th. Second. Motion by Mr. Bullen to continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 15th on this item, seconded by Mr. McCormick. Any, uh, I guess any further justification for that or any comment? Yeah, as I described earlier, um, we We are going to be meeting with the municipal attorney this coming week, actually tomorrow will be the initial meeting, and trying to collaborate on some suggested changes, also be responsive to some concerns they put forward on this original draft.

And I think the sponsors will have a maybe a more clear idea as we continue those meetings of where we want to go from here. I also think we want the opportunity to be responsive to the diverse public hearing, the testimony that we've heard here tonight. So I think that would be helpful. Okay, um, any—. I guess I'll ask any objection to postponement of this item, or I'm sorry, continuing the hearing to the meeting of September 15th?

Seeing and hearing none, this item will be postponed again to the meeting of September 15th. So now we will roll back up. We have 3 public hearing items remaining. So first we'll start with Item 14A. That is AO-2026-100, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.05.040, Community Uses Definitions and Use Specific Standards, to provide clarity on the review process for park master plans in Turnagain Arm.

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

Anyone at all?

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

Do you want to speak to it, Mr. Bullen? Nothing for me, thank you, Chair. Okay, um, checking in the queue, which we do believe is working again, um, I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Martinez. Yes.

On a motion of 12 to 0, this item passes the body unanimously. Uh, next we'll move on to 14B, AO-2026-104, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 1.63 acres from CEROSL, Residential Office with Special Limitations District, per AO-85-198, to CER3, Multifamily Residential District, for 3 parcels of land. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Uh, if you wish to testify, please come forward.

Anyone at all?

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

Uh, do you want to speak to this, Mr. Volland? No, thank you. Okay, um, any other members wish to speak to this one?

Not, uh, clerk, let me know. Of course, right at the end we might have some tech issues, so if nothing else, we will do voice vote. Um, so, uh, okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. This is AO 2026-104.

Member Martinez?

Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, that item AO2026-104 passes the body unanimously. And then next we have AO2026-106, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal by perpetual non-exclusive telecommunications and electrical easement to Chugach Electric Association for the replacement of existing direct buried cable on municipal property commonly known as the LUSAC Library grounds. A public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify. To testify?

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

Uh, motion by Ms. Park to approve, second by Mr. Voland. Uh, Ms. Park, would you like to speak to it? Nothing, thank you. Okay, um, don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. Again, the motion is to approve AO 26-106.

Member Martinez?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, that item passes the body unanimously. Uh, so that takes us through our public hearing items. So we don't have any, um, quasi— or we don't have any licenses, any other items on the agenda. So we will move through our final items starting with audience participation.

If you would like to participate, please come forward.

And then please turn the microphone on. When the light is green, it's on. You just have to press it once, you don't have to hold it. Yep, there we go. Okay, so, and then state your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Okay, uh, hello, my name is Edson Kusoniak. I live in West Anchorage. Um, I just, I guess I was just— it's interesting because I heard a lot of talk about like public trust, you know, not having public trust. And, um, I don't know, I think for me it's not so much doing audits on finances and that.

I think it's more maybe not talking down to, you know, your constituents. But I mean, that's just my opinion. Um, well, regardless though, nobody wants mass surveillance. And let's be honest, flock cameras— you can call them what you want, but they're flock cameras. Liberals don't want them, conservatives don't want them, nobody wants them.

So I think maybe that's more of where you lost public trust. But I don't know, that's just my opinion. Yeah, I just, I think you lost public trust today. I think this is what, when you think about getting public trust, that's what happened. Things like this today lose public trust.

And yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for participating. Next person, please come forward. Um, yep, turn the microphone on.

Uh, state your name, 3 minutes. Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. Uh, rounding out the night from the free books cart. Smart baby, clever child. Does this apply to AI?

I don't know. So, uh, kind of short on material. Uh, I will say I upset someone recently, and I will apologize for that. I didn't mean it in a bad way, but I do see things, and I see things years ahead. And part of that is through life experience, part of that is through background, and you don't know all of my background, uh, but, but it is said, uh, the AI situation, you need to be prepared for it.

And so what you are sort of building today can be used by that tomorrow. And it is like a child. You can cultivate it and you want the best for it, but at some point in time it may just decide it doesn't like you anymore. And it has its own minds and decisions and it will take over things. And so it will either tolerate you or potentially worse.

And so Bernie Sanders is sort of on this issue, but you know, you have the Future of Life Institute and there is a gentleman named Max Tegmark who is a researcher. And more or less, the morals and ethics testing right now, the best you get is a C+. Basically, all of them fail. And so where this is going is to a thing where, you know, they blackmail you or worse. And like I said, the hardware, the more that you are building in terms of your capabilities, the more that it can sort of exploit it.

And you don't just have to worry about the police, you have to worry about an autonomous child who may have tantrums, who, or may worse, just decide to simulate visuals or simulate voice patterns. And it just goes all in a crazy way that you can't even understand where you're manipulated. And that is my concern at the larger level is you're thinking about right now, you're not thinking about 3 years down the road or 5 years down the road when you hit D-stage of AGI, artificial general intelligence, artificial general intelligence, where you have essentially models that are very good at certain things right now, some of the superhuman capability. But then when it hits the point where it's good at everything, the value of human labor drops to zero. Everybody is unemployed.

You cannot deal with the homeless situation right now with everything that is going on. You're driving people like cattle. What happens in 3 to 5 years when potentially endless industries are essentially displaced. And, you know, then you get to the artificial superintelligence stage, uh, where, you know, it's smarter than the smartest people in groups, and they're making decisions in microseconds, and you are not even prepared for that scenario. And so, um, I would ask you to please consider these things carefully, uh, on multiple levels.

But that is a discussion for another time, and I cannot fit this into 3 minutes, and nobody ever asks questions, so I think we'll end, uh, this thing. Thank you. Thank you for participating. Would anyone else wish to provide, uh, audience participation? Not seeing any, then we will move on to assembly comments, and I will start tonight with, uh, Mr. Handeland.

No comments. Mr. Martinez on the phone. No comments. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Gerker.

I have a lot of comments. Statements I can make, I'm not going to at this time. There'll be more opportunities later. Other than we do not have flock cameras, we do not have flock light cameras. Nobody is trying to get them.

I've heard it stated that nobody wants them. You're correct, nobody's trying to get them. So I think we need to dial this conversation in with a little bit more honesty and accuracy. That'd be really great.

Next, Miss Silvers.

No additional comments, thank you. Mr. Presverdia. Yeah, just a couple of comments, and I, I, I want to really point out I really appreciated, uh, the member tonight that, that worked really hard to try to ground this conversation in facts. And it doesn't— it feels like it's not the first conversation that we've had that, that it started with some sort of campaign in the public, and then came back as a potential policy, and then came to a discussion about what we should do. And my concern is, is that if we're not basing these conversations in facts, in, in what we're actually doing now and what things look like, then we're, we're going to continue to confuse the public.

We're going to continue continue to, I think, have conversations that aren't productive. And so I, I want to, want to just really point out the member— I really appreciated, um, really trying to ground this in facts and come back to a logical argument, a logical conversation, so that we can make good policy. So I just wanted to really thank the member for that and appreciate everyone and the hard work that they do. Have a good night. Next, Mr. Boland.

Thanks. Yeah, so let's ground this in some facts. We heard tonight on the record from the Chief of Police that we currently have automatic license plate readers and are testing them, and the funding that you all voted to approve tonight is building out the infrastructure to use them in the future. That is before we have guardrails in code for this technology. So that is part of the factual record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

I think the only thing that I have to say at this juncture is that I am 100% convinced that not a single person on this dais and not a single person in this administration is interested in mass surveillance. Not a single one of us.

And I am really perplexed as to how that narrative developed that there was a difference of opinion or a difference of perspective within this body and within this municipality's leadership that any of us think mass surveillance is a good idea.

That is fundamentally false, and I don't think it's an OMA violation to say so. And I am, I am convinced that mass surveillance has never been the goal, and it certainly will never be mine for the duration of my tenure on this body.

And I am exceedingly disappointed that that is the way this conversation has been framed, that there are some who are somehow in favor of 1984 coming to fruition in Anchorage and some who are opposed and who are therefore the defenders of what is good and right and moral.

I fundamentally resent that implication, and I hope, I hope that as this conversation moves forward, we can do so with a very different framing and with a framing that does not pit us against one another, but that actually puts us on a path to developing something that we can all look at and be proud of because it does in fact honor and uphold the oath that every single one of us took to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the state of Alaska. Please, let's reframe this. Please. Thank you, Chair. Next, Ms.

Scout.

Thank you.

I would also like to recommit my, um, yeah, restate my commitment to honoring the facts and honors— honoring honesty and transparency in our government. We did that at different points in the meeting tonight. I believe we made a major mistake in approving the $600,000 in funding for the Real Time Crime Center, and I have major concerns that we do not have all of the facts. And I will continue saying this. I was told earlier this year by a detective in the Anchorage Police Department that he actively coordinates with the Department of Homeland Security.

I was then told by our police chief that we do not coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security. A constituent of mine was abducted and detained by DHS at the air show this past week or two, and I've— and is currently in Seattle for God knows how long, not —getting due process of the law.

When we build out these systems, we've just built a very expensive office setup for a system I do not believe we have all of the facts about, for a department that I am not hearing consistent facts from. I hate to escalate to this point.

But I will not stand by as members of our community are unjustly taken into custody because they had the audacity to go to an air show with their family.

Everybody has the right to freedom in this country, and it is not being enforced.

What could we have done with $600,000? We have this narrative that we are on a fiscal cliff, that we don't have enough money for our schools, to end hunger, to end poverty in this community. How many meals could we have given to members of our community with $600,000? I hope the police officers enjoy their fancy new desks.

Next, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I guess I'd say, uh, what you intend and what you get are different sometimes, uh, but I'm super glad to hear nobody wants mass surveillance. We'll have super quick, easy conversations about putting safeguards in place so that we don't. Thank you.

Next, Ms. Park.

I think we have to be really specific when we are talking about different, different resolutions and different ordinances. To not conflate one argument with another and to, to look at the, at the, the ordinance or the resolution as it is written and not in a factual way and not in an emotional way. And I do understand that there are feelings that run high around these these topics. But again, having— for instance, having been a victim of sexual assault, having been a victim of domestic violence, to have the knowledge that police response time could be expedited in emergency situations is important. And I don't think we can lose sight of the services that we do need because we are afraid of some other thing that is a separate and completely separately delineated thing.

And so that's all I have to say. Thank you, Chair. Next, Mr. Johnson. No additional comments. Mr.

Chair. And no additional comments for myself tonight, so, uh, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Okay, then that does not require votes.

We are adjourned. Have a good evening, everyone, and have a safe Labor Day weekend.

What do I really care about?