Assembly Regular - July 15, 2025 - 2025-07-15 17:00:00

You're stronger than you think. Don't let these wounds sting. A promise soon. 'Cause you're 4, 5, 6, sometimes 2 girls. If your roof is tin and your house caves in, then nobody else at fault.

Think I did something bad, I did something bad. Never question the hand they had. Say, if they owe me money, If they owe me something, let's go run and spend it all. Say I'm not very lucky. If they owe me something, let's go run and spend it all.

I'm so very lost. Oh, things hadn't going my way. I've been on both lows and the grass is greener over on their side. Let me take you down, look and look at the At every turn, it scares me like it do. But it's all the rules I always lose.

I wake up and begin to choose. I don't know what to do. Do, do, do, yeah. Freeze to hell. I know where to go.

Don't let them take your shine. Don't let them steal your mind away from you. Said if they owed you money, I won't need a penny from you. Oh, you. You're stronger than you think.

Don't let these wounds sting. I promise soon. 'Cause if 4, 5, 6 sometimes do, don't get weak. If you're standing, you're outgazing, nobody else is fault. Think I did something bad.

I did something bad. Never push you in the hand.

Hey, if they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all. Say, I'm not very lucky. If they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all. Let me tell you a secret. Let me tell you, oh.

Let me tell you a secret. Let me tell you, oh. Let me tell you a secret, oh. Secret, oh.

Oh, secret!

—Alone. I keep it, keep it, keep it, keep your booies in and your eyes gazing at nobody else. If all think I did something bad, I did something bad, never push me in the hand. They say if they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all. Say I'm not very lucky, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend ¡Gracias!

Not sure where it's headed, but I know it's going somewhere. Take a cab and don't look back. I'll move through all the silence. Now I'm colder than the weather, steady going under pressure. I'm finally over being lowkey under these old covers.

Now I'm back and I'm better, steady going under pressure. Sit back and watch the paint dry. Take time and watch the Dope rides in another world. I have control of my mind, can't seem to get it through. The things I do, but on my own time.

People waiting, slowly fading. The mirror is telling me I got to grip it right in front of me.

Secure the seat and don't release the opportunity. Now I'm colder than the weather, steady going under pressure. I'm finally over being lowkey under these old covers. Now I'm back and I'm better, steady going under pressure. Sit back and watch the paint dry, take time and watch the The dope rise, it's passing hours dancing.

How the hell am I still standing? Keys are rusting, I'm not playing. Maddies are infiltrating. Now I'm colder than the weather, I'm a steady going under pressure. I'm finally over being lowkey under the these old covers.

Now I'm back and I'm better. Steady going under pressure. Sit back and watch the paint dry. Take time and watch the door rise. Wait a little longer, slowly fade in the pressure.

Feel the vibe, take time and watch the dome rise.

Sleep. What if I close my eyes? Will it happen at all? Oh, sun's leaving. Oh, another summer coming down.

Do you ever think back, baby, when you were young and strong? Do you ever think back, baby? You're the one that's wrong. Do you ever think back when you Do you ever think back, baby? When you were home alone?

Do you ever think that maybe you were on this drive in the rain and cry when you hear your favorite song? Another summer come and go, another summer come and go. Another summer come and go, another summer come and go.

How does one see? How does one be anything at all? I get lost and I like it like that, yeah, I like it like that. Love has its cost, now I'm all back 'cause boy, I'm back. How does one love?

How does one see? How does one be? Anything at all. How does one love? How does one see?

How does one be anything at all? How does one love? But it is there. But it is there. How does one love?

I get lost and I like it like that. Yeah, I like it like that. Love has its cost, now I'm all back, 'cause boy, I'm back. How does one love? How does one see?

How does one be anything at all? How does one know? How does one see? How does one be anything at all?

The sun is setting on our love.

Somehow you kept me.

Yes, I haven't cried enough. Let me love you down. Let me love you down. I never I hate when I'm sober. Let me love you down.

Let me love you down. I never came over.

I hate when I'm sober. Let me love you down.

Down! Let me love you down— let me love you down... [MUSIC] Let me love you down— let me love you down— let me love you down...

Nothing's better than being home with with your loved ones, you won't be alone. When it's cold out, you'll be in warm, in your own bed and from the storm.

Home is calling when you feel adrift. It'll always be there and never miss. Life has got you all around. You never feel you got your feet on the ground.

Home sweet home is where I want to be. Home sweet home, a place to find [MUSIC] You are worried of what's to come, but you never know until it's all said and done. You can stay home all night and day, resting your mind, keeping all bad thoughts away. Home sweet home is where I wanna be. Home sweet home, a place to find some peace.

Home sweet home is where I wanna be. Home sweet home, a place to find some peace.

Nothing's better than being home with your loved ones. You won't be alone when it's cold out. You'll be in warm in your own bed and in front of the storm.

Too quickly, and I know it's not like the earth is turning slow. I'm already gone, but we both know I can't sleep alone, or at least I won't.

Where I'm going to go, I hope that you take me seriously. I hope that nobody stays mad at me. Can you hear me, Miss Molly?

So we have to work on the audio. You were very quiet. I think you just said yes.

Words we didn't get to say.

And now let you take me seriously. And now let nobody stay mad at me. And now Let you take me seriously!

Oh—.

Ohh—.

Sometimes the world moves too quickly. And I know it's not like the earth is turning, so I'm already gone. But we both know I can't sleep. Hello, let's go. Let you take me.

Seriously here now! I know Valadie stays mad at me—. And nooo!

Let you take me seriously... Oh ho ho ho hooo! Ooh laaahh!

Oh, too good, it'll do good, it'll all do good. Too good, it'll do good, it'll all do good. Can you check Anna's Yeah, can you hear me now? We gotcha, thank you. Okay.

Skip this bit. It's not the lack of your judgment that makes you a kid. It's the lack of your substance that keeps you locked in. Oh, and keeps them talking.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Find out a way to spend your life holding hands with empty faces that you'll never see again. Search out a way to find a version of you you like. Why Why aren't you getting tired of me? Why don't you talk to me yet?

Yeah! Why aren't you talking to me yet?! Why don't you try it on me again!?

Why don't you— Tired... Me! Yet!!!

Mr. Myers, are you on the phone?

Good evening, everybody. I'm going to go ahead and get started. It's 5:00 PM. I now call to order— wait, I now call to order this meeting of the Anchorage Assembly. Tonight is July 15th, 2025.

This is our regular meeting. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Assemblymember Myers? He's excused, will be joining us in a bit. Assemblymember McCormick? Here. Assemblymember Martinez?

Present. Assemblymember Baldwin-Day? Present. Assemblymember Johnson? Here.

Chair Constant? Here. Vice Chair Brawley? Here. Member Valenzuela?

Present. Happy to be here. Assemblymember Silvers. Here. Assemblymember Rivera.

Present. Assemblymember Gerker. Here. Acting Vice Chair Perez Verdia. Here.

Chair Constantine, you have the floor. Thank you. Mr. Volland, would you please lead the pledge? Yes. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Mr. Johnson, would you please read the land acknowledgment? Yes, Mr. 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 gratefulness and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina.

All right, I am told that Mr. Myers has joined us. Mr. Myers, are you, um, present?

No? Okay, well, we'll hold off until we hear from him. Okay, next on the agenda, we have minutes of previous meetings. So we have minutes from— item 4A is regular minutes of regular meeting June 10, 2025, and item 4B, um, regular meeting minutes June 24, 2025. I'd like to ask for a motion to approve.

So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Presverdia, seconded by Mr. Voland. Are there any amendments, any discussion on the minutes?

Hearing and seeing no discussion, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion to approve minutes of previous meetings?

I'm hearing and seeing no objection, so we'll count the minutes as approved. All right, next up we have the mayor's report. Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening everyone.

APD recently wrapped up participation in a multi-agency crime suppression effort here in Anchorage, and they put out a press release on July 1st that detailed the actions and seizures, which included 3 pounds of fentanyl. I wanted to ask Chief Case, who is on his way to the meeting, to come up and speak about Operation summer heat. And maybe, Mr. Chair, if there's some time at the end, we can do that. So over the last few weeks, we have talked a lot about how we bring people off the streets and onto a path to housing.

I want to bring some more context to this debate, how we ensure that there's a spectrum of options available from shelter to transitional housing to permanent housing. When we set a goal of 10,000 homes in 10 years, new and rehabilitated, we thought the results would take a while, but I'm happy to report a stream of good news on the housing front. In all of 2024, we permitted around 70 units of multifamily housing. In just the first 6 months of 2025, we've already doubled that number to over 140 140 units of housing permitted. We also saw the number of ADUs, accessory dwelling units, double in the last year.

And that doesn't even include other developments that are in the works that haven't shown up in the permit data yet. One of those is our first applicant under the new multifamily tax incentive that was approved by the Assembly back in April. This applicant plans to build 58 new units next year. Just yesterday, I visited the site of Cook Inlet Housing Authority's Baxter Family Housing Development. CIHA's plan is to build 24 units of housing at that site in 2026, with more to be added later.

We hear from developers that recent changes approved by this body are making these projects possible. Multifamily property tax incentives the design standards moratorium, the site access rewrite, and others. Our work together between the assembly and administration is really moving the needle on housing, and we are seeing results. And continuing the positive momentum, tonight we're introducing an ordinance that builds on the incentive to rehabilitate vacant and abandoned housing. Residential properties listed on the vacant and abandoned registry can qualify for 10 years of property tax abatement if the property is restored to habitable condition and meets certain requirements.

Vacant properties become eyesores as well as real public safety hazards. Paired with stronger code enforcement efforts, this tax cut will help get these unused homes back onto the marketplace to meet Anchorage's housing needs. So thank you to members of the body for your support and partnership in these efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I say we'll reserve a portion of your time for when Chief Cates gets here, and we'll just fit it in when that is opportune. So next we have the chair's report. Um, I have a brief report tonight, a few things. I'd like to begin by pointing out that tonight I'm joined by Martin Carmen, who is an assembly intern for this summer, comes to us, I think, from Sikka, and we're allowing him to shadow leadership for this— for the last week. And so he's up here enjoying a front row experience to running an assembly meeting.

Also, I would like to briefly start with kind of a heartfelt moment of sorrow for once again having to report tragedy in this country. The sabotage and shooting of firefighters near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. This hits really close to home for Alaskans because our firefighters are so important in our community. We count on them to save lives, protect properties. As I speak, hundreds of firefighters in our town are working around the clock, around the state, to keep our communities safe from wildfires and from all manner of trouble.

In fact, we saw a really big fire at the corner of Ingra and 6th Avenue in my district this this week. And so it's pretty important that we are able to ensure we provide an environment that is safe for our EMS, and that includes our police who are also out there doing this hard work. So I just want to take a moment to recognize the tragedy that occurred.

Next, I'd like to speak briefly about AO 2025-74 and decorum at our meetings. Over the past several weeks, the administration, the assembly, and the community engaged in a pretty in-depth conversation about camping in public spaces. We've had almost 7 hours of public testimony on the issue. More than 100 people joined us, I think closer to 130. I think it's fair to say that our community engaged in a very healthy and respectful debate.

In fact, the clerk was kind of filled with glee over the exercise of democracy that has been occurring in these chambers over the last few weeks. We had a lot of people packed into the chambers to testify over several days, and we were able to hear from everyone who wanted to be heard. Hundreds also submitted written testimonies. Despite the tough subject and strong feelings, for the most part, we were able to keep testimony and debate respectful and professional. It can be hard for people to voice their thoughts in a big public forum, so the Assembly has been working to make public testimony more approachable, and our rules meeting last week, we discussed how to more quickly address audience members who cause disturbances and what assembly members can do to make it more fair and welcoming for people who are testifying.

It's always a work in progress, but I, and I believe all of my peers on this dais, are committed to ensuring that everyone in our community who wants to speak can have their voice heard. Also, after our meeting on Friday, there was a little bit of a tech glitch that took a while. It took us through Monday morning to get the video recordings of the public testimony uploaded to our website. I would note that the code, the law requires that we record our meetings, but it does not in fact require that we instantaneously publish them. The reason it takes time is because the video codec has to be codified and re-uploaded into the format that's permanent.

And so We found, because we've gone to a new high-definition camera system, that the video file was actually larger than the capacity of the server, and the server stopped working. But our IT team is doing hard work to keep our meetings going and the, and the business of the city, notified me today that in fact the server has been updated. There's ample capacity now. So the privilege that we're able to provide to the public, that video recordings of our meetings will be almost instantaneously uploaded or within hours, uh, will continue apace tonight. And I'm grateful to our teams to get that information up as quickly as possible so the public can see what's been occurring in our chambers.

Next, I'd like to congratulate the mayor, municipal attorney Eva Gardner, and of course, uh, municipal prosecutor Dennis Wheeler, and everyone who's worked tirelessly over the past year to build back up the municipal Prosecutor's Office. I hear a lot of concerns from folks about public safety, and I hear a lot of concerns about lawlessness in this town. The pandemic provided a real challenge to all of us because the courts shut down and our Prosecutor's Office thinned out to almost unfunctional. The good news is that our Prosecutor's Office is, if not fully staffed, nearly fully staffed and functioning very well at this time. What that means is that where reporting had been that the municipality and the state were not prosecuting DUIs, OUIs, and assaults, even trying to figure out what level of assault was and what level of evidence available was enough to go to court, those days are over.

And the reality is now that our prosecution system is working and people will be brought to justice through the municipality, and I'm grateful for that functioning again because without that operation, the city is not going to be a safe and vibrant place as it should be. Finally, I'll wrap up by saying this is a big month of celebrations. I want to wish our friends in District 2 in Chugiak a great Bear Paw Festival that they had last weekend. I guess it's not wishing them, but celebrate that they had a great Bear Paw Festival despite any First Amendment challenges that occurred out there, which were talk of the town. I also want to share another big event that's coming up.

We're calling it Munification, the 50th anniversary of the unification of the former city and borough governments into the Municipality of Anchorage. The exact date of the anniversary is September 16th this year, and the municipality and our partners will be hosting events between September and November to commemorate the good, the bad, and the wild of the formation of the municipality. We'll have more to come soon at muni.org/assembly. Finally, just a note that this is a business meeting. We'll do our best to move us through tonight's agenda as efficiently as possible so we may conclude as reasonably in the evening as possible.

It's a business meeting. We're here to do the work of the municipality. Please help to create a climate of respect in the chambers by refraining from personal attacks or speaking out of turn, shouting or clapping, and pacing except when clapping is in order. For recognitions. Please keep signs 8.5 by 11 or smaller.

Please keep the aisle clear except when lined up to testify. Please also do not approach the dais. If you have something to share, please hand it to the clerk for distribution. Please stop speaking if a point of order is called so I may rule on the point of order and the record is clear. If rules aren't followed, the chair may interrupt speakers, call for compliance.

If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, the chair may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption, the chair will give a warning. If the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave.

With that, I'll conclude my report just by saying again, we'll reserve some time for the mayor to finish her report when the chief arrives. And we will now move on to committee reports, starting with Mr. McCormick. Nothing to report, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Martinez. Nothing to report. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Nothing to report, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Johnson.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. The next meeting of the Assembly Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee of the Whole will be on July 17th, 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM. The agenda includes updates from the Port of Alaska on the non-PAMP construction projects, training services contract, Jacobs Engineering PAMP PMO contract extension, the Udelhoven Oilfield Services contract amendment, and then for Merrill Field, we'll have a presentation relating to the rate increases and the City Electric property, and then the regular standing items.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Ms. Brawley. Thank you.

No report. Thank you, Ms. Brawley. Mr. Volante. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The next meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee will be on Thursday, the 17th, at 10 AM, from 10 to 11, City Hall Conference Room 155. Please note this is a time change from the previous start time of noon. Heads up to my colleagues here that we are starting to think about budget priorities, and so we'll have some discussion around that that in an upcoming, upcoming work session on the 25th. But we'll talk about sort of what we want to put together in that regard and how we want to communicate our priorities to the administration in August. Additionally, at the committee meeting, we will hear an update from the administration on the status of the 2023 ACFFR.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Member Walland. Uh, Miss Silvers, nothing to report. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Rivera. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, there will be a meeting of the Quality Municipal Services and Ethics and Elections Committee next Wednesday, July 23rd, from 12 noon to 1 PM at City Hall, Room 155, first floor. The agenda should be coming out in the next couple of days.

The Municipal Audit Committee met on July 2nd where we reviewed Internal Audit Report 2025-03, Anchorage Equal Rights Commission. While the commission has changed most of its staff since the findings of that report, it was a good opportunity for the committee to hear about the work being done to change course and make sure the commission becomes a trusted partner in the community again. Also, as folks are aware, the work of the annual comprehensive financial review, also known as annual audit, is ongoing. While there was hope to have the 2023 audit issued by the end of July, it's my understanding that that goal will not be met. The controller's office and our third-party auditor BDO are working daily to push out any outstanding items so that we can issue an audit ASAP.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing to report.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of reports tonight. First, we have a meeting of the Assembly Housing and Homeless Committee coming up tomorrow at 11 AM in Room 155.

The agenda is, is really two large items. The first one is, is a post-abatement review of the Davis Park snow dump abatement. What happened? What have we learned? And what do we do next?

There'll be updates from the mayor's office, Parks and Rec, Anchorage Police Department, and some community members will be there as well. The second item is an update from the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness, where we'll have a current review of their HIMS data and also an update on the most recent point-in-time study. My second update is about the Public Health and Safety Committee. The next meeting will be on August 6th. So The agenda will be out relatively soon on that as well.

Thanks. All right, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chief Case, would you mind coming up and providing a brief report on Operation Summer Heat?

Welcome, Chief Case.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, through the chair, for those of you who don't remember, we do an operation every summer. It's a statewide operation, so it's with Anchorage Police Department, it's with, uh, state troopers, it's with other local jurisdictions around the state, and it's also with our federal partners. And we focus a 3-day operation in kind of a couple of different areas. The first thing is outstanding warrants for violent crime.

Uh, we do traffic enforcement for areas that we see a lot of traffic collisions as well as pedestrian fatalities. And then we always spend a day focusing on retail thefts. So those are kind of the 3 different areas. We had the largest operation we've ever had with 135 officers from around the state that participated. During the 3 days, we conducted 167 traffic stops, 103 total arrests, 18 seized guns, 1,388 grams of fentanyl.

That's a lot of fentanyl. Um, that is an unbelievably high number of fentanyl, 1,093 grams of cocaine, and $23,000 of cash seized. I think that when we do these operations each year, I mean, some people would ask the question why we do these operations a lot more since the level is so high, but, you know, keep in mind that the planning that goes into these and the partnership that we have to get, I mean, we have local jurisdictions come down from all areas of the state, both north and southeast, to participate in these type of operations. And so they're a little bit hard to pull off, but they're necessary to do in our community for some of the violent crimes that we have, and particularly some of the drugs that we have coming in and out of Anchorage. And, and that also impacts the rest of our state as well.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Chief. I don't see any questions. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Okay. Next, we'll move on to the addendum to the agenda. And I want to give kudos to the administration as well as to the assembly. The clerk informs me there are zero laid on the table items and that is maybe a landmark. And so, Ms. Wynn Pearson, thank you.

It is worth noting. So I would like to go ahead and ask for— oh, wait.

I would like to ask for a— Actually, first we will go ahead— one second. Go ahead and ask now that we have a discussion about changing the order of the day. Mr. Presidio. Yes, Chair, I would like to move to change the order of the day to take up item 11D before 11A. Second.

So there's a motion to change the order of the day to take up item 11D before 11A, which would mean if it passes, when we come back, we would go right into debate on the question of 2025-74 and its various elements. 74S2 is on the floor. Any discussion on the motion to change the order of the day? Mr. President. Yeah, just a little bit of a rationale.

You know, we've, as you mentioned in your update, we've had a fair amount a lot of public testimony on this. It's been an item we've been talking about for a while, so this feels like a continuation of that, and it feels like the, the most logical thing is to take it up first. So thanks. Right, any further discussion on the motion? Seeing, hearing none.

Is there an objection to the motion?

I'm hearing no objections. We'll consider the motion to change order of the day adopted. So now we'll move to the question of the addendum to the agenda. So So I would like to ask for a motion to incorporate the addendum to the agenda. So moved.

Second.

Motion to incorporate by Mr. Presverdia, Vice Chair tonight, and Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion? Seeing and hearing none, I would like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection to the motion? Seeing and hearing no objection, the addendum has been incorporated.

We do have an appearance request on the agenda tonight, but he reached out to us and asked if it could be moved to the next meeting, so we will not take up item 9A tonight. So next we'll go ahead and address the consent agenda. The consent agenda are, generally speaking, items that are non-controversial—bid awards, new business, etc.—their items 10A through 10F. 10G, we have items for introduction prior to approval, any items may be pulled— well, excuse me, the items on the consent agenda may be approved, accepted, adopted by the assembly by a single vote on a motion to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, items may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion and separate vote.

Under the assembly rules of procedure, all ordinances and some resolutions will have an opportunity for a public hearing. So we'll go ahead and start with Miss Brawley. Any items to pull?

Sorry, no items. Thank you, Miss Bradley. Mr. Gerker, any items to pull? Yes, sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Rivera, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, one item, 10A1. And also, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to ask that the clerk be directed to move the public hearing for item 10G6 to meeting of August 12th. Thank you. Yep, thank you. And I'll go ahead and take care of those now. Um, Madam Clerk, I'd like to direct that we change the public hearing on item 10G1 to 8:26, the public hearing for item 10G6 to 8:12, and the public hearing for item 10G8 as well to 8:12.

Thank you, Mr. Rivera. So I have you with pulling 10A1. Ms. Solis, any items to pull? No items to pull, thank you. Mr. Boland?

No items, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Presidio? No items, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Presidio. Mr. Johnson? No items. Ms. Baldwin-Day? Uh, Chair, would you repeat, um, which items have been postponed to other meetings?

10G1 is 8/26, 10G6 is 8/12, and 10G 10G8 is 812.

Got it. Okay, thank you. Um, I would like to pull 10F2 and 10G7, please. 10F2 and 10G7, did you say? Yes.

Okay, so, um, okay, then Ms. Martinez and Adams? No additional items. Thank you. Um, Mr. McCormick, I'd like to pull 10D3.

All right, did we have someone set to pull item 10A2?

Oh yes, um, 10A2 for reading, please. Okay, so, and I would like to note that item 10F5 5 is supplemental to item 14A for the clerk's and a record-keeping business. Okay, so I'll go through the list now. 10— Yeah, I did. Item 10A1 pulled by Mr. Rivera.

10A2 by Ms. Baldwin-Day. 10B2 by Mr. McCormick. 10F2 by Ms. Baldwin-Day. 10F5 change or make it supplemental. 10G1 public hearing to 8/26.

10G6 6 public hearing to 8:12. 10G7 pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. And 10G8 public hearing to 8:12. Did I miss anything?

I had Mr. McCormick on 10D3. Is that wrong, or was it 10D2? Uh, 10D3. Oh, did you say D as in Delta or B as in boy? Delta 3.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. That's a good catch, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you.

Just to verify, the clerk asked Ms. Baldwin-Day, 10F2?

Yes, 10F2. Okay, since it's shortlist, I'll go through it one last time. Item 10A1, Mr. Rivera. 10A2, Ms. Baldwin-Day. 10D3, 10 Delta 3, Mr. McCormick.

10F2, Ms. Baldwin-Day. 10F5, supplemental to 14A. 10G1, public hearing is moved to 8/26. 10G6, public hearing is moved to 8/12. 10G7, pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Now, Ms. Baldwin-Day, we haven't done many of these, but you know that the only motion there is either to move to set the public hearing, which will take a mover, a seconder, a third, you can set the public hearing date different than what might have been there, or not move it.

Meaning that we cannot pull and then discuss, move to approve? No, it's a public hearing item. So the only— just kidding. So just— so we aren't going to pull that one then?

It's not really debatable item. Yeah, then, then, um, remove 10G7. Okay, thanks. 10F2 can be pulled for discussion though. Yep, great.

Yeah, the 10Gs are just for introduction, except for public hearing. Okay, I think we got it nailed down. So next I would like to ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. So moved. Second.

Moved by Mr. President Verdía, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of that Motion. I am seeing and hearing no objection. Therefore, the consent agenda has been approved minus the pulled items.

Now the fun part. Mr. Vukelis, why don't you come forward? Item 10 and your family. Item 10A1, Resolution R2025-209, Resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly and Mayor LaFrance recognizing and honoring Colonel Retired George Vukelis for his outstanding military in public service, the municipality of Anchorage in the state of Alaska. This item was pulled by Mr. Rivera.

Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Mr. Presverdia. Is there any discussion? I'd like to ask unanimous consent.

Any objection to the motion? Seeing, hearing no objection, the item has been adopted. Who is reading and who is presenting? Mr. Rivera, you're reading. Who's presenting?

Mayor. Oh, Madam Mayor. Okay. Mr. Rarey, you have the floor.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly and Mayor LaFrance recognizing and honoring retired Colonel George Vakalis for his outstanding military and public service to the Municipality of Anchorage and the State of Alaska. Whereas retired Colonel George Vakalis, a native of Berwick, Maine, began his military career in August 1960.

1966 As an enlisted soldier and was commissioned as a second lieutenant of infantry in July 1967, eventually serving in command in South Vietnam and holding numerous command and leadership positions throughout his 28 years in the U.S. Army. And whereas his military assignments including commanding companies, leading specialized training teams, and serving in key staff roles across brigades and divisions, including during his service as aide-de-camp to the 6th Army Commander and Chief of Staff at the Joint Readiness Training Center. And whereas retired Colonel Vicalis was first stationed at Fort Richardson, Alaska in 1984, later returning in 1991 to command U.S. Army Garrison Alaska, where he oversaw Fort Richardson, Fort Wainwright, and Fort Greely, retiring from the Army in 1994 with distinction. And whereas, following his military retirement, Mr. Vigayalas transitioned to public service beginning in 1994 as operations manager and later municipal manager for the Municipality of Anchorage, where he directed the city's administrative functions through 2000 and again from 2009 to 2015. And whereas, from 2000 to 2009 and again until his retirement on June 30th, 2015, 2025, Mr. Vekelis served as Assistant Superintendent for Operations and Support Services for the Anchorage School District, leading major operational initiatives that supported students, staff, and families across the district.

And whereas Mr. Vekelis has completed 29 years of dedicated public service to the Municipality of Anchorage and the Anchorage School District combined, a legacy marked by professional professionalism, integrity, and excellence in leadership; and whereas Mr. Vekalis has remained deeply committed to civic life in Anchorage, chairing the STAR Board, the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, including the military committee since 1992, and serving on state commissions and local boards supporting education, housing, youth development, and emergency preparedness; and whereas Mr. Vekalis's career reflects reflects a profound and enduring commitment to service, military, municipal, and educational that has enriched the lives of Alaskans and set an example for public servants across generations. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly hereby honors and commends retired Colonel George Vakalis for his remarkable 29 years of public service to Anchorage and for a lifetime of leadership to community, country, and civic Institutions. And this resolution shall be presented to Colonel— retired Colonel Vakalis as a symbol to the assembly's deep gratitude and respect, and shall be effective immediately upon passage and approval. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 15th day of July, 2025. Congratulations.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Mr. Vakeles.

Well, thank you. I have to admit that probably for the first time in my life, I'm probably almost speechless.

Of course, those folks that know me probably wish that I I was speechless most of the time, because it takes me about 20 minutes to say my name. But I have to tell you in all honesty, this is very humbling, very, very unexpected, and truly, truly appreciated. You know, I received this, and I certainly appreciate the accolades, and the honor. But I'll tell you, it has been an honor to serve Anchorage, Alaska, and our country. It has really been an honor, and I've been so blessed, so blessed to be able to do that.

And I guess words just cannot explain how pleased I am to have been able to serve Alaska and how humbled I am to receive this recognition. So thank you, thank you, thank you so very, very much. I really, really do appreciate it. Thank you. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] All right, next up we will take item 10A2, Resolution AR 2025-210, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage recognizing July 26, 2025 as the 35th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This item was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Move to approve. Sorry, my microphone is off. I move to approve. Motion to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Second.

Seconded by Mr. Pres. Rodilla. Any discussion? Hearing and seeing none, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection to the adoption of the motion?

Seeing and hearing no objection, item is adopted unanimously. Item was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. A resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage recognizing July 26, 2025 as the 35th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whereas on July 26, 1990, President H.W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, establishing a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities. And whereas on September 25, 2008, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, was passed to fulfill the legacy of guaranteeing civil rights to persons with disabilities, and whereas 1 in 4 Americans living with a disability have expanded opportunities due to the ADA reducing barriers, changing perceptions, and increasing full participation in the community, and whereas the Municipality of Anchorage affirms the principles of equality and inclusion for persons with disabilities as embodied in the ADA, Alaska statutes, and Title V of the Anchorage Municipal Municipal Code.

And whereas numerous organizations in Anchorage and Alaska, including the Alaska Disability Advisory Group, the Arc of Anchorage, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, the Alaska Deaf Council, Stone Soup Group, Access Alaska, Hope Community Resources, and the Disability Law Center, work in our community to bring forth the promise of equality and inclusion for persons with disabilities that was envisioned with the passage of the ADA. And whereas Anchorage will honor the establishment of the Americans with Disabilities Act with different community events, including the Anchorage Disability Pride Celebration hosted by Disability Pride Alaska on July 26th, and there is an upcoming Disabilities Expo Day at the Alaska State Fair on August 18th from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly resolves that July 26th, 2025 is recognized as the 35th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and does hereby reaffirm to continue to work toward full ADA compliance. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 15th day of July, 2025.

Welcome. Thank you. Hello, my name is Annette Alfonsi. I am a constituent here in Anchorage. And I am the director of a brand new baby nonprofit called Empowering Education.

I'm also the Alaska partner for a global brain injury awareness project called Unmasking Brain Injury. I'd like to thank you for this resolution, and I'd like to make space for Eric from— who's the director for Access Alaska, which is Anchorage's Center for Independent Living.

Introducing myself, I'm Eric Gurley, the Executive Director of Access Alaska. I live in Oceanview. I work in Fairview. Access Alaska is 42 years old right now as a center for independent living, and we serve 4 major parts of the state, Anchorage being our hub. This is our corporate center.

Today is very important, and I want to thank you all for acknowledging this day and this anniversary. We recently had a block party, if you were, and I want to thank the mayor for coming to that. Thank you. You and your team were— it was very gracious. We really appreciated that.

And our whole goal was just to help bring some attention to Fairview, which had has been under some certain things, I'll say. But, you know, when it comes to supporting people who experience disabilities, I've traveled all over this state. I've set up assisted living homes from Utqiagvik all the way down to Ketchikan, mental health home in Utqiagvik, and without sounding old, for now going on 35 years. So I literally started the month before this was done. I started doing this work in June of 35 years ago.

And I just never stopped. So I'm a careerist when it comes to nonprofits. One of the things that I appreciate about Anchorage is people's voices are heard and things change. When we had our big snowmaggedon, there was a lot of people who experienced disabilities that were stranded. And this mayor has made sure that doesn't happen again.

So do appreciate that as well. As we go forward, I'd like to see us continue changing. People who experience disabilities have been involved in one of the last true efforts towards civil rights. And I don't know that any civil rights are completely done in the moment. But if you think of people experiencing disabilities, imagine if President Bush, when he was receiving personal care supports, had helped champion that and showed people what it took to remain in his own home, right?

And people think because people have money that all that's taken care of. But that's something that should be equitable to all, okay? Imagine if we're building homes, all homes are built accessible so that people can age in place. And they could be mindful and plan on that. That's something that still is a real struggle.

And in terms of struggle, architecture remains the greatest exclusionary device of a person utilizing a wheelchair or walker. We still are looking for curb cuts. We're still looking for seating. So there's just a lot of work that could be done when it comes to that, that I just want to— 35 years later, we're still trying to get done, right? So, but it's people like you working together that are starting to make some headway.

So thank you again. Really appreciate the efforts you're doing. And thank you to my friend here who I always appreciate coming in front of this group. Thanks. Thank you very much.

So you mentioned Access Alaska is 42 years old. So Empowering Education is 2.5 years old. We're this many. So this, I think, represents not just shifts in height, but also in our organizational generations, and also our, just our generations doing disability inclusion work for so long, or so little. And you as well, some of you are Assembly metaphorical grandparents, that are aging out of being in elected office, and some of you are brand new elected members of the assembly, so welcome.

But I just would like to ask that the wheels of the city, the business of the city, don't get so rutted that we forget who's at the table. And that is something that we can bring to the table, but you are the ones that actually build the table, and it's up to you whether or not it has a rim. Lamp, literally. So thank you. All right, next we'll move on to item 10D3.

10D3, Assembly Memorandum AM539-2025, Amendment Number 1, to grant agreement with In Our Backyard to operate modular units as transitional shelter for the Municipality of Anchorage. This item was pulled by you, Mr. McCormick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I said a few questions. First, first, we need a moment. Motion to introduce— uh, to approve.

Motion to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. McCormick, seconded by Mr. Martinez. Go ahead, Mr. McCormick.

You had a few questions from, uh, preferably somebody from in our backyard if they were available.

No? Okay. Uh, perhaps the administration would, uh, have some insights into the the contract? Uh, through the chair to Member McCormick, I would ask Director Rash to come down. She is here and prepared to answer questions that you might have.

Oh, thank you.

Welcome, Miss Rash.

Hey, I was wondering, uh, how many people does In Our Backyard house? 6. Excuse me, through the chair, 6. Okay, and with this contract, $114,000, how long of a runway does this give them to house those 6 individuals? Uh, this would allow them to go into the end of this year.

This money was from 2024, and they were only afforded one month in 2024.

Okay, can we secure the phone?

Please mute if you're on the phone. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. I see that roughs out to about $105 a day per person. Okay, is this funding tied to occupancy?

The—. Yes, essentially it would Because as long as they have the 6 individuals, the funding would be used for those individuals that are residing within those units. So if there was vacancy, then there would be a savings? Correct. If they don't use all of their funds because they don't have anyone to apply the funds to, yes, there would be savings at the end of this year in 2025.

Okay. Is there a requirement for people to engage with treatment or services? Yes. Okay. What could you explain?

Like, what? Yes. So they currently work with Fairview Community Council. They work with CSS case managers. They work with South Central Foundation, and they have partners.

They also work in life skills. So they do a lot of different activities. And I believe they also have employment. Connections as well.

Okay. And I feel like I had one more question.

Oh, is there data behind how many people have transitioned up and out to like a lower level of care? I believe I could get that for you. I don't have it off the top of my head right now for you, but I can get that for you. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Roland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to voice my strong support for this. It's been pretty inspiring to see what In Our Backyard has done, and it's in my district, and so I'm happy to support In Our Backyard in my backyard.

Just today, Member Constantine and I had the opportunity to attend the groundbreaking for the Johnny Ellis Rainbow Bridge Park, and neighboring that park is in our backyard. And it is— I mean, if you— I encourage you, if you haven't had the opportunity to take a tour, please do avail yourself of that, because the way that they have designed it and made it very hospitable, they just put in a beautiful garden.

And we also heard an update from from Julie, who's kind of the one who spearheads that program, that they are preparing for some of those folks who are in those micro units to be moved into housing. And so this being a transitional housing model is working. And I just think it's fantastic. It's also— it's been cool to see how it has galvanized the faith community. Different churches, different faiths have come alongside to support Central Lutheran in this program.

And so I also hope that we will be looking, you know, as the municipality is interested in piloting our own modular unit shelter, transitional housing. I think that there's a lot of lessons that we can learn from in our backyard. And so I hope we are looking to them as an example. So I will definitely be in support. Thank you.

I have myself in the queue briefly. I don't have any specific questions other than I'd like us to understand and be briefed on the scope of funding, what our kind of commitments are. We had the unified funding proposal and it became kind of a a default, you must do this thing, you must fund this thing. And I don't know that there was ever a really solid kind of thought that the assembly would be the number one backer of that location and those services. And so not for today.

I do support this funding today, but I would like to have a briefing on the strategy, the plan, what's happening, what's our place in that conversation, because it's a pilot and we don't want to become the benefactor necessarily. Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Brawley.

Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AM539-2025 5 has passed the body. That now brings us to item 10F2. 10F2 is information memorandum AIM 140-2025 reporting on the design standards moratorium established by AO 2024-104S. The motion would be to accept. Miss Baldwin-Day, you pulled this item?

Yes, move to accept. Second. Move to accept by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. President. Dia, Miss Baldwin-Day, you have the floor. Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I wanted to, to pull this for visibility. Often the assembly takes actions or the planning department takes actions and will continue to take actions with respect to increasing the housing supply in Anchorage and working towards the mayor's goal of 10,000 homes in the next 10 years. And I just want to highlight— the mayor pointed to some of this in her report, but I do want to highlight that some of these policy interventions are working. And they're working to an astonishing degree. I think there was a lot of conversation about whether, you know, a design standards moratorium would have any sort of impact.

And I think the answer is a resounding yes. The data that we have says that we've already doubled the number of residential units permitted, 4 units and higher this year than we did last year for the entire year. And we also have comments from developers who are saying that this has actually allowed them to experience cost savings, to add units, to not push, to not push projects further out into the future. And I also want to point out that we have one comment from a developer in this AIM that says that following the design standards that were in place actually resulted in a less less architecturally pleasing outcome in the end. That the design that complied with the design standards was actually not optimal in terms of architectural appeal.

So I, I want to just reinforce that making these really nerdy, really wonky policy changes in code does move the needle on the housing stock that is going to come available in Anchorage. And I really hope that stay the course because this is one of the many ways that we can pull levers or press levers to change the shape of our housing supply. So I wanted to be sure that that was in the record, that these actions are working. Thank you, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just want to second everything Member Baldwin-Day said, and I also think it's worth highlighting noting that there's a comment from Cook Inlet Housing Authority. One of their affordable housing projects, the Baxter Project, they said that had design standards remained in place, they would have likely reduced the overall unit count at Baxter to avoid expensive additional requirements under the northern climate and weather protection menu. And, you know, I think it's really interesting because there, there is a wider conversation discussion happening right now in our community about tradeoffs, you know, aesthetics versus people being able to afford housing and have a place to live.

And so I think that we have to weigh all of those things in the balance, but I am pleased to see, you know, really the one entity that's building multifamily affordable housing at scale in our city, that they're realizing the benefit of this code change, which will sunset. It's sort of a pilot. We're testing it out. But I think we're seeing a positive effect. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. All right. I have myself in the queue. So we received an email today, kind of separate topic, but germane to the question of these changes and kind of how we make them and what actually happens versus what people's fears are. We hear a lot from people about their fear about changes to Title 21, and it's fairly irrational a lot of the time.

And people— I've had personal experience with them manufacturing their own memories about what happened that didn't actually happen based on their fear. And, um, for example, there is an item moving through planning and zoning right right now that will come our way that relates to transit supportive development corridors. And we received an email from a member of the public who celebrated the increased density of a project at the corner of 11th and Cordova, and which is a project worth celebrating because it took a very difficult to build on 7,000 square foot lot and built 5 units that are 2 stories each one. They're all independent, no shared walls. Like, it's an amazing development.

The individual who communicated with us was a loud and strident opponent of the project at the time and told us we were going to ruin their neighborhood for every reason you hear every time something comes forward. And now the person is on the other side of the question saying that's the model we need to build. So I of course sent that communication to the developer who built that development and went through the awful process process of getting beaten up here, getting beaten up at Planning and Zoning, called all the bad names, who is now being celebrated. And the developer was very surprised to see those words because they have never been spoken to him. And so I want to share, kind of co-sign with the comments of my peers who say we need to do these things, we need to experiment and see if they're working, we need to see what happens on the other end, and that it's not a compromise to the developers, these evil beings.

It's, it's, it's a plan to get more housing built. And I think that this report tells us that we're on the right track, and I hope people see that. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Seeing and hearing none, members may vote.

The motion is to accept the report.

Member Brawley.

Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AIM 140-2025 has been accepted. So that concludes our consent agenda tonight. We'll go ahead and take a break. Hopefully dinner's ready, and then we'll be back soon to tackle the big item of the night. Thank you all.

We'll be back soon.

All right, thank you everybody. Welcome back. We're now taking up item 11D. Item 11D is AO 2025-74. The S2 version was moved.

An ordinance, Anchorage Municipal Assembly, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 8.45 to prohibit camping on protected premises and prohibit construction on public land by providing criminal penalties. So there is a motion on the floor moved by Mr. McCormick. Mr. McCormick, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking every resident who came out to testify or submitted written comments. The depth of feeling around this ordinance speaks to how deeply Anchorage residents care about our community and the people in it. I also want to acknowledge the years of hard work my colleagues on this body have put into addressing homelessness. This proposal is not a critique of that effort. It is meant to support and extend it.

The reality that our current approach to unsanctioned camping is not working. It's not working for our neighborhoods, for our outreach teams, or for the people living in these camps. This is what this ordinance is seeking to address. It's not about criminalizing homelessness. It's about recognizing the cost of our current course.

When we allow public land to become long-term encampments, we are accepting the fires, overdoses, assaults, and fatalities that too often follow.

That's not a judgment of the people in those camps. It is a reflection of what happens when we fail to intervene effectively. What this ordinance offers is a responsible tool It gives our mobile crisis teams and mobile intervention teams more than just a referral slip. It gives them a way to say that this is not a safe place to stay and let's get you somewhere better. It empowers officers and outreach workers to use discretion, offer support, and connect people with real help.

And in cases where someone is defiant, it still allows for pathway to recovery without lasting penalties through the pretrial diversion program. Program. This allows someone to complete court-mandated substance rehabilitation or required psychiatric care and not serve any jail time, receive any fines, or have any permanent criminal record. It allows us to contact people in distress and say that— allows us to contact people in distress and have a pivotal moment with them. Pivotal moments that I'm a part of every day and why I chose to work in pediatric psychiatry and addiction medicine.

Where in fact I worked for the last weekend at the drug, drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. I see these con— these contacts and see how they can change the trajectory of a person's life 180 degrees. This ordinance alone will not solve homelessness, but it can restore some order to our public spaces, reduce the harm we are all witnessing, and give our professionals the authority to offer real help when and where it's needed. I want to thank the other members in the body and the mayor's office for their collaboration on my ordinance. I'd like— I look forward to us all working together and passing an effective tool that we can use thoughtfully and compassionately to make progress on a problem that we all share responsibility for.

And with that, I'd like to introduce McCormick Amendment 4.

Second.

One sec.

All right, so there is a motion to amend by Mr. McCormick, seconded by Mr. Gerker. Mr. McCormick. Yeah, this builds upon the S2 version where we have discussed wanting to protect priority spaces like parks and schools where children transit and spend their time. But I really can't think of a more sacred place than one's own domicile. So on that note, I would like to introduce this amendment that would allow for a 200-foot offset from residential lot lines.

With this amendment, I've included a map. The first map is the S2 map but with private property included in the layout for a more accurate representation. So that's the current proposed proposal of S-2. And then I included a map with a 200-foot offset from residential lot lines. I would like to point out that they are basically the exact same map.

I see no significant changes in the overall picture and see a great deal of increase in the ability to keep people and homes safe. So I would encourage support behind this. It also limits the amount of people that can camp in one certain area. To prevent another massive Davis Park camp situation from developing. Thank you.

On the amendment, Mr. Rowland.

On the amendment, Mr. Gerker.

On the amendment, Mayor LaFrance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So the purpose of the S-1 and S-2 was to take a practical, targeted approach that is aligned with municipal resources And so this proposed expanded scope with the amendment adds back a lot of municipal land and it loses the focus. I would ask if Chief Case would come up to address the impact of this proposed scope expansion and what that would mean for enforcement.

Chief Kist. Through the chair and the mayor, uh, specifically the 200-foot that we were just talking about. Okay, I just think there's an amendment on amendments. I want to make sure we're on the same sheet of music. Um, so I think generally speaking, when we, when we're looking at the ordinance and any expansion that we get, we start going outside of the expectations of what enforcement can look like, right?

The larger, the larger we go, the more we understand that we have a limited capacity on what our officers can enforce and what the expectation from the public should be on enforcement. Um, you know, our patrol officers are going to have a piece of this, and then a lot of what the, the ordinance is going to rely on the specialized training units like our community action policing team or our mobile intervention team or our HOPE team. And so, um, that, that's the only concern with, uh, expanding kind of the boundaries of the ordinance.

Mr. Johnson on the amendment. Are we done, Mayor?

Uh, yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just add that the municipality does not have the resources to enforce such an amendment is Is my understanding correct, Chief? Yes, ma'am. All right, thanks.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the comments from the mayor and the chief. I think they, they largely reflect my own thinking on this amendment. I believe the underlying ordinance, the S2, is reasonable, it's enforceable, it's practical, and it has been carefully vetted.

So I'm really nervous about taking additional steps, mission creep if you will, that potentially makes this other either unwieldy or presents other obstacles to actually achieving the goals that we've outlined in the S-2. Finally, I just want to note that if I'm looking at the map that attached to this, it looks like a residential with a 100-foot buffer, but the amendment is for 200-foot buffer. So I would say that this map might not accurately reflect, in fact, the areas that would be excluded were this amendment to be passed. And as such, while I'm already nervous about what the consequences would be, it seems that perhaps it would be even more substantial than what we are looking at here in terms of visual aids. So I think for all these reasons, I would recommend not approving.

All right, anyone else on the amendment? All right, hearing and seeing none, members may proceed. I would like to speak on second. Alright, you know what, I think I have Miss Brawley first. Go ahead, Miss Brawley, on the amendment, then we'll come to you, Mr. McCormick.

Yeah, thanks. I appreciate the map. I think it does provide more clarity on kind of the practicality of this type of policy, but I do not support this amendment. Even if we had unlimited enforcement resources, I'm concerned about first residential zoning district. Does that mean any housing built in B3, the business district, basically would not be protected by this.

I think that's, that's a false expectation. And then also we didn't really speak about the campsite and population density, 10 campers per acre of public land. I understand the intent of focusing or trying to focus on smaller campsites, but I think if you have 11 people on the same acre of land, I think then all of a sudden they are criminals. I think that is a very big concern of mine. And so I'm going to vote no on this one.

All right, thank you. Mr. McCormick, I think it was quite distressing to hear what I just heard of that we are unable to enforce laws around our homes. I, I got that we don't have the resources to protect areas surrounding our homes is, is kind of what I heard.

All right, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Brawley? No. Member Myers?

Yes. On a vote of 3 to 9, the amendment has failed. Next in the queue. Are you done, Mr. McCormick?

You have the floor still. Are you done? That was for the amendment. All right, thank you. So next in the queue, I have Mr. Boland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so first I just want to recognize that this is a controversial issue. In our community, one that we often hear from constituents on, and that there are strong feelings on both sides. I want to say a heartfelt thank you to all of those who came forward to weigh in on this topic, spending the time to send us emails or wait in long lines for in-person public hearings.

It has been interesting to me that much of the testimony we've heard and much of the conversation in the community that I, um, often hear is framed in a very binary way: public safety versus compassion. And I have to say that I don't think that framing acknowledges a fuller context. So I want to help, if I can, to put this discussion in context. Some have said that this AO isn't a solution to homelessness. I agree.

As a co-sponsor of the S2— S1 and S2 version, I agree. I believe it's a public safety tool that is necessary. Some have said that the Assembly isn't focused on addressing the root causes of homelessness. With that, I disagree. Over the past few years, the Assembly has supported over 600 units of affordable housing or transitional non-congregate shelter, whether new construction construction or hotel conversions.

We have consistently funded outreach teams and behavioral health responders. We have funded and supported programs like the Next Step Initiative, Home for Good, Rapid Rehousing, and In Our Backyard. Just tonight, we supported In Our Backyard. We've appropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars to our community partners to help shelter and house people. Groups like Catholic Social Services and Covenant In fact, at one point we operationalized funding out of the alcohol tax via the unified funding proposal.

Speaking of the alcohol tax, we have made appropriations in upstream homelessness prevention and prevention of trauma from domestic violence, sexual abuse, and child abuse. We have supported the LaFrance administration's efforts to, for the first time, keep municipal shelter online year-round, rather than closing it at the end of the winter Mayor LaFrance's administration also was awarded and has disbursed $5.5 million in emergency rental assistance. We are currently in the process of creating a designated safe parking area for vehicle campers and preparing to pilot a micro-unit shelter on Muni-owned land. We convened a task force on complex behavioral health needs comprised of local and state policymakers, community partners, members of the public, and we subsequently funded recommendations that were brought forward by that task force. The Alaska Center for Treatment will be opening this fall at the former Golden Lion, and the Assembly also supported a budget amendment which I brought forward to support the Providence Crisis Stabilization Center.

Additionally, we have made many reforms to our land use and zoning codes to allow for easier development of multifamily housing housing in more parts of our city. We've sent members to Washington, D.C. to lobby our federal delegation and HUD to change the federal funding formula in an effort to help Anchorage attain more equitable federal investment and to highlight the limitations of our municipal resources. If you are interested in more details regarding specific appropriations for housing and homelessness, our legislative services team has compiled a very informational spread spreadsheet. It is publicly available on the Assembly— on the Assembly's Focus on Homelessness website. And those appropriations that are listed go back to 2016.

The grand total of that funding on the spreadsheet comes to about $273.5 million.

I say all that because I believe we have demonstrated that we have been and are committed to housing and shelter. We are and have been committed to behavioral health. This is the type of work that must continue for the health of our community. I am committed to it, and I believe most of my colleagues are as well. I believe the mayor, who served on the assembly and supported many of those appropriations I just outlined, is similarly committed.

And from where I sit, any argument that we haven't worked to address root causes falls flat. At the same time, we need to be committed to public safety. In ensuring that our public spaces are safe, healthy, and clean for everyone. We need to make sure that we all know that no one has the right to occupy public land indefinitely, and there are places where illegal camping is never acceptable, such as proximal to schools or playgrounds. In my view, this ordinance creates a new community expectation that is much needed with a goal of compliance rather than arrest.

I say that against the backdrop of Davis Park, a large entrenched camp that had many public safety issues where campers boldly asserted, we have a right to be here. We're not going anywhere. We're your neighbors. And they didn't have that right to stay there indefinitely. And when Davis Park was finally abated, we saw what happened.

Right now, APD is conducting an investigation on who set trees on fire during that abatement process. There is an element of illegal camping in our community that has got a little bit out of control, and we need to reset that community expectation. We need to make sure that we address public safety, and we also need to make sure that we continue the work of getting people sheltered and housed. Housed and getting them the treatment and other supports that they need. I will be supporting the S2 version.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kerker.

Mr. Chairman, did you say me? Am I good? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Uh, look, first I want to thank every single person who has testified or written to the Assembly about this very difficult, very deeply, uh, human issue. You. Your voices, whether they be in support or opposition, remind us that people in this community do care about each other and our shared future. I do believe there are a few things that would be helpful to address as we discuss this ordinance and better set the context.

So before we can really dive into what this ordinance is trying to do, I think it is helpful to explain what it is not going to do. So this ordinance does not criminalize homelessness. This is not going to result in the mass incarceration of homeless people. And secondly, I think I've had it asked of me throughout this entire process, as I'm sure many of the other members on this body have as well, uh, what would Jesus do? Now look, I try to keep Jesus out of my politics because frankly the guy suffered enough, but I do believe that this is worth talking about because I think it cuts to the heart of the argument against doing something like this.

Much of the opposition is rooted in an idea of compassion that I do not believe is borne out either by my understanding of the Christian faith or just good public policy. Compassionate is not using more inclusive language while offering zero practical pathways out of addiction and homelessness. Saying, "Go, be filled," or, "Go, be housed," and then leaving people to die in the woods is not compassion. That is managed neglect. As a city, we have built a sprawling apparatus of social services from rental assistance, sheltering, job training, rehab, detox, and other options, and it has relied largely on voluntary participation.

And people in the throes of addiction do not tend to just decide one day to stop being addicted. There has to be an external event or force to be the catalyst for change. That is what this AO— both the original and the S versions are attempting to do. This ordinance, through the pretrial diversion option, will give us the ability to route people through detox and rehab and actually treat the underlying causes of homelessness instead of treating the symptoms. So let's be clear, this ordinance is not a magic wand.

This can still fail if not faithfully and carefully executed, but it is a necessary law enforcement tool and a step in the right direction. It gives our city the legal ability to prohibit the most unsafe camping near playgrounds, trails, schools, streams, and busy roads, and it does so in a way that will withstand legal challenge, in my estimation. We cannot keep pretending that an open field in July is a housing plan. We cannot keep saying inclusive words while letting people freeze to death behind the tree line. True compassion means acting, not just just talking.

And I know the members of this body care very deeply about this issue, as I know they volunteer their time and their financial resources at many shelters here in town. And then for the rest of the city of Anchorage, this ordinance offers a glimmer of hope that we're going to finally start getting it right when it comes to homelessness. Over the last decade, people have watched with horror as this city of ours has decayed in front of their very eyes. People have fled Anchorage for the Matsu, or they've just left the state altogether, because if we can't get something as foundational as right, as foundational as this right, then what in the world are we doing here? My message to you is simple.

I hear you. This ordinance is a step in the right direction to bring accountability and redemption. We are going to get this right. So tonight, I ask you to stand with the families who want safe parks and trails. I ask you to stand with the first responders and outreach teams who are doing impossible work.

And most of all, I ask you to stand with the vulnerable members of our population who are struggling with addiction, addiction, mental illness, and homelessness, to stand with them by not leaving them out in the cold, but by giving them a bridge to treatment and recovery. AO74, through the S versions and through the originals, is that bridge. It's time to show that Anchorage has both a backbone and a heart. So please join me in voting yes on AO74-S2. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I have Ms. Brawley in the queue on the amendment.

I'm sorry. Not on the amendment, I'm sorry, on the main motion. Miss Brawley, you said you wanted to queue. Yeah, thank you. I'd like to move Brawley Amendment 6.

Second. So there is a motion to amend by Miss Brawley, second by Mr. Presverdia. Miss Brawley. Yeah, thanks. And just to be clear, on Friday there was this number 6 and number 9, and this is number 6.

This is the corrected one, so this is the only one I'm moving. This one essentially removes the escalator to a Class A misdemeanor in the circumstances that are in that piece of code. The bottom line is I just don't believe that that is going to actually increase compliance. I think it would be more complicated for folks to understand and to utilize, and I believe that we should decide if this is allowed or not allowed. So I would urge On the amendment, Mr.

President. Yeah, I'd like to have the administration speak to this, either the mayor's staff or the, the chief of police, just to see if where they stand on this.

Thank you. Through the chair, this is a policy decision. It would just make everything under this ordinance a Class B misdemeanor, which would come with lower penalties, potential maximum penalties. So this is a decision for the policymakers to decide. We don't have any legal concerns over it.

That was Municipal Attorney Eva Garner. So any other question? Mr. President, you know, on the amendment, anyone else?

Mr. Chair, may I get in on the amendment? Madam Mayor, please. And I just want to note too that this amendment potentially, or it would reduce incentives for immediate compliance, and immediate compliance is a big part of this mechanism so that we can prevent dangerous encampments and structures from being built.

Anyone else on the amendment? Mr. Mr. President. Yeah, just, I appreciate the information from the attorney and from the administration. Yeah, my concern is that I think one of the intentions here is to have this act as a deterrent and as preventative. And I guess my concern that this would reduce that impact.

So just want to put that on the record. On the amendment, Ms. Burleigh. Oh wait, I'm sorry, hold on, Ms. Brawley. Yes. Since you've already spoken, hold on just a minute.

Ms. Baldwin-Day.

When we're talking about, when we're talking about fining people who are unsheltered, I'm not sure that there is a substantive difference between a $500 fine and a $250 fine. Any fine is problematic. Any fine is potentially crippling. So I will be in support of this amendment because I think we're quibbling at this point over what constitutes a stick and what doesn't. And I think any level of fine and incarceration is a sufficient stick.

Thank you. Have you spoken to the amendment, Mr. Voland? Okay, Mr. Voland, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if the municipal attorney might speak to the penalties of Class A versus Class B that are not fine related. Are there differences there?

Through the chair, yes. So just for clarity and context, the fines that are set are And then penalties that are set, they're maximum penalties. All of this would ultimately be, you know, they would only come into play if after conviction, right, a judge sits and sentences the individual and establishes what the, then the judge establishes what the penalty will be. And so code sets out what the maximum a judge could order is. And so for a standard Class A misdemeanor, it's $10,000 up to a year in jail.

Jail. For a standard Class B, it's $2,000 up to 6 months in jail. However, the S2 version that's before the body has already reduced those fines, the maximum fines that could be imposed, to $250 and $500 while leaving the maximum potential jail time the same. And— but again, this all would go through the gatekeeper of a judge who considers the circumstances of a defendant when assessing whether any fine or any any financial penalty is actually appropriate. And again, that only comes into play, it's not an automatic fine if you get charged that you have to pay.

It's only if you go through the process and actually ultimately get convicted would the penalty and the sentencing come into play. Right, thank you for that. I think knowing that, and also again knowing that the intent, the underlying intent of the ordinance itself is compliance versus maximum arrest. I'm not inclined to support the amendment. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Martinez. Thank you, Chair. To the municipal attorney, how those— that level of charge classification, how often is it used in court? How often do we find it in the prosecutor's office as part of the caseload?

Through the Chair to Member Martinez. I— Title 8, the Penal Code and Municipal Code, has a whole range of things that are A and B misdemeanors. Trespass, typically, in its own section, which is an existing crime, is in A in most cases. So, I mean, we see As and Bs all the time. I will say that courts rarely impose the maximum sentence.

I don't know that there's a time in recent memory where court where the court has imposed a maximum sentence allowed by code for municipal misdemeanor even after trial and conviction. Thank you.

Right, next, Miss Brawley.

Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to briefly clarify, um, based on a couple of comments, this changes or removes the escalator to a Class A misdemeanor only in the section around camping. It does not touch any of the penalties around prohibited construction. Thank you.

All right, anyone else on the amendment? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? No. Member Brawley?

Yes. On a vote of 4 to 8, the amendment has failed. Failed.

I would like to be recognized, Mr. President. Mr. Constant, thank you. So I will go ahead and move my amendment. It's Constant Amendment Number 3.

Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. So this amendment just adds an automatic sunset date, just repeals the thing automatically in 2 years. Which I think is a safeguard against bad law.

If we find in the fullness of time that intentions aren't met, that the intent is compliance versus jail, it would just automatically sunset it and provide you all in 24 months one more chance to hear from the public and kind of go through this act to ensure that it's been gotten right. So I would ask for your support.

So I have a long queue. I'll just walk through and ask if it's on the amendment. Mr. Rosserdia? No. Ms.

Ours? Go ahead.

So I understand the desire to kind of take a see-how-it-goes approach, which I think is what this amendment kind of seeks to do. I don't think that automatic expiration should take place of assembly action. Assembly could repeal this at any time if it was passed. They wouldn't even have to wait for 2 years. I think we saw that just recently with the ID ordinance.

For that reason, I don't support this amendment. I think it shouldn't take the place of actual Assembly action.

On the amendment, Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, member Silver's just said it exactly what I was going to say.

Thank you. All right, on the amendment, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I'd agree. I don't support a sunsetting.

I think this body has proven that they're able to take swift action with ordinances that they find to not meet targets, such as the mandated ID requirements that we recently repealed after a very short period of time. I think the body is able to, to handle any needed changes. Mr. Martinez. Chair, just for the sake of an explanation, my no votes today will be essentially a signal that the things that weren't included that may have potentially should have been included, uh, don't deserve the attention to make it better. And so I may support what you're saying in spirit, but I'll be voting no on the majority of the amendments today.

All right, thank you. Anyone else on the amendment? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Mr. Myers on the amendment? No. Anna Brawley— Member Brawley on the amendment? Yes. Yes.

On a vote of 5 to 7, the amendment has failed. Next in the queue, I have Mr. Presidio. Thank you, Chair. I would like to move— let me get the number right here— Presidio Amendment Number 8.

Got a second? Second. Motion to amend by Mr. Presidio. Second, was that Mr. Voland? Yeah, this This was actually brought forward by the administration.

I'm doing it on their behalf. And it was in reaction to some public testimony which we received on our first night, I believe. But it simply makes clear that the public can lawfully possess construction materials on a street or sidewalk in order to, for example, carry it to a permitted construction site. So it just makes it very clear that that is legal. Thanks, Mayor LaFrance.

Uh, not on the amendment. Thanks. All right, thank you. Mr. Martinez on the amendment. Just to highlight one of those missing areas that wasn't really baked in the original, I'll be voting no on this.

All right. Anyone else on the amendment? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes.

Member Brawley?

No.

On a vote of 9 to 3, the amendment has passed.

Right, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to speak on the main motion. All right, do you want to wait till we get through amendments if there are more?

Are there any further amendments coming?

Ms. Baldwin-Day, if that's okay, Madam Mayor. Yes, I would like to move Baldwin Day Amendment Number 7, please. Second. Motion to amend by Ms. Baldwin Day, seconded by Mr. Rivera. Ms. Baldwin Day.

The intent of this amendment is to constrain enforcement to availability of shelter or other sanctioned living making space for our unsheltered neighbors.

The rationale behind this is that in my reading of Christian text, compassion is rendering actual aid, not theoretical future aid, not pending the availability of housing or shelter or behavioral health healthcare or community support.

And the situation that we find ourselves in is we are considering an item here that purports to offer compassion even when resources for extending that compassion are clearly unavailable in our community.

If we speak to the professionals on the ground, if we speak to the people who are in immediate daily proximity to folks in our community who are unhoused, they will tell you that on the best of days, we do not have the resources, we do not have the capacity to shelter or house or provide appropriate behavioral health supports. We, we do not have the resources to extend the compassion that has been touted here tonight.

In my estimation, compassion is the example of the Good Samaritan, who actually rendered immediate physical aid. That is the compassion that I read in Christian text. Do not get a pastor started.

So, I believe that the only way that this is a morally appropriate action is when we can actually provide the resources that people need in the moment that they need it. If we cannot actually do that, then there is not compassion. There is only political theater. And that is the rationale for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

On the amendment, Ms. Silvers. Yes. You have the floor.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I believe that legislation should aim for clarity and the ability to be easily understood and consistently enforced. I do not believe this amendment meets that standard. I think it's important to point out that this ordinance was not written as a response or solution to homelessness, but it is a public safety response to some of the really real, very real issues that are occurring in and around the camps, especially with substance misuse. This amendment undermines the basics of public safety that the SAO was written to address. It ignores the reality that some locations like playgrounds, major trails, areas near schools are never appropriate for camping regardless of shelter availability.

Saying that we can't enforce basic boundaries like 200 or 500 feet from a school, trail, playground unless there's open shelter space or or sanctioned camping feels like a little bit of a stretch. That's what this amendment does. It makes public safety contingent on shelter capacity. This amendment effectively ties the hands of law enforcement and forces neighborhoods to continue to endure dangerous conditions. It undermines the clarity and urgency of the ordinance and keeps both our unhoused neighbors and the broader community at risk.

This AO was carefully written to prioritize safety and accountability while while still connecting people to services and not criminalizing camping uni-wide. This amendment would weaken that balance. I will not be in support of it, and I urge a vote no. No vote. Thank you.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. As I mentioned, I'll be voting no on most things tonight, but this is not one of those things. I'll be voting yes on this. And, and primarily because exactly what we— what, what I expect, that this will not pass because there's a different starting point that's value-driven for what this represents, which meets the concern of having people not be in certain areas that are the shared spaces, which is kind of like, keep it moving, but keep it moving is different than the enforcement of being homeless in an unsanctioned area.

So I support this amendment, and, and I think it, it demonstrates that one of the things that was mentioned earlier with respect to the overall package was that we recognize there aren't really places where people can go. Uh, it was also mentioned that, um, we have had a failure to intervene, and it was also mentioned, Chair, that we see things decaying around us. This seems to be an attempt to bring in a value proposition that suggests that, um, if we can't pass this, maybe more is decaying around us than just, um, some parts of of the streets we may see. Thank you, Chair. Mr.

Rivera. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I considered bringing forward this amendment myself but decided against it. So thank you, Member Baldwin-Day, for doing that.

You know, so much of this discussion really fails to respond to the question, where are people able to go? And we heard it from the testimony several times, but it isn't addressed in the ordinance. So if we're going to be producing a map that lays out where people can't stay, where is the map that shows where people can stay? Now, y'all know that I have been a champion of some sort of sanctioned or allowed camping. Maybe it's time for us to reopen that conversation, and I appreciate Member Baldwin-Day bringing this forward.

I think regardless of the vote on this amendment, I hope that is a discussion that we will have in earnest. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Walland. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Like my colleague Mr. Rivera, I have also been supportive of the concept of sanctioned or allowed camping. In fact, we, the assembly— I could have put this in my, my earlier laundry list of assembly actions that we've taken prior to this— we convened a task force on allowed camping and had robust participation from the public.

We brought forward a list of recommendations, detailed recommendations that included locations and demographics and supports that would be needed at each location. The administration at the time, the Bronson administration, ultimately told us they would not implement that. They just wouldn't do it. It. So I do agree that it's time to, to revisit that conversation.

That being said, I will not be supporting this amendment, and I do disagree that there— that the S2 version doesn't contemplate a place for people to go. Again, I think that the intent of the ordinance is compliance rather than arrest, and so folks can be warned warned by law enforcement, hey, you're too close to a school, you're too close to a playground, you have to move somewhere else. Could the municipality, and perhaps should the municipality, provide a map of where those places are? Yes, we probably should, and that is something that we can do. But people can go outside of the proximities to places that are listed in the S2 version.

It does not apply municipal-wide like the original ordinance did. And so I think it's a vast improvement in that regard. Also, I think I just— again, going back to that, the very interesting dynamic of Davis Park, I want to push back against this idea that everybody would take housing or shelter or resources if they were offered, because that's not what we've seen. When they abated Davis Park, 50 people were moved into housing or shelter or residential treatment beds. That's fantastic.

That to me is the best outcome. That's like when we funded the Next Step Initiative and people were moved directly from camps into housing. However, I've been told by sources in the service community that about 3 times that number at Davis Park who were abated opted not to take those services that they were offered, opted not to take housing or shelter or behavioral health treatment beds. And so I think that there's a flip side of that coin of, you know, we want to have a place for everyone. But we also have a— there's a part of the homeless population who has, has said no to services that are offered and instead have chosen to remain indefinitely currently on public land.

And that for me is that the community expectation reset that we need and why I feel like I can't support this ordinance. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Anyone else on the amendment? Hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Brawley.

Yes. Member Myers.

No, sir, I'm sorry, you are out of order, sir. This is not the time or place. Thank you. On a vote of 5 to 7, the amendment has failed. To pass.

All right, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I'd like to introduce McCormick Amendment— it's 5, correct? 5. Second.

So there's a motion to amend by Mr. McCormick, seconded by Mr. Gerker. Mr. McCormick. Yeah, this is just a quick formalized just changing of some wording here. Currently, as Section 2, Paragraph B, Section 1, knowingly possesses on land, municipal land, materials that could be used to construct any structure, including lumber, boards, cinder blocks. I read that to believe if I had 2x4s in the back of my truck parked at the park to go play tennis, I am now possession of building materials on municipal land.

And I think that needs to be cleaned up a little bit. So I've changed the wording to include intent, which through advisement of our attorneys, they feel is appropriate and consistent with use throughout the remainder of the code of adding intent to be possession with the intent of building a structure. For the purpose of camping.

All right, Mr. Roland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It sounds like Mr. McCormick collaborated with the municipal attorney on this. I just would like maybe the municipal attorney to confirm that or speak to the change in language.

Is this something you see as helpful?

Thank you. Through the chair, Yes, I think the prior amendment moved by Member Pérez-Verdía was meant to also try to address this, this concern which was raised in public testimony last week, and we don't have any concerns with this amendment legally, and I think it does add specificity and by adding an intent element to, to the crime of attempted construction. Okay, great, thank you. Anyone else on the amendment? Hearing none, members I proceed to vote.

Member Brawley?

Yes. Member Myers? Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, the amendment has passed. Are there any further amendments? Mr. Rivera? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I wasn't going to bring any amendments forward, but the failure of Amendment Number 3 inspired me to craft what we all love, which is a floor amendment. This— I did email the floor amendment to the clerk just now. I will go ahead and state the floor amendment and then happy to get any feedback from the administration if they have it. So I'm going to go ahead and move a floor amendment which creates a new section and Section 7, which reads, quote, within 12 months of the effective date of this ordinance, the administration shall submit a report to the assembly via AIM to an assembly agenda which provides sufficient information to the assembly and public to judge the efficacy of this ordinance, end quote. Second.

Motion to amend by Mr. Rivera, second by Mr. Presverdean. Mr. Bowen, sorry.

And if I may speak to it, Mr. Chair? You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, yeah, so generally, since we didn't pass, uh, Constant Amendment Number 3, I figured this is probably a good middle ground so that we can get some kind of— well, I ain't gonna be on the body— so that this body can get some kind of information regarding the efficacy of this ordinance I decided in the very quick crafting of this that I wouldn't include any specific provisos to be required in a report. I will trust that the administration will provide sufficient information. I think this is simple enough, and I will urge support. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment?

Oh, there we go. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. This is just for the sake of my consistency with notice, not going to make it for my yeses today, but I wanted to highlight something Member Rivera mentioned, which is a very interesting point for us to consider.

He described that this particular amendment is going to put out 12 months and call for a report to produce the data for the efficacy of this law change, essentially. And so the data for later on, and I just wanted to point out but there is very little data for the efficacy for it today.

Next in the queue, Mr. Holland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I have a different take on which data we're assessing that merits this code change.

However, I'm happy to support this amendment. And in fact, I would welcome earlier and frequent information about the enforcement of this ordinance. And I think that the, you know, the Public Health and Safety Committee would be a great venue for that. They meet monthly. And so just putting that out to the administration, if you could give us regular updates, I think that'd be great.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President, the amendment. Mr. Volland said it. Thanks.

Anyone else on the amendment? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

No.

Member Brawley? Yes.

On a vote of 8 to 4, the amendment has passed.

Are there any more amendments?

All right, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have comments on the main motion. First, I would ask if Thea Agnew-Bemben could speak and address some of the questions points that have been raised by members of the body regarding shelter availability. She's on the line.

Miss Bambin, you have the floor.

Thank you, through the chair and Madam Mayor. Um, I think the— you know, as I think everyone knows, the mayor's priority has been to establish year-round shelter and to move us out of what has been a very seasonal— of pick up beds and then closing beds in the summer, which leads to people going out to camp and kind of getting into that rhythm. So what we've been working towards is having year-round shelter available and also doing very tight coordination of the shelter beds that we have. We also are seeking to include some of our other community shelter beds in that coordination network. Work.

We're working towards that right now because we know that the municipality funds many of those beds, and we really want to use every shelter bed, you know, to the greatest value. And what we know is that it's when we can move people out of a shelter bed into— whether it's transitional living, helping them return home to the lower 48, get into assisted living, all different ways that people might exit shelter— we can use those shelter beds more people. So we need fewer beds overall. So that's, that's the overall goal. We've invested quite a bit and are continuing to invest in establishing housing and exits from shelter into housing.

An example of that is the $5.5 million that's out right now. That's short-term rental assistance. As of today, we've helped 421 households either, or individuals, either retain their housing or get into housing from shelter with those funds. And as of today, in discussion with those grantees, they are optimistic that, you know, two-thirds of those folks will be able to carry on that rental assistance after— after carrying on with their renting after that period ends. We also are investing in micro units.

We've supported Home for Good all of this year, which is a permanent supportive housing project for people with very high complex needs. We're also looking into some other ways to increase housing. So that's our overall goal. When we look at these last two abatements that we've done at Davis Park and the snow dump, as someone else has mentioned, we had about 50 people either in the period leading up to the abatement or directly following it take offers of shelter, housing, or treatment. I don't— we don't know exactly how many people were in that camp overall, but I don't think it was 3 times that amount.

I think it maybe was more in the range of 100 people, maybe a bit more than that. Today we started an abatement at the north end of Russian Jack Park. By all accounts, it went fairly peacefully. We've been doing outreach to that group leading up to the abatement, and then today on abatement day, we had our our outreach workers there. They talked to about 25 people.

We got about 10 people into shelter today. So I think the, the story with our system is that the beds that we have are generally full, but there's always some churn in the system. So every day there are some beds that come available. So if we use our HOPE team and all of our different connections, we very often can get people into a place that works for them, you know, within a few days. So again, we, we want to build that capacity, we want to build our behavioral health treatment capacity, but I think by really working the system, that's what we're trying to do is get the best value we can for the people we're serving and for the municipal resource.

All right, thank you. Anything else, Madam Mayor?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So on the main motion, first off, thanks to all the members of the public who testified on this ordinance, on this issue. As Ms. Agnew-Bemben noted, the administration has taken steps with the assembly's support, and as Member Voland has noted, you know, to lay the foundation of year-round shelter, proactive crisis response, connecting people with Behavioral health services and building more housing. And I understand this is a hard issue.

It's a really hard issue. I've heard the testimony. I've listened to the testimony. And for the last year as mayor and in my prior role on the assembly, have heard many, many community concerns about camps. What we are proposing here is a balanced, targeted approach.

The S2 version is the result of thoughtful, deliberate action from over the last year. We've updated our laws on fires, changed how we do abatements and how we deploy our crisis response teams. This is a continuation of that approach. We're focused on getting people the shelter and the support that they need. And at the same time, we must must ensure residents can use their public lands, trails, and roads.

Letting people permanently camp in public spaces is not safe. It's not healthy. It's not a solution. When we abate, we see that people do go into shelter, and we want to speed that up. This AO will help the broader community.

It'll discourage unsafe camping. It'll encourage people experiencing homelessness to start on a path to stable housing. It's just one piece in our overall strategy of addressing homelessness. It's focused on those areas where camping is never okay— near schools, near playgrounds, near daycares, trails, roads, sidewalks, and waterways. If people camp near these areas, they'll be to leave.

Our goal is intervention and compliance, not arrests. We know that we've got more to do. We've got to continue the critical work of providing shelter, supports, treatment, and housing, as well as therapeutic courts, pre-arrest diversion, and making our community a more affordable place to live. It's pretty darn expensive here, especially when it comes to housing. However, this ordinance will enable us to take swifter action to prevent dangerous encampments and unsafe structures in targeted areas.

So thank you to the co-sponsors, Members Johnson, Vollen, and Silvers, and also Members Myers, Gerker, and McCormick for joining. I do ask that members please vote in support of this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Baldwin-Day.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Um, I, I would love to ask some questions if I could of both the administration and APD. Of whom?

Um, I, I want to address a, a comment that was made earlier, um, that this ordinance contemplates where people should go. I would love to hear the administration speak to that statement.

Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day.

We are thinking about this in terms of people not camping in these safe zones. And people will need to stay away from those areas that are near schools, that are near daycares and playgrounds and so on. I want to reiterate the administration's support for connecting people to services, to treatment, to supportive housing, to housing as well. Thank you.

You're out of order. You're out of order. You are out of order, sir. Please come to order. You're creating an actual disturbance.

Security, I'm going to ask you to have him escorted out of the room. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, a second question to the administration. I would love for someone to outline on the record what options for abatement currently exist in code.

Through the Chair, currently Title 15 has provisions on civil abatement. There is a range of notice— required notice periods ranging from, I think, 1 hour in very extreme circumstances to 10 days. They place varying levels of burden on the municipality, but all involve an administrative process that is quite lengthy leading up to the decision to abate, then notice typically in the form of posting. If it's a longer posting, returning frequently to check that the posters are still up, and then— and that's a joint effort with APD and Parks and Recreation Healthy Spaces to go out into the field, and then abatement day, which again is an intensive process of showing up with police, law enforcement, and Parks and Rec Healthy Spaces to do a cleanup. And in parallel with that, typically there are extensive outreach efforts to the individuals camping.

And that notice period at the long end is 10 days, but on the shortest end is how long? I believe that in certain very extreme circumstances It could be as short as 1 hour or 24 hours.

Okay. In those circumstances, however, with notice periods shorter than 10 days, the municipality is required to store all personal property that falls within the code-required list of storage items, and that is a process in and of itself. Of course. Understood. Thank you.

A few questions for APD.

Thanks, Chief. I am concerned, as another person on the dais mentioned, that we are potentially creating a level of expectation in the community about what enforcement is and isn't going to look like of this particular AO should it pass. So I was hoping that you might walk us all through how this AO will be enforced and implemented, what you expect interactions between officers and campers to be, to be like, at what point you would be citing folks, at what point you would be doing or taking other steps. I think it's really important for the public to understand the enforcement from the APD perspective.

Uh, through Chairman Baldwin-Day. So I'll explain kind of from patrol's perspective first and also from some of our specialized units because there's a little bit different opportunity that exists there within the police department. When we think about our average call that's going to come in where a patrol officer is going to respond to an area that is an area where this ordinance would take effect, those patrol officers are going to try to gain compliance compliance for a whole host of reasons. I think the number one reason is just that over the course of the last 15 years within our community, our state, our police department, we have certainly adopted a theory that we're going to try to, A, gain compliance, and B, try to connect to services. And we've kind of built the structure where we're at today, not only within the police department but within the municipality, that we respond that way.

So the first is to try to to get those folks to, to move on. And also asking what type of help potentially they need, and then trying to connect. First and foremost, the easiest method for patrols to connect them to our Mobile Intervention Team, our CAP team, and our HOPE team. And so that's, that's going to be the primary way that we respond to this from a patrol standpoint. Those that are going to be arrested in violation of this ordinance the expectation, and I think it's a pretty clear expectation, that we're going to look at those folks and go, the officers made a really solid attempt to try to get these folks to comply or get help.

And it's going to be pretty clear that these folks aren't leaving. They aren't going anywhere. And we're kind of left with that solution of making an arrest. In the cases that we make an arrest, there's really kind of 3 different options that takes place. The majority of these folks fall in the category where they don't have long criminal histories.

They don't have things in their, in their criminal history that would require them to go to jail and being held on a bond. That decision, or that level of criminality, is really determined by the court system, and so we just follow that lead. That means that a citation is going to be issued, summons to go to court at at a later date. The second option is they do have a criminal history that would allow us to take the person to jail, and there would be some bond that would be set based on a bail schedule, really, or speaking to a magistrate directly. And then the third option for arrest is if the person is intoxicated, uh, they would go to jail.

The officer has the option to take them to jail jail if they don't believe that they can adequately care for themselves, if they feel like there's a fear that if they get cited and released they'll walk into traffic or one of these types of situations. They would go to jail and then they would be released automatically by the jail system once they're sober enough to care for themselves and they walk away from the jail system. So that's kind of what a patrol response would look like. Uh, once we get in specialized units and they respond, They, they have the ability to more connect directly to services. They have long-term relationships with a lot of the members of the homeless community, so they know who they are.

They've had multiple contacts with them. They have, in many cases, they've been working with some of these folks to try to get them stabilized in a certain way so they can accept and actually thrive in housing. And there's a whole host of things that goes along with that. I'm going to interrupt right now. The clerk and I and the vice chair, Ms. Brawley, are having a conversation.

We were running out of time for this debate. I would like to ask for a motion to extend the debate by half an hour at least. So moved. Second. Mr. Rivera has moved.

Ms. Baldende has seconded the motion to extend by half an hour. Is there any objection?

Yes. Okay, Mr. Myers objects. So, uh, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? No. Member Brawley?

Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 1, we'll extend the debate by half an hour. Thank you. Proceed, Chief Kaysen. Member Baldwin-Day?

I think I'm ready for follow-up questions. So just to be sure that I've heard you correctly, the majority of interactions with law enforcement already involve some level of extension or offers of assistance beyond a criminal response. And upon passage of this AO, anyone who did not comply voluntarily with the request to move along would be cited and released most likely? So currently our patrol officers, unless they're responding to a reported crime, don't interact and deal with camping generally. Generally that's left to our CAP team, our HOPE team, and MIT.

So as I understood the question correctly, how would this ordinance impact? And that would kind of put patrol in, uh, kind of incorporate them in responding to camping that's in these areas that are illegal because now they're responding to a crime. Understood. How, how does this ordinance allow APD to respond or intervene perhaps more effectively in criminal activity such as theft, assault, drug use, drug dealing, human trafficking, those sorts of things? So I think that's probably more of an indirect link, and I think there's two ways that, that there's a potential impact there, number one, is having long-term camps getting entrenched where we have seen throughout some of the larger camps where we see some of the crimes that you mentioned occurring within the camps.

And so being able in these particular areas to have these camps disperse, potentially we can see a reduction in that type of activity. The second way is it is very, very difficult when officers go into camps to investigate crimes particularly some of the more complicated ones like trafficking, and to try and get cooperation from the victim, right? That's their home, and, and, and it's very difficult to pull them out of that situation and get the adequate interviews and those sorts of things. We try to get them support so that can happen. So this potentially would have the ability that we can get some of these camps moving so that we could have better interactions with victims victims and potentially get better statements and, and protect them in the future.

Does this ordinance at all change the way that APD would prioritize incoming calls for service? No, ma'am. Okay. And my last question, um, if you can share maybe a proportion or just a general statement about how much of the fentanyl that was seized during Operation Summer Heat was actually seized from unsheltered people.

A low amount. A low amount. Okay. Thank you, Chief.

If I may comment just a bit on what we've just heard.

The real offer of help, like we've been dancing around this idea that that pre-trial diversion is sufficient to invite people to make a different choice in their situation. And I think what we need to understand is based on what the chief has shared and the way that this will be implemented, most folks will be cited and released. And then a, if they do not appear in court, a low-level warrant will be issued. And Chief, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and that warrant will just linger.

There will be no technical diversion. We do not have pretrial diversion in place yet in Anchorage. I know, I'm aware that there are people who are working on that, but we do not have pretrial diversion in place. And while I might have confidence in this mayor and this administration and this particular chief of chief of police that diversion is a priority, until that is written into code, I have very little confidence that future assemblies, future administrations, future chiefs of police would actually continue that pattern, which I think is really troubling when we are considering writing a new section of criminal code.

Furthermore, camping is technically not pro— not allowed. Camping is already prohibited everywhere in Anchorage per our code. There is no place outside of sanctioned campgrounds that you pay to use where people are legally allowed to camp. What this ordinance does is it asks us to identify criminalized areas, special areas, but it turns a completely blind eye to the fact that there is no legal place for folks who are unsheltered.

It doesn't exist.

So while we may say that we're not criminalizing homelessness, neither are we saying here are the definitive spaces where if you do not own a home, you can legally go.

I have a real— I have a real issue with the suggestion that moving desperate people around our city makes us safer. Safer. This conversation has been couched in terms of public safety, but I think there are some assumptions underneath that statement that are false.

There is an assumption that our city's crime problem is the result of visible homelessness, that we don't have enough tools to move people along from sensitive areas, and that policing unsheltered people makes our city safer.

I struggle to believe that those three propositions are true when we know that the bulk of the drugs that come in and out of Anchorage do so through organized crime networks and not from people who are unhoused. And if you listened carefully to what the chief said, people who are unsheltered are more often than not the victims, not the perpetrators.

So continuing to displace people around our city creates more desperation, more loss of property, more trash, and more environmental impact in more places, because let's be clear, the reason these homeless camps look the way they do is because folks who are unhoused produce garbage just like housed people do, produce human waste just like housed people do. The difference is that folks who are outside don't have a place to put that.

But if the accumulated garbage from my house stacked up for a week, it would be quite a pile.

I think we're looking at more visible homelessness as a result of this ordinance, more people wandering the streets, more angry neighbors because now there are more people circulating and more interaction, right, wrong, or indifferent, compassionate or not, with law enforcement.

I want to be really clear that we already have laws on our books that relate to public drug use, theft, assault, drug dealing, prostitution, public indecency. We already have laws about these things. We already have a code that speaks to a variety of abatement options, some of which may be inconvenient, But we have a mechanism for 24-hour abatement in sensitive areas. That exists already. We are not tied to a 10-day abatement.

It's helpful because it means that there's no obligation on the part of the municipality to store goods, but I'm okay with a little extra inconvenience if it means that we are actually like abiding by our legal obligation to the abatement process. We can proactively post no trespassing signage if we're really concerned about schools and public parks. We can do that.

But in the, in the final analysis, my, my chief, my chief objection to this ordinance is that it is out of sequence. There is no provision for true pre-arrest diversion. There is no contemplation of the actual consequences of more unhoused, more unsheltered people circulating in our community.

And we still have not answered the question of where it is permissible for people who do not have a home to live. And I, as a policymaker, am unwilling— I am unwilling to criminalize poverty, addiction and mental health disorders from this dais. Not— and you, you can put— you can say that that's not being attuned to public safety, but I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. So my objection, my objection to this ordinance is on moral grounds. Something can be legally permissible and it can still be morally incorrect.

That is where I stand, and that is why I will be a no vote on this ordinance. And in some future iteration, when we have sufficient supports in our community, when we have pre-arrest diversion online, when we can guarantee that any person who engages with law enforcement will have an option for safe, appropriate shelter, Then come back to me. Circle back. And we can have a different conversation. But not like this and not right now.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Silver.

Yeah, I just want to start with a simple truth. This ordinance does not set out to solve homelessness. It's not going to build a single shelter bed. It's not going to increase increase treatment capacity or hand a single person a set of keys to housing. And no one should pretend otherwise.

What it does do is it addresses something that is just as real and just as urgent: public safety. And here is another truth. We have not been honest with ourselves about what that means. We tiptoe around it, we push it to the side, we politicize it. And while we do that, residents in this city, especially those living next to large encampments and the children who pass them are the ones who feel the consequences, carrying the burden of our delay.

This ordinance sets some basic standards: no camping near schools, no tents on playgrounds, not along busy trails or waterways. These are not radical positions. They are practical ones rooted in the simple belief that public spaces should be safe for anyone who uses them. Additionally, enforcement of this ordinance will be rooted in diversion and seeking compliance, not criminalization.

Passing this ordinance is not tantamount to criminalizing poverty. It is about creating clear expectations for how we coexist in our public spaces. And I want to say this as plainly as I can: the notion that our unhoused neighbors are somehow incapable of understanding or meeting those expectations— that idea is is false. It's insulting. It robs people of their agency.

It assumes that hardship and suffering strip a person of all capacity. I reject that. I believe the vast majority of people experiencing homelessness are doing everything they can just to survive. I believe they are strong, capable, and deserving of dignity. And if we meet them with honesty and offer real pathways to housing and care, I believe most will rise to that moment.

Here is the part that matters most. If we pass this ordinance, we do not get to declare victory, check a box, and move on. We take on more responsibility. We are saying to our constituents that we will continue the work of making smart investments in shelter, treatment, affordable housing, making it easier to build, and continuing to stand up and expand the systems that we need to help lift people out of crisis. It's a fact that this ordinance will not solve homelessness, but pretending that the current situation is acceptable, that looking away is somehow more compassionate, is not who we are.

Our city deserves to move forward with compassion, accountability, and clarity. It is public safety that allows parents to walk their kids to school, ride their bikes on the trails, and gather in parks. Everyone should feel safe in our shared spaces, including those trying to survive in them. We can protect the dignity of our unhoused neighbors and the safety of our public spaces. These things are not at odds.

This AO, the S2 version, is a framework, it's a tool, and it's a step forward. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I want to start with a refrain that we heard from some of the folks who, uh, justified. Quote, you should have supported solutions that were brought forward by the prior administration, end quote. This body has protected the community from prior false solutions that would have cost us significantly in the end without any type of positive outcome. Little self-own. Unfortunately, it may have been a little bit late to that realization in one instance, but I got there.

I'm proud of that work. We all should be. So that poses the question: is this ordinance before us now another one of those questionable quote-unquote solutions, or is it something else? That gets me to the premise of this ordinance. Is it in the public benefit to get people to move along?

In certain circumstances, yes. Sidewalks, playgrounds, trails. There's some common sense categories where there is a high public interest to ensure that we can all use those spaces freely and safely. Basically, most of the places that we already prioritize in code for civil abatement. What this ordinance does is move that priority list from civil abatement to criminal punishment and add some additional guardrails.

But I asked the question at the work session and still have the question: why do we need this tool? There already exists in code the ability to conduct 24-hour wildfire civil abatement and 72-hour generalized civil abatement. And I'm fairly certain— and the municipal attorney confirmed that just a while a while ago, that there's even quicker enforcement opportunities which exist for our public safety officers. So what does criminal punishment give us that the various types of civil abatement don't give us? I've been told that the civil abatement is too bureaucratic and takes too long.

But in several instances, is that really a bad thing? I'm all for cutting government red tape that stops businesses from succeeding and housing from being built. In fact, later today we're debating one of those ordinances. But when you're talking about totally uprooting folks and under the most extreme of circumstances, putting them in jail for the act of being unhoused and camping in one of the areas on a map which most unhoused people probably don't even know exists. I'm not sure that that is the kind of red tape that I want to be cutting.

And I want to be perfectly clear here. There are activities happening in camp— in encampments and in our community which are already criminal. Things like human trafficking, drug dealing, bike chop shops, and assault. In those situations, we should clamp down on the criminal provisions already in our law to keep to keep all parts of our community safe. In fact, ironically enough, just today we got a petition from 13 Anchorage residents pleading with the municipality that we enforce what they dubbed as, quote, quality of life provisions, end quote.

There's only one scenario where criminal punishment makes any type of sense to me, and that is this: the scenario where we have places for people to go and resources to use, but people are not making the decisions to take advantage of those opportunities. In that case, as some have said, our court system can push people to take advantage of those opportunities, and those who do take advantage can have their criminal records expunged. But I'm not convinced we are facing that scenario. We are facing an under-resourced system, and we've done our darndest to build up that system. Both the mayor and the assembly and the community have stepped up in huge ways.

That's the work that I want to continue doing. Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that things are all somehow better. All of our combined local efforts pale in comparison to the national forces that are causing prices to go up and everyone to become more unstable, creating a whole new wave of unhoused people. I understand that our community is angry. Our community is frustrated, and our community wants change.

You should be. You should be angry, frustrated, and demanding change. But let's make sure that those demands are met with an array of real solutions. My senses have nothing to do with compassion. I'm not some bleeding-heart liberal that is interested in continuing to see people live in filth.

So to everyone who has shared your heartfelt stories about negative impacts to your businesses and to your families and loved ones, I really want you to ask yourself the hard question: How will this ordinance prevent those situations from happening again? And should this ordinance pass, which I suspect it will, will you be back here demanding solutions when they do happen again. So for all of these reasons, I can't see myself supporting this ordinance. One brief additional comment. Several of the folks who testified talked about how we don't want to become the hub for the state and that people will just send their unhoused to us.

Well, I got some hard truths for y'all. We are already the hub for the state. We have been for years, even before I began my service in 2017. That's not going to change. What can change is us demanding the state to accept that, that we are the hub, to cut us the damn check that we deserve for doing the work of the entire state, and to demand the state get their own house in order so they offer adequate behavioral health health services.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Constant, thank you.

Hmm, there's so much to say.

I'll start by saying I had a sermon to the left of me and a sermon to the right of me, and I'll start my sermon with this: the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions.

Also, I'll add that there's a quote that's often made by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that the path of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. But the reality is what bends against us and justice is that the path or the arc of the immoral universe is also long.

This is a morality question, I think.

Mr. Rivera, you suggested that it's a resource issue, that the state needs to come forward. You've all heard me talk about the federal government and their failures. We're on the hook for $100 million a year of failed state investment since we've been in a recession. As a state since 2015. And yet the Anchorage taxpayer has had to pick up, as best as we can, the costs.

And so I object and reject any insinuation that this town, this government, this city has not done everything we can to solve these issues as efficiently as and effectively as we could with an empty bag left to us by the people who are responsible to pay. We are paying the bills for the entire state, and it's breaking our bank, and you can see what it looks like on the streets of Anchorage.

So what does this ordinance do? I'm reminded of Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 1993 Supreme Court ruling, which there was a quote, attacks on wearing yarmulkes is attacks attacks on Jews.

The arguments around this ordinance are that it is intended to motivate compliance. The reality of this ordinance is that it criminalizes being homeless.

That's what this ordinance does. There's no argument around it. We can tell ourselves that it doesn't do that, it's going to help motivate people to go treatment or to go into some type of pretreatment diversion. Those services do not exist. False promise doesn't— it's not real.

There is no money. And while we argue we're going to set that up, and I believe we will, I believe the people doing this work in our town are excellent public servants working without enough resources and with too much demand. That's reality. I'll keep coming back to that.

This map with the amendment that came forward, it didn't pass, is really excellent. The entire city is pink, meaning not— you can't go here. And so despite all arguments that come forward, oh no, there are places you can go, it has been requested, please provide us with a map of those places. No such map has come forward by the administration, but we did receive one from a member of the public who was here just a little bit ago. The reality is when you put the sidewalks into all of those maps, every part of this town is de facto illegal to camp.

So then we know that that's not realistic because we have the limited resources of our police department who can only respond to as many calls as they can. So then what is this going to do? Now, I believe in good faith the administration put this forward in beliefs. In fact, I believe in the good faith of every member sitting on this dais. But I don't believe in drawing the same conclusion.

That the Alaska Constitution protects a person's right to privacy and a person's right from cruel and unusual punishment. The Alaska Constitution is more extraordinary on these questions than the federal law. So the argument that because the City of Grants Pass was ruled on in D.C., that now it is time to do this, it fails and it will fail, I believe, in the court. In fact, in some ways, I'm speaking to you now, Your Honor, the Superior Court, the District Court, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, When this vote happens, this body is divided, closely divided. If it should come to pass, it will be maybe by one vote, which means your search into this law should be very careful and deep.

The simple reality is this: the argument is that we are not criminalizing it, we're creating better tools to motivate compliance. But we have substantial due process right now in the process of abatement that exists under the civil law. This proposal is an intentional short circuit of due process by its very argument that what we're aiming to do here is make it easier to comply here or there, or force compliance here or there.

Now, I came to office fighting a battle for a neighborhood that has long been the place where people could go and live in the mud in this town when they weren't allowed in other neighborhoods. Fairview was that place. There was never a map discovered with a red line on it that said this is where those people can live. But there are plenty of maps that show the, the restrictive covenants that were established to make it possible to say you cannot be here. But really, you could be somewhere, and that somewhere was in the mud over in Chester Creek and Ship Creek.

In some ways, I believe this will reiterate that pattern once again. How? Well, we all know the reality is there's a disparate impact in our system on people of color, Alaska Native people especially. So just by the very act, almost everything we do in relationship to homeless policy has a disparate impact on Alaska Native people. This doesn't solve that.

This leans into that.

Then that impact— we know this to be true the longer we serve and see how policies are implemented. Responses go— police responses generally, a lot of other responses go where the loudest or most effective complainers are at.

So in a system of limited resources where police can only respond to certain calls because they don't have enough bandwidth, the stack is too big, and there are people intended to be abated for camping, this is the reality. We saw great upheaval in the community when the administration proposed a car camping lot about south of Diamond.

They don't really, really see this problem, and they don't want to, and they're going to do whatever they can to stop this problem. So where is this problem going to be tolerated? Because that's the reality. The city is going to abate, and I believe this administration will be very fair, and in 2 or 5 years, Who knows who will come next? But what will inevitably happen with a law like this is that there will be certain neighborhoods that get rapid abatement and quick removal, and people will not be allowed here, but they will have to go somewhere.

And if you look at this map, there's really nowhere. So they're going to go somewhere illegal, and that place is going to be Mountain View. That place is going to be Fairview. That place is going to be the corners of Midtown. That place is going to be be Russian Jack, and that place is going to be North Star.

That's just how this city works. That's where poor people live. That's where they belong, and that's where we're going to keep them. And that's what this law does.

Now, I'm going to come back to the fact that I believe every one of you, the mayor, the member from Eagle River, the member from South Anchorage, every other member on this body, are acting in good faith. I do believe that. We are trying to solve a problem that is bigger than our ourselves.

And we have been left standing alone, staring into the gap and wondering what can we do. And for me, I just know that it cannot be to make it de facto, if not de jure, illegal to sleep in the streets of this town, because that is cruel and unusual. And yes, we need services, and yes, we need a place for people to go. This does not do it. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, there's a request for a motion to extend a little bit longer. Motion to extend by how long? What is the recommendation of the Chair? 30 Minutes.

By 30 minutes. Seconded. Motion expanded by Ms. Martinez, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion on the motion?

All right, go ahead and ask for a vote.

Is it open?

Member Raleigh?

Yes. Member Myers? Chair, I couldn't hear anything you were saying. I think the motion was to extend for half an hour. Yeah, that's the motion.

No, thank you.

On a vote of 10 to 2, the motion to extend has passed. Now Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair.

I also want to express my appreciation to the community members who spoke with the raw emotions that many brought. And I specifically want to thank the members of the unhoused community who spoke in public testimony as well. They showed up, and that's at risk to being known, being vulnerable. There they are, and that's a problem. But I thank them for being here.

I also want to recognize that One of the threads that I've seen running through nearly every perspective of these conversations has been, whether it's from homeowners or service providers and folks in recovery, unhoused individuals, simply people trying to go to the park or walk their children to school, there's a thread that has been revolving around fear. Fear of the stranger, fear of not knowing who's in control, Fear of the systems that have failed us.

Fear of change. And most powerfully, fear of doing nothing.

Now that fear of doing nothing has been catapulted into this particular ordinance that's before us for discussion.

And that fear isn't only owned by one side, it's all across the board, and it tells me something important. It tells me that we may not be as far apart as we appear to be. There may be common ground here.

I recognize that we're in a moment of deep social distance between neighbors, housed and unhoused, and if we don't address that distance, we cannot build the trust or the shared purpose needed to move forward. I'm going to pause and just highlight on a video I recently was involved with myself, just an illustration of this particular moment in time. I had a constituent who knows they're a constituent, they're a homeowner, they know it, and they called me and wanted me to address vagrants at the back of their property.

I went to meet the fella, and I turned my camera on just in case. I'm savvy on the street level. I go to any block and I'll talk, but I know how to cover, protect myself just in case. So I had no intention of turning this into a public display, and that video was highly edited, what I did release, because there were some discreet moments. Oh, I keep it real on the street.

It's not always as eloquent as this, but nevertheless, I introduced the conversation because I didn't know that the gentleman wanted to confront these individuals, but he waited for me to be there like I was the backup, the guy from the muni.

Well, as I had the opportunity to just engage this moment.

I reset the conversation by introducing the notion that I represented everyone in my community, whether they were housed or unhoused. I wanted to reset the conversation about vagrancy from the individual who called thinking these folks were vagrants because they were where he thought they weren't supposed to be. That label is heavy and subjective. But it means things in law. And at the end of the conversation, closing the social distance— see, because I went to the back of the property, there was human feces at the back of the property.

And as the gentleman was showing me the human feces, these individuals who were unhoused yelled from across the way, "That wasn't us." I seized that opportunity to recognize that we had a shared understanding that people don't want to shit where they sleep. We had a shared understanding that that's not right, and that we all have to work together. And by the end of this conversation, they asked for some gloves and some tools and said we would help, but they also encouraged me that they knew that there were a lot of drug addicts and a lot of folks all around the community, and they felt safer by themselves, not with big massive groups, and that they would keep the troublesome folks away. I just report, I check on that. This is about a month or so ago.

I don't believe I've had any calls from that area with respect to abatements or other actions. I think the abatement processes are working in our community, but that's not one of the areas. And I pointed that out, Chair, because it's about these conversations that we don't seem to have. With each other as a neighbor level, let alone the unhoused folks who are the strangers and they are not classified as neighbors. I want to point something else out too that I constantly remind folks in this community.

We don't have enough code enforcement to drive around enforcing code on your bad neighbors. But when we do and they're mad at us, they don't realize you called on them. It's the neighbor who called on the other neighbor who triggers a code enforcement action usually, it's not usually because we drove around and saw something that egregious. I just wanted to point that out because at a certain point, we're willing to talk about people, but I don't know that we're talking with them in the same way that we need to. Now, I've walked these streets, I've talked to folks in these doorways, and I've recognized that one of the conditions that I thought about most important, and Chair, I wrote an op-ed, and in my op-ed, I have a live and let live, more of a libertarian progressive attitude, a right to choose to fail, but you just can't choose to fail in our schoolyard.

You can't choose to fail in certain areas. I believe in that. But that conversation is a different conversation than the criminalization of a blanket slate of who that person is. Because I also introduced two resolutions that are on the dais tonight, one that focuses on the state's failure for the mental health crisis all across the state. Across the state and how Anchorage is the hub of that.

And how we're picking up the pieces with the best resources that we can, but we don't have all the resources in place. Our administration's doing a good job, and I asked for them to give me a report on what the work that they're doing is and where those gaps are so we as a community can center our focus. I had 3 resol— 3 amendments for this particular item tonight. 2, We're going to introduce language around protecting behavioral and mental health folks who are in our community, highly vulnerable, who need care, not criminalization first. But the amount of work it took to get those resolutions on through turned me into a lemonade man.

If the sky gives us lemons, I'm a person who will make lemonade. But at a certain point, we're too far different from the values where enforcement comes first, then compassion, or then the response of inclusiveness to do the work that it needs to be done, then there's too many lemons to make any lemonade, and we're going to have to start from a different perspective. And so I just wanted to share, Chair, one of the things that really stuck out in my mind as we have folks trying to grapple with very complex things and often using shorthands, was that one of the things was about criminalizing sleeping, or outdoors, outside, for a certain amount of time, and it was the definitions of what it means to sleep outside. And the first thought in my mind was, "Ain't nobody gonna criminalize siesta." Now, you have to have a cultural reference, maybe, but there lies a real fundamental difference. What is the culture that's driving these outcomes?

The culture of fear, or the culture of recognizing that we're all different and we all need a place to be and a place to stay and a place dignity. And so, Chair, I push for these things because I want it to really be helpful. I hope that they lay out a courseway for us to move forward. I believe we have the laws on the books, and it raises the question, how come we can't enforce what's on the books? And it raises the question that if with a new tool you're going to enforce what's on the books, well, I just don't believe it.

Roll up, have the conversations, and let's get serious. Let's invest in these these systems that we know have failed. But Chair, one last thought. This body recently passed an economic development framework built on four principles. And maybe it was a shorthand of me to call it the economic development framework when it should have been called the community and economic development framework.

But essentially, it's four pillars, and I run policy through this test. The four pillars are economic truth, truth, stackable return on investment, preemptive resiliency, and equity. Let's deal with the test first. This ordinance does not tell the truth about the cost of criminalizing this particular classification of individuals doing these things. It does not talk about the cost to the police.

It does not talk about the cost to the interaction of police. And fundamentally, I want to see patrol in a neighborhood where it feels good knowing that they're patrolling the neighborhood, I don't want them sidetracked. I want specialists focused on a public health response. Let's tell the truth. Stackable return on investment.

This does not build capacity. This does not expand services. Does not create scalable solutions. Everyone acknowledges that. I don't believe in deferring progress and justice.

That if housing delayed is Essentially justice denied. So you have to be able to tell me and explain how, if we do this, we build an investment strategy that creates something more meaningful than just having folks pushed around and playing the whack-a-mole that we've seen so long happen in our community. Chair, I focused on preemptive resiliency. This does not help prevent the next crisis. In our community, we have a high amount of financial and housing insecure individuals who are one check away from being out on the streets.

In my district, individuals are more likely to have two jobs than to own two homes. These are working families who need both the safe places in their community but they also need a city whose values are going to tell them that if they fall in the cracks, they're not going to be left out in the cold, they're not going to be left to die. And we've had a number of deaths in our community that should tell us to do something. And Sharon, I'm going to close with this, the equity question. This fails to protect our most vulnerable residents.

Those who cannot comply because of trauma, disabilities, severe mental illness, behavioral issues, When we ask the housing folks the question, "How come people can't take permanent housing?" two answers usually happen. They choose not to, or they're unable to sustain it. The unable to sustain it is a challenge I want us to focus all of our engines on with respect to making sure that the most vulnerable people who cannot help themselves are not left to die in our community. And if that's not the first step, step back to what Ms. Baldwin-Day mentioned of sequentialing this thing, then I don't know where we are today. I tried my best to make some lemonade out of this chair.

I hope we've established a pathway forward. I don't know if this will move forward, but I do know that we need to get a little past the fear, close the social distance, and let's really invest in the things that we know that this particular issue has highlighted— mental health, behavioral health stabilization in our community, and real investments in housing. Those are what everybody feels we need. I heard that uniformly. And let's decrease the social distance, remove the trust, by let's remembering we're all neighbors no matter where we are, no matter what our housing situation is.

I'll be voting no on this, but I hope to be voting yes for the strategic investments that we need to continue to solve these problems together. Thank you, Chair. Next is Miss Brawley, then Mr. Presverdia, then Mr. Myers.

Yeah, thanks. I know a lot has been said tonight. I'm going to say just a bit more and a couple additional points. First, I do hear people who want this ordinance because they feel angry and unsafe, but what I'm hearing from the public is not so much debate over the legal or the policy nuances of this policy, it really boils down to being a plea for the city to do something. And I agree, we need to do more.

I think my colleagues have spoken amply to that. I don't hear anybody arguing that what's happening outside right now is acceptable or desirable or that it's good for anybody. So I think we need to just center that and remind ourselves that. There's also been this narrative though, that because what's happening outside is unacceptable and that people are frustrated, therefore everything we've done in the last few years must not be working and it's all just a waste of money. And I appreciate that many people do not make that argument, but I've heard it more often than should at this point.

So I would invite folks who think that way to, to first consider the cost of housing and what happens when you can't pay rent or when you can't pay your mortgage, when you have a medical emergency. Money does not come from nowhere. So when you don't have it, you get kicked out of your house. Then consider what this town would look like if we had not invested in affordable housing and mental health first responders the MCT and the MIT, if we had not gotten $4 million from the state to keep our shelter open year-round? How many more people would have been outside if we had done none of that in the last 5 years?

Would we be in a better place? Was that money really a waste? I don't believe it was. And I think we should remember that we— it's easy to talk about the hypothetical other thing that could have happened or didn't happen, but the reality is that it would have been worse if we had not hustled like hell to get people into housing and into services. But in the end, though, I've learned while sitting in this seat that everything boils down essentially to what people believe.

So for some folks, it doesn't matter how many stacks of evidence there are about Housing First. It doesn't matter how much we communicate about what we spent on, why we spent it on that, the impacts that it's had, the outcomes that it's had, the positive stories that we've seen from folks who are served in those programs. And my colleagues have already pointed out, the hand that we've been dealt by the rest of the state and by the country and by society at large. In the end, though, none of that really matters if people just don't believe it's true. So for this ordinance, I'm going to use that standard and the standard that we've apparently come to accept in Anchorage homelessness policy, at least in some quarters, that it comes down to what we believe.

People want this ordinance because they believe it will prevent finding needles in the park. It won't do that. Or that they won't have difficult interactions in public places. It won't do that. I understand that there are, as Mr. Contos said, well-meaning intention behind this, but I also don't believe that institutionalizing people or threatening institutionalization will fix them.

So I just don't believe that this is going to actually achieve what it's intended to do, and so I'm a no. Thanks.

Next, Mr. Presverdia, patiently waiting. Thank you. Boy, if I were in the audience, I would be confused about what this ordinance is even about, because now it's about everything. And so first, I just want to start like others and thank everyone for their participation. Thank you to the mayor and the sponsors for bringing this forward.

Thank you to the community for coming out and speaking about it. I appreciate the conversation. Our job is to, to make an informed decision. And what this does is it clarifies existing law.

There are some simple things that it does. It's not about criminalizing homelessness. It's about making sure police have a legal way to act in specific areas, in specific circumstances where camping poses a serious risk. Risk. Enforcement will be rare.

The ordinance is intended as a management tool, not to generate arrests. The mayor and the police chief have already stated that clearly. It applies only to sensitive areas within 200 feet of trails and 500 feet of schools and public lands where hard-sided structures are built. It's one piece of, as we've heard, in a much larger plan that includes housing, treatment beds, shelter, outreach, crisis response. It doesn't replace those efforts.

I believe deeply, I think like many of my colleagues, that the solution to homelessness is housing and that that's the path that we need to moving, moving people on.

But in the meantime, we also need to ensure that we have public safety, protect our sensitive areas, and give law enforcement the tools they need to respond when the systems fail. This ordinance is not a silver bullet. We heard clearly from, from the police chief a scenario where it would be used in a very discreet way after all other opportunities have been tried. So, you know, I think we need to sort of come back to reality for a second that this is one ordinance. We're going to hopefully pass it tonight, so that it can be added to the toolbox that we have, and we will monitor it closely.

And as chair of the Public Health and Safety Committee, I commit to making sure that we bring the police chief to this, to the meeting, and ensure that we understand whether this is working or not. But in the meantime, I think the best path forward is to approve this and give the mayor and the police chief the opportunity to add this to their tool chest and to continue to move forward in solving the problem we have. Thanks. Mr. Myers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel a little unprepared tonight because I feel like I should have a speech written. Seems like everybody else did. My question, I guess, to the administration is, I heard Ms. Baldwin-Day ask, if we have laws in our books, then why aren't they getting enforced?

We spent over 2.5 hours talking about this this meeting and then a special meeting last Friday.

I'm frankly at a loss.

We're talking about 1% of the population. What about the other 99% of the residents of Anchorage who pay taxes, who want to go visit the parks, who want to go walk on the trails without getting accosted by homeless people or watching vagrants or somebody shooting up in the park or shooting on the sidewalk, as Member Martinez said. So I mean, obviously I'm a yes for this, but I'm shocked that we're spending so much time on this. And for that, I'd call the question. Second.

Motion to call the question by Mr. Myers. Who was the second? Mr. Gerker. Question is before us.

Mr. Myers? Yes. Miss Brawley?

Yeah.

On a vote of 10 to 2, the question has been called. We'll have the question. Hold on, I need to fix it.

Member Myers? Absolutely yes. Member Brawley? No.

Good job. Good job. On a vote of 7 to 5, AO 2025-74S2 as amended— Point of order. Point of order, sir. —Has passed the body.

I'm going to read that again.

On a vote— on a vote of 7 to 5, AO 2025-74S2 as amended has passed the body. We're going to take a 10-minute break.

On the record now.

Next item on the agenda is item 11A, which is AR 2025-191, a resolution of Anchorage Assembly recognizing an ongoing public health and safety crisis resulting from systemic failures in the state of Alaska's behavioral health system, acknowledging its disproportionate impact on Anchorage's communities and economy, and directing the municipal attorney to pursue all legal remedies. Uh, we had our public— I don't know, it's a resolution, so we The action was postponed from 6/10/2025 with no motion pending. What's the will of the body?

Chair, move to postpone. Motion to postpone to the meeting of August 12th at the request of the administration to continue to work together on this item as it relates to a strategy of advocacy. So there's a motion to postpone to the meeting of August 12th, and seconded by— made by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Mr. Voland. Okay, Mr. Martinez, anymore? That it?

No. Any other discussion, members? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes. Member Brawley? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2025-191 will be back for us on August 12th. Next, we have item 11B, Resolution AR 2025-192, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly strongly encouraging the administration of the Anchorage Health Department to develop a dedicated strategy for engaging individuals living unsheltered who suffer from untreated serious mental illness or behavioral health conditions, to collaborate with partners to advance health-based interventions and stable Facilities. This item action was postponed from 6/10/2025 with no motion pending. There's also a substitute version, same title. What's the will of the body?

Chair, I'm going to move to postpone this into the meeting of July 5th, uh, 29th. Second. Motion to postpone to July 29th made by Mr. Martinez, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any more to discuss for that? Just for the members and chair, uh, but continuing to refine and work with members and folks in the administration to bring these alongside together, the extra time is warranted.

Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, no members may proceed to vote. Motion is to postpone.

Member Brawley?

Yes. Member Myers?

Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR-2025-192 has been postponed to the meeting of July 29th. Next we have Item 11C, AO-2025-63, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.05.010 to allow self-storage uses within B-3 zoning districts only reviewed and approved as a conditional use. Action was postponed from 6/10. Motion to approve on the floor, moved by Member Rivera, seconded by Member Vuong. Mr. Rivera, you want to speak to it?

Actually, I believe Member Brawley has a motion to make. Miss Brawley? Yeah, thank you. I'd like to move to postpone to the meeting of August 12th. I could speak to—.

A second. Motion to postpone to August 12th, is that what you said?

Yes, all right, motion to postpone is made by Miss Brawley to August 12th, seconded by Mr. Rivera. OK, Miss Brawley, you want to speak to that?

Yeah, thank you. I shared this in Rules Committee as well. Just briefly, this sparked a lot of discussion about more housing in B3, and so I am also working on a second ordinance that I think should really be considered alongside this one. So that gives ample time for that other ordinance to be in introduced on the 29th, and then both would come back on the 12th. Thanks.

All right, any further discussion? I see someone in the queue. Mr. Bond. Um, thank you, Mr.

Chair. I— so my amendment to this failed, which would have, um, made it just not a permitted use in B-3. Um, I still feel pretty strongly that that is the right policy call, but I'm one of 12, and I understand that. However, with what Member Brawley is working on, and I would like to join her in that effort, I think that ordinance and this along with my amendment— in some of the discussion on my amendment, there was the point raised that this had not— that my amendment would have been maybe taking this a little further than folks felt comfortable without the Planning and Zoning Commission review. So what I would like the opportunity to do is to package this and Member Brawley's ordinance, which as I understand it would define like a schaus, or, you know, you have storage with a residence attached, and my amendment and put that all together and refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

So I'm going to, to, to make the motion to refer this to PZC.

With a motion to refer by Mr. Volante, seconded by Ms. Silvers.

Wait.

Yeah, so the secondary motion is in order, the motion to refer. So, um, it takes precedence at this time. The question before the members is a motion to refer. Did you want to speak further to it, Mr. Vaughn, first? No, you don't need a third for some of the body.

Yeah, so, you know, I really— I support this ordinance even as a standalone, but I think that there's broader questions around found, you know, B-3, the B-3 zone, as our most flexible zone where we have seen over the past decade the most multi-family residential development. And we've— I've brought forward that memo and other ordinances that along with this one, but I just think it's really pertinent. And I also think, you know, as we are considering other things like transit supportive development overlays and which uses create safe, walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use neighborhoods, and what are, what are the uses that are more people-centric versus what are the uses that are more car-centric, and how do we want to build out our city with the, the limited supply of land that we have. And so I think that the, you know, I actually on Monday night I attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I sat way in the, in the, almost in the back row on that side, and I listened to— there was the work session and then the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as they discussed the transit supportive overlay.

And it was just, it was thoughtful discussion by the commission members. I felt like they raised excellent points on, on that legislation, and I had some takeaways, and I think probably, um, when it comes before us, it will be better informed. And so I think similarly with this, this can really layer in nicely with that work that's being done. Part of that overlay is going through the use tables and adding some uses to more of our residential zones and potentially removing some uses from the residential zone. Also raised in, in that work session was a question around, okay, downtown or B-3 or these areas that are, that are already more flexible than what that overlay proposes to do, how do we layer those two things together?

So I think it's just an opportunity for the commission to sort of consider these things in sequence together and have a more holistic view of what we're trying to accomplish in terms of walkable, healthy neighborhoods.

Thanks. Next, I have Mr. Rivera, then Ms. Brawley, then Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess just a question to clarify intent for the mover, and I think you responded to it a little bit at the end there, but I just want to make sure I'm hearing it right.

So is the intent mentioned here that both this item and the item that Member Brawley is working on, which I'm not yet aware of what that item is, but I'm assuming that that item works fairly well with this item before us now, that both of them in one case go to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Are we asking them to look at this, these two items separately? Thank you. Um, I think it could be done in one of two ways. I think either It could be considered as a single case, as you've described, or this as a standalone could be referred to the commission.

But in the, the staff packet, in the memo, um, what Member Brawley is working on and my amendment could be included as supplemental information, and then they could also consider that, and they could potentially make findings. Hey, yes, you know, we see value in this amendment, or, you know, reading Member Brawley's draft, that might inform their recommendation on this. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I don't have any particularly strong feelings one way or another. I just want to make sure we're clear to the Planning and Zoning Commission as we refer it.

Thanks.

Miss Brawley.

Yeah, thanks. I just want to keep it to the postponement. Just procedurally, just a question. If we haven't introduced another ordinance, I guess I'm just wondering if this is referred, then are we giving it a date certain to come back, or would it only be a referral? Uh, just trying to understand how we move forward on this.

So maybe I'll take a crack at that. I think if we refer this, then they're going to have their standard timeline to notice for their public hearing. And the— so that process can start, that, that required notice. And then if you have the opportunity to furnish your draft to the planning department, then they could include that in the staff packet, and they can do that right up, you know, until the meeting. So we, we have a little bit of lead time there.

I'm not sure how far along you are, but I think there is potentially an opportunity, and you could, I believe, include that as a draft. I'm not sure, and maybe this is a question for Mr. Gaetz, if it would have to be introduced before they can look at a draft.

Do you want me to restate the question?

Um, yes, if you don't mind, please. So, Dean, if we refer this ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Member Brawley has a separate ordinance ordinance that is related to this topic.

Could, could a draft of her ordinance be supplementary in the staff packet without first being introduced to the assembly?

Well, the short answer is yes, I believe it can. I guess I would mention that Ms. Bravi mentioned an ordinance she's working on and hasn't been introduced yet. It's not before the body, so it's not something you could technically refer by motion, but you can refer this ordinance by motion, and I believe you could state your motion so that it would accommodate, um, an accompanying draft of another member if you wanted. So I don't see a problem with it if you would it that way. Great.

So assuming that, um, Member Brawley and I, and maybe a third member who joins us in that effort, are able to get our ducks together. I think that, yeah, I, I just keep my motion to referring this ordinance to Planning and Zoning with the hopes that we would also be able to include in the staff packet as supplementary info a draft of Member Brawley's ordinance and my amendment to this ordinance for their consideration.

All right, next in the queue, I have Mr. Johnson. Or were you done, Miss Brawley?

Yeah, I guess I'm just—. I want to make sure that, um, we either need to give it a date certain or not. That was really where I'm— but that's fine if we just refer it and then the assumption is it comes back when it comes back. All right, thank you. Um, Mr. Johnson?

Yeah, thank you. I just quickly want to thank Member Wallin for making this motion. I think it is no surprise that I place a lot of value on the input we get from PCC and their expertise. So I look forward to seeing this come back before the body and being able to make, I think, a more thoughtful and informed decision when we do see it. So I am appreciative of this step.

Ms. Baldwin-Dipp. I will take myself out of the queue, Chair. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in the queue on the motion to refer?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? No. Member Brawley? Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 3, AO-2025-63 has been referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

All right, next we have Item 13A. 13A is AO-2025-62, an ordinance, the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 12 to establish tax incentives for farmland, farm structures, urban agriculture, and repurposing lawns for food production and permaculture. There's also an S version amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 12 to establish tax incentives for farmland and farm structures. The public hearing on this item is open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item that hasn't yet been heard?

Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, the public hearing is is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move the S2 version, uh, the S version, Chair. Motion to approve the S version by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Ms. Silvers.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I'm appreciative of the opportunity to have worked with our counsel, members of the Municipal Attorney's Office, Mr. Bowman, and Mr. Kadame is from the, uh, our tax assessor.

And we essentially saw this particular first ordinance. The S version is a skinny version, as we call it, which aligns the municipality to existing state law that was recently amended to support farming. So we want to make that alignment there. We also recognize that the original— my original ordinance called for other areas of exploration, which I have commitments from the administration and from Municipal Attorney's Office to roll into a series of other projects that we can better get a sense of what we could do with respect to advocacy to the state, and then also things we could do with home rule. Additionally, just to confirm, if counsel, Mr. Gates, would confirm with me, the S2 also advances the removal of the fees for the points of distribution like farmers markets.

Is that currently in my S or did that not make it? Mr. Gates.

Oh, I'm sorry, you'll have to give me a few seconds. No problem. So, Chair, essentially we rolled it to a skinny version, but I— again, I just wanted to flag that if there was one of the things we saw as a policy points of interest that we could roll into this was— and if it's here, it would represent the waiving of the farmers market fees as a point of food distribution that is critical in our community. So I would just confirm that that's in the yes version, but that would be the other addition. Thank you, Chair.

All right, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So first, a question to the administration. It looks like even in this limited version, this would have some additional requirements for the tax assessor's office and then would place some additional burdens on staff.

Has the administration considered whether or not they believe that we have the personnel to actually implement this as written?

Mr. Goodemus is approaching to respond. Welcome, Mr. Goodemus.

Hello, this is Jack Goodemus. Ms. Balsasser, so I think the short answer is yes. We would have the people to administer this exemption. Specifically, I think it's going to be right now the way that it's written. I don't think we're going to have a lot of applicants to begin with.

So, but like any exemption, right, it's going to take us time to, you know, review any applications, and, and it will take power, but we can do it within our, our current resources. Okay. I appreciate that. While I have you, Mr. Gadames, I think you kind of hinted at what will likely be the answer to my next question, is you do not believe that this is something that an exemption that will be widely taken advantage of, at least starting out, so it seems unlikely that it will have a major impact to tax revenues and who and where those come from? Yeah.

Through the chair to Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would agree with that. I think we will probably not see a significant tax shift. If anything, it will be very minimal to the point where we probably won't be even moving any mill rates.

Okay. Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. I want to be sure I'm understanding the sequence here.

Dealing in this skinny, skinny version with farmland and farm structures. So is, is there a plan either on the part of the municipality or the sponsor, Member Martinez, to follow up on this particular ordinance with something that would reincorporate urban agriculture and the repurposing of lawns for food production and permaculture? Is that a potential step Step 2 that is coming later, or is there— what is the plan as far as that goes? That's to me? To you, sir, or to the administration, whomever would like to speak to it.

Sure. As the driver of it with the agreement, I will invite Mr. Bowman to come forward to help us understand the way we broke down the projects into the first thing that is aligned to state law and then to the spaces of the interest and the ambition that is originally documented. Mr. Bowman.

Thank you. Through the chair to Member Baldemar Day, you'll note Section 3 of the S-1 version has a sort of a guideline that we've laid out for next steps. There are some challenges with those additional portions of the permaculture and the conversion of front lawns, under the current state law for what is or is not an allowable optional tax exemption. So one of the steps that's outlined is some attempt for advocacy at the state level. This optional exemption portion of state law has been amended heavily in the last few years, so there's some intention to try and see if we can get another tweak in the state law which would allow us to expand where this would go.

And there's also some experiments and investigation into potentially using the confluence of vagueness within the law, see if we could maybe fit some of this stuff in places that would be allowed under home rule but are not as clearly outlined within the state law. May I ask a follow-up? Follow-up question, Chair. You have the floor. Um, so just to be sure that I'm understanding, um, the, the, the full extent of this particular ordinance is in fact constrained by state statute?

Yes. Excellent. Okay, thank you very much.

All right, anyone else on this item?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers.

Member Brawley. Yes.

I don't know, doesn't work in my headset.

A vote of 11 to 0. AO 2025-62S has passed the body. Next, we're on item 14A. 14A is AO 2025-70, an ordinance, the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 16.55, Anchorage Childcare Licensing Code, to reduce burdens on licensed childcare providers by repealing Section 16.55.060, 16.55.060, 16.55.115 and 16.55.180 and amending Sections 16.55.170 and 16.55.250. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. The microphone's off.

Go ahead. Hi, my name is Miranda Walso and I live in Chugiak-Eagle River. I'm here to urge you to maintain some liability liability insurance requirements for childcare providers, or at the very least to require providers to disclose their insurance status to families in writing. Liability insurance can protect everyone. For families, it ensures that there's a safety net if a child is injured, and for providers, it protects against financial ruin if something goes wrong.

For the broader community, it reinforces that childcare is a professional, accountable service and not a casual arrangement. Removing the requirement to carry any form of liability lack of liability insurance for caregivers licensed for 30, 40, or more children creates risk and uncertainty. Families may assume their provider is covered even when they're not and can only find out after an accident occurs when it's too late. If the full mandate is removed, there needs to be transparency. At a minimum, parents deserve to know whether or not the provider carries insurance, and that information should be available in writing prior to the start of care.

Childcare is a critical service that demands professionalism. Insurance requirements and disclosure help ensure that that trust is built on clear expectations and shared responsibility. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard, welcome.

Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hello, uh, for the record, my name is Dustin Darden. I'm a resident here of Anchorage. Togiak Bridge, Alaska. And I noticed in this proposed ordinance, which has been motioned to be amended, the ordinance number AO-202570, it's speaking about children. And the removal of sections of licensed care providers.

And children are very vulnerable to what happens in this world.

And I'm reminded by ADA compliance laws, you know, like how you're able to have your dog with you, you know, or a small miniature horse if it helps you have comfort. You know, by the dog here, I'm encouraged by that actually. But children, should be looked after. You know, it's our job as a community to make sure that children are not taken advantage of and that they're provided with nutrient meals. The gentleman, um, Martinez, was reminding me of something we, we could add to this, incorporate that, that strive for sustenance growth of vegetation matter in the community, to make provisions for these kind of ideas, to grassroots efforts to make sure that children are provided with fresh greens, fruits, apple trees.

You know, we're We're making it harder for— it's— we're making it easier for child care providers. But if we're doing this, could we do some additional health benefits, like possibly mandating the prospects of an apple tree if you're in a B-2 zone and you're taking care of children, that you have some kind of prospects for fresh organic growth for the children. It's something that I think we could bring the two sides together where we all eat food, we all want the best for the children. Your time has expired. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard on this item, please come forward. Welcome. Please state your name, part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Yeah.

Hi, I'm Thomas Ezrella. I'm the executive director of the Alaska Afterschool Network, which is a program of the Alaska Children's Trust. We just really want to first off thank you all for hearing these items for ordinance and change. Especially want to thank the Anchorage Child Care Licensing Department for being open and receptive and listening and working with providers to address longstanding barriers that have prevented the expansion of childcare spots in childcare programs. Particularly I would like to focus in on 16.55.7— or 170(b), which is on childcare ratios.

This proposed change would move the state— the municipal childcare code right now that has ratios for children that are in kindergarten care from 14 to— from 10 to 14, which state ratio, and for school-age children from age 10, from ratios of 10 to 18. What this effectively does is help provide the ability for providers to provide care for more children. It is in compliance and meets the state regulation as well that we have found has been equally just as safe. This has also been something we've worked with, with a group of providers, about 33 licensed school-age child care providers here in the municipality in the child care licensing department for the last year and a half around securing this variance right now that many of our programs are currently using. This is allowing greater flexibility for staffing.

Most of our providers are still maintaining that stricter 1:10 ratio, but the ability to have that larger ratio that meets the state expectation is really helping address some of the systemic problems in our workforce, especially as the municipality— our school district has changed its school start time. That has put an additional kind of burden on our providers. This flexibility ratio has really allowed us to be able to accommodate those needs. So just again, want to thank the Child Care Licensing for the package that they put forward. Really want to urge you all to come out and check out some of our providers that are using these new ratio changes under variances right now, and we're really thrilled to see this being a proposal in front of you all today.

So thank you.

Thank you. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Dr. Jessica Parker.

I'm the superintendent of Little Mountain Movers Academy. We are the oldest and largest daycare center in Anchorage serving infants through K-5, and I echo everything everything that he just said, we are really, really struggling in this city. And a true testament to that is the number of child care centers that have closed. In particular, the infant care. There is now only 3 licensed infant cares in all of Anchorage.

I can tell you our waitlist is over 150, and a third of those are infants. I have women coming in that are not even pregnant touring our facilities and getting on our waitlist because they know it's a year and a half before they can get their infant in. So these staffing ratios, it's the first step. So thank you for putting this package together. I fully support the work that you guys are doing.

I would additionally request that you match all the staffing ratios, not just the school-aged one. There's one discrepancy, and that's in the infant care. It's 1 to 4, and the state is 1 to 5. I know that's just one child, but I can tell you, on the long wait list, that would mean a lot to those families. We are working really hard to expand our services, so I appreciate anything that you can do to continue to support child care.

We need to keep those alive and prevent more from closing. And all the other wonderful restrictions that you're lifting, like the playground inspections— that's really appreciated— the sinks, the bathrooms. We are working very, very hard to raise our staffing pay and focus on quality care. And that's really where our attention should lie. So thank you for the work you're doing.

Please consider a staffing increase in the infant as well. One other area that we could improve, but this is going to take some lobbying at the state level, is the square footage requirement for children. Right now, that's 35 square feet per child, and at the infant level, it's just not necessary. So it requires my infant centers to be double the size of my 3-year-old rooms. So that's why you're seeing the infant care centers shutting down.

They're not making any money. It's hard to stay in business. So please help us in advocating for those continued improvements. Thank you. Mr.

Bond. Dr. Parker, I actually have a question for you. Over here. Thank you for your testimony. I wondered if you have a view on the insurance requirement portion, liability insurance.

I do. We have insurance, and I think it protects us. So whether or not you vote on it or not, we'll continue to keep it. I will say that the insurance requirements for the grants through the ACE program are extremely burdensome. Some.

Those are above and beyond even the MUNI requirements. So I do not support those. I'm not sure what to do about it. We were awarded a grant, but the insurance requirements are above what is required for our child care center. So that I don't support.

Okay, thank you.

All right, anyone else from the public wish to be heard on this? Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Second. Moved by Ms. Solvers, seconded by Mr. Wallin. Ms. Solvers.

Yeah, I think it's, um, really important to go through and make our requirements less burdensome, um, while we still, uh, continue to keep up safety, uh, and I think that this ordinance does that.

And I would like to move amendment number 1. Second. Motion to amend by Ms. Silver, seconded by Mr. Martinez. Ms. Silver. So what this amendment does is it aligns the municipality ratios completely with the state.

And so that will ease operational constraints for child care providers and encourage the expansion of infant care services in Anchorage. I also think that, you know, this would be helpful just to align it with the state, because if the state were to make other changes in the future, we wouldn't really have to revisit it. We could just continue to go with what the state has. And, you know, just, I think, to speak to the, the safety of the child care ratios, the school-age child care ratio right now is 18 children, whereas in our schools we have 25 kids in a classroom. So I think, you know, that safety is still paramount in these.

Thank you. On the amendment, Mr. President.

Yeah, I want to just— I'm not sure to ask— maybe ask the sponsor a question on this. I'm a little confused because I heard the testimony earlier. Is this Is this moving the ratio from 18 to 10 and from 14 to 10? Is that correct? 10 To 18.

Why is the 18 crossed out then? It's showing the opposite of what—.

This amendment would remove this chart. This whole chart would go away. Oh. Why? Because it would align our ratios with the state ratios, so we would no longer need this chart.

Okay. So why is this chart in the—. This is your amendment? Yeah. Mr. Gates.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought perhaps I could help clarify a little bit. This whole chapter 1655 is basically adopting the state regulations and statutes about child care centers and licensing, except where it's modified throughout the other sections of 1655. So what we currently had is being completely deleted because we even modified what the state had.

And since this, uh, purpose of this amendment is to just follow what the state has, uh, if I guess our minutes clerk could scroll up Scroll up on our screen a little bit. Yeah, it's just replaced by—. We sort of— we're taking out all the text that were both in the ordinance and in current code. And if you could scroll up just a little bit more, I tried to put in here the table from state regulation there. So that's what will be in effect, although it's not printed in our code.

We're incorporating that table by deleting what we modified with And I hope that's helpful. Anyone else on the amendment? Seeing hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Brawley?

Yes. Member Myers? Yeah.

On a vote of 12 to 0, the amendment has passed. Now I have myself in the queue, Mr. Vice Chair. Mr. Constant, thank you. So I'm going to move Constant Amendment 2 there and get a second.

Second. So, um, moved by myself, second by Mr. President. What this does— I talked extensively with new parents who are engaging in the foster or child care system them right now and share them the changes and let them draw their independent conclusions. And to a T, almost every one of them pointed to the insurance requirements of in-home care as a concern for them. And rather than move an amendment that would restore the insurance requirement, because I think I understand the argument why not to, in particular that there's only one provider, I think it is valuable to have an assertive statement to the parents on whether or not insurance exists at that facility upfront before they sign a contract to join that childcare facility.

And so what this amendment would do is just add a notice requirement of information to parents that a statement of whether the facility has insurance coverage or not is essentially what this would do. So it's just ample notice.

Mr. Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, not to put you on the spot, but I, I think I have a couple more questions for Dr. Parker if you're willing to come back up, just because I think you're sort of our in-the-room expert tonight.

Um, so getting back to this requirement, um, for liability insurance, um, in some of the discussion around this ordinance, uh, It was identified that there's very limited providers of this type of coverage. Is that also your understanding? We're pretty large, so I feel that it doesn't impact us as much because we also have a school and a church. So we want to protect ourselves. We will get the insurance.

But for the smaller mom-and-pop organizations, It most definitely is difficult for them because from what I hear, these insurances are very specialized and they can only get them through certain organizations.

Maybe a recommendation would be insurance based on size of organization. That would make— that would make it easier for the smaller daycare centers to be able to afford the insurance. But for, for us, we would do it, no questions asked. Do you have like any information? Yeah, just a quick point of information.

I would offer that this insurance requirement is only being removed for the in-home care, the small, very, very small-scale in-home provider. So it's not broadly removed, it's just for that group. Um, do you have any idea of the expense of this liability insurance? I don't, I'm sorry. Okay, appreciate it.

Those are my only questions. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Um, yeah, I don't know how I feel about this amendment. I'm happy to hear if there's other members who want to weigh in.

I have— I'm not a parent, so I haven't been through this process of shopping with child care facilities, but I do understand that it is tough for my those that I know who do have kids and are navigating this process. It, it is interesting to me. So this puts forward this amendment that they would have to provide in their informational materials, you know, maybe a brochure about the daycare center, childcare center, whether or not they have insurance.

I don't know. Yeah, I'm not, I'm not sure how I feel about this, and I would— if there are those who are parents on the dais, maybe I, I would be, uh, willing, and, um, I think for my, my own edification, um, I would be, uh, definitely— I'd like to hear from you. Thank you. Miss Baldwin-Day, request granted. Um, so I, I think what's, what's important to remember is, is is that the intent of this is to lower the barriers for in-home care providers who are very frequently, based on the square footage of their home, the size of their yard, many other factors, already constrained in the number of kiddos, the number of infants that they can reasonably accommodate, um, to be distinguished from, like, a larger center that has has, you know, say, like, a commercial playground and is, you know, has many kiddos.

So there are, there are, I believe there's only one insurance provider that will actually insure in-home care because in-home care often runs counter to homeowners' insurance. And so the homeowner has to make a decision about which insurance they would prefer to carry. And that create— that in itself creates a barrier for a homeowner to also operate in home licensed child care as our code is currently written. So I, I want to emphasize that, you know, that the goal here is to lower barriers for very small in-home care providers. The cost of insurance for a smaller for a smaller operation, when you weigh it against the number of kiddos that that facility can really, like, accommodate reasonably, the cost per child of carrying that insurance is extraordinary and, and is a barrier, especially for, you know, a, an entity that's maybe just starting out or just trying to launch.

So personally, as a parent who's whose insurance covers my children's bumps and bruises and scrapes and whatever happens.

I was and would be very comfortable with my child in an in-home care facility that was not insured for liability because I have insurance that covers that. And I think we need to, we need to weigh that in the balance when we're thinking about insurance and removing that requirement for in-home home care specifically. So those are— that's my, my two cents as a, as a parent and as someone who's done a little research here. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair.

I may have a slightly different vantage point as a parent, um, and it really depends on potentially where I am in my life. Do I have insurance this year or not?

And so I've found myself uninsured at times, and my family in these various places, difficulty with difficult decisions. And I'd say that I'd like to know that a place has insurance because it makes— it'll make— it makes me feel a little better, especially when I know I may have a high degree of insecurity. But on the other hand, I'm interested in this particular point that has been raised tonight, and not necessarily directly, but essentially these small businesses meets the public good, right? And I wanted to take it, I'll take advantage of this particular note, Chair. As you know, I traveled to a national conference last week for the National Association of Counties and childcare is like the top issue in counties all across the country followed by housing.

So we're doing things on all of these fronts and the things we're doing in Anchorage are really out in the front and cutting edge of what communities want to do. It was a little disheartening hearing that there's some extra burden, some insurance work or documentation work with the ACE Fund, for example. Like, that's good to hear, and so thank you for bringing that to us. But when I think about this, I don't have a problem with the insurance requirement, but potentially, when we're talking about small businesses and the public good, we are thinking about how do we help offset at the cost of those insurance costs with grants or some other public support, because the public good is the childcare facility for working families. And so it's not just a business per se.

We need this mutual relationship. So I don't have a problem with that, but I think maybe we should be considering how to help remove the barrier of the cost, not to remove the insurance itself necessarily. Thank you. Thank you. Member Silvers.

Yeah, so I was one of the members that kind of brought up my concerns when I first learned that they were going to— or suggesting to remove this requirement.

And I think what I want to point out, after looking into it a little bit, I now support this, removing the insurance requirement. I'm not sure if I support the amendment or not. I'm still kind of thinking about it. But I do kind of want to clarify what the insurance does. It does not pay for your child's bumps and bruises.

It is not health insurance. What it does is it provides payment to a parent if their caregiver is negligent and is found found in court to be negligent. So I think I just want to clarify that so that we can kind of discuss this with that in mind. Thanks. Miss Brawley.

Yeah, thank you, and I appreciate the discussion on this. I do support the amendment, and then I also support the removal of that requirement. I feel like one of the themes that I've seen in multiple contexts, both within what the city requires and then just generally, is the cost of liability insurance. And I think just the cost of risk management. And I think it is something that we need to balance, right?

You know, there is inherent risk, as people mentioned, you know, if you've got kids in somebody else's house, there's some risk there. But also, you're choosing to do that instead of having them in a larger facility, which also has risk. And I think back to alcohol tax grantees, small businesses, you know, a number of folks have said basically insurance is borderline unaffordable, unavailable.

Or is actually unavailable, and it is a huge barrier for anybody doing business. And I think that's a much larger issue. I'll set aside my kind of global comments on the entire insurance industry at this point, but I do think it is really important to just highlight that we can't— that as much as we want our kids to be safe and we want people to be safe, there is an element of risk tolerance that we have to revisit, I think, because the regulatory pendulum swings back and forth on that issue, and I think we've gone very far in one direction, and insurance companies know that, and they will extract as much money as they can, I believe, you know, while finding ways to not pay claims. And so I think— anyway, all that to say, I'm getting a little off track because it's late, but I do believe that we should let people know and let them make that informed choice. But I think it's realistic at this point to not have that requirement in the code.

So I support, as I said, the amendment and the underlying.

Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, you know, look, for the reasons that Member Baldwin-Day outlined, I, I do support, uh, lowering the barriers so we make this easier for folks to, you know, fill a critical need that we have in this city for more child care options. Um, so that's on them, that's, that's on the idea of just removing the, you know, the insurance requirement altogether.

However, that being said, as a parent, I would want to know if somebody has insurance or not. So I do support the amendment. Now, is that— would that be enough to deter me? Maybe, maybe not. It might.

But let's let the free market, you know, work itself out. And, and so I support this amendment. Thanks. I have myself in the queue, and I'll just close by saying kind of where you just went. There's two sides of this equation, three if you count the muni.

But the gist of this ordinance is to reduce burdens, to promote childcare, period, full stop. So that is an opportunity benefit focus on the provider. At the same time, you have to see it from a parent's perspective. And in my communication with all my new parent friends around who are using in-home daycare right now because their daycare closed last— late last year, early this year, they all have a reasonable assumption that there is insurance. Like, there's a reasonable assumption that people are going to be insured if they're going to be business.

And so if that reasonable assumption is going away, there's some form of notice that is reasonable to expect them to receive, which is the gist of this amendment. Mr. Boland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, this could be my own sort of naivete around this type of insurance related to child care, but I'm trying to think, like, for me, You know, as a healthcare provider, like, would I have to tell someone, a patient, that I have malpractice insurance or not?

You know, or how does that get disclosed? And so I think in light of Member Silver's clarification on, you know, what this does, what this is meant, you know, families receiving payment in an instance of neglect. I'm going to put the municipal attorney or perhaps Assembly Council on the spot. Apologies. You know, if, if a child care facility is found to be neglectful to the harm of a child and they don't carry this type insurance.

Are parents then— are parents left without a means of redress, or like, could they still— yeah, I guess that's my question. Thank you. Through the chair, so then they would be pursuing a claim against the proprietors or the whoever engaged in the neglect. They would be able to go after that individual's personal assets You know, if they went to court, obtained a judgment, and then sought to collect on it. Personal assets, sometimes, depending on the other insurance that individual might have, they might have personal liability insurance, they might have homeowner's insurance that includes a liability aspect, they might have renter's insurance that includes a liability aspect for, you know, things that take place on the premises.

So there might be other insurance that is in place that would cover it. There might be exclusions, however, for, you know, commercial activity. But other— if there is no other applicable insurance, they'd be going after the individual's personal assets, just like any other individual defendant. So, okay, thank you, appreciate that. All right, anyone else on the amendment?

Hearing and seeing none, members, may I proceed to vote?

Member Brawley? Yes. Member Myers? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, the amendment is passed. We're now back on the main motion. Any further discussion?

Hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers. Yes. Member Brawley. Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2025-70 as amended has passed the body. Next we have Item 14B, AR 2025-198, resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage adopting the 2025 Housing Community Development Development Annual Action Plan 2025 Action Plan. Waive reading. Thank you. Public hearing on this item is now open.

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

Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Mr. Presverdia. Do you want to speak to it, Mr. Rivera? No. Okay, anyone seeing here?

Non-members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes. Member Brawley? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2025-198 is passed the body. Next we have item 14C, AO 2025-75, an ordinance authorizing withdrawal of Heritage Land Bank Parcel 6. .075, Legally described as Tract F, alias subdivision Prince Edition, from the Heritage Land Bank inventory transfer to the Real Estate Services general inventory. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What say all the body? Move to approve. Second by Mr. President Diaz.

Seconded by Mr. Rivera. Any discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, members Please stand and proceed to vote. Member Brawley? Yes. Member Myers? Yes.

Member Silvers?

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2025-75 has passed the body. Next, my favorite item on the agenda, item AO 2024D, AO 2025-76, an ordinance authorizing the disposal by relocatable public use easement of portions within Heritage Land Bank Parcel 6-251 and 6-296, legally described as portions within Section 3 and 10 T-10 North, R-2 East, and Girdwood to Girdwood Mountain Bike Alliance for 20 years. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone should be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. Let's roll the body. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Member Johnson, second by Mr. Rivera.

Anyone wish to discuss the matter? I do have one question for Ms. Wynn Pearson. Would you just give the public the benefit of understanding what a relocatable public use easement is? This is the first time it's come before us in 9 years, so my understanding is that this is a mountain biking easement and that it's possible that it can be in the future relocated within this tract. Um, I don't have a ton of additional specifics on this exact easement, but that is my understanding of how it functions.

So generally, if my understanding is correct, like most easements are a point on a map, a line, a route that the public has used over time or is granted for whatever reason. But this one is moving, movable. If you want to get really wonky in the legal arena, I think it's more of a usufruct. It's more of like a use right to this specific property as opposed to an an actual tangible locatable item on the, on the parcel. But so it's a right of use, correct?

Awesome, thank you very much. That's enough being wonky. Um, we'll go ahead. Anyone else seeing here? None.

Members may proceed to vote.

Member Brawley?

Yes. Member Myers? Yes.

Member McCormick.

A vote of 12 to 0. AO 2025-76 has passed the body. Looking forward to mountain bike on these trails. Next is Item 14E, Resolution 2025-201, a resolution that could just— Assembly appropriating $2,001,000 from the Municipal— Municipality of Anchorage Trust Fund 730000 to the Finance Department for financial management and support services for fiscal year 2025. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Welcome, sir. 3 Minutes. Thank you. The chair, uh, Alex Livka, serving as chair of the MOA Trust Board. This is straightforward.

I just urge your adoption and happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you. Anyone have any questions? Hearing seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Oh, wait, was there— sorry, public hearing is now closed. Sorry, public hearing is now closed. I just— he's a member of the commission. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your point of order. So public hearing is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Presverdia. No.

Any discussion? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote. Thanks. Now the clerk caught up. Member Myers?

Yes. Member Brawley? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2025-201 is passed the body. Next we have item 15A, Resolution AR 2025-211, Resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating its conditional protest regarding the renewal of Restaurant Eating Place License Number 5257 for Jimmy Restaurant Inc., DBA Jimmy Eastern Restaurant, located at 550 West Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, pending satisfaction of municipal requirements and authorizing the clerk to take certain actions. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. President Diaz, seconded by Mr. Rivera.

R. Any discussion? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes. Member Brawley?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2025-211 has passed the body. Next we have item 15B, resolution AR 2025-212. Resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating conditional protest regarding a new sporting activity or event license number 16585 for Nana Management Services LLC, DBA Avis Alaska Sports Complex, located at 2801 Spirit Way, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, pending satisfaction of municipal requirements and authorizing municipal clerk to take certain actions. Public hearing on this item is now open.

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

Second. Moved by Mr. President Diaz, seconded by Mr. Rivera. Any discussion on this item? Seeing, hearing no discussion, members may proceed to vote.

Member Brawley? Yes. Member Myers? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2025-212 is passed the body. That concludes our business agenda for the night. Next, we have audience participation. Come forward if you should be heard. Welcome.

Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Your mic is not on. Um, your mic isn't on, but I'm still having the time taken, so okay. So, uh, Jamie Lopez de Sanchez, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. So anyways, uh, there's a lot of things I could talk about. I essentially saw the public— uh, okay, this thing is really going— uh, public sentiment was not on the side of the mayor in this AO 2025-74 S1, S2, S-whatever debate.

They came out there resoundingly and said, "No, we're not for this. You're criminalizing people based on socioeconomic status." But you pushed forward. And then it was essentially delayed until Tuesday for an inflection point, an event, the abatement of Russian Jack. Well, I tried to avert that crisis. I purchased 6 fire extinguishers.

It was raining last night. I went out there with 3. And I arrived at 8:49 AM. And so I was out there. Way before anybody came from the fire department or even the CAP team or anything else.

And there were no blazes by Lauren Maxwell. And so essentially they sort of staged something where the CAP team came in at around 9:00 a.m. and I made a joke to the various people that showed up, what are the payroll costs involved of this? And people were walking around all over the place and there was nothing. A couple firefighters were walking around just looking. Actually, they were out of, you know, sort of uniform, sort of.

And then, you know, there was somebody who also came up to me, a private civilian. We were talking and chatting. I was joking with him about, hey, I got this fire extinguisher from you, I haven't even had to use it. And so then at 11:20 a.m., this crew of forestry guys comes in, and I take video of this, and I'm semi-joking. I'm like, what are these What are these guys here for?

There's no blaze. And I mean, there might have been a fire 10 to 12, 14 hours ago, and they started tilling the soil, and then they started shooting water at this thing. And so anyways, to get to the point, it just seemed like a staged joke, and I thought they may have tried to stage something. But more or less, you made 1,600-plus people homeless, criminals in town, based on what seems like a staged event. The video was sent to KTU.

Lauren Maxwell runs this story. Saying, "Blazes all around." And I even went to the south side to look at the fields and— or behind the baseball fields. And I— because I heard that they said there were 4 fires over there. I went and I took a look. And there was a small little, like, burn barrel.

And it was close to a tree. And they hit it with, you know, a little bit of water. And then there was this other one that was about this big. And they dug up some roots and tilled some soil. But no, there were no blazes.

And so, this is sad. You know, if somebody had some honor and dignity, they would resign right now. I don't know who over here is potentially responsible for this thing, but you've just made 1,600 people outlaws based on socioeconomic status, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? Leave it on, please.

Welcome. Please stand. State your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Dakota Jones. I'm from Anchorage, mother of Jacob Jones, whose tragic and unresolved death is recorded with APD and Internal Affairs. I speak today from a place of unmeasurable grief. For more than 3 years, I have fought to submit forensic evidence, bloodstained clothing, photographs of visible trauma, and other materials recovered after APD exited the scene. Yet these items have been repeatedly dismissed without review.

I was repeatedly told they would go nowhere. Such statements reflect a disturbing disregard for due process and investigative responsibilities. Jacobs Toxology reports dated April, May, July 2022 contain troubling contradictions. Several anesthesia providers have confirmed that the fentanyl levels were insignificant to support ruling of overdose, only enough to numb his pain receptors. Yet the medical examiner's conclusions appear to have been guided by premature access and coerced by Sergeant Bianca Cross.

My repeated requests for gross anatomy photos remain unanswered, stalled in FOIA limbo. The department's refusal to release audio recordings from key dates coupled with selective disclosure severely undermines transparency. Most troubling was the final APD letter. I'm very disappointed that— what's his name? Case left.

It was unsigned, unaccountable, and lacking professionalism, issued in response to deeply concerning issues. Today, I respectfully demand an immediate reopening of my case, full review of all submitted forensic and physical evidence, a legal representation to pursue civil rights violations and wrongful death. I was told by the attorney for civil rights that the things I've told her is not in the reports, and there's audios of it. This is my son's ear. This is what it's supposed to look like.

This is what they gave me. Dr. Gallagher says there is no trauma to his ear. I have over 17 years medical experience doing surgery. This ear Gallagher is clearly broken.

Dr. Gallagher, the state medical examiner, is falsifying autopsies. I'm number 793 against him.

This is a public safety awareness issue. We have, what is it, 741,000— we're almost at 742,000 people in the state, and this man is falsifying. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Dustin Darden. The woman who just spoke reminds me of the case of David Nordlund.

David Nordlund was a man that was involved in civil litigation against the Anchorage Police Department and 3 named officers. David Nordlund was in the discovery process in the federal court in the District of Alaska, in which the last piece of submitted evidence that he gave was a newspaper article that implicated a number of the officers that he was filing suit against, how they were involved in an officer shooting of an unarmed man at a traffic stop. It was 4 named officers. 2— Some of the officers were involved in the litigation that he was presenting against Anchorage Police. I met David Nordlund outside of the grand jury rights protest, a peaceful protest, holding signs that said, "Let the grand juries investigate." The second time I went to hold the signs up outside the court event, David Nordlund was there talking knowledgeably, quoting Bible scriptures and his thorough legal knowledge of wrongdoings and our rights as citizens.

It was on a Facebook page, Grand Jury Rights. I saw his face days later and I was like, oh cool, that Facebook page is celebrating the fact people held up signs outside. That's great. But that's not why they put his face there. They put his face there because he was deceased.

And it was the medical examiner's office who was in the process of examining his body. And they deemed it a drug overdose. But then David Nordlund's case disappeared. And the last thing in the docket on the file for David Nordlund versus Anchorage Police Department at all involved discovery of the dashcam of the police cars. In the complaint, David claims he was injected with the needle before being put into a police car, and there are numerous accounts of individuals that were injected with booty juice that's used to calm and sedate individuals.

And it's very suspicious as to why the medical examiner's report has been removed. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? Please come forward. State your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes. It's on. Will Walker. I'm from Spenard. I first want to express disappointment in this body for passing 2025-74, mainly because I don't think it's going to do what the sponsors are intending it to do.

Not solving homelessness. I know that's larger than any one ordinance can do. But it's not really going to address public safety to a meaningful degree. It's just going to shift people around our city ultimately. And it's still— there's still going to be unsafe camps.

People are going to find the places that are less illegal to it to be, and it's going to be very confusing in the interim. You know, as we're looking towards implementation, the police are going to have contact with folks, say move along. Folks are going to respond, where can I go? And as things stand, there isn't anywhere for folks to go that's allowable. We already have, you know, camping is already prohibited throughout the municipality under existing law, and there isn't currently places where people can go.

Again, I think it's a sequencing question. We don't have places for people to go. We don't have the diversion programs and resources through the courts for— to address the need as things stand. And so I think that's going to be something that the administration, that APD are going to have to wrestle with during this time. And something I didn't get to mention during my public testimony on Friday, but something I heard during during the work session is that, you know, there's an expectation that the HOPE team is going to be involved in this.

And I would caution about that involvement because there's already a degree of kind of mistrust with having, you know, police officers involved in these contacts with unhoused individuals. And that's only going to be undermined if they're involved with kind of enforcement of this ordinance. So I would I would encourage using the HOPE Team judiciously with respect to this ordinance and, well, I guess now law. So thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all? Okay. We'll move on now to member comments. We'll start with Ms. Brawley.

Are you still there?

Yes, I'm here. No comment. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kirker.

No, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chair, no comment.

Ms. Solis. No comments, thank you. Ms. Roland. No comments, thank you.

Mr. President. Have a good night, everyone. Thanks. Mr. Johnson. No comments, Chair.

Ms. Baldwin-Day.

No comments, Chair, thank you. Mr. Martinez. Chair, as I often say, we deal with complex problems with imperfect tools and I appreciate the grace from my members and the public for the work we do. Thank you. Mr. McCormick?

No comments, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Myers, are you still hanging on?

I thought you might have left. With that then, I will just say thank you to everybody who is working really diligently to fix some of the enduring challenges that we face. It doesn't seem like it is getting any lighter, but we are here doing the work. So thank you all for that. With that, I I would ask for a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second. Readjourned.