Assembly Regular - May 12, 2026 - 2026-05-12 17:00:00

Is it a sign?

Or is it just me?

Whoa!

All of my life, waited for a sign to arrive.

Painted lines.

Round her eyes, her eyes. All of her life, call out my name, she rides.

Where there's no boundaries to have and nowhere 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 when you think.

Don't let these wounds sting. I promise soon, 'cause you're 4, 5, 6 sometimes to go. 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 Let's go 'round and spin it. Oh, oh, say I'm not very lucky. If they owe me something, let's go 'round and spin it. Oh, oh, I'm so very lost. Oh, things hadn't gone my way.

I've been on both lows and the grass is greener over on their side. Let me take you down looking the road after every turn. It scares me.

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, trees to hang on and nowhere 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 Oh, you, oh, you, you're stronger than you think. Don't let these wounds sting. I promise you, 'cause in 4, 5, 6 long times to go, you will be standing out, gazing at nobody else at fault. Think I did something bad, I did something bad.

Have a question, and they ask.

If they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all. Said 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, ah.

Let me tell you a secret. Let me tell you, ah. Let me tell you a secret, ah. Secret, ah. Oh, secret.

If your boo is sitting out gazing at nobody else at all, think, I did something bad, I did something bad, never wish he in the hell they ass. Say, if they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go bout it, spit it out. Say, I'm not very lucky, if they owe me something, let's go bout it, spit it out.

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 alone, or at least I won't.

Where I'm gonna go.

I hope that you take me seriously. I hope that nobody stays mad at me. Oh.

Oh, which way is up in your eyes? I hope I don't come down, cuz we're dancing on the words we didn't get to say. And now that you take me seriously, and now that nobody stares mad at me Enough that you take me seriously. Oh, oh, oh.

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 talk, let's do Take me seriously. I know, I know, but Ladi stays mad at me.

I know that you take me seriously.

Oh.

Too good, it'll do good. It'll all do good. Too good, it'll do good. It'll all do good.

It'll do good, it'll do good, it'll all do good.

It'll do good.

From such a stunning height. Every step I take, climbing far away from the noise below. Just another day till I reach the peak where my soul can fly. Mountains get me high, high up on my troubles. Mountains get me high, leave my stress below.

Mountains get me Me high like a peaceful bubble. Mountains get me high. Now I'm letting go. Let me go. When I look down at the world I left behind, everything's so small and I feel so tall.

Free But nothing could keep them at bay.

In the town of Fighting Gumrun Bag, yeah, seems nothing would stop them all. That's, that's, that's Satt ba the lake on the summer days. The wind through the shade, we for a cool place. To our Your subtle way.

What do I really care about? Am I afraid to make it known? What if this were forgotten? I hope it was not. What do I Really care about nothing at all.

I hope it was nice.

The dogs are all at play. Tell me it won't change. While putting off the work, delaying to just simply wait. To be tough.

[MUSIC] [MUSIC] care about nothing at all.

I hope it was nice.

On our love.

Somehow you kept me.

Yes, I haven't cried enough.

I hate, I hate when I'm sober.

Let me love you down. Let me love you down. Let me love you down.

Let me love you down. Let me love you down. Let me love you down.

The leaves are turning faster with no sign of slowing down, and the birds fly south so winter comes with the snow to blanket the town. The midday skies are clear and blue with a cool breeze in the air. You bundle up all nice and snug with something that's warm to wear. And the midnight The bright sun has gone away with the fall colors to show. A time to think on memories of a time I used to know.

All is quiet with no one around but your voice. The voice is singing loud. So sing away so all can hear, so the lost can all be found. And the midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors to show. A time to think.

Ink on memories of a time I used to know.

And the midnight sun is gone away with the fog comes to show. A time to think on memories of a time I used to know.

Around here everybody knows everybody. Their past lives documented to the closest topic. At what time does the conversation start and end? Yeah. Always the good guys coming to save us.

Promise a good life, thank God that you can. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came! Thank God you came! Thank God you came!

We want— we wanna thank God! The Red Sun now be working for the past month to hold them house on your wrist. To praise God. Spent like 15 workers' salary on your wrist. A place of chasing what you want, when you want, if you want, till it's up in dust.

Billions burning in the clubs. Oh Father, please, no chasing peace. I must chase green, but honestly, I feel a breach.

We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God. Thank God, thank God. The good guys coming to save us, promise a good life.

Thank God that you came. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came, thank God you came, thank God you came. Be a friend Till the end we'll fight. The good fighting and the lives you've changed, the effects you've made.

Is this the life you made for me? Always the good guys coming to save us. Promise the good life Thank God that you came. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us.

Thank God you came, thank God you came, thank God you came. Always the good guys coming to save us. Promise a good life, thank God that you came. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came, thank God you came, thank God you came.

Space. And maybe the moon's only pretty cuz it's far away. She only wants me cuz I'll keep In this place, it's all the same, it's all the same, it's all the same.

It's all the same. Maybe I can find Meaning if I look hard enough, the reason you're here is the cause of your tears. And I check every month, cut the loss.

Quite the lot, right?

Just you watch.

I'm better than this. Just you watch. It's all the same.

All right, good evening everyone. We will call this meeting to order. So calling the Anchorage Assembly to order. Today is Tuesday, May 12th. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

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

Here. Member Silvers. Here. Member Perez Verdia. Here.

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

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

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

Thank you, Clerk. Mr. Handeland, will you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

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

Member Scout, will you please read the land acknowledgment? The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge, acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. It is with gratitude and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. Thank you.

Next, we have minutes of previous meetings. We have the minutes of the regular meeting from April 24th, 2026. Um, may I have a motion to approve? Move to approve the minutes. Second.

Moved by, uh, Vice Chair Voland, seconded by Member Baldwin-Day. Is there any objection to approval of the minutes?

Seeing and hearing none, the minutes are approved. Next, we have the mayor's report. Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening everyone. It's great to be here with you tonight as we head into a productive summer season for our municipality. Before we dive into the agenda, I want to take a moment to reflect on a few milestones and initiatives currently underway across our community. First, I want to extend a heartfelt congratulations to the Anchorage School District Class of 2026 including my son Chris, our youngest and the last one in ASD. This is a big achievement not only for the graduates, but for the families, teachers, and mentors who have supported them.

We are proud of your hard work and look forward to seeing the impact you will make on the future of this community. In May, we also celebrate Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, AANHPI, AANHPI Month. AANHPI Heritage Month. Our community is home to a vibrant and diverse AANHPI population that enriches our culture, economy, and neighborhoods every day. We honor their contributions and continue our commitment to making the municipality a place where everyone can thrive.

This week is National Police Week. I want to express my deepest gratitude to the staff of the Anchorage Police Department Their dedication to protecting our residents and maintaining public safety is vital, and we owe them a debt of thanks for their service and their sacrifice. And I would like to express gratitude to their loved ones and family members who support them in these critical jobs. While it may not feel like spring yet, citywide cleanup efforts are in full swing. It has been inspiring to see so many neighbors getting outside.

From Girdwood to Eagle River to help clean up a winter's worth of trash. Thanks to everyone who has volunteered their time to keep our community beautiful. It's not too late to join in. The Anchorage Chamber has trash bags, those familiar bright orange bags we see out and about this time of year, and the Healthy Spaces team can pick them up or you can drop them off at the Central Transfer Station or Regional Landfill for free. Through the month of May.

I'm also happy to share that several major downtown revitalization projects will soon break ground. Construction is set to begin later this month at Town Square Park, along with improvements at Peratrovich Park. Together, these two projects will create fun and safe gathering places for all of Anchorage. Everyone should also check out the long list of concerts and other events happening all summer downtown. And this past weekend, Along with Vice Chair Voland and Member Scout, I was honored to help kick off the Downtown Trail Connection.

This project will finally link the Ship Creek Trail to the Coastal Trail, creating a seamless path for recreation and commuting. These projects are a direct result of the support from our residents. Thank you to voters for approving the parks bonds that make these investments in our world-class trail system and parks possible. Upgrades like these are essential to ensuring that our downtown remains a safe, welcoming, and vibrant hub for residents and visitors alike. As we move into the summer construction and event season, I look forward to seeing all the visitors, residents, and assembly members coming downtown.

Lastly, I am very happy to now turn back to you, Chair Brawley, for your first chair's report. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And yes, we'll move on to the chair's report. So good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regular business meeting.

I will commit to generally keeping these chair reports brief, but I will ask a bit of indulgence today because we have several things to highlight. So first, I want to recognize the new assembly sitting here at the dais. Last week, Vice Chair Voland and I shared a message which was also published as an opinion in the Anchorage Daily News to communicate our approach to this new leadership role, inviting the public to better understand the legislative process and to keep engaging with our diverse body. Just a brief highlight, as Assembly leadership, we're committed to laying a foundation of service, supporting our colleagues to work towards their goals, and strengthening the trust in local government that brings meaningful change to our community. Some principles for how we intend to approach this work: start with learning.

Local government is complex, and we work best when we start with information and understanding. We each carry part of the load. We have more work than the hours— than there are hours in the day, but every member brings something: expertise, community connection, passion for an issue they care about deeply. Lastly, focus on issues and find solutions. We won't always agree, and we welcome vigorous debate.

The legislative process is precisely to work through hard problems and arrive at the best possible solutions, and I look forward to doing that with you all on the dais in the next year or so. Next, I will reiterate that it is— that we'll be recognizing May as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. As the mayor shared, Anchorage is home to people from many cultures across the globe, particularly in Asia and the Pacific Ocean— Oceania area. And there's many local opportunities to learn, celebrate, enjoy music, dance, food, and unique traditions. I strongly encourage members and the public to participate, not just during May, but year-round.

I also want to say salamat po, or thank you very much in Tagalog, to the Asian Alaskan Cultural Center for Asian Cultural Night this past Friday at the Performing Arts Center. Each year, AAACC chooses a culture to feature, with this year showcasing the Philippines with a beautiful performance by the Samahan Filipino American Performing Arts and Education Center in San Diego. So mark your calendars. The next featured culture in 2027 will be China. Next, an update on the short-term rental registration project.

Since implementation of the short-term rental registration ordinance on May 1st, approximately 550 units have been registered so far. The clerk reports that implementation has proceeded smoothly so far, with registration applications currently processed within 1 to 2 business days after submission. As a reminder to those, uh, this applies to, units need to be registered by Thursday, July 30th, 2026. More information about these requirements, including frequently asked questions and a step-by-step how-to, is on the website at muni.org/str.

And thank you so much to our clerk staff for doing a great job getting that up and running and getting folks registered. Next, our monthly civic anchor feature that was discussed in our last meeting here at Lusak Library is the proposal for the Public Safety Advisory Commission, an ordinance which will be heard on May 26th. Visit the display in the Lusak Atrium or go online at muni.org/civicanchor by the end of May to learn more about the history of the Public Safety Advisory Commission and how to share your thoughts on the proposal. The Civic Anchor display rotates monthly, so I encourage you to visit regularly to stay updated on current projects within the municipality, whether it's assembly projects or departments showcasing plans and other things in the works. And speaking of displays, you probably noticed something new behind the dais tonight.

So to celebrate Anchorage's centennial in 2015, the Anchorage Log Cabin Quilters Guild members held a juried show of quilts to depict people and places significant in Anchorage's history in each decade of our community's first 100 years. This 10-quilt exhibit includes 4 quilts reflecting the decades since the municipality was established in 1975 and was first displayed in 2014 at the Great Alaska Quilt Show and then again in 2015 at the centennial celebration on the Park Strip. So this year, in celebration of our 50th mew-university, the Municipality of Anchorage commissioned a quilt representing our most recent decade, 2015 to 2024, which is there next to members Johnson, Park, and McCormick on the wall. The 5 quilts will be here on display in Assembly Chambers throughout the official end of our 50th year, and which we'll recognize in September. So check those out while you're here.

Finally, I want to personally welcome the new assembly members to their first meeting, and to help you get up to speed on our processes, I intend to go a little slow tonight and do my best to help you along, as will your neighbors on the dais, uh, to make sure that we're all following along. If you're unsure of anything, please ask for a point of information or talk with your neighbor to get clarification. We'll work through the agenda and procedures together. With that, I'll give just our usual announcements. I'll do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible.

So some of our usual ground rules: this is a business meeting. We are here to do the work of the municipality. Please help to create a climate of respect in the chambers. Refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing except when it is in order for recognition resolutions. Keep signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size.

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

If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption, I will give a warning. If the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. And lastly, if you are here to testify on a public hearing item, which will happen later tonight, please state your name when you come forward, the community council, or the area of the municipality in which you live. Please stay on topic and direct comments to me or other people on the dais.

I'll interrupt you if you're off topic, or you may get a point of order called. It's helpful if testifiers provide comments on any proposed amendments, and you'll have 3 minutes, and community council representatives or other organizations will have 5 minutes. And a reminder that assembly members don't typically answer questions during this period. That comes later during the debate portion, as public testimony is the public's time to speak. Thank you.

And we will move now to committee reports. So I will start with Member Handeland. Nothing to report. Thank you. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee will meet Thursday, June 4th, at 9:00 a.m. at the Permit Center. The agenda has yet to be published. I also want to take a note, Chair, that the Penya Market in East Anchorage is open and is thriving, but it will not be open this week as this weekend the vendors from the Penya Marketplace will be down at the Hmong Memorial Day Veterans Celebration on the Park Strip. And so I encourage community members to attend that celebration on Saturday.

Also, Chair, I just wanted to recognize that As the— I attended the last meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, the board meeting, and as the mayor noticed— noted, May is the cleanup month. But, Mayor, I would love for us to extend that all summer long. I just think that the roll-the-sleeves-up spirit of everybody working together and the way we work with parks and the city during May with respect to those orange bags, that we really begin to roll that kind of initiative out all summer long, because essentially a clean city is a hallmark of a thriving city, and I'd like us to keep it that way. And lastly, Chair, I just want to encourage folks to look at the last meeting of the Municipal Quality Services meeting. We discussed the downtown library, and there's some interesting information that you can find there.

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

Thank you. Miss Silvers. Nothing to report. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Perez Verdia. Thank you, Chair. I have a few updates tonight. First, the, the Public Health and Safety Committee met on May 6th. We had a report from the Anchorage Fire Department on wildfire risk and preparedness.

We also had an update from the, the Health Department on the 2026 opioid funding projects. We additionally had a presentation from True North Recovery on the, the idea of coming to Anchorage and what that facility might look like and more information about their organization and how they work. We had to postpone the, the presentation on Title VIII and the camping ordinance, so we'll move that to the next meeting. I did want to say that at that meeting we had announced that we were going to have another meeting this week to further discuss the True North proposal. But after discussing it with the two North Anchorage members and with the idea that we don't have anything before us as an assembly pending, we decided to cancel that meeting.

So if there's more that needs to be discussed on that topic, I'm certainly happy to schedule a meeting. Next, I have— we had a special meeting of the, of the Housing and Homeless Committee. At that meeting, we, we discussed the Raspberry Townhomes and the South Park Estates, two different topics, and also at that to discuss some options and ideas around how to work with the South Park Estates residents. So, so I want to make sure folks were aware of that. And then finally, just an update on the next Housing and Homeless Committee meeting.

That will be on May 20th. So please join us. Thanks. Thank you. Vice Chair Voland.

Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee will be on May 21st from 10 to 11 a.m. in City Hall Conference Room 155. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There is an open house tomorrow evening at the Elmore Permit Center from 4:30 to 7:00 PM related to the disposal of the, the disposal of the Tozier Track property that is currently held by the Heritage Land Bank. And we are seeking the public's input on what should happen with that parcel of land that's right there on Tudor, adjacent to a parking lot, the permit center, public transit, all of those different things. So if you have thoughts, thoughts on how that particular parcel of land ought to be used going forward. Please be at Elmore tomorrow anytime between 4:30 and 7 PM.

It is a come-and-go event and everyone is welcome. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Scout, I'd like to take this moment to thank the municipal staff for the helpful onboardings over the past couple of weeks, all of which were publicly noticed and have materials online for those interested in what it's like to become a new assembly member. And beyond that, I have nothing to report. Thank you. Member McCormick?

Nothing to report. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Park? Thank you.

And Mr. Johnson? Uh, the next meeting of the assembly's Infrastructure, Enterprise, and Utility Oversight Committee, the whole, will be Thursday, May 21st at City Hall from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM. That is all, Chair.

Thank you. That concludes reports. Next, we will take up the addendum to the agenda. But before we get to the addendum, we need to address the laid on the table items. So we are incorporating those into our agenda tonight.

I believe we only have 2 items, both of which are supplemental, so I'm going to read them into the record. The first one is unnumbered AIM 2026 answers to assembly questions. That is informational. The second one is supplemental to Item 14F, and it is unnumbered resolution update to a resolution approving a collective agreement between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, summary of economic effects. And that concludes the laid on the table items.

These do not need a vote as they are just supplemental and informational. So with that, I will ask for a motion to incorporate the addendum as printed and distributed? So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Bohlen, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Any objection to approval of this?

Seeing and hearing none, the addendum to the agenda has been incorporated. Next, we will move on to appearance requests. So we have 3 appearance requests this evening. They're in order. I'm going to read all 3 names, but ask first— the first person to come up.

We will first have David Gottstein, then Gary Morton, then Conrad James. So if David Gottstein could come forward.

And then I will ask when you begin to please make sure the microphone is on, so press the button, and then state your name, and you will have 3 minutes on the timer. Please go ahead. My name is David Gottstein. I'm from Turnagain. Madam Chair, members of the Anchorage Assembly, first of all, I want to categorically say that this is not about me.

The issue is that the Alaskan people are being robbed of $100 million of intended charitable gifting from my deceased father, Barney Gottstein. It was his intent to gift the vast majority of his fortune through the creation of the Gottstein Family Foundation in order to advance the interests of all Alaskans and beyond. My father's charitable legacy was supposed to become the second largest Alaska-based charity behind the Rasmussen Foundation, with the expected infusion of more than $150 million upon his passing. Instead, his charitable legacy has and is still being hijacked by lawyers who took advantage of my father when he was in an incapacitated state at age 90 after having suffered a fall which resulted in a major head injury. As a direct consequence, after which all control of his estate was passed to the perpetrators.

Tragically, upon the passing of my father, the foundation received nothing. We are losing more than $100,000 a week in charitable giving. There is as much as half a billion dollars of charity at risk in the decades ahead if silence and law enforcement inaction are maintained. Please see the letter from the United Hatzalah to show that the consequences of those actions are costing lives. This truly is a matter of life and death.

We are asking for a thorough and proper investigation, including an accurate accounting of, of, and what— and for the recovery of more than $100 million of missing charity, which if and when recovered, it will materially benefit needy Alaskans and the global Jewish community. This kind of investigation will bring into full public light all of the evidence of misconduct, criminal or otherwise, and to make sure that those who have engaged in any misconduct will be held accountable. There aren't any circumstances under which it is okay for the taking place of tens of millions of dollars from an Alaskan-based charity with another $100 million of charity also missing while law enforcement sits idly by and does nothing. We—. What we are asking of the assembly members is to take this matter seriously, and as elected officials, we are asking that you protect the public from the ongoing theft that continues to happen.

None of the appropriate government enforcement agencies have addressed this ongoing theft Despite having been given the same evidence that each of you have been provided with. Additionally, this institutional victimization of the Jewish community fosters and legitimizes antisemitism. I strongly urge members to speak out loudly, publicly, and that you demand justice for the Jewish community and the public at large. Please review what I am providing you with today, including the packet I provided the city clerk on your behalf, and look at the evidence, including the transcript record under oath admissions that you all have. In conclusion, I am asking that you take a look at the research and the investigation that I have conducted to protect the public and the charitable legacy of my father, and that you demand a thorough investigation by law enforcement.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. There's one question from Mr. Presvedia. Thank you. Thank you, David, for, for being here tonight.

I, I, um, I, I know you only have 3, 3 minutes to do your, your presentation, but I, I did read through your packet, and, and I guess I don't quite I don't understand what's going on. I knew your father. I understand your family, but I don't understand what's happening. I wonder if you could— we don't have a lot of time, but I wonder if you could just take a little bit and just in plain language help us to understand what's going on and potentially what role that we could play in helping to make this or create more awareness around this. Thank you for asking that question.

God bless you. For doing so. You know, my father and Larry Carr and the Cutties and the Hickles and the Rasmussens built and financed this town, and my father was very generous upon his death and wanted to give back in a major way. And at age 90, he hit his head at his home in his garage on 14th and E and was declared incapacitated. And his lawyer, who is a state attorney who was also the estate attorney of our manager and our CFO, who they brought this estate attorney up from Seattle, coerced him while he was incapacitated to sign new documents that transferred all control of his estate and the charity to them, and they milked it for $40 million.

There's $100 million missing. And I know it's a big challenge for law enforcement. The good news is I've done all the work, and all that has to happen is that law enforcement needs to review the evidence and take action. Perhaps in a private meeting, you know, it's complicated. And we're a victim of a large multi-state, uh, well-oiled organized crime elder fraud ring, and they're preying on Alaskans and others.

And so our victimization is the opportunity to uncover this and hopefully restore literally as much as a half a billion dollars over the next 50 years. I'm a money manager. I tell people my second language is English, my first is math. So when I talk about this It's really true. And so we need a books and records inspection.

We need to know where the money is, okay? We need to find the perpetrators. So please, please, please stand up. Make sure that we make sure that law enforcement somewhere in the state— the Anchorage Police Department has a wide open opportunity to do it, the state troopers do, the Department of Law, every division of banking— but nobody's doing anything, and it's a tragedy for all Alaskans. Thank you, David.

Thank you, Mr. Gottstein. Next we have Mr. Gary Morton. Please come forward. Again, state your name on the record. The microphone is already on.

I see he is distributing a material, and then you will have 3 minutes on the timer. Thank you. Thank you so very much. I'm Gary Morton. I'm privileged to be the pastor of Anchorage First Assembly at 15th and C Street for the last 30-plus years.

In that capacity, I've had opportunity to meet Mr. David Godstein, in fact the whole family, and my reason for appearing here tonight is to stand alongside David and encourage your thoughtful consideration of what he's bringing to you. I've known David for 20 years to be a man of impeccable integrity and honesty, and I think most all of you know that as well. He's demonstrated a wonderful passion for pro-Israel activism and worked tirelessly alongside my own efforts to bless the Jewish people in the nation of Israel and the people in Anchorage. And as his friend, I've come to understand some of what he's shared with us tonight. My heart goes out to the whole family and their foundation.

These alleged crimes, if they can happen to the Gotstein family, they can happen to any of our families. And so I'm encouraging your thoughtful analysis and your voice. I'm deeply concerned that there is something behind it that is deeper than just simply the money issues. I think there's an element of perhaps anti-Semitism. And so I appeal to you to arm yourself with awareness, with the material that you've been presented, and lift your voices with mine and advocate for justice in this capacity.

I urge you to exert your considerable influence, both personal and elected, to require that thorough and proper investigation and accurate reporting of the accounting. You know, it's far too easy for us to dismiss these things because they are messy and they're complicated. But that's precisely why I wanted to appeal to you tonight to enlist your support so that law enforcement will commit to do the messy thing, the complicated thing, the necessary thing. And most importantly, I learned from a pastor about 80 years ago who said 80 years ago, "Silence in the face of evil is evil itself." God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak.

Not to act is to act. So I invite your careful attention, and I thank you for your time. It is so very valuable. And thank you for the privilege to call you to action tonight for this urgent need. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Morton. Yeah, and I will note that we have the materials here, and so I think members will we'll take time to review them. Next we have Mr. Conrad James. Are you in the audience? Okay, I see you coming forward.

Um, please come forward and then I'll ask you to state your name on the record and you will have 3 minutes. I will also note that you are free to discuss matters other than pending litigation, so please feel free to speak. Hello, my name is Conrad James. I'm born and raised in Raleigh, North Carolina, but I moved here to Anchorage in December. Since I was here, I've faced major atrocities, not just of me, but of the other unhoused elderly and disabled people here in Anchorage.

It's kind of like we have a different mindset when it comes to the people that just don't have it. They're still doormats that people step on. I was— every day people driving down 4th Avenue right before post try to splash water at people that's on the sidewalk. But I presented an ordinance called Make Anchorage Native Again. I gave that to you guys last week.

It basically stops the revolving door, the revolving cycle of homelessness, elderly, minority, and disabled discrimination. But it puts them into a working class.

People walk, but during the wintertime, it's almost impossible. I mean, it's almost impossible for people in wheelchairs or using a walker to walk up and down the sidewalks. So they need someone to be able to carry their stuff. People have their entire livelihoods on their back. Um, so it creates a jitney program where people that are unhoused or, uh, can work their way into stopping unhoused and don't have to depend on housing vouchers.

Um, it also opens up an avenue for appropriation from the Housing and Urban Development sector of the federal government and the Department of Transportation and Department of Labor that unlocked a labor matching grant for $85 per hour for volunteer services for people that are unhoused, elderly, or minority that volunteer to help economically develop those demographics. It's an $85 per hour grant, and then the $85 $1 per hour match. So you guys could technically tunnel yourself out of this $90 million deficit by just having people that need to work, um, and are willing to work volunteer to work, um, and have the nonprofits and charities and agencies that help them out have the funding to actually help them. Um, besides that, it was great talking to you guys today. My name is Conrad James.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. James. That concludes our appearance requests. So next we will move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda is items 10A through 10G, typically routine non-controversial items such as bid awards, new business information and reports, and ordinances and resolutions for introduction. Items on the consent agenda may be approved by the assembly on a single vote by— on a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Prior to approval, items may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion and separate vote on each of those items. Under assembly rules of procedure, all ordinances and some resolutions will have an opportunity for a public hearing at a future date. So with that, I will start and ask for members what items you would like to be pulled from the consent agenda. So I'll start with Mr. Johnson. 10A2, that is all, Chair.

Okay, 10A2. Uh, next, Ms. Park. Nothing, Chair. Thank you. Uh, Mr. McCormick.

No items, thank you. Ms. Scout. No items. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Uh, 10A6, 10E4, and 10F2.

Okay, to double check, I had 10A6, 10F4, and 10— oh, sorry, 10E4 and 10F2. Correct. Okay, uh, next, uh, Mr. Poland. No items, thank you, Chair. Next, Mr. Mr. Bezverdia.

Uh, Mr. Johnson pulled 10A2, is that correct? Okay, nope, no items, thank you.

Uh, next, Ms. Silvers. No items, thank you. Mr. Gerker. 10 Alpha 1.

Mr. Martinez. 10A4 if it hasn't been pulled yet.

Okay, and Mr. Handeland. Uh, no items. Okay, um, yeah, one second, let me find my paper.

Okay, thank you. So we have, uh, 10A1 Mr. Gerker, 10A2 Mr. Johnson, 10A4 Mr. Martinez, 10A6 Ms. Baldwin-Day, and then 10E4 and 10F2 both Ms. Baldwin-Day. Okay, any other items?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then I will ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. So moved. Second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Gerker. Is there any— sorry, one second.

Um, thank you. Okay, so if there's no objection, then I'm going to ask for unanimous consent. Is there any objection to approving the consent agenda minus the pulled items? Seeing and hearing none, then the consent agenda is considered approved unanimously minus the pulled items.

So next we will move on and move through our consent agenda items. So first we have 10A1, pulled by Mr. Gerker. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Gerker, second by Mr. McCormick.

Um, Mr. Gerker— oh, I'm sorry, uh, so, uh, as these are recognition resolutions, then I will ask, is there any objection to adoption of this or approval of this resolution? Seeing and hearing none, we will consider it approved. And I believe Mr. Gerker is reading. Yep. And oh yeah, sorry.

And then Mr. McCormick is presenting. So anyone who's here for building safety and Building Safety Month, please come forward. Thank you. And you may go ahead and read. Thank you, Madam Chair.

A resolution of the Anchorage Assembly recognizing May as Building Safety Month and thanking our building safety and fire prevention code officials for keeping the municipality safe in the, in the built environment. Whereas the Municipality of Anchorage recognizes that our growth and strength depend on the safety of our homes, buildings, and infrastructure. Infrastructure, both in everyday life and when disasters strike. And whereas our building safety and fire prevention officials, architects, engineers, builders, tradespeople, design professionals, professionals, laborers, and others in the construction industry work year-round to ensure buildings are safe. And whereas building safety standards have proven their worth in keeping Anchorage residents safe during recent earthquakes, heavy snowfall events, and wind events, for example.

Comparative data from researchers at Notre Dame and the University of Colorado show the buildings within Anchorage's Building Safety Service Area suffered significantly less damage during the 2018 earthquake. And whereas the assembly unanimously approved AO-2633 on April 14th, 2026, which adopted the most recent International Building Code, International Fire Code, and the 8 other codes with several local amendments to modernize Title 23 our local building codes. And whereas, over 100 community members in the construction industry served on committees to provide expert feedback to the Development Services Department in 2025 and 2026 as part of the process of drafting AO 2026-33, which was ultimately recommended for adoption by the Board of Building Regulation Examiners and Appeals. And whereas, working together to build a strong system of compliance with these building codes provides provides a means to reduce the insurance costs for Anchorage property owners and increase the resiliency of construction for disasters, thus increasing housing affordability. And whereas Building Safety Month is an international campaign led by the nonprofit International Code Council to raise awareness about the critical role of building safety and fire prevention professionals.

And whereas Building Safety Month reminds the public about the critical role of our community's largely unknown public safety, our code officials in building safety and fire prevention who assure us of safe, sustainable, and affordable buildings that are essential to our prosperity. And whereas each year in observance of Building Safety Month, people all over the world are asked to consider the commitment to improve building safety, resilience, and economic investment in our community, and to acknowledge the essential service provided to us all by local, state, tribal, territorial, and federal building safety and fire prevention departments in protecting lives and property. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly resolves that May is Building Safety Month and thanks the many municipal officials who enforce building safety and fire prevention codes to keep Anchorage safe. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 12th day of May, 2026.

Thank you. And I'll invite anybody who would like to make remarks to come up. Uh, thank you to the assembly and to the mayor for this resolution recognizing May as Building Safety Month. Uh, as the ordinance says, through major storm events, the Building Safety Service Area performed better than other areas outside of the Building Safety Service Area. We believe this has to do with the robust plan review and inspections being completed on these buildings when built correctly.

The fire department has a strong firefighting team, but what isn't recognized as often is the 12 fire inspectors whose job it is to prevent the fires before they happen. This is done by making sure sprinklers are spaced correctly on plans to ensure proper sprinkler coverage, or by annual inspections to make sure businesses maintain proper access to exits. All these measures can stop a fire before it gets out of control and prevents loss of life. The same is done by our building safety staff, with 8 building plan reviewers and over 20 building inspectors focused on health and safety in both residential and commercial buildings. This work makes— work makes sure homes have railings at a code-compliant height to prevent falls, which account for over 30% of household deaths annually.

We also make sure your water heater and boiler are designed and vented properly to prevent carbon monoxide leaks from occurring, and make sure these homes have code-compliant carbon monoxide detectors to warn homeowners in case a leak does occur. All of this is only possible through the adoption and enforcement of building codes which lay out clear guidance for protecting structures from damage and keeping occupants safe. The building codes we adopt are written by the International Code Council, ICC, which updates the codes every 3 years based on public engagement hearings and governmental body voting. It is the 2024 version of this code that we adopted this year with the help of the Anchorage Assembly. The ICC Central Alaska Chapter is a group focused on issues related to Alaskans and pushes for building safety education throughout the state.

We have members that are building officials, jurisdictional officials, and also professionals in engineering and architecture, and contractors all participating in our ICC Alaska chapter. It's really great. This month, our ICC chapter is supporting a $5,000 rebate for the purchase of smoke detectors by homeowners, which should allow the purchase of over 100 smoke detectors. Research has shown the presence of even a single smoke detector in the right location can prevent loss of life during a fire. The Anchorage Fire Department will also be working with the Red Cross on May 30th of this month to install, install smoke detectors in Anchorage mobile home parks.

Many of our ICC members will be participating in this event. Thank you again for this resolution and have a great Building Safety May.

Thank you, Mr. King. Thank you for being here. We will move on, and that was Resolution Number AR-2026-119. I realized I forgot I forgot to read that beforehand. So next we'll move on to item 10A2.

That's Resolution 2026-120, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing May 10th through the 16th, 2026 as Police Memorial Week and remembering and honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our community. Mr. Johnson, you pulled this item. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Boland.

I'll ask unanimous consent. Is there any adoption objection to adopting this resolution? Seeing and hearing none, this resolution is approved. Then looks like we have Mr. Perez-Verdia reading and Mr. Johnson presenting. So go ahead.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing May 10 through 16, 2026 as Police Police Memorial Week and remembering and honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. Whereas Police Memorial Week is an opportunity to pay tribute to the memory of fallen law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our community and to recognize those who currently serve by enforcing our laws, bringing criminals to justice, and making our communities safer. And whereas the citizens of the Municipality of Anchorage fulfill an important civic responsibility by supporting the work of law enforcement in protection of our community. And whereas, behind the name of each officer who died in the line of duty lies a story of courage and devotion, as well as a deep sense of loss for the service, the country, and above all, for friends, family, and partners. We can never pay— we can never repay these gallant men and women for their service, nor adequately comfort their families.

Families. We can only honor their memory in our determination to forge a stronger, safer community, which they helped to purchase with their lives. And whereas, since 1897, 68 law enforcement officers have fallen statewide, including the following Anchorage Police Department officers who gave their lives in the line of duty: Chief John J. Sturgis, 1921. Chief Harry C. Cavanaugh, 1924. Officer Benjamin F. Strong, 1968.

Officer William G. Falmer Jr., 1970. Officer Jonathan P. Flora, 1975. Officer Harry Keir, 1980. Officer Harry B. Hanson Jr., 1986. Officer Louis G. Mizell, 1989.

Officer Dan R. Seeley, 1996. Officer Justin T. Woolam, 2001. Now therefore be it resolved that the Anchorage Assembly remembers and honors all those officers who have died in the line of duty by recognizing May 10th through 16th, 2026 as Police Memorial Week. Be it further resolved that the Anchorage Assembly encourages all residents to thank the men and women who serve our community and protect our citizens, and to remember and honor the fallen who gave their lives in this service. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 12th day of May, 2026.

Thank you. And I'll invite anybody who would like to make remarks to come up and speak.

I just want to thank the body for recognizing the, the fallen officers of the Anchorage Police Department, your continued support for the work that we do, and understanding the sacrifice these officers made for the community. And, and the sacrifice that our current officers make every day for our community to provide services and try to improve the lives of those we serve every day. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right, thank you.

I'll echo what the chief had to say, but I'll also say last night I was looking at a list of Alaska law enforcement officers that have died in the line of duty in the time that I've been in law enforcement in Alaska. And that's 18, 18 total law enforcement officers, peace officers, corrections officers, state troopers, municipal PD and APD officers that have lost their lives. 5 Of those I have either known personally or worked with. So I just want to say that I appreciate this honor. I appreciate you recognizing us, recognizing the professional men and women that protect this city all the time.

So thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

I had one. Sorry, um, Mr. McCormick, go ahead. Sorry, I was just wondering if the municipality has a memorial or wall or something, uh, with the, the names of the officers displayed somewhere in the city.

Um, yeah, I think Chief Case, if— I don't know if you know the answer to that question or can find out out if we can get an answer.

Uh, microphone please. Member Gurkar, I believe. Sorry, remember McCormick? Uh, the municipality is not— the, the memorial that we have honoring the officers is inside of headquarters, but nothing within the municipality. You said inside police headquarters?

You guys have a wall or memorial? Yep, a wall, large plaque with, uh, badges and, uh, the the officers' names and photographs on them. Thank you. You bet.

Thank you. Next, we'll move on to 10A4, Resolution 2020 AR 2026-122, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing May 2026 as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the Municipality of Anchorage. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. McCormick, second by Mr. Boland.

And— oh, sorry, let me start over. Moved by Mr. Martinez, second by Mr. Boland. And I will ask, is there any objection to adoption of this resolution? Seeing and hearing none, we will consider this adopted and unanimously approved. So then I will invite folks to come up for a presentation.

And who is reading and who is presenting? Presenting. Member Parks is presenting. I'll be reading. Thank you.

Go ahead. A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing May 2026 as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the Municipality of Anchorage. Whereas over 40,000 people in Anchorage trace their roots to Asia, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands, constituting a vital part of Alaska— of Anchorage's diverse ethnic and social fabric, whose languages, cultures, and religious beliefs enrich our community in— and the state in countless ways. And whereas love of family, community, and hard work are strong values for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, and embody the founding principles of our city, state, and nation, with Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander entrepreneurs strengthening our community, nonprofits, and community through hard work work, dedication, and ingenuity; and whereas, this month provides an opportunity to promote the study of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander history and culture and highlights the importance of creating role models and establishing a proud cultural identity; and whereas, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders have a long tradition of military and public service, with many serving as public employees, first responders, and elected officials in Anchorage and many serving or having served in the United States Armed Forces; and whereas local community organizations are hosting events this month to celebrate Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Island heritage; and whereas the Polynesian Association of Alaska, Alaska Federation of Filipino Americans, Incorporated, Korean Culture Center of Alaska, Filipino Community of Anchorage, Alaska, Hmong Empowering Advocating Reforming Together, Asian Pacific and American Public Affairs, and Pacific Community of Alaska will host Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Cultural Flag Day celebration at the Delaney Park Strip on Saturday, May 30th. And whereas this event will commemorate the first raising of the American flag on Tutuila Island in American Samoa on April 17, 1900, the arrival of the first Japanese to this nation on May 7th, 1843, the Chinese workers who helped build the Transcontinental Railroad, and was— which was completed May 10th, 1869, the arrival of the first Filipino seamen in Alaska in 1788, and the 80 Filipinos who formed the cable ship crew that lay underwater communication cables connecting southeastern Alaska with Seattle in 1903, and the recruitment recruitment of Hmong soldiers to fight on behalf of the United States during the secret wars in Laos, in Vietnam, 1955 through 1975, which led to the immigration of the first Hmong refugees to the United States in the late '70s.

Now, therefore, in recognition of the many contributions and achievements of Anchorage's Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander residents, past, present, and future, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes May 2026 as Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 12th day of May, 2026.

Thank you. And I'll invite anybody who would like to speak. And just a reminder to say your name for the record as well. Thank you. I'm Lucy Hansen.

I'm the CEO for Polynesian Association of Alaska. And I wanted to say thank you to Chair, Madam Chair, and all the assembly members for accepting this citation for our communities. And we would like to share this Flag Day celebration with all of you to please come down to the Park Strip on May 30th. And besides that, of all the community as well in Anchorage to come and celebrate our culture. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Yeah, and if anybody else would like to speak, please feel free to come up.

Hello, my name is Amrita Luwag. I'm the current president of the Alaska Federation of Filipino Americans, Inc. And thank you for recognizing the AANHPI heritage month. Thank you.

Good evening, Assembly Chair, members of the assembly, and friends from across our community. On behalf of the Alaska Chinese Association, thank you for this recognition and for honoring Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. ACA, Alaska Chinese Association, was founded in 1976 and for 50 years our community has quietly tried to do what we can do to help people build lives, families, connection here in Alaska. In a young state like Alaska, that is already a long history. ACA is even one year older than the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

Over the decades, our members have raised children and grandchildren here, cared for elders, supported new immigrants students adjusting to Alaska and help people who are far from home and feel less alone. We know that in a cold, wintry place like this, communities become stronger when people help one another. Many Alaska Native communities speak about values such as respecting elders, sharing food, caring for family, protecting children, and supporting the well-being of the community. While we come from different histories, these shared values create meaningful points where our tradition Chinese culture is one of the world's oldest continuous civilization, and for many of us, culture is not just about providing— proving who is the most authentic or making everyone the same. It is about recognizing the value of history, family, language, and tradition, and finding ways to turn these traditions into something meaningful for the local community around us.

ACA's Chinese school was established in 1984. For 40 years, generations of children and Alaskan families have learned language, history, and cultural tradition through our programs. For many, it has been a place of friendship, support, and connection across generations. We often say in Chinese, [SPEAKING CHINESE].

All for one and one for all. ACA's success over 50 years also reflected the strength and generosity of a broader Alaska community. Many people helped create space for immigrant families not only to survive here but to stay, contribute, and build meaningful lives. We are grateful to America for welcoming generations of immigrants and grateful to Anchorage and Alaska for giving people the opportunity to stay contribute and building meaningful lives here. Um, we're grateful to have found a sense of belonging here in Alaska, and over the years we have simply tried to give something back to the communities that help make this place feel like home.

Thank you again for this honor, and thank you to everyone who continue to help make Anchorage a place where many cultures can live, grow, and thrive together. Thank you. And can you remind us your name for the record as well? Oh, sorry. So my name is Mei Zhao.

I'm the board member of Alaska Chinese Association. Thank you. Yes, thank you for being here.

I don't know how much time we have. Just some brief remarks. My name is Mavis Boone, and I'm the director of programs for the Pacific Community of Alaska, representing both its board and the staff. A lot of our members here have actually expressed a lot of our thoughts and, um, stances regarding this resolution, I thought I'd still step forward as a lot of us are not represented here. The Hmong community is not here.

The Tongan community is not here. There's also the Micronesian community that are not here but make the fabric of Alaska and Anchorage. So on behalf of those that are not here, and of course those that are, The proclamation is more than just paper for us. It is recognition that we are part of this state, that we have contributed to the great state of Alaska. And it is also a point of recognition for our elders and our ancestors that set the path for us coming to Alaska.

From 36 degrees Celsius to 40 degrees Fahrenheit is a very big change. So coming here and building community, building hearts and building families is always part of our culture, but doing it at subzero degrees is something else. So on behalf of our community, at least as a Samoan, I would like to say that based on our— there is a proverb that we say in our Samoan community, "E le silith taina i lo chapwai," meaning that with leadership, it is not only with service, it is with the support of your community, meaning that those that are there to back you will lift you and you must always remember them during your struggle and your journey. So thank you very much. Fautaitela lava.

Mahalo. And bula vinaka. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you for being here. I will also— I was asked to share one other event on May 22nd. That is next Friday. Pacific Community of Alaska Pacifica Pathways West High alumni and Cold Front Athletic are hosting the First Pacifica Dance Festival at West High School.

Doors open at 5 PM and performance starts at 6:30 PM. And I hope to see you all on May 30th at the Flag Day celebration. So thank you again for being here.

So next we'll move on to our last recognition resolution for this evening. It is Resolution AR-2026-128, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly honoring and celebrating the University of Alaska Anchorage and the Institute of Social and Economic Research's 65th anniversary of service to the state of Alaska. And I see folks are coming up. So this was pulled by, I believe, Mr. Handeland.

And first we need— oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. It's pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Sorry. Mr. Bolland.

I'll second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Bolland. Any objection to adoption of this resolution? Chair Brawley. Nope, I'm not objected, but, um, the mayor has asked to be added as a co-sponsor.

And then I also— I know that this is one where the clerk's office did circulate to members to see whether they would like to be co-sponsors, but some of our newer members were still being onboarded and may have missed that email. So I just thought maybe we could provide an opportunity for any members who want to be added as a co-sponsor. Thank you. Thank you. And I see Miss Scout, you're in the queue.

Is that—. Yes, please add Yeah. Is there any objection to all members and the mayor being added? Not seeing any, so I will direct that. We will add everyone as a sponsor.

Okay, so this is approved. So then I will turn to— I believe Ms. Baldwin-Day is reading and then Mr. Handeland is presenting. Thank you, Chair. A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly honoring and celebrating the University of Alaska Anchorage and the Institute of Social and Economic Research 65th anniversary of service to the state of Alaska. Whereas in 1961, the Second Alaska Legislature, following the guidance of Dr. George Rogers, established the Institute of Social and Economic Research, ISER, as part of the University of Alaska shortly after Alaska became a state in 1959.

And whereas in 1966, Victor Fisher, who previously served as planning director to the city of Anchorage delegate to the 1955-56 Alaska Constitutional Convention and co-author of the Alaska State Constitution, became ISER's first official director and won a major grant from the Ford Foundation to begin building a research organization capable of broadly studying Alaska's people, economy, and government. And whereas ISER produced key early studies on the economic impact of statehood, the settlement of native, native land claims, the impacts of the 1964 earthquake, the well-being of Arctic communities, the growth and impact of the oil and gas industry in Alaska, and developed models for understanding Alaska's changing economy and demographics. And whereas, in 1984, ISER formally joined the University of Alaska Anchorage, UAA, with a multidisciplinary research focus on major public policy issues important throughout Alaska and the and whereas ISER's work, from published reports to presentations and engagement with the public, continues to help the public and policymakers better understand the state and region's changing economy, population, and infrastructure, the challenges and opportunities that come with change, and whereas ISER has fielded two teams for the Special Olympics Polar Plunge, a former staff member has received the Red Lantern in the Fur Rendezvous World Championship, Sled Dog Race. Another former staffer has won Mount Marathon. ISER faculty have sung in the Anchorage Opera and in UAA faculty musicals.

Two former directors have become UAA chancellors, including Fran Ulmer and one Edward Lee Gorsuch, who became the longest-serving UAA chancellor. Now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes the University of Alaska Anchorage and the Institute of Social and Economic Research 65th anniversary. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 12th day of May, 2026.

Thank you. And I'll invite anybody— anyone who likes to make— would like to make remarks to the podium, please turn on the microphone and remember to say your name. Thank you. Hi, um, good evening. Uh, I'm Diane Hirschberg.

I am the ICER director and And just want to say, first of all, thank you so much to the assembly and to the mayor for this resolution. We are honored by this recognition. And while ISER serves the state as a whole, Anchorage is our home. And we value our relationship with the municipality and the opportunity to contribute to decision-making on the critical issues that are facing our community. And we look forward to many, many more years and many, many more collaborations.

As we move forward together in our beautiful home city. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to make remarks? Okay. And I will ask Director Hirschberg if you would like to also invite folks to the celebration on May 19th, if that's relevant.

So we do have an invitation process, so we make sure we have enough food and goodies. So if anybody Anybody who has not already received invitation is interested in attending, please see us and we will get you on the list. Thank you. All right, thanks very much for being here and congratulations on 65 years.

Okay, next we'll move on. We do have a just a couple of items pulled from the consent agenda. So first we will move on to 10E4, that is Resolution AR-2026-130. 3, A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly appropriating $300,000 of nuisance abatement revenue to Development Services Department for the purpose of continued code abatement activities within the nuisance property abatement fund. Um, Ms. Baldwin-Day, you pulled this item.

Yes, thank you. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Voland. Go ahead, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, thank you. Just wanted to pull this and make a comment. Um, I want to state from the outset, I fully support ongoing funding of Nuisance property abatement. Um, obviously we have an extensive list of nuisance properties here in town that are troublesome to neighbors that often can become magnets for dangerous activity, and, and those do need to be taken care of. Um, I'm also aware that some of those properties are actually inhabited by owners and tenants in addition to folks who are squatting in vacant buildings.

And so I think I just wanted to take this moment to to flag a growing concern that perhaps accelerated, accelerated code abatement efforts have actually had some very unintended and potentially destabilizing consequences. And when we are trying to implement new processes such as the relocation assistance AO that I co-sponsored with Member Johnson, that there are hiccups, there are challenges, and that sometimes we recognize that different tools or different processes are necessary. And so I, I would like to, um, I'd like to state for the record that I'm really interested in partnership on this question and how we are going about moving people out of nuisance properties before code action, code abatement action is taken. And I would really love for this to appear, this particular topic to appear as an agenda item, something for conversation at an upcoming committee meeting of the, um, of the Public Health and Safety committee, if they— if one of the chairs of that committee would be interested in putting that conversation on the agenda. I think it'd be really interesting and really helpful to hear articulated how these processes are moving forward when in fact there are folks inside of buildings.

So that's the only comment I have, and I do urge my colleagues' support. Thank you, Ms. Baldwin-Day. No one else is in the queue, so for this item we are going to move back to having votes on these items, so members may proceed Please proceed to vote. Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, uh, that item passes, uh, or I should say Resolution 2026-130, uh, passes the body. Next we have Item 10F2, Information Memorandum AIM 65-2026, Internal Audit Report 2026-02, 2, 2024 Municipal Procurement Card Review.

This item was also pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you. Wanted to speak to this. Uh, oh, move to approve. Second, accept.

Oh, move to accept. Yes, thank you. Okay, move to accept by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Bohlen. Go ahead, Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you.

I wanted to address this particular item. There's already been some chatter in the community about this one, and, uh, as in my capacity as the chair of the Audit Committee, I wanted to, to let everyone know that there are some specific steps that I'm taking to address this item in more depth. So first, I've reached out to our Director of Internal Audit to ask for some additional information about some of the expenditures that were articulated in this particular internal audit report. I do want to note for the record that the, the internal audit for purchasing cards or procurement cards occurs every year. And I was curious to know exactly how this year's PCard audit stacked up against years past.

And then it turns out it's a mixed bag. There have been some years where our PCard audit has looked vastly worse and others where it has looked somewhat better. And so I want to be clear that when you're talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 purchasing card transactions or PCard transactions and less than 100 of those are problematic, that doesn't necessarily point point to, say, systemic fraud. However, it does point to a need to address the issue or to address the questions that are raised. One of the most important things that stuck out to me from past PCard audits was that many of the recommendations for action remained the same, which begs the question, are we actually implementing the recommendations that come from internal audit, or are those recommendations insufficient to address the challenges that we have with proper use of P-Cards.

So, uh, with that said, uh, this item is going to be before the Audit Committee in July. I've asked for that to be placed on the agenda. So if any members either of this body or members of the public would like to take a deeper dive into this item, that will be an opportunity to do so. We'll have a much more robust conversation and hopefully dig into some nitty-gritty, as well as ways that we can be more accountable for the use of public funds. Funds, and I, I hope restore some public trust that we are in fact paying attention to how public funds, tax dollars, are being used by municipal employees.

And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Mr. McCormick in the queue. I just want to touch on that and reiterate what, uh, Member Baldwin-Day was saying, of that I find this very interesting.

I'm going to look forward to seeing this come forward in front of the July audit review Committee. Okay, thank you. No other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, item 20, uh, sorry, flip to the next page, AIM 65-2026 passes the body unanimously. Um, so at this At this point, we will take our dinner break, and then we will pick up with our unfinished items in the 11s and 12s in about 20 minutes or so.

Okay, everyone, I'm going to call the meeting back to order.

So next on our agenda, we are moving on to— before we get to our public hearings, we have item 11A, unfinished business. That's AO-2026-45, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending— or ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage amending the conditions of disposal placed on former Heritage Land Bank parcel 5003 legally described as Lot 4, AASLS 9710 Raspberry Road, Municipal Land Selection Site Plat 99102, PID 01213187, to extend the development period granted within the imposed reversionary clause. The public hearing on this item was already closed. There is no motion pending. What is the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Martinez. Mr. Johnson, do you want to speak to it? Uh, we spent quite a bit of time talking about this at our last meeting.

I'll just say I think it's a good project and I'm happy to support this, uh, extension.

Okay, um, I don't see any other members in the queue. Is there any further discussion? Oh, Mr. Voland, go ahead. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, you know, I, I, I'm going to be supporting this.

Um, I think that the municipality has done and is doing a lot to be a good partner when it comes to housing development.

I will say a caveat. I don't want us to get in the position where we are signaling that, that this goes on forever or that there's multiple upon multiple chances. You know, we need— if we're going to be making arrangements like this, that reciprocity. So I'm happy to support it this once. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Uh, I'm pleased to support this as well tonight, and I want to thank the municipality for doing some of that work with the, uh, Mr. Debenham for doing that work with the community. Appreciate your time meeting with me, appreciate the time you've met with the community.

Folks and two unrelated projects, but you've demonstrated a lot of kind of, I think, strong character behind this particular time. But with this specific thing, I just wanted to highlight that we don't have a lot of developers who are willing to put their skin in the game, put their family's name on the line, and, and work with the municipality to do good things and to bring new projects to our community. So I just appreciate you, appreciate the work that you've been able to do with your, uh, with your family operation. And it is not uncommon that we do, do these sorts of things. Um, I think what's most, for me, interesting about this particular item is that the developer is a year in advance of the potential need to revert So I think it's well out in front of it.

And it's also— this developer has demonstrated substantial investments and improvements in the property. So when there's an attempt to ask for an extension of these sorts of projects, they really require that somebody did enough work that we can see measurable impact, and then it says to the municipality and to the public's dollars. This is a good investment and, and this is a good relationship. So I hope we can approve this tonight. I hope you get that message, and let's keep building in Anchorage.

Thank you. Thank you. Next I have Miss Scout. Yeah, I also intend to support this ordinance and want to share that my reasoning for this is to extend grace to these developers and and also plan to extend grace and work for the justice of the residents of South Park Estates, which is in North Anchorage. And so I want to make sure that that's on the record, and I look forward to working with you all in that capacity as well.

Thank you. Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I thank Mr. Devin Hamm for his, his work going out there, and we may sit up here and talk about 1,000 homes in 10 years, but getting out there doing the work. I hope the city can be a good business partner as we go down this road so we can embolden others to get out and build those homes.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, there are no more members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 12 to 0, Ordinance AO-2026-45 has passed the body. Next, we'll move on to a reserved item in the 12 section of the agenda. Um, so I will read it and then I'll briefly explain what this is. This is, um, AM-33622— 2026, sorry, 334-2026. 6, Certification of the Results of the Anchorage Metropolitan Police Service Area Bonds from the April 7th, 2026 Regular Municipal Election.

Um, and this item is simply, um, it is a motion to approve, um, but it was a, I guess, um, it was a motion to approve, and it's an item that was omitted from the full election certification, so this is why it's on our agenda tonight. So is there a motion from the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Bohlen, second by Ms. Walden-Day.

Any— um, yes, I will ask the clerk to speak to this item. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. So, um, for our election results, we print the results of everything, um, in the beginning, and then towards the end of the packet it. There are, um, in parks, in fire, in— and in this case it was police metropolitan. And so when you're voting on an item, you're voting on the full faith and credit of the municipality, um, if you don't live in the service area. And so if you live in the service area, you are voting on that bond, but also the full faith and credit of municipality.

So the results in the big— in the first part of the results is everybody in the municipality, and this was in Anchorage Metropolitan Police Service Area bonds. And so this is the results of those people that live in the service area. And, um, the report— we just, uh, did not get the report printed. There was—. There's about 7 of them that we had to print, and, uh, unfortunately we We just missed this one, um, the night of the Election Commission meeting is when we printed them.

Thank you. Um, any other questions or discussion from members? Not seeing anyone in the queue, then members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AM334-2026 has passed the body unanimously. Next, we will move on to our continued public hearings. So there's just one item tonight, and I'll remind folks, this is a public hearing item. I read the rules prior to this, so I will read the title, then we'll open our public hearing. So AO-2026-40, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 7 11010 and Chapter 7.20 to create a veteran-owned business preference program for specific contracting categories.

And I will note there's an S1 and S— S and an S1 version. The public hearing on this item is open.

Please, please come forward, state your name, what part of town you live in, and you will have 3 minutes. And make sure the microphone's on. Thank you. My name is Miranda Walso and I live in Chugiak/Eagle River. I strongly support the goal of increasing opportunities for veteran-owned businesses, and I appreciate some of the changes incorporated to the additional S&S 1 version, such as replacing the sliding scale local bidder preference models with a simpler structure to help make it easier to administer and for vendors to understand.

However, I still have concerns with the way the ordinance has been presented, particularly regarding the size of the preference and the application of mandatory preference preference points within the RFP evaluation process. The state of Alaska currently has a veteran bidder preference program which applies 5% preference capped at $5,000. As presented, the ordinance would instead apply a 5% preference capped at $50,000, a tenfold increase over the state model. Many, many state contracts have bids that have differences well under that spread, so preferences are relatively straightforward in low, low bid ITB procurements, but RFPs are fundamentally different. Current.

RFP's technical qualifications, project approach, staffing, and risk management matter far more than price alone. Adding mandatory preference points creates additional protest risk, complicates evaluations, increases administrative burden, and can distort qualifications-based selection processes. I recently reviewed a June 2025 study by, by Rodrigo Carroll and Audrey Guo titled The Impact of Preference Programs in Public Procurement: Evidence from Veteran Satisfied The study results found strongly positive outcomes for veteran preferences when demonstrated in simpler purchase order procurements involving standardized goods and services. But the author specifically cautioned against assuming similar positive outcomes would apply to more complex contracts. I think the distinction is very important here because this ordinance applies mandatory preference scoring within the RFP and negotiated procurement processes.

Concerned about the long-term complications and obligations this creates. For example, the requirement for businesses to maintain qualifying veteran-owned status throughout the life of the contract means that there are ongoing monitoring and ownership changes, management control, joint ventures, continued eligibility questions will arise throughout the life of the contract. If ownership percentages change midway through a contract or a qualifying owner exits the business, what remedies apply? These are difficult and nuanced procurement administration issues that require ongoing oversight and enforcement. Enforcement.

The federal VA system discussed in the Carolyn Guo study operates within a very large federal certification and compliance infrastructure. Municipality does not currently have a comparable system in place. For those reasons, I encourage the assembly to narrow the ordinance to a simpler structure that more closely mirrors the state of Alaska program, to reduce the cap from $50,000 to $5,000, limit the preference to ITB procurements only, remove the mandatory RFP scoring requirements, and allow optional use similar to local bidder preference, and to rely on existing state or federal certification systems whenever possible. Thank you. Thank you.

Would anyone else wish to testify? Please come forward if so.

Anyone at all? Okay. And we don't have anyone signed up on the phone, so seeing and hearing no one further to testify, this public hearing is closed. What is the will of the body. Move the S1.

Second. Moved the S1 version by Member Gerker, second by Member Baldwin-Day. Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. So tonight we're bringing forward an ordinance creating a veteran-owned preference within certain municipal contracting categories.

Anchorage is a military community. Every year we have folks from JBear who are retiring and deciding what in the world to do next in this next chapter of life. So we would We would like to create a regulatory framework that is as veteran-friendly as possible. We did work, I think, collaboratively with the administration on developing this S-1 version. We had productive dialogue, and we did incorporate several of the changes and clarifications they requested to help ensure the policy is workable and clearly administered.

So a couple things mechanics-wise. An ITP is generally used when the muni is purchasing a clearly defined good or service where the price is the primary factor. Under this ordinance, a qualifying veteran-owned business would receive a 5% evaluation preference capped at $50,000. Importantly, just for clarification, this is not a, a direct payment or a subsidy. It's an evaluation preference used during the scoring or bid comparison process.

The actual contract amount remains the amount bid by the contractor. An RFP, as was noted in public public testimony does work a little bit differently. Those are typically used for more complex or professional services where proposals are scored on merit, experience, price, and that sort of, you know, methodology. This ordinance essentially would add 5 points to a veteran bid— to a veteran's bidder— to a veteran's bid on a 100-point scale. If this ordinance tips the scale towards a veteran bidder, that does mean The two bidders were already comparable, and this will not have an adverse effect in services delivered, in my estimation.

This ordinance also establishes a verification requirement to ensure businesses are legitimately veteran-owned and controlled, and it allows proportional participation for qualifying joint ventures. The S-1 also simplifies the overall preference structure by aligning the veteran and local bidder preference into the same straight word, uh, framework. And at the end of the day, this, this is a targeted, I think, measured way to support veterans who continue to serve in our community through local business ownership. I ask and urge my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Currently no other members in the queue. Anyone like to speak? Oh, Mr. Perez-Vedia, go ahead.

Yeah, I have a question. For the sponsor, and specifically on the section—. I'm trying to—. Oh, here we go. It's line 30, where it says, "Was discharged or separated under honorable conditions." And I guess my question is, I don't— I've been trying to figure out out if there is a national database of how you determine if someone was discharged under honorable conditions or not.

And my research has shown that it is very, very difficult to determine that one way or the other in an individual. So I am wondering, this being in here, how we would determine that this business, the person that owned was discharged under honorable conditions or not, and whether, whether that's something that we would be able to, to determine. Yeah, and thank you for the question, Mr. Presverdia. It's actually on the DD-214, which is a form that every military member is given at their, at their discharge, and it just, it shows on their DD-214 the conditions of their discharge, which is the document that would be required to provide to the city. And I see our veterans at the end of the nodding their Okay, great, great.

So, so it's on the form that, that would be required in order to qualify for it? Perfect. Thanks so much. That's all I needed. And we also had our resident veteran attorney in the queue.

Did you want to add anything, Mr. Hurt? No, I was just going to echo that. And next I have Mr. Fawzy in the queue. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I did want to highlight for the assembly that as we put in our responses to assembly member questions which were laid on the table today, we have had a very productive dialogue with the sponsors of this ordinance, but we didn't come to complete seeing eye to eye on all of the changes that we thought should be laid before the body for consideration. And in particular, the two that we highlighted for you in the document that was circulated at this meeting was first that this version of a veteran's preference is different from the state's preference, and that it does not require the veteran to ever have served in Alaska or to live in Alaska. So this would give of a non-local veterans preference in a way that we think is not necessary and probably could be better calibrated to serving the stated goals of the ordinance, which is to encourage local economic activity and to retain veterans in the state. Second, we did echo some of the comments that were heard at the public testimony here about how this ordinance should apply to the request for proposals scenario. Right now we have a local preference in code.

It only applies to invitations to bid. There is no local preference for the RFPs for reasons we can get into. Our ultimate recommendation is that we would like the chance to serve up some of these alternative ideas to you either as proposed amendments or as an S2 version and even the possibility to talk them through with you in a work session. So we would request a little bit more time to help the assembly chew on this item and be happy to answer additional questions. Thank you.

Next I have Miss Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I appreciate Mr. Falzy bringing up these topics here tonight. We, um, we did spend some time with the administration talking these through, and then my co-sponsor and I went and did some homework, read through Title VII, consulted with Assembly Council, and we came to a couple of conclusions. One of those is that, as Mr. Fawzi pointed out, local preference already exists in the world of ITB, of invitations to bid, and that would be stackable with this particular preference, which means that a local veteran would have an additional layer of preference over a veteran who might be bidding from out of state. And we further determined that the RFP process process itself is flexible in ways that the ITB process is not, and that if in fact it felt important for the administration to build in local preference through the RF— through an RFP, that they could do so, and they could award points for proximity to Anchorage, for example, in addition to a bidder preference or a veteran preference.

I think it's important to note that there's quite a bit of qualitative flexibility already built built into the RFP process by design. That's why you have different processes for different types of procurement. And it's our contention that that flexibility, which is built into the system, sort of allows for veteran preference to be one small component of many components. Each RFP is written with a very different, or can be written with a very different scale. Different aspects of a request for proposals can be weighted differently based on how many how many points are assigned to that particular item.

And even if you're perusing some of the RFPs that are currently out on the table from the municipality, you'll see that the scoring is different based on what the proposal— what sort of proposals are being sought. And as a result of that, a 5% veteran preference would not make a substantive difference among similarly situated and similarly qualified respondents to an RFP. It's also worth noting that within the RFP process, the, the proposals are submitted back to the municipality. There's a first evaluation of those proposals, and then a shortlist of qualified firms or respondents is developed. And then from that point, the purchasing officer may enter into discussions or interviews with all of the individuals or all of the entities that are on that shortlist of of qualified firms.

And then there is a second evaluation based on that round of conversations that the purchasing officer had with qualified respondents, which means that the sum total or the way that the ultimate determination is made as to who is the most qualified bidder goes through a significant process by which veteran preference would be one of a longer and larger suite of considerations and potentially only a difference maker between, again, similarly situated respondents. And for those reasons, we, we determined that the— we were disinclined to agree with the administration's assessment and would be happy to take additional questions if that's helpful.

Thank you. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair.

My gut feeling is on the, on the concept of the, of the, of the item, yes, but I don't understand why a pause to say yes to the administration's request is, is, is, shouldn't be honored as well. Um, and, and specifically the questions that were raised from the two points of questions, the questions that were raised now verbally from Mr. Fauzy, I think, are substantial enough to warrant additional conversation. And it doesn't seem that the administration wants to say no. And so that's important to me because, on the other hand, um, assembly members are not the implementers. And so really making sure that from the vantage point of the guidance that assembly members as legislators can offer work with the administration through the practical nature of things.

Straightforward is a really interesting concept in local government. Things are never straightforward even though they seem that way. For example, it seems to me an interesting conundrum between the idea of a stackable preference that could be stacked with folks getting preferential points who are out of state because they are getting preferential veteran points. They may not get the local preference points, but that would be the stackable. I think a little more baking on the cake is probably wise.

I don't see urgency, although I see the reason. And so I just want to go back to Mr. To Jared, Mr. Gorka's point, which is essentially the opportunity to help separating service members find economic opportunity within the municipality and work within our procurement opportunities, I think is a good thing. It's a very good thing. Let's give it a little more time. From my vantage point, I will vote hopefully to postpone this item.

So I'll introduce a motion to postpone the item to a time certain so that at least we don't have a yay-nay on this item tonight.

Does the administration have a time that you think would be better served for my motion to be completed? Through the chair, to Member Martinez, I think if you delayed it to the next meeting, we could certainly have something in right readying to propose to you, and if you wanted to have a work session, we could accommodate it between now and then.

And the date of the next meeting— I'm looking at the calendar— is May 26th. What is that? 26Th. I'll second the motion. So I will motion to postpone to the May— the next meeting of May, um, and hope that we can have a scheduled work session so we can resolve the remaining questions.

Thank you. A motion by Mr. Martinez and second by Mr. Perez-Fredia to postpone this item to the meeting of May 26th. We have a couple folks in the queue, but I will just note for timing, we do have opportunity to schedule a work session for this Friday. Next Friday the 22nd is the— is a no-meeting day because it's right before the Memorial Day holiday. And then the other option would be to schedule it and to postpone this potentially to the June meeting if we feel like it would take more time.

So I'm offering that just as for timing considerations. Ms. Silvers.

So I think what I heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think I heard that the administration has already discussed with the sponsors of this item these changes that they wanted to make, and the sponsors of this item declined to make those changes. Is that true? Okay. So I guess if that's true, I'm ready ready to vote on this tonight because I don't know what postponing it will accomplish.

Okay, next, Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And to remember our member Silver's point, that's exactly right. We brought this forward at the beginning of April. The administration asked for more time.

We postponed it, but it was about a month at that point. We met with the administration. We had, I think, a productive conversation, and I understand, you know, their, their perspective, but As Member Baldwin-Day noted, we declined to take all of their recommendations and implement those changes, as is our policy right as legislators. So I don't see a need to postpone this. I'm ready to vote on this tonight, and we'll go from there.

Thanks. Thanks. Mr. Fawzy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say that it is certainly true that we have had a very productive dialogue.

We did make a suite of requests for the sponsors to make— consider different amendments. On Friday, we saw the S-1 version for the first time and chewed on it on Monday and Tuesday, and then realized that some but not all of our requests had been included. And of course, the sponsors are under no obligation to include all of our requests. But I do think it would benefit the Assembly in its deliberations to see what the alternatives would look like. And so what could be served by this 2-week delay is that we could prepare that for you so that you will see what the other alternative is and describe it for you at the work session.

Thank you. No one currently in the queue. I guess one question, um, for timing purposes, Mr. Fawzy, um, would scheduling a work session on Friday the 15th be sufficient time, knowing of course that, that you may or may not come to agreement with the sponsors, but in terms of preparing alternatives?

Yes, I think we can certainly make a work session on Friday work. And, and to be totally transparent, I think the sponsors are well within their rights to say we have considered this, we are not persuaded, but I am trying to serve up for the body as a whole the alternative position that the administration would like to present.

Thank you. So currently the motion before us is the postponement to a time certain to the meeting of May 27th. 6. So let's take a vote on that. Members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Okay, on a vote of 6 to 6, that motion has failed, um, and so we are not currently postponing to another meeting, and we are back on the main motion, and I don't currently have anyone in the queue.

Okay, then members may proceed to vote.

I'm sorry, I just saw the mayor in the queue, so can we pull back the voting please? Okay, thank you, Chair Brawley. I would ask, um, Mr. Fawzy to address a couple more points related to this proposed ordinance for the body's consideration.

To the chair, if we're going to have the conversation here today, then I'll say that we'll summarize again. May I call a point of order? Yeah, um, since the vote is live, can we even continue the conversation around this? I mean, since we have— I— it sounds like I heard the clerk say we can't pull the vote back. I mean, if we can, that's fine, but if the vote is before us and debate is closed, is it procedurally appropriate for us to continue to discuss the item?

Is anyone opposed to a brief suspension of the rules for purposes of hearing from the administration on this item before we proceed with the vote? Okay, so go ahead, uh, Miss Madam Mayor or Mr. Fawzy. Well, thank you. To aid the assembly in its deliberations before taking the final vote, then I'll emphasize again that the two points that we put into the laid on the table memorandum were first, that this creates a preference that is not tied to Alaska or Anchorage at all. So in the RFP context, you will be giving preferences to Missouri service members who are applying to local things.

I think that is different from the state regime where you must have an Alaska connection first and then get an additional preference if you're a veteran. That's worth considering for the body whether that is the regime that you want. Second, that there are real live questions about how and whether it should apply in the RFP context at all. And third, that we haven't talked about the way the stackable language works. If you are both local and a veteran, then you get a preference in the bidding that can result in the municipality paying up to $100,000 more in the awarded contract price.

So in the scenario of an invitation to bid, municipality wants to buy gravel, if you are a local veteran, you are— have your bid price reduced by 5% twice, and that's capped at $50,000 for each of those. So for the same gravel, we could end up paying $100,000 more in certain scenarios. I think those things are better worked out in some alternative language, but if we're moving forward today I wanted to make sure the body was aware of that. Okay, next I have Mr. Voland in the queue. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, that's an interesting point I think that Mr. Fawzy just raised, and I guess with the example of, um, a company in Missouri bidding on something that I'm kind of thinking like, okay, well, what if there was a company in Missouri who bid, and then there was another company in Missouri who also was veteran-owned. Um, because I, I assume we have vendors bidding on things who don't live here quite frequently. I mean, I think we see that all the time. And so I guess I'm just kind of wrestling with, you know, I like the idea of there being a local preference. I certainly understand the point about the increased cost.

And I think that's something— there's a trade-off for us all tonight to carefully consider, particularly as we're having all kinds of conversations around our fiscal picture, our budget constraints, you know, diversification of revenues.

All that being said, you know, I wish that we could have maybe taken a little more time with this, allowed the administration to bring forward their proposals. But ultimately, I see this as something worth supporting, so I'm going to be a yes vote. But I just hope that we all can fully appreciate, um, the, the trade-off picture here tonight. Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Silvers.

Um, so correct me if I'm wrong again, there is also a local preference? Through the chair to Member Silvers, for invitations to bid there is a local preference. For requests for proposals there is no other preference. Okay, thank you. And the local is currently much lower.

Okay, thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you. Um, so a couple of things. Um, the first is that, uh, that code is changeable. We're proposing to change code right now. And if we make this change and it turns out from the purchasing or procurement perspective that this is absolutely disastrous and it's costing us a small fortune, then we can in fact go back and make changes to the code that we have just changed.

So I do want to be clear that that code is not static, and this change that we are contemplating tonight does not have to be the end of the road in terms of Title VII. And then the second thing I want to put out there for consideration is that a 5% stackable preference for a $100,000 contract is $10,250 difference. So even in the case where you have a local veteran who is bidding and their bid price is $100,000 and the next closest bid— and the second bidder is the same, the difference is not as significant, I think, as one— this is not a 50% difference. That we're talking about in the way that this is applied. And so I just want— I just want us to be clear about both of those things as we're contemplating this change.

Once again, I appreciate that this is different than what has been implemented at the state level. I don't know that our code always has to operate in lockstep with the state. And I think that we can make changes and adjustments that are appropriate for Anchorage. And again, if we determine in 6 months or a year's time that the changes we've made actually are inappropriate for Anchorage and for our context here. Again, we are empowered to change them.

Thank you. Mr. Martinez.

Well, I wish we would have had more time on this item, but we are— this is the vote before us. I'll be voting yes to supporting the concept behind the preferences, but the challenge I want to highlight is it was just suggested that because code is evolving We may be able to pay a price at some point and then get it to fix. And I think that that's not something we should do regularly. As best as we can, we should take the time to bake the cake all the way from this body, from working with the administration, especially when there is an impending emergency or a timeline, for example, the end of the season where the— where the weather changes and we need emergency shelter on. Like, that vote would have to happen now, for example.

This seems like it could be more deliberately thought through. There seems to be some novel concepts that my colleagues work through that are different, that are innovative, but that are a work in progress. And a work in progress, respectfully, as identified by the sponsors themselves, deserves the right amount of time to get it right. And so, but the question, once again, we deal with the question before us. We had the opportunity to make a pause.

The question before us now is, do we support veteran-owned preferences as a concept, even if And if the mechanism today, as identified by one of the co-sponsors, may have flaws and could be improved along the way, we'll figure it out. Um, and so I do encourage the sponsors of this to commit to the work with the administration, because oftentimes, from my vantage point, once the legislative process is done, by the time we find out that some of those things didn't work out in practice, um, you know, our appetites to get back into that work may be different. And so I just hope that, um, with the deal— with the due diligence that the urgency is created tonight for this item, that there was a continued review with the administration and working through some of the challenges that the administration in real time will be working through as they implement some of these code changes. And so my encouragement to the— my colleagues and the sponsors is don't let this fall to the wayside because you're bringing it forward and you've identified there may be some additional work to do. Let's make sure we get that additional work on the radar if required.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Perez Verdia. Thank you. I, um, I like to do things right the first time, so I, I will not be supporting this even though I do support it.

I support the work. I appreciate the work that went into this. I completely support the concept. I think it's a wonderful idea. I would prefer to go back and make these corrections before we put it into code, but it looks like the votes are for it tonight.

So I would also encourage the sponsors to work with the administration to to get the language in order to make the fixes to this immediately and bring it back. If there's not an appetite from the sponsors, I would invite the administration to work with me or others to ensure that we bring back the language to make any corrections that are necessary. I think the intent is fantastic. I think that in an extreme scenario, if we could find ourselves as, you know, giving someone a $100,000 discount for gravel. That's not what we want.

So I'd rather make sure what the language is in there to ensure that this is meeting our intent, but also not putting the municipality at risk. So I will be voting no, even though I do support it, because I do believe that we need to pause and get it right first. And again, I would encourage the sponsors senators and the administration to come back together and bring back some language to make the corrections that we need to make. Thank you. Ms. Park.

Yes. As a parent of two Navy veterans, I really support the idea of offering a preference to veterans. And in reading on page 2, number 4, The requirement is that the bidder had maintained a place of business within the municipality staffed by the bidder or an employee for 6 months immediately preceding the bid, and I'm wondering whether a longer period of domicile in Anchorage would offer more protection to local bidders. So through the chair to Mr. Fawcett.

Through the Chair to Member Parks, if I'm following you correctly, you're looking at page 2, the definition of local bidder.

We haven't considered a lot of changes to the local bidder arrangement. That is language that I believe is just being relocated in code. So that is the regime that covers the local bidder preference that is already available in the invitation to bid context. That does not apply to the veterans preference. Preference that is being proposed here in any form.

Thank you. Chair Brawley. Thank you. Um, I, uh, just want to offer a few procedural options for folks because, as I— I mean, we're hearing the dialogue. I think there's a lot of support for the idea, um, more, um, hesitation about taking a vote tonight.

So 3 options. One is the path we're on now, that we take a vote tonight, and that lands where it lands. The second option could be a member could make a motion to postpone, not to the May 26th meeting, but I checked with the clerk, it would be in order to postpone to a later meeting, not for purposes of delaying, but just, you know, that is an option. And then the third one would be potentially if someone wanted to, they could amend this ordinance itself to make the effective date of it slightly later, something like August or September Um, again, for the purposes of potentially there's another ordinance that gets run either by the sponsors, by the administration, um, that could make additional changes so that the actual program does not go live on July 1st but has some more time. Um, so certainly there's enough time to introduce another ordinance and move through that process, but that would also allow for time for implementation.

So I don't have an opinion on what those should be, but I wanted to offer those as 3 different paths and how to get there. Thank you.

And, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day, you're in the queue, but you have spoken twice.

Uh, Mr. Vohland, you've not spoken twice. Go ahead.

Um, thank you, Chair Brawley. At the risk of, uh, causing extreme annoyance to my colleagues, um, I, I do want to honor the the request of the administration to bring forward a version that we can at least consider. I, for my part, I do not mean to indicate that I would prefer an S2 over what we have here tonight, but if they need a little more time to bring an alternative to forward, I just want to give them that opportunity. And so with that, I will make a motion to postpone to the meeting of June 9th. Second.

Motion to postpone to the meeting of June 9th by Vice Chair Voland, second by Member Martinez. Do you want to speak further to it? I think the only thing that I guess I will say is, um, you know, I've been in the position where conversations have happened, um, with, with the prior administration on pretty substantial pieces of legislation, um, and where I sort of had the impression that we were trying to move all in the same direction.

I can appreciate that, you know, the, the, the role of this body is that we are the policymakers, and there won't always be 100% alignment. I can also appreciate, you know, sometimes it does feel frustrating when you've worked really hard on something and you've postponed it a few times and you feel like, okay, this is what we've settled on and, and that you don't have that alignment and you're asked for even more time. So I get it. I've kind of been here, done that with other things that I brought forward. Um, ultimately I think a version of this is going to pass.

Um, let's just, let's just see, I think, what the administration wants to bring forward. We can consider them both and make a decision. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Gertner. Mr. Walker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I do think that we have the votes tonight to pass this, but out of respect to the administration's continued pleas and to my colleagues, I would be in support of delaying this a little bit longer so that they can bring more ideas forward. Like I said, we already negotiated with the administration, and the sponsors and I already found found the request to be not agreeable to us. But maybe after further discussion with the rest of our members and the rest of the colleagues, maybe you guys would find something that you do prefer over that, and you guys might introduce amendments if you like. So a bit more time would be agreeable.

Not particularly happy about it, but I will agree to it if that is the will of the body. Okay.

Okay, no other members in the queue. Members may proceed to vote. This is on the motion to postpone to the meeting— this item of the— to the meeting of June 9th, and members may proceed to vote.

Member McCormick.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, uh, this item will be postponed to the meeting of June 9th, and, um, I will work with the sponsors and the administration on scheduling a work session. So next we will move on to new public hearings. Any other things? Oh, and I will also note, thank you to new members for participating in your first substantive discussion on an item. So next we'll move on to item 14A.

That is a resolution AR-2026-117, and it is a mouthful. A resolution appropriating a total of $64,860,000 of proceeds of general obligation bonds as $16,140,000 to the area-wide general capital improvement Community Improvement Project, or CIP fund. $1,720,000 To the Chugach State Park Access Service Area Fund. $2,500,000 To the Anchorage Fire SA CIP fund. $38,450,000 To the Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service Area CIP fund.

And $6,050,000 to the Anchorage Parks and Recreation Service Area CIP fund. To pay the costs of public safety, transit improvements, library, performing arts center, other municipal facility upgrades, Chugach State Park access improvements, fire protection, roads and drainage, uh, storm drainage projects, and parks and recreation improvements. Public hearing on this item is now open. Uh, if you'd like to speak, please come forward.

And as a reminder to say your name and what part of town you're from, uh, on the record, and you have 3 minutes. I'm from, uh, I'm William Baxter from Fairview, and, uh, I push, uh, agriculture, and I push moose habitats. And, uh, fire fuel breaks make great moose habitats and, and, uh, grouse habitats. And the other thing I push is, uh, freshwater commercial fishing Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify? Anyone at all? And we have no one signed up on the phone. Seeing and hearing no further testimony, this public hearing is closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Bolland, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Um, would you like to speak to it, Mr. Bolland?

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just for the public who may be following and wondering what this item does, um, I'll just read an excerpt from the memo. On April 7th, 2026, the voters ratified the assembly authorization, uh, by approving the ballot propositions. Um, so thank you, voters.

Um, the purpose of the attached assembly resolution— so this resolution that we're considering here tonight— is to appropriate the bond funds so that the affected departments can begin working on projects as soon as possible. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. We can either wait 2 minutes for the system to be reset, or we can do this by voice.

Let's go ahead and do voice vote. So, Madam Clerk, please call the roll for a vote. Assemblymember Handeland. Yes. Assemblymember Martinez.

Yes. Assemblymember Park. Sorry for going out of order. This is old. Assemblymember Kerker?

Yes. Assemblymember Johnson? Yes. Assembly Chair Brawley? Yes.

Vice Chair Voland? Yes. Assemblymember Silvers? Yes.

Assemblymember Baldwin-Day? Yes.

Assemblymember Scout? Yes. Yes. Assemblymember McCormick. Yes.

Assemblymember Perez-Rodriguez. Yes. Motion passes 12 to 0. On a vote of 12 to 0, this item has passed the body unanimously. And welcome to an assembly meeting where we have intermittent IT issues.

So it looks like it's going now, but we'll continue. So the next item is also public hearing, and I will note 14B and 14C, the intent is to to continue those to a future meeting. So for anyone who's going to testify, just be aware of that. So I'll read the first one and open the public hearing. AO-2026-47, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan— Land Use Plan Map to change the classification of approximately 282.3 acres of land from large lot residential single family and two family compact mixed residential low, compact mixed residential medium, and urban residential Residential High to Compact Mixed Residential Low, Urban Residential High, and Park or Natural Area for the parcels in the Anchorage Bowl depicted in Exhibit A.

Public hearing on this item is now open. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 9th. Second.

Thank you. A motion by Mr. Voland to continue the hearing to June 9th and second by Mr. Martinez. Do you want to speak to that, Mr. Voland? This is at the request of the administration, uh, who bringing this forward and they'd like to take a little more time. Thank you.

Thank you. And I believe this will be the story for the following item as well. Um, is there any objection to— or, um, is there any objection to the postponement of this item to June 9th? Seeing and hearing none, we will postpone that item. And, uh, we have continued the public hearing, uh, so folks who, uh, were not present to testify today may still do so at the next meeting.

Next, we'll move on to 14C, Ordinance AO-2026-48, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezone for 742 parcels containing approximately 9,344.60 acres from R-1, R-2A, R-2ASL, R-2D, R-2M, R-2MSL, R-3, R-3SL, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, R9, R10, SL, B2A, B2C, B3, B3SL, I1, I2, BC, PCD, PLI, PLIP, and PLISL2PR. Thank you. A lot of zones. The public hearing on this item is now open. And Mr. Voland.

Thank you. I move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 9th. Second. Thank you. Move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 9th by Mr. Bolland, second by Mr. Martinez.

Any further discussion on that? Same rationale as the previous item. Thank you. Thank you. And I will ask unanimous consent of the body to postpone this item to June 9th.

Any objection?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, this item is continued to the meeting of June 9th. So next we will move on to Item 14D, AO-2026-51, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 2109 to align with the newly adopted Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to testify, please come forward.

Not seeing any in the room, we don't have anyone signed up on the phone, so seeing and hearing none, I will close public testimony. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Move— motion to approve by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Boland.

Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Johnson? Yeah, I'll just keep it very brief. I think this is fairly straightforward. Uh, this accomplishes two things. One, it updates some sections of Title 21 to align with the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan that has been previously approved by the body.

Um, and then the other half of this is to accommodate, uh, DOT and new manners of avalanche mitigation efforts that they conduct along the highway. I'll just note that this item is supported by a resolution approved by the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and was also recommended by PCC. And the following item, 14E, also relates to the accommodation for EODOT and the avalanche mitigation work they do.

Thank you. Don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a unanimous vote, item, uh, 14D-2026-51 passes the body. Next we have item 14E, AO-2026-52, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the zoning code and approving the rezoning of approximately 43.62 acres from GDR, uh, Development Reserve District, to GA, Girdwood Airport District, for U.S. Survey 4 805, Track 29B, T-10N, R-2E, Section 29. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Would anyone like to testify? And I see no one on the phone, so we will close the public hearing. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Voland. Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Johnson? Mr. Nelson. Uh, it's— look, I already said it. This goes concurrently with the previous item.

Fair enough. Members may proceed to vote. I don't see one else in the queue.

On a unanimous vote, item AO-2026-52 passes the body. Next we have item 14F, Resolution AR-2026-96. 6, A resolution approving a collective bargaining agreement between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302. We will open the public hearing first. So we'll open the public hearing.

Please come forward if you would like to testify. And a reminder—.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Bill Sims. I live in Southwest Anchorage, and I'm also a business agent for the Operating Engineers Local 302. I've prepared a statement, so bear with me. Through the chair, members of the assembly, I'd like to express a clear comparison between our prior contract negotiations and the negotiations that produced our current tentative agreement.

Over the last decade, our bargaining experience has been defined by limited movement at the table, incremental gains, and unresolved workplace concerns that members have repeatedly raised to the administration. The results speak for themselves. In the past 10 years, we secured only 11.7% in total wage increases. When compared with other unions, that outcome is significant. Significantly lower by as little as 2.6% and as much as 11.8%.

This gap is compounded over time, effective— affecting not only take-home pay but also our ability to recruit and retain skilled employees and maintain parity with comparative— with comparable bargaining units. In prior negotiations, we consistently brought forward core issues ranging from disparity in pay and workload concerns to equity and transparency in workplace practices, yet many of those items remained unresolved or were deferred. Too often the process produced modest adjustments without addressing the underlying problems members experienced day to day. Our current negotiations have been markedly different. This contract reflects sustained member input, clearer priorities, and a stronger response from the administration to the concerns we raised at the bargaining table.

Most importantly, the current agreement solves many of the issues we brought to the administration during negotiations, moving beyond temporary fixes toward practical, enforceable improvements that members can rely This was an important opportunity to close the gap, strengthen our contract, and ensure the priorities of the bargaining unit were addressed in a meaningful way. Both the administration and Local 302 negotiated in good faith. We gave a favorable recommendation to the bargaining unit prior to them voting on the tentative agreement, which was ultimately voted up, and I encourage the members of this body to approve this contract this contract as it is a huge step towards resolving some of the issues brought up during past and current negotiations.

Thank you. Entertain any questions if you have. Don't see any questions from members. Thank you.

And just to double-check, Mr. Hanlon, I know you're in the queue for another reason. You're not for a question, are you? OK, thank you. OK, anyone else wish to to testify. Okay, not seeing or hearing any, and there's no one signed up on the phone, so, uh, this public hearing is closed.

What is the will of the body? Oh, I'm sorry, before we do that, um, I will turn to Mr. Handlin. Go ahead. Uh, Madam Chair, I want to disclose a potential conflict of interest. My father is a member of Local 302.

He's worked in Nome and is under a pension under that contract, but just one to disclose. Thank you. Um, and it sounds like this would be considered a personal interest because it's a close family member potentially. Um, and you mentioned that he works in Nome, so has he ever been employed by the Municipality of Anchorage? No.

And is he, um, uh, I guess, is he currently engaged with the union, um, in terms of active employment? Uh, not active employment, but his pension is through them. Thank you. And I did, um, phone a friend with counsel on this, um, regarding how benefits are determined, um, and so I'm going to declare that there is no conflict. The additional information that I have from our attorneys is, um, that, that the municipality, like other local governments, pays into, uh, the pension fund, including for these folks, um, but the management of that fund is handled by a joint board of trustees, and so there's no action from the assembly that impacts impacts that pension.

So I appreciate the disclosure. It is certainly the right thing to do to disclose if there is a potential interest. But I'm going to declare that you do not have a conflict and you were able to vote. And then I will also say for members, if you disagree with this, the chair's ruling, you are— you have the ability to override that ruling. So if— is there any objection?

Not seeing or hearing any, so I think we can move on. So with that, let's ask what is What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Second.

Moved by Mr. Boland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Um, would you folks like to speak to it?

Um, no, I'm happy to support this. Uh, it sounds like negotiations went well, and, um, you know, it's in recruitment and retention, I guess. Yeah, I do want to speak to it. One thing that I was happy to see is, um, the continuation as we move through some of these contract negotiations of the assembly's work to create paid holidays and also paid family leave, and this does that. And so having that consistency throughout the municipal workforce, I think, is a positive, a positive thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is Director Billingsley here?

Thank you, and please remember to state your name for the record. My name is Ann Marie Billingsley. I'm the—. Sorry—. The HR director.

Director Billingsley, how are you doing tonight? I'm great, how are you? Doing really good. So as you might recall, our conversations prior to your confirmation, I kind of outlined sort of the sort of questions I would be asking when labor contracts come before us. You might recall the previous two contracts that have come before us, I've asked very similar very similar line of questioning.

This has a— this contract is a 15% wage increases over the course of the contract, increases in employer contributions. It's all good things. What are we getting out of this contract? Through the chair to Member Gerker, I'd like to invite Assistant Municipal Attorney Jason Bockenstedt, who served as our chief negotiator during this process, to come and speak to your Through the chair, Assemblymember Gerker, there were a couple of different things that I think we got out of this. One is, and this has been kind of a long-time issue, not just with this bargaining unit but across a number of bargaining units, but about 15 years ago, the municipality and bargaining contracts removed performance step programs and service recognition.

It created kind of a real divide between employees that were hired on a very artificial date and those that were maybe, in particular with this bargaining unit, there was an individual that had been hired hired about 48 hours after the removal of service recognition. So for almost 15 years, this particular employee been doing the same exact job, but is making about 13% less as a result of the, the removal of service rec. So we were able in this contract to completely remove all service recognition from this contract. So going forward, employees that are doing the same type of work are going to be paid very similarly. So I think that's, that's one.

The second that I'll probably more broadly kind of speak to is that we, we went back and looked. This was the essentially the last last bargaining unit that had not had what I think a lot of members of this body have seen is that catch-up from that 2020 to 2022 inflation time frame. And we have, as a municipality, over the last 30 to 35 years, have tried really hard across any number of administrations and makeups of the assembly to, at a minimum, try to get bargaining units caught up with CPI. So that is one of the reasons why in this one in particular you have seen probably a higher than normal increase, is because they were the last bargaining unit to see that. And we were experiencing in this department some severe challenges with, you know, hiring folks.

And the, the clearest example that I'll give you is Paul Van Landingham and his crew at street maintenance over the last several years have interviewed almost 500 individuals, and out of those almost 500 interviews, they were only able to hire 35 people. And it wasn't because they weren't unqualified or even not qualified. It was the vast majority of them would get through the interview process and figure out, oh, this is what my wage rate is going to be. Well, I'm going to go down the street and make $5, $7 more an hour with a private contractor. And from their experience, you know, it's not about training.

They can train, and Local 302 has an amazing training program to get people caught up. Up. But at the end of the day, when we're plowing streets and plowing roads, we want to have some experienced folks that have actually used some of this equipment before to do that a little bit quicker and a little bit more efficiently. So those are just, I think, some of the things that we got out of this during this negotiation. Yeah, and I really appreciate that.

That's— that those are good, and those are good things. Thank you. So I do actually want to Pivot a little bit slightly then. I'm looking at Article 2, Section 11, Subsection 2 of this agreement. It specifically references employees becoming agency fee payers.

Is that correct?

I will have to take your word for it if you're looking. I don't have the contract directly in front of me. So after the Supreme Court's decision, Janus v. AFSCME, public employees cannot be compelled to financially support a union as a condition of employment. Is that correct? Through the Chair, Assemblymember Gerker, that is correct.

Okay. And the Supreme Court did hold in Janus that compelling public employees to subsidize union speech through agency fees violated the employee's First Amendment rights absent the employee's affirmative consent, correct? Again, through the Chair, that is correct. Okay. So why is agency fee payer language with no reference requiring employees' affirmative consent sense, still being included in collective bargaining agreements nearly a full decade after the Janus decision.

Can you tell us the—. What's the section again? Article 2, Section 11, Subsection 2, Union Membership.

I can read it if that would be helpful.

Yeah, through the chair, Assemblymember Gerker, I think the way that we read this and the way that this works in practice is is that this gives the employee or the member the option to either join the union as a full member or become an agency fee member. So I think that's the other aspect of the Janus case was even if the member decided not to become a a full paying dues member, they were still obligated to represent them in contract negotiations. And so I think our read of this is that this simply gives them the option of being a full member or paying the fees as well. So the, but there's a third option, isn't there?

Under the Janus decision, the third option is none of the above. Correct. Is that correct? Through the Chair, I would have to actually spend a little bit more time going back and reviewing that case to know if that is actually accurate in terms of the third. I think the first two are correct, but that third one, I'm not 100% sure.

Yeah, so my reading of the Janus decision is that you can become a full union member. You have the option to become an agency fee payer. If the employee affirmatively consents, but there is a third option, which is a union— an employee is not required to do either of those as a condition of employment, and in fact, the union is required under their exclusive representation of that employee to represent that employee regardless of their agency fee payer or union membership status. Is that— do you disagree with that statement?

I think that's accurate, and I think that's actually the actual impact of this is that they can, they would still be a member of the union. The bargaining unit. The bargaining unit regardless, but they wouldn't be required if they chose to not become a full agency, but at the end of the day, the union would still have the obligation position of negotiating on their behalf, and whatever they were able to negotiate in a contract or an administrative agreement would still apply to that individual regardless of whether or not they were a union member or a fee payer. Right. So has the municipality provided written notice to employees that they have a constitutional right to do none of the I'd like to jump in.

Yeah, I'd also like to recognize, uh, Miss Gardner, municipal attorney, to answer that. Thank you. So I am, uh, through the chair to Member Kerker. I think it would be useful— I'm looking at the exact language of this, and I think that we're getting a little wrapped around, uh, the axle on this, and we don't really need to. So what it says is all employees covered under the terms of this agreement— so this agreement applies to all employees, right, in the covered positions who are not already union members, so whether you are or aren't, may make application.

Not they have to make an application, but they have the option of applying to either become a full member or an agency fee payer. But they also don't have to do that. It's discretionary. They can choose not to make that application. [Speaker:JAY] Right.

[Speaker:KELLY] So you are covered under this, under the terms of the agreement. You get all the rights, privileges, wages, right? It's negotiated on your behalf, but you don't have to become a member. Member of the union, right? And Miss Gardner, I guess my point is, where is that said?

Like, it's here in the contract. It says you can become a union member or you can have an agency if you pay. Where is the—. Where—. How would an employee know that they have a third option, a constitutionally protected option, which is to do neither of those, to become a union member, which is, which is a technical difference than a bargaining unit member?

And we are getting bent around the axle because this is a labor contract and those Those words matter. So I'll let, I think, HR to respond to the mechanics, but this requires an affirmative application to become either a member or a fee payer. So the default, the baseline, a new employee joins, they have to make an application to, according to the terms of this, to be— to opt into one of those things. It's not required that they make that application. So who manages that process?

Like, so you're a brand new employee, what doc— what documents are you given? Who runs what? Is this the union thing? Is this Mr. Sims? Is this an HR thing?

Through the chair, Assemblymember Gurkha, I might ask Bill Sims to come back up here and answer that. But my understanding is that whenever a new employee is hired, they typically do talk to the local— and it could depend. Some of them need to have a conversation regardless if they want to be a member or not because they— this particular instance, they also offer the healthcare plan that the individual's on. So my understanding is that they have that conversation and that they do get an affirmative signature and saying they either decline or they agree to join the union and become a dues-paying member, and then that document is shared with with HR so that we know whether or not to deduct any of that from the individual's paycheck. I'm getting nods over there, so I think I correctly laid out that process.

Yes, through the chair. Our application process, it is disclosed on that form form, and they have the option to do one of those three that you just expressed. Okay, so as a new employee coming in, they're given a form, it says you have the option to accept or decline. That's— but that option just isn't anywhere expressed in the contract, correct? So if you're—.

Okay, it's expressed in the words that she just mentioned, is that they may make— uh, can you repeat what you said?

May make application to join to join the union. [Speaker] That's okay. [Speaker] So this language does not— what used to be here was essentially that if they did not do this, we, the union, had the right to ask that the employer, the Municipality of Anchorage, terminate that employee. That no longer exists, and it's been amended to abide by the law, and they may make membership or choose to be a core fee payer, or what was the other? I'm sorry, the third one.

I'm sorry. Yeah, well, the third option is they just don't do any, any of the above. They don't have to become a union member, they don't have to become an agency fee payer. They're a member of the bargaining unit, you represent them, and they don't have to pay anything to the union. Exactly.

That's the third option. It's described there in, in, in the way that we utilize it in practice. Yeah, I guess my, my concern— and, and I appreciate that, appreciate all of you guys, appreciate the conversation— my concern with with this is that if an employee is presented in their labor contract with two options, union membership or agency fee payer status, while we're omitting the existence of a third constitutionally protected option to decline either of those, it just feels like we're misleading employees regarding their constitutional rights. I think that should be expressly written into the contract, not in a form managed through the union. I do appreciate the conversation though, and look, yeah, it just seems coercive to me, to be completely candid.

So that is my concern. I will be a no vote on this contract for those reasons. Thank you. If I may address Assemblymember Gerker's concern, the default is that they are not a member. So they actually have to take active action to join and either become a member or an agency fee payer.

So the HR doesn't do anything other than in the contract we are obligated to We just send a list of new hired employees with their information to the union. The union then reaches out to them to say, here's what we have to offer you. If we don't get a card back, they're not a member of the union. We don't deduct anything. And so I don't believe that it's actually misleading to the employees that they only have two options, because the default is that they are not a member, if that helps.

Okay, and I neglected to say this earlier, but just as a reminder or guidance for members, these collective bargaining agreements that we vote on are not items that we amend, so they are not the same as code or other written items. But thank you for the questions. So next I have Ms. Scout.

Thank you. I would I would like to note for the record that Alaska has no state legislation prohibiting union security agreements, which I believe is what's being discussed here. Um, and I also would like to express my intent to vote in favor of this contract despite some concerns that I have, particularly around the no-strike clause. I don't believe that this is something that's necessary for this or many labor contracts. It's included in and know that the power of strikes is what's strengthened our workers' rights movements historically, locally, and nationwide.

And so I will vote to support this, but hope that unions negotiating bargaining agreements will deeply consider their inclusion of no-strike clauses in the contracts.

Sorry, um, next, Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. A couple of things. As a longtime supporter of unions, I do recognize as Member Scout has mentioned, that the right to strike is a valuable tool in negotiation. But I will support this contract.

I love my union brothers. And through the chair to Mr. Gerker, in reading Article 2.11.2 on union membership, this is a legal document. It is generally recognized recognized in legal documents and statutory interpretation that the word "may" is optional without any other explanation, that if it were compulsory, it would use the word "shall." Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, I have now learned that Member Gerker's questions, uh, when it comes to union contracts are always along the lines of what did we get out of this. And so I, I wanted to point out that this particular union, uh, is— they, they are employees at Solid Waste Services. They do port maintenance. They make up a significant chunk of our maintenance and operations staff. They work at Merrill Field.

And so what we get out of this are A, seasoned employees who stay with the municipality. And continue to mentor along younger employees. And we also improve our recruitment at a time when, like it or not, we are competing with the private sector for employment. And we are working to fill vacancies in many of these places that I just mentioned where we desperately need more bodies, more people. We need more folks to plow our roads.

It does not matter how much equipment we have if we do not have people to drive it. Worth it. And so what we get out of this, I hope, is an improvement in our 7% conversion rate, which is what we currently have right this minute at street maintenance. And that is not going to get us to better plowed roads in the future, certainly not this winter and not next winter, if we cannot fix those vacancies. So that's what we get, and I think that that is well worth it.

We also get, I think, the, the benefit of being a good partner to our community because every single one of these employees is also a member of us. They are our neighbors, and they deserve to be well compensated, appropriately compensated for the work that they do on our behalf. So I think we get some satisfaction from knowing that we are treating our neighbors well and compensating them maybe not quite as well as the private sector, but at least as well, and continue to be competitive. Thank you. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. Well, no contract is perfect, but it's good when our folks are happy. And I say that because taking care of our workforce is a priority of ours. And this body has also put resources into working with the administration around understanding our recruitment and our retention challenges. And part of those challenges are improving our contracts, the workplace, the safety, and the benefits for our folks.

So This particular local and their members do a variety of things, as Member Baldwin-Day just described. Some of them you all may not know, like being the operators at the landfill. But what you do know is these are your snowplow operators. So full stop, we want our streets plowed and we don't want to have machinery without operators. Now, why would we have machinery without operators?

Because in an environment where there's a highly competitive marketplace and limited amount of folks with the qualifications, we are either an employer of choice or we are left behind with machinery and no one operating. So we get poached all the time. And hopefully this helps to stop the poaching. And hopefully this helps make us more attractive because we need these services delivered. Thank you for doing a great job.

Hopefully this contract sends the message that we take care of our workforce and that it does give you the ability to recruit and to retain in, in our environment so that we can be ready for the next season of our depending on you to get our city moving. Thank you.

No one else is in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 11 to 1, um, AO— sorry, AR 2026-96 has passed the body. Next, we'll move on to 14G, AR 2026-107. A resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating opioid settlement proceeds in an amount not to exceed $2,115,621.12 to the Opioid Settlement Fund Anchorage Health Department for allowable opioid remediation uses. I will also note there is an S version with a smaller— or with the same amount. So public hearing on this item is open.

Please come forward if you would like to be heard.

Seeing and hearing no one in the room, and we don't have anyone signed up on the phone, public hearing is closed. What is the will of the body? Move to approve the S version. Second. A motion by Mr. Boland to approve the S version, second by Mr. Perez-Fredia.

Mr. Boland?

Um, nope, don't need to speak to it. Thank you. Okay, and I don't see any other members in the queue. Queue. So members may— oh, okay, still no members in the queue.

Um, so members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO— or AR 2026-107S has passed the body. Next, we'll move on to Item 14H, that is AO-2020-663, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code 3.30 to add a new section providing for a second medical opinion following a disqualifying medical determination under NFPA 1582. Public hearing on this item is now open. Would anyone wish to testify? Please come forward.

Anyone wish to testify in the room? Okay, not seeing any. We don't have anyone on the phone, so I will close the public hearing. What is the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second.

Motion in echo by Member Scout, second by Member Baldwin-Day. Miss Scout, go ahead.

Yeah, um, I am eager to introduce this ordinance and, um, also would like to invite Chief Schraggy up to the stand in a moment to explain a little bit more— the podium— to explain a little bit more about the background of the experience of our fire department with new hires who based on their analysis, are fit to serve as firefighters, but then receive a medical opinion that is locked away that says they cannot— they are not fit to serve, and without any recourse. And so we are hoping to make this code change to make it so that a second medical opinion is possible, which is standard practice in many different industries and is all due respect to medical providers, but I think makes sense for us and in the municipality as we face challenges with recruitment and retention of our firefighters. So Chief Sharagi, would love to hear your perspective on this. Sure, thank you, Assemblymember Scout, through the chair. I'm Doug Sharagi, for the record, fire achieve.

And I agree, this does make sense. This is something that I appreciate the ability to have collaborated with the municipal law department and working with the original author, which was former Chair Constant, to address concerns, challenges that we have actually had in the selection and hiring of our personnel. We've encountered two different types of problems, and both of them are addressed by by this ordinance. When we go through the selection process, we have the written test, physical ability test, interviews, and then once we make a conditional job offer to an employee, they're subjected to psychological and medical evaluations. And what happens is we contract out for the administration of the, medical exams, and the candidate, the applicant for the firefighting job is not the client of the contractor.

So they aren't, if they get rejected on some medical grounds, they don't necessarily always get to know the reason because they aren't the client. This municipality is the client. And then the, So this ordinance addresses that by making those records available to the applicant so that they can address them for next time, or at least know if they have some health condition that needs to be addressed. The other problem is that when we— if someone gets rejected for or referred to, uh, a specialist for some condition, uh, it— this ordinance provides for a second opinion. So, uh, for example, somebody, uh, gets their, uh, physical exam, and they— if they have a major condition and they get referred to a cardiologist or a pulmonologist or something like that, um, this would enable them to to get a second opinion, but it also takes into consideration the very compressed timeframes that we have.

We don't often have time when somebody gets rejected to be able to make an appointment with a specialist and then get that second opinion in time for them, for us to make the decision and put them into the academy. And so it, this ordinance rightfully considers those compressed frames for us and doesn't unduly burden us. For somebody with a minor condition, such as, for example, if they have a, a minor hearing deficit in one ear, this ordinance enables the medical director to essentially provide a waiver and enable us to proceed with hiring that employee and putting them in the academy. So I appreciate this ordinance. I appreciate the opportunity to collaborate on on it and, uh, take any other questions that you might have.

Thank you. So the floor, Miss Scout.

Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you. Yeah, so this ordinance is about fairness, transparency, and good governance. Importantly, it does not weaken firefighter hiring standards but strengthens confidence in the process by ensuring that applicants patients are treated with basic procedural fairness. So the first point is simple, as Member Scout said, all due respect to medical providers.

As a medical provider myself, I will assert that medical opinions are not infallible. Even under a national standard like NFPA 1582, two qualified medical professionals can reasonably interpret the same information differently. We should not treat a single examination as beyond question when the result may permanently alter someone's career trajectory. And that's what this— our current practices have the potential to do. Being disqualified from firefighter employment is not a minor administrative outcome.

For many applicants, this is a lifelong dream with years of preparation and a major economic opportunity. I know a few of us were I was recently able to attend the firefighter graduation, and to my colleagues who maybe have not had the opportunity to attend one of those, they are quite moving to see not only the graduates, but the families, their friends, their supporters who have made that possible for them. So when the stakes are that high, fairness requires a meaningful opportunity for review. Second opinions are standard practice throughout medicine. If any, if any one of us received a serious diagnosis, we would expect the ability to seek another qualified opinion.

This ordinance simply applies that common sense principle to a municipal hiring process. It does not create an unlimited appeals process. It's structured, time-limited, and designed to function within the fire department's operational hiring timelines, as we heard tonight from Chief Schraggi. The academy schedule remains protected while still giving applicants a fair opportunity to respond. The ordinance reinforces a basic principle of individual rights.

People deserve access to their own medical records. An applicant should not have to, should not have to struggle to obtain records that directly determined their eligibility for employment. Importantly, some of these records may be held by third-party municipal contractors such as Vera Whole Health. Applicants may not even know what records exist or what information was, was relied upon in making a determination. So this ordinance closes that transparency gap.

The municipality also benefits from this policy. A documented and fair second opinion process demonstrates procedural due process and helps reduce exposure to unnecessary legal disputes. Transparency and consistency protect both applicants and the municipality. We are working to recruit and retain strong public safety personnel. Anchorage needs qualified firefighters.

This ordinance helps ensure we are not losing capable candidates because of potentially erroneous or incomplete medical determinations.

Ultimately, I believe this is measured, balanced policy that respects medical expertise peace, protects operational timelines, preserves public safety standards, and adds a reasonable layer of fairness and transparency to an incredibly consequential hiring process. I urge my colleagues' support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a series of questions for the sponsor, uh, probably the administration as well. Um, so to the sponsor, can you explain why the municipality has historically used independent third-party medical evaluations instead of making those decisions internally?

Yeah, I'll allow the administration to answer that, but I actually, before doing that, would like to clarify that my understanding of this proposal simply allows for a second independent medical opinion. But yeah, I'll allow for the administration to respond. Ms. Fawzyer, Ms. Pearson. Through the chair to Member Gerker, I will confess I don't know the deep history, but I know the recent history has been that the academy-led— academy-adjacent physicals have all been performed by VERA. I don't know if that is just a capacity issue, but I think it probably provides a level of independence so that we aren't having potential candidates seen by the health department, for instance.

I couldn't tell you is the candid answer. So it's independence and it's also— it takes some of that liability off of the municipality because we're not making those determinations, the third-party vendor are. Has risk management reviewed this ordinance and provided any analysis regarding increased liability exposure if the municipality overrides or modifies an initial disqualifying medical determination? No, I don't believe that risk management has opined on this ordinance.

Did the sponsor or the administration, did anybody talk with the chief medical officer at AFD and his capability to handle this workload? I see Chief Schragi raising his hand. Is that in response to this question? Yeah, Mr. Schragi, maybe you can come back up.

I didn't hear the question. Yeah, so the question, Chief, and, and I, you sent me the contract earlier and I greatly appreciated that. I reviewed the chief medical officer's contract and the listed duties appear to be primarily focused on EMS oversight, training, and protocol review. Um, did we have a conversation with the, with the chief medical officer and his ability to accept this increased workload Yes, in fact, through the chair, Member Gerker, Dr. Levy has been instrumental in helping to clear a lengthy backlog that we've accumulated over the last year or so of unresolved medical conditions for incumbent employees.

And so he has stepped forth, I think we had 35 or 38 8 incumbent employees who had been issued medical deferments by our contractor, Vera, that were unresolved. And he stepped forward and he's been working through those— this exact same process. He's stepped in, evaluated each of their medical files with their permission. The ones who opt in, and he has been able to resolve the ones that can be resolved, and the ones who haven't been have been sent off for further treatment. So yes, okay, in short.

Thank you, Chief. Pivoting slightly back to the sponsor, page 2, line 16, it says that additional testing may occur where it is administratively and financially feasible. Who determines what is financially financially feasible.

Does the administration have an opinion on that question? Yes, through the Chair to Member Gerker, we adopted rule of reason as we reviewed the ordinance and we thought that one way of interpreting that would be if there is a need for a contract change with Vera or some other third-party provider that needed to be accommodated that couldn't be accommodated within the budget, that would be financially infeasible. But we didn't foresee this being a tremendous use case that would be a significant cost. So candidly, we suspect that we largely can accommodate this, but if it does come to pass that we are having to to have additional office visits, we'll have to evaluate that and see what we can do within the non-labor portion of the fire department budget. [Speaker:JEREMY] Yeah, so I guess going back to the intent of this ordinance, back to the sponsor, is to promote fairness.

But under this regime, two applicants with identical medical circumstances could receive a different process simply on budgetary timing considerations. Is that right? Well, if it says we're administratively feasible, so if it's not administratively or financially feasible, then one applicant who had— who also had been disqualified, and another applicant who'd also been disqualified, they could see different outcomes. The second one could get a second evaluation and the other could not, potentially. Is that correct?

That's not my understanding. If they have the same situation, I assume that it would be feasible for both. But if it's— but it doesn't necessarily say that. It says where it is administratively feasible and financially feasible. So it could— there is a scenario where maybe it's not administratively feasible for one.

Maybe the chief medical officer is out. Maybe the designee is out. Maybe there's timing. We have to release the list for the academy. There is a scenario where that could happen where somebody is getting a different process than somebody else who has the exact exact same circumstances.

Is—. Do you—. I mean, it sounds like you disagree with that, but—. Yeah, I maintain my disagreement and trust the administration's assessment that most cases will be administratively and financially feasible, and want to reiterate that code is not static, and if we If we find that there's a different outcome, then we can reassess. Yeah, and I guess I just want to intervene for a second just to remind, we don't want to get into back and forth.

So I know you had questions for the sponsor, but just making sure. Yeah, I want to understand the intent. I want to understand that this has been, that we've really clearly identified we're not opening ourselves up to more liability. And what I just heard from the sponsor, and I believe Mr. Fawzi, what you said, is that most cases this will be administratively feasible, it won't be too problematic, but that does imply that there are cases where it won't be, correct, Mr. Fawzi?

I think if I'm tracking that question, that's what— I'm not sure I'm tracking that question. Okay, so if it is in most cases going to be administratively feasible to give a second medical evaluation, but that means that it most most is not all. So that means there's some where it will not be administratively feasible. Does this mean that we have now created a scenario where two applicants are getting a different process because one was administratively feasible and the other was not? Same exact medical circumstances, but different administrative outcomes because of different processes.

Is that— is that correct? Yeah, thank you for that clarification. I think we would endeavor to ensure that that is not the case. And so I don't foresee a lot of circumstances where this would be financially infeasible. I can anticipate circumstances where the timelines would not work out, but I think the particular scenario that you may have in mind is that we are running an academy, we have two applicants that have both been spiked for some medical reason, maybe an identical medical reason, they both have hernias that need to be fixed before they could enter in the academy.

I don't see any scenario without good cause was, we would say we will let one person get a second medical opinion but not the other. And there we're still always operating with sort of the background principle of equal protection of the laws. I mean, we would have to have some compelling reason to treat like-similar cases dissimilarly, and I can't foresee how that would come to pass in this scenario. Yeah, appreciate that. Um, Madam Chair, I do have a lot more questions.

Um, would you like me to go through all of them and do it all? Would you to stop halfway through, let other folks jump in, then I can circle back?

I think I do. And as a reminder too, we have an hour for debate. We're not anywhere close to that. I think there are a couple other members in the queue, so maybe continue with at least some of your questions and then keep an eye on the time and get back in the queue. So the, the ordinance allows the chief medical officer to appoint a designee.

What are the qualifications required required for the designee. Maybe Mr. Fawzi, Chief Froggy, Member Scout, if you have a— this is page 2, line 13.

Through the Chair to Member Gerker, that is correct. On this page 2, it does allow the Chief Medical Officer or their designee, and then it says they must apply the same medical standards applied in the preliminary determination. So at a minimum, I think they must be capable of exercising the practice of medicine, and they must be able to apply those standards. Okay, thank you. So if the municipality believes that the current third-party evaluators are sufficiently reliable for positive fitness determinations, what is the basis for presuming a second review is necessary only when the determination is disqualifying?

Fine.

Is that to administration? It's Member Scout. Yeah, the administra— I'd love to hear everybody's opinion on this. Yeah, um, I don't know what the reason would be for a second medical opinion if somebody has already passed that clearance already. And I'd love to use this opportunity to invite Justin Mack to the podium to share a bit about about his experiences.

Thank you, Mr. Mack. And don't forget to put your name on the record as well. Through the chair, Justin Mack, president of the Anchorage Firefighters Local 1264. Maybe if you could ask her a question again. I think it was—.

Yeah, why wouldn't you? Happy to. Go ahead. If the—. If we're all happy we're all happy with the medical, with the initial medical, we're all happy if it's a positive determination from the medical evaluator the first time, why wouldn't we be happy, why would we require a second, what is wrong, I'm just gonna reread it altogether, having a hard time rephrasing it.

If the municipality believes the current third-party evaluators are sufficiently reliable for positive fitness determinations, what is the basis for presuming a second review is necessary only when the determination disqualifying. Yeah, through the chair, none of this is created in a vacuum, and I think the ordinance references NFPA 1582. 1582 Is a very large standard that has been modified in the last couple of years. There used to be a new hire standard and an incumbent firefighter standard, both recognizing that there's physical expectations as we enter this job. There's different categories of things that might be— we'll just call it flagged.

NFPA would flag certain conditions. And so one condition, one example of a firefighter who wasn't able to get a job here is because when they were filling out their medical physical form, they identified that they had childhood asthma. That's flagged under NFPA 1582. What doesn't currently take place in our medical physicals, at least not in a way that has been successful up to this point, although we are attempting to make changes, is NFPA doesn't say childhood asthma, you no longer get to be a firefighter. What it says is you actually have to go into a secondary screening, which is you may have a condition.

It could be asthma, it could be a back surgery from 10 years ago. Those are flagged. All that NFPA is saying is we need to have a further look. We need to understand if the condition flagged prevents you from actually doing the job. And what NFPA identifies is 13 firefighter tasks that you would have to do.

And recognizing that they take your flagged condition, those considerations of the physical requirements of the job, job, and then it's determined, you wouldn't necessarily want the person flagging it. And NFPA calls this out. You don't want the person flagging it to necessarily be the person making the secondary determination. NFPA says a lot of things that we don't necessarily follow. NFPA is not a requirement for us to follow.

It's a suggestion. And so we do find little ways around it. One example would be The NFPA says the third-party administrator of the physical should not be the person determining fitness for duty. It should be the chief medical officer for the department.

What we've sort of stumbled into in an attempt to be more efficient is we allow VERA to do the NFPA screening flag the things that are flagged. And as Chief Sharagi said, they flagged about 30, 35 people. Those folks went to a secondary screening with Dr. Levy, who compared the restriction with the actual physical duties and an exam of the, the member. And so I think what this is— this ordinance is attempting to do is put us more in line with what NFPA 1584 82 already says. We recognize certain conditions need additional screening.

That's where these— that's where the folks get flagged. It doesn't mean that they can't be firefighters and aren't capable of it. Just means we need to do our due diligence and make sure. We wouldn't want to throw these folks out as candidates simply because childhood asthma or a back surgery that has no impact on their ability to do the job today.

I would, I would take issue with some of that, but that's okay. I'll move on then. So, and Mr. Fawzy, I think I heard you say you guys don't believe a fiscal analysis is needed. You don't believe it's going to be very expensive. Is that— did I hear that correctly?

You don't believe this is going to be a terribly expensive program to administer? That is how I have been advised, yes. Okay.

So under this ordinance, the final employment decision could end up resting with HR or the fire chief rather than the original independent medical evaluator. Is that correct?

That's my reading of the ordinance. I would say the employment decision doesn't rest with the medical provider, but the disqualification for—. Correct. Could rest, that's right. Okay.

So have we—. Okay.

What I worry about is shifting liability away from the third party, which is why we've contracted with them. They can make these medical determinations, and then we're completely out of the business altogether. We're not in a position where we're having to hold people's medical records, which is which is, you know, another part of this ordinance. So I do worry we're creating some issues for ourselves. There were some major liability issues because we bring somebody on who was initially deemed medically unfit, and then they go out and they get themselves hurt.

We now have a workman's comp issue, or God forbid, they get somebody in the public or one of their fellow firefighters hurt because they're actually not maybe medically fit per the first evaluation. So I do worry this opens us up for a tremendous amount of liability because now we're moving this decision in-house. So, uh, and I believe one of the issues we're trying to solve with this is making sure that we're sending as many candidates as possible to the fire department. Um, Chief Schraggy, when you and I spoke earlier, uh, via email— and I'll start out here, and you feel free to come up to the mic and, you know, clarify if you disagree— but from the conversation you and I had and from my experience overseeing recruitment at the municipality for multiple years, uh, there's actually no issue with sending the— a full slate of candidates to the fire academies. We're not having any recruitment issues there, correct?

Uh, through the chair to, uh, Member Gerker, that's correct. We have not had difficulty filling any of our recent academies. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so this is an issue that this ordinance is trying to fix, but it's not actually an issue? You don't have to answer that. That is my editorializing. Are we aware— are there any other fire departments in Alaska that do this?

Member Scout? I'm not. No. Okay. I don't know.

Okay. One of the concerns, also one of the concerns I have is— and I'm coming up to an end, I promise. One of the other concerns I have with this is that, again, overseeing recruitment at the municipality in my previous role under the previous administration, this sort of a conversation has been floating around for a little while. This isn't, this isn't terribly new. And one of the issues that we, we had around the, the public disclosure of, of the, of the records is the municipality does not hold the medical records.

The municipality is told thumbs up, thumbs down, this person is qualified, this person is not qualified. We are not told anything else. The actual medical review and evaluation is with the contractor who we do not have any control over. And so in the Chief Medical Officer's contract, one of the memos, a part of that indicated there was only one proposal received for the Chief Medical Officer. This is a very specialized area.

We know we have trouble with the vendors that we have doing the third medical, or doing the third-party medical reviews already, and they are not, at least at the time when I was there, this was not something they were excited about. In fact, they were adamantly opposed to releasing the medical records because that opens them up for liability as well. So my, I guess my concern there is we're limiting our potential vendor pool, which is already incredibly small. Incredibly limited. We built an independent contractor medical evaluation structure specifically to create specialized expertise and liability separation for the municipality.

This ordinance appears to inadvertently blur those lines without clearly defining standards, timelines, qualifications, workload expectations, or risk allocation. I will be a no vote on this, on this ordinance. If we had maybe more time to sit down and workshop it, I'd be open to that. But as is presented, I think this presents way too much liability for the municipality. I think this is, this is a, this is a, a risk.

And one of the, one of the lines in, in this memo refers to the devastating results of these candidates not being selected. They do have the ability to apply for the next academy. There's nothing that precludes them from that. And I'm more worried about the devastating of hiring someone for a tough physical job who isn't actually physically able to do it. This has very real life or death implications.

I will be a no. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you. So I think it's important that we recognize that the NFPA provides a great deal of flexibility for fire departments to actually make discretionary calls with respect to all sorts of things. And in particular, I would point to certain types of medications. There are a variety of medications in NFPA 1582 that are listed as— that are flags, but the ultimate decision as to whether or not any of those medications, for example, the long-term use of steroids for something like asthma, There's a great deal of discretion that's encouraged, that fire departments will have the ability to make those determinations independently.

I also want to point out that the NFPA itself often— the standard standards often change as new information becomes available or as we understand more about human biology. For example, in 2024, there were some changes that were made to the standards for for cardiorespiratory requirements. And some of those adjustments were made based on age and gender and recognizing that a 220-pound person who is male is going to have a different cardiorespiratory capacity than say a 145-pound female. And so I think that the fact that these things are all fluid and that the sector itself has set up these standards as a way of saying here are the best practices, here are the things we ought to be considering in terms of firefighter fitness, firefighter fitness, excuse me, does not mean that we should thereby like outsource all of the decision-making to a third party. In the end, the fire department understands perhaps better than the folks at VERA Health what exactly it takes to be a successful fire professional.

And I think it's helpful, I think it's useful for VERA to take some of that that workload off of our plate as a contractor. I think it is important that we have that initial screening done with respect to the NFPA standards, but I think it is problematic to assert that Vera should have sort of unilateral judgment over who is fit to be a firefighter and who is not, irrespective of the feedback and the input of the, um, of the fire department's chief medical officer. And I think it's appropriate that some of that control and some of that guidance be retained within the department up to and including an encouragement to seek a second medical opinion. So I don't think that the risk is quite as severe as what my colleague has asserted that it might be. And in fact, I think it's important that we continue to locate the responsibility for these determinations within the fire department, with VERA as a supporting component of the process, not with, not with a third party as the, the driver or the determining factor in that process.

So I will, I will be a yes vote. I think this, this makes a lot of sense, and I, I hope that my colleagues will agree that this is an important way to allow folks who do have a flagged condition to seek redress and to not be automatically disqualified because, as has been pointed out, they had childhood asthma or they take a medication that is on the flagged list, that that does not in fact mean that they cannot be a successful member of our fire department. Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Gates in the queue.

Um, uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I assisted Mr. Constantine drafting the ordinance and I just wanted to share a couple of things we learned in the process, um, kind of in response to what I've heard tonight from first, uh, the guest speaker. I apologize, I forgot his name, but he mentioned that NFPA 1582 wasn't really required, uh, in this drafting process. We looked at some of the position vacancy announcements. I just looked at the one for fire captain, but it does say— I guess that's not the entry-level firefighter, But it does say there for eligibility, um, for applicants not currently employed in 56-hour operations, you have to meet these things.

One is satisfactory medical examination, parenthesis, meets NFPA 1582 requirements. So it doesn't seem sort of like optional to me looking at this vacancy announcement. But the fire chief probably knows a lot more about that than I do. I just wanted to mention it. And the second part is, um, we also talked and engaged with Deputy Superintendent Joe Busa, who, uh, contacted HR for us to ask some of the questions we had about the effect of this proposed ordinance.

And one was about access to Vera's medical records. And, uh, he responded, um, to one of those questions saying, uh, that that he heard back from the HR person that manages the VERA contract, and they say VERA would be able to share medical records they have, including records related to an applicant. So HR didn't have any objection, and I'm just reading what he told us. So I don't know if things changed since Member Goker's experience there, or if this person is the same or different, but that's the message we got before submitting Thank you. Uh, Mr. Martinez.

Uh, thank you, Chair. Just a couple questions to help me clarify, um, a couple things that were raised. Uh, Chief Scroggy, would you mind just— uh, you described that, uh, right now you don't have any difficulties filling the academies. That, that is correct, through the chair. Can you, can you tell us a little bit about when was the last time you difficulties from the academies?

In the 5 years that I have been serving as fire chief, we have not had— there hasn't been an academy that we weren't able to meet our recruitment targets. Right on. Thank you. And do you have concerns or shortcomings about this particular item and that you haven't expressed to us today?

Uh, I do not have any concerns about it. Thank you, Mr. Mack. Uh, thank you for being here, uh, and thank you for sharing your testimony earlier. Do you have concerns or shortcomings that you've identified in this that you'd want to flag for us that you haven't had a chance to do? Uh, I do, uh, through the chair, Justin Mack, Anchorage firefighters.

And Chief Schrage is correct in that we have been able to fill seats in the academy. I would add some context that in, in nearly every academy we've had, we have not— let's say we choose to have an academy of 26 people, we lose people in the medical physical portion of the academy each year. I would say that, uh, and, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Chief, but, um, we, we lose at least one person through the medical physical. This may be for a very good legitimate medical reason why this person should not work here, but what we have found in the past is that some folks who are flagged as, uh, not qualified medically, who have no idea that they have a medical condition. Then they would go to HR or they would go to VERA and they would say, "I just got flagged.

I'm told I can't be a firefighter because of a major medical condition." And then they hear, "Well, we can't tell you anything about that. We can't give out those records." People find creative ways to eventually get a hold of their records. One person ends up flying out to Seattle, getting a secondary opinion, bringing it back, back to the city and ultimately getting hired. What I'm suggesting is that 1582 has a flag and then verify process built into it. We do that currently with incumbent members.

The 30+ members that Chief Schraggi speaks of are folks who were flagged by VERA as having a disqualifying medical condition Those folks went to a secondary screening through the chief medical officer and have all been cleared. There's one person marked on their health— healthcare application that they stopped using their CPAP, and that's the reason that they got flagged. If we didn't do a secondary screening, that person would not work here anymore. Somebody had a back surgery. They had been working here for several years.

The back surgery was never flagged. Under the new NFPA standard, that back surgery surgery was flagged. That person went to Dr. Levy and was cleared and is currently working as a fire captain. If we did not do secondary screening, these 35 people would not, would not work here. Every single one of these people, to my knowledge, has been cleared.

And so it's— if it's a medication, if it's a condition, we should be very thorough in looking at it, but we should recognize that the flagging under 1582, just puts you into step 2. Step 2 is actually looking at the disqualifying factor, applying it to the requirements of the job, and then making a determination. VERA, Dr. Levy, they do not make employment decisions. They simply say this person is fit or not fit. If they're not fit under VERA, Dr. Levy looks at it, compares it to NFPA, and decides There are certainly things that just will not work.

An example would be somebody who's on a certain level of blood thinners. That person is going to get flagged. They're going to go to a secondary screening. That secondary screening is saying, I'm sorry, if something traumatic happens to you in a fire, we're concerned about what might happen. So NFPA 1582 is very thorough.

They've looked at the this. There's a whole group of professionals who help draft and create guidance under 1582. We're simply asking under this ordinance that we apply it. And if we are going to say somebody has a major medical condition that prevents them from working here, I believe it's in the city's best interest and the employee's best interest to give them their medical information so they can follow up and get the help that they need. Thank you, Mr. Mack.

Uh, Chief, did you want Do you want to finish any remaining thoughts or— I saw you step back to the podium. Yeah, sure. Thanks for indulging me through the chair. I just wanted to reinforce what Justin Mack just spoke about and also eliminate any gaps in what the two of us said. So it is true that every year we lose about 10% to medical screening, but we deliberately overhire in anticipation of that.

So if we're trying to get an academy of 24, we'll hire 26 or 27, and assuming that 2 or 3 are going to not, not pass, and that has, that has borne out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Silvers.

I move to call the question.

Second.

Okay, that move to call the question has been moved and seconded. Um, okay, and it is not a debatable motion, so we will proceed to vote. And this is the calling the question which ends debate.

On a vote of 12 to 0, um, that motion passes. I think we're talked out, um, so let's move on and vote. Members may proceed to vote on the underlying question.

On a vote of 9 to 3, Ordinance, uh, AO-2020-663 passes the body. Next, we will move on to Ordinance 2026-64, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Sections 2.30.035 and 2.30.040 to include initial audience participation and establish a durational limit at regular assembly meetings. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify. Testify.

And I know we have at least one testifier in the room, so please state your name and what part of town you're from for the record, and you have 3 minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Mayor, members of the assembly. My name is Felix Rivera and I live in District 4, represented proudly by members Baldwin Day and Park So I promised at my last assembly meeting that I would be here to testify and speak just on this side of the dais. And so I am here today to speak in support of AO 2026-64.

This ordinance— this assembly has debated this idea several times in the last several years, and I would argue that the debate has really centered around centered around a couple of ideas. The debate has centered around the idea of making sure that this is a business meeting and that this body gets the business done in a timely fashion and trying to provide maximum access to members of the public to participate and to let their voices be heard. I think this ordinance is a good compromise between those two issues, which often have tension. And, this ordinance, is I think a step, in the right direction from what was previously in municipal code and, later removed from municipal code. Um, I would argue that, um, we are no longer in, um, the time where, uh, the reason that this was removed from code in the first place was, It was the massive crowds that caused this to be abused.

And I fully respect that Assemblymembers at the time voted to remove it. As you can see from the massive crowd that we have here today, that is no longer the case. So, you know, I would argue that this will provide more access to residents to do what they love to do, which is to to let you all know the issues that are on their mind and to interact with you as assembly members here during assembly meetings. As I emailed you all earlier today, this is actually quite common practice in other jurisdictions, um, and so we would be really mirroring what other jurisdictions have done around the state. Last, I will end with a little bit of a question that I was asking myself as I was crafting this ordinance which is, um, what if rather than the horrible timing of having this initial audience participation be created during the pandemic, what if instead that initial audience participation was created, let's say, in 2023 after the pandemic?

Would we still have initial audience participation today? I would argue that yes, we would have it today. This ordinance wouldn't be necessary. But that's not where we are. This ordinance is here, and I urge you to vote yes.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else wish to testify in the room? Welcome. Please approach.

Turn the microphone back on. State your name and what part of town you're from. You have 3 minutes. Hi, Phil Cannon, Mountain View. I agree with the intent, I think, of this.

The only thing that I think is is concerning is that it has a durational limit of 30 minutes to the beginning, uh, audience participation, and then no promise of audience participation at the end. It's only if time allows. I think that you could end up creating a situation where, um, if you have 30 minutes at the beginning of the meeting, it's a lot more accessible to the public than sitting around in a meeting and waiting till 10 o'clock at night to participate. And so you may end up having having often, I would imagine, situations where people come and sign up and get their 3 minutes, but then audience participation is full, and then people might sit around and wait for the end of the meeting and not get it because there was some contentious public hearing that made the meeting go long, and then at the end of the meeting you didn't promise them that they would have audience participation. The only concern with me is that it's not guaranteed at the again, and I'd urge you to essentially find a way to guarantee audience participation.

If someone shows up to participate in public process, they should be able to have that opportunity. Thanks. Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify? Please come forward, state your name, what part of town you're from, and you have 3 minutes.

And the microphone is on. Hi, my name is Miranda Walso. I live in Chugiak/Eagle River. I'd like to speak in support of this ordinance Oftentimes when there are very controversial or upsetting issues, you'll see lots of people come out. They'll be upset and the meetings will get more tense, or there will be challenges that come from having a good public discourse.

A lot of times though, that's when things are affecting people the most. I think that in general, most people come when they have something that's very personal to them, or they were drug out by somebody they know. In general, especially for those who have young children, the process of knowing at what time something will come up to speak on during the meetings is almost impossible. You never know what issue is going to become, you know, a topic of debate, whether it's, you know, Title VII or a land use thing or whatnot. And for people that don't regularly attend these, it's, it's important that they have an opportunity with some certainty of what that process would look like.

And so I encourage you to, to pass this, and I acknowledge that when things happen and it is, you know, a challenge, obviously things will need to be modified and addressed. But, but that's normally how the public process goes. And so I encourage you to provide as many opportunities for others to be able to speak in meaningful ways as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward, state your name and part of town, and you You have 3 minutes and the microphone is on. It was impacting her too. Yeah, it's still going. Okay.

Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage. So, Freeland— oh, sorry, I mean Conrad James and Free Ron Eleva. There are any number of, you know, a cast of characters that have come through this assembly and it's intense debate, sometimes a spurious debate. Debate. Sometimes it's just entertaining debate, and, you know, it brings, you know, just things to this assembly, whether it's livening mood or, um, you know, just new debate.

And so I don't know if it's a good idea to restrict people to every 90 days unless it becomes a problem. And, you know, maybe it can be an ad hoc thing where if somebody uses the rules and they sort of, you know, get a slap on the wrist. But, yeah, that's part of the process of debate is having open discussion, open forum, trying to find consensus sometimes. Sometimes you don't find consensus, but, you know, it's part of the process. And I don't know if creating barriers to debate is a good thing.

It's happened throughout time in very various civilizations. But I don't think it's needed at this point in time. And so aside from that, I will say I will not call for fire in a sparsely populated theater. That debate was very long, much longer than it needed to be. And aside from that, I think I'll save the rest for the end.

So thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to testify? Anyone at all? Seeing no one in the room and no one signed up on the phone, um, this public hearing is closed.

What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by, uh, Miss Silvers, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Miss Silvers.

Yeah, um, so I was really excited to see this, uh, as previous member Rivera as parting gift.

I think this is a really important ordinance for open, transparent, and accessible government. And I do, you know, kind of understand some of the issues that were happening when the beginning public testimony was taken away. But I think it's time to bring it back. I think it's time to restore it. I think it's time to, you know, let our constituents know that we want to hear from them.

Right now, if a constituent wants to testify, they have to wait hours to testify at the end of the night. Families, people have to get up for work, seniors, transit riders, you know, they've had to leave. And so it's created a system where participation is only accessible to people who have have the time and the resources to stay all evening, and public testimony should not be an afterthought like that. So this change will make participation more accessible. It will give residents the opportunity to speak on consent agenda items or other items that are important in local governance before the decisions are made instead of after the room has emptied out.

Some of the most important things that we hear come directly from the residents who then have to live with the consequences of our decisions. So I think if we want public trust in our local government, we should make public participation real and accessible. I encourage your support, and I would like to move Silver's Amendment 1.

Okay, motion to amend from Ms. Silver. Second. Second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Go ahead, Ms. Silver. What this does is it gives the chair the ability or the— to reorder the queue so that if there are people here that have not spoken at audience participation in the last 3 months, they can speak first.

And I, you know, I do know I was a part of the people that came to testify in the past and sometimes you would have the same people, they would show up at 4 o'clock and they would get in line and they would testify, you know, over and over again. And you ended up not hearing from the other people who were unable to get here at 4 o'clock or didn't realize they had to get here at 4 o'clock in order to be heard. And so this just kind of puts a guardrail on it to where people that haven't testified in the last 90 days can get in line in front of people who have been testifying frequently. And I urge your support. Thank you.

Okay, next I have Mr. Volender. You on the amendment? Main motion? Mr. Presverdia, amendment or main motion? Well, I was on the main motion, but I'd like to speak to the amendment too.

Go ahead. Thank you. Thanks. I think that this amendment actually speaks to what I'll speak to later, which is my opposition to this and why. It's so complicated and so difficult to try to administer and keeping track of the last 3 months of speakers and just managing that when really what we want is greater public participation.

And I think that's something that we all want, and I think there's a lot of ways for us to do that in a really creative way. So I won't be supporting this amendment. I think it further complicates something that is complicated already. Thanks.

Thank you. Oops, I cleared myself out of the amendment. Member Burley. Yeah, thank you. I have a question for the sponsor.

Just so— and this is— so we have 3 new folks. This is your first meeting that you're sitting through learning in real time. But I'm also curious kind of kind of as being now in the chair position, the original ordinance in this amendment really speaks to discretion by the chair. And so I had a question for the sponsor and then a question for council. The question for the sponsor is kind of, can you just put some intent on the record, kind of what you're picturing with what this looks like?

So we have 3 people who stand up there. I don't recognize them by face. I don't know their names, right? So I'm learning what their are. I'm just trying to get an idea of kind of how this would work in practice as the person who would need to implement this.

So, two things. One is Jamie, and maybe you can speak a little bit, talked about how it could be tracked from their perspective. However, I think my intent more is that if you have somebody that's kind of abusing the public testimony, showing up at 4 o'clock to get in line, to get in first, and you have— I mean, you're going to recognize and be able to know who that is. And so I think if there's people that you don't recognize that haven't been here before, you can ask the question and, you know, try to move them just in front. I'm not saying that the person that's testifying all the time can't testify.

But I do think that people should be able to have the opportunity to speak, you know, if they haven't spoken in the last 90 days.

Thank you. And then my question— and actually, this may be for the clerk or counsel— but trying to understand most, most of what the chair's powers are can be overruled by the the body, so whether it's, you know, ruling on a conflict of interest, right? There's a lot of things that the chair is designated to make a decision, and then the body can decide to overrule that. So is this— would this be in the category— like, could this basically be overruled, or is this the way it's drafted, purely discretion of the chair? And let's say the chair is making bad, inconsistent decisions.

Do members have the ability to override that? In any way under Roberts Rules or just the way that it's framed here?

And I apologize for not sending this in advance.

Well, that's a very good question, Madam Chair, but I think it is. That would be my sense. I think we fall or err on the side of the body being able to overrule the chair in most instances. And so even though we use more discretion, we have that in a couple of the places that I think would also be subject to an appeal of the chair's decision. Um, can I definitely say that?

Maybe not, but this body can.

Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, and I'll just note, um, I do have concerns about really the practicality of this, and I will say the underlying ordinance, I'll speak to that when it's appropriate, but But I think there's a practical matter if we're talking about a period of time that probably at most is 30 minutes or so, 5:30 to 6:00, and then we take 2 to 4 minutes even just sorting out the procedure, or if someone, you know, if I as chair decided to not let someone testify in that time period and then someone else says, no, they should, right? So I think there is some risk, practically speaking, that this would— one, not play out the way it wants— it is intended, and also that there would be so much discretion that people could credibly say that we're being arbitrary and capricious, or that we are favoring or not favoring folks. So I do have some concerns about that. So thank you.

I'll give back the gavel— or take back the gavel, sorry. So thank you. Sorry, still practicing. So next, Ms. Parker, you for the amendment or main?

So, um, I guess through the chair, a point of information to Ms. Silvers: who's going to keep track of what people have testified, and is there a mechanism for that?

Go ahead, Madam Thank you. Through the chair, um, so for the item, the 13 items, the continued public hearing, uh, we look at the minutes from the previous meeting and we pull the list of testifiers. And so it is something that is already done on an occasional basis at this point where we look at the previous minutes. And so that is something that we would do on an every meeting basis moving forward forward would be to look at the minutes of the previous 3 months' worth of meetings and pull the list for the chair and I to review as the people come and stand in line and testify. We anticipate that it would not be very much time, about 10 minutes.

You know, once we got the list made, it would be— some people would fall off and some people would be added, so it wouldn't take more than about 10 minutes, and then the chair and I would have a list up here to try to manage the queue of people.

Thank you. Ms. Park, do you have further questions? No, thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Martinez for the amendment or the main?

For the amendment now, come back for the main. Okay, uh, on the amendment I first want to just express appreciation for the intent, I think, but the complexity is— it doesn't seem like it's a practical thing at all. But it also, from my vantage point, it speaks to some other values that I think are really interesting that we could debate, we could discuss, but I don't think that they're they're appropriate here. And it really centers around, from my vantage point, what does it mean when people show up on time and repeatedly show up on time? And it's been almost categorized as folks who show up regularly on time with something to say is a degree of some sort of abuse.

And I don't know about that. That's something I get the feeling of of making sure that more voices could be heard. And I really think about the intent of folks thinking about that. And we'll save some remarks for the main. But on this particular amendment, no, I don't see that the chair is in a position to do that work.

I don't think that the clerk needs to be overly tasked as well. And fundamentally, I think that, uh, it's, it's a very, it's a, it's, it's a very difficult place to increase the risk by denying people who, uh, have, uh, standing in physical presence, uh, when they show up on time and they do the right thing, to then deny folks. So I think that this gets very complicated, and for that reason, I encourage my colleagues to not support, um, the Amendment.

Mr. Handlin, for the amendment or the main? Amendment. Go ahead. Okay, I've got a question for the sponsor. So when it talks about here about going to the end of the queue, is there, I guess, essentially almost like two queues of one with people who have credibly declared?

Because I guess wouldn't that person kind of go, go potentially to the, the back of the line there?

Even though I guess they could fall into one of those other categories. I mean, the intention of the amendment is just to make sure that everybody's voices get heard. So that's the intention of the amendment. I'm kind of getting the sense here that people think it's complicated and that it's not going to work out the way that I intended. And so I think, you know, we can vote about it and move on to the main motion.

Um, I have Mr. McCormick in the queue. Yeah, I came in not knowing how I was going to vote on this. I was kind of torn. I feel I'm getting kind of pulled in into the no on this, but I, I really do appreciate the, the intent of it. Um, but I think I'm getting pulled to the no on this amendment.

Thank you. Uh, Ms. Baldwin, Amendment or the main? The amendment, please. So I, I think what I appreciate about this is not that we are denying anyone the lectern. It is that we are prioritizing folks who may not have had the opportunity to speak recently, which I think is important because the way that this, the way that this whole ordinance is crafted, all of this happens prior to 6 PM, and we have a variety elements of the agenda to get through before we even arrive at appearance requests and, if this AO passes, initial public participation.

And I can envision a world in which we take a really long time with committee and liaison reports, and there's a bunch of stuff on the addendum that has to be read in, and then we have some appearance requests, and we get finally to initial audience participation. Participation, and we only have 6 and a half minutes left. And the first two people standing in line are people that we've heard from very consistently over the course of the preceding meetings, the preceding months. And there is someone behind them who is new, a face we don't recognize, someone from one of our districts that perhaps we don't know, who has come to say their piece, and they do not get that opportunity because there are two people ahead of them who are here consistently. I'm not saying we ought to penalize the consistent folks.

I'm saying that we ought to prioritize new voices who have not yet had the opportunity to be heard. And in that scenario, I would absolutely want the chair to have the ability to say, excuse me, so-and-so, we'd like to prioritize the person in the queue who has not had the opportunity to speak in the last 90 days. I would like for that flexibility to exist because I think we not only privilege the folks who show up consistently, we privilege folks who show up for the first time or who show up and, and have something that they do want to get off their chest that they have not had the opportunity to do in a different format or forum. So I, I really appreciate this. I appreciate the clerk's willingness to keep a rolling list over the course of 90 days of who has spoken and who has not.

And I think if we can use that as a tool to ensure that people who do come can be heard and can be heard with relative consistency, I'm, I'm in favor of that. So I want to express my appreciation to Member, Member Silvers for creating this possibility. Thank you.

Okay, I don't think there's anyone else in the queue for the amendment, so members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

On a vote of 3 to 9, uh, the amendment fails. We are back on the main motion, um, and next in the queue for the main motion, I have Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, with all gratitude and respect to our former colleague I do not appreciate this parting gift for a couple reasons. Number one, I think on the discussion of the amendment, you know, I think that this, while yes, well-intended, it does put leadership in an incredibly uncomfortable position to, for, you know, for the chair to have to prioritize people who in their estimation credibly declare they are unable to remain at the meeting.

And then to tell certain people you actually have to go to the back of the line, I mean, I just think that that is going to not sit well with people.

As Chair Brawley expressed, I think we do run the risk of looking like we are discriminating against some people but not others. And I actually think this will be an implementation challenge and quite complicated for the clerk to track. I mean, I know that even when we do substitute versions of an ordinance, sometimes it is, you know, we really have to be on top of tracking, okay, who testified to the original? Now you can only testify to the differences between the original and the substitute version. Those tracking changes, um, I, I think, you know, can be— they're not impossible, but they're not, not challenging.

Secondly, you know, from my vantage point, as someone who did serve during initial audience participation when that was still a thing, I never saw it really be functional. And I think it was often abused. And I think it was often folks who were not participating, you know, they weren't coming and testifying even to an item that was going to be before us that was publicly noticed. List, um, you know, during our business meeting. And so it made our meetings less efficient.

It also had the effect of disadvantaging people who came prepared to, to provide relevant testimony on a noticed item. It made all those people wait longer. Um, and then I think it's also redundant to some of the other opportunities and processes that we already have. For instance, a parent's request, We heard 3 of those tonight, so that's something that folks can sign up for. Chair Brawley and I actually, with the assistance of the clerk, actually looked back to see how often those were— those appearance requests were being made and being used.

And I will say they could be utilized by the public a lot more than they have been. And then, you know, we have open audience participation on all of our agendas that are various committee meetings. We have final audience participation at the end of every regular meeting. We also have the ability for constituents to email us on any topic that they wish to opine on or concerns that they want to flag. And I believe all of my colleagues are very responsive to those emails that constituents provide.

So, um, I would like to see our business meetings continue to be efficient, and for folks who do show up ready to testify on an item that's going to be before us, that they are able to do that in a timely fashion as well, and that we don't make those folks wait. So I'm going to urge opposition to bringing this back. And just as someone who, who never saw it work well, it was never I, I don't think it ever accomplished the intent of what it was supposed to be, and I just don't know how much value there would be in bringing it back. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Martinez next.

Thank you, Chair. I for one think it's really important that we find all the ways to have as much engagement as possible with— but I also think it's important to recognize the limitations of the apparatus and the spaces that we have. This is a business meeting of which 12 members of this body do work on the dais under the Open Meetings Act. So essentially, we do a lot of labor on the dais making the legislation in real time. And I find it incredibly valuable that when we have heavy items that we are sausage-making with, that we have dedicated feedback on those particular items as best as we can.

I also think it's really important that we do have a long-term conversation and a study on the ways that we can probably improve participation across meetings. I mean, fundamentally, we can organize ourselves any which way we want. We meet twice a month, for example, and we have all sorts of other— twice a month per code, and we meet at other times as necessary. I could imagine having having a day of hearings and listening, for example, something that I don't think this body does as a body formally, but it could be reorganized. And I just wanted to flag, for example, community councils, and I know this is not a community council conversation, but indulge for a moment.

Historically, community councils were a really important way for members of the public to have an opportunity to speak to more members of their community, to the council themselves, but really to elected officials who show up at these meetings with the community having the expectation that they'll see their assembly members there, their state reps. And that was my thought behind why I attended community councils. But community councils can reorganize themselves. And one of my community councils has reorganized themselves, and they don't want all of us to show up at every meeting. They only want one member to show up, and they only give us 3 minutes to speak. But I think that many members of the public want to hear us, and they want to talk to us way more than 3 minutes at a community council meeting.

But a community council organizes themselves in a way that they think is most appropriate to serve the needs of their business. And I think that's what's really important. We straddle the line between making sure we actively engage the public public, create the space for public engagement, but we are squarely elected for the business at hand. And I think it's really important that we maintain the ability to do the business in a way that we all are doing now effectively, still learning, but take a little more deliberate process to think about ways that we can engage the public with our procedures and the timing a little better. But I'd also flag that tonight we had— Mr. Volden mentioned at least 3 public hearings, I mean 3 public requests for appearances, but there were at least 4 public hearing items, several opportunities.

And I would just flag that most of the public hearing items that we had tonight had no members of the public testifying. Um, and so the challenge between finding the moving target of the public's our ability to do the work, I think, is incredibly complex and it's incredibly challenging. I don't want to have— I don't want to get in the way of our ability to do work right now while we have the ability to study this question a little more thoroughly and thoughtfully. So I'll be not supporting this tonight. I will be hoping that we can have continued conversations of increasing audience participation To meet the audience's demand, and I will share that as well, because I often think that we can find solutions to problems that we think exist, but they may not actually be there.

And I think audience participation is different than public engagement, and they may be the same at some times, but they may often be different. I'll be a no tonight, but I do support community engagement and us thinking very robustly on maybe other mechanisms to find the voices from the community that some of us feel are missing with some regularity. Thank you.

Mr. Perez-Rodilla. Thank you, Chair. I think most of what I was going to say has been said, but let me just say a few things. But there's a long queue. I want to make sure there's plenty of time for others.

I remember being a new assembly member, and being really excited about public engagement. And I still am really excited about public engagement. And it's something I'm really interested in changing. And I appreciate the idea even of structure, how we structure ourselves, and maybe we need to think about that and have a meeting that's more around public engagement and less around business. But I remember that, and I remember when we moved into the mode of having having initial audience participation.

And I remember the decision to end that. And yes, I do think some of that had to do with that period of time and what was happening in our city. But I also think we ended it because it wasn't working. It wasn't really meeting the goal.

The idea of trying to create more space for folks to get in early, we even had we had a little toy section in the back for parents, and we were thinking, if, you know, if you got to get your kids to bed on time, let's make sure that there's a space for you. And there's a lot of thinking around it. But we— years went by and it didn't really work. It didn't really allow folks who really wanted to come and speak to speak. So I think the challenge here is we're trying to solve a problem which in many ways is ensuring that the public has an opportunity to come before us and to share what they have to say and think and feel.

But we're, we're coming up with a solution that doesn't really meet that problem. And so I would just really encourage my colleagues, even those that, that like me are really excited about creating more opportunities for, for the public to get involved, to really think about whether this is the right solution or not. It's really problematic for the chair and vice chair to, to manage. Inherently what's going to happen is we are going to end up extending beyond 6 and suspending the rules over and over and over again. It's very difficult if you have a line of people standing in front of you to say, "Sorry, go sit down." It's very difficult to do it in a fair way.

And so I think the other thing I think that's happened is we've started to have a rhythm of how we work. Work. Having these sort of folks come who sign up in advance, I think that's starting to sort of kick in a little bit more. More and more people are understanding that that's an option for them to do that and they're doing it. And we're encouraging folks to come and testify on the items that are having public testimony.

And folks are coming out for that, for the ones they care about. So I would just say that I would really encourage us to not move this forward, um, and, and let's have a work session on how to engage the, the public in a more thoughtful way. And, and let's think about our structure and think about how to do this, um, and not continue to have a practice that really in the past failed. Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am inclined to support this ordinance As someone who very frequently organized testimony before this body after initial audience participation disappeared, this would have been a really, really helpful tool for folks who could not stay for formal testimony, who didn't have the flexibility in their real lives to wait until the 14s to offer their thoughts, but wanted their voices voices to be heard and wanted them to be heard in real time in front of all of us, to actually stand at the lectern and look at our faces.

And I appreciate that other members have had a very different experience of this, and I understand that some folks who are still on this dais have lived through very different times, and I appreciate that. However, I am very unlikely to be the sort of person who will say, well, that didn't work last time, so we shouldn't try it again. I will be the person more than likely who says, well, that didn't work last time. This is a different time. This is a different body.

This is a different moment. Maybe it's worth a go.

I understand that this is a business meeting. Yes, it is. But, but we are conducting our business on behalf of the public, and I believe that offering the public multiple opportunities at which they can be heard over the course of this meeting is actually quite important. There are individuals who want to speak on items that are on our consent agenda, and by definition, those items never have a public hearing. And so either those folks don't get to be heard, or they have to wait until the very end of our meeting to talk about something that might have popped up on the addendum and they didn't actually have time or opportunity to submit a formal appearance request at the beginning of the meeting.

I think, I think it's worth allocating somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 minutes at the beginning of a meeting for folks to talk to us this way. We very frequently spend more than 30 minutes on recognition resolutions, and so Well, quite honestly, if we're gonna get stingy with our time during this business meeting, then I think we ought to revisit that.

So I have a hard time, I have a hard time saying we shouldn't offer opportunities at the beginning of a meeting for folks to speak. And if that becomes unmanageable, then we adjust. But I think this merits consideration. And perhaps this is still, I'll call it sophomore optimism, but I think that there are ways that we could communicate about this change that would invite folks to participate perhaps differently than they have in the past. Thank you.

That's all I have. Mr. Hanlon. So I've got a couple questions maybe for the sponsors or the chair even. So on our agenda, we also have appearance requests. And so I guess, is there anything with these changes that would prevent someone currently from, I guess, putting a request in under the appearance request and then being able to testify during that?

I mean, I guess beforehand, and maybe kind of, I guess, explain a little bit, I guess, the process for someone being able to, I guess, submit and get on the agenda for that. So [Speaker:MS. KELLY] appearance requests would not go away. And previously, when we had the initial audience participation, you could still also do an appearance request. I think the issue with that is a lot of people don't know how to go through that process. And so just having the initial audience participation, it is more accessible for the public.

And, and to the question about appearance requests, I'll turn to the clerk to just briefly describe the general process. There's a form, I think there's a timeline, is that correct? Sure, through the chair there's a form that they fill out and we submit it to the chair and ask the chair if they want to approve this person being on the agenda. We make sure there's 4 reasons in the code which I can't remember off the top of my head, but have they gone through all administrative remedies? Are they in litigation?

There's two others. And so if they meet that criteria, then we ask the chair if they'd like to be—. Approve this. And then it says that the clerk shall put it on the next available agenda. The chair does have discretion to move it around based on how full the meeting is, or if there's already couple of people, uh, signed up in the audience participation section.

Thank you. And, and I'll just add, as a general practice, um, of course I'm new to this role, but I'm familiar with this process generally, and I know the practice of the prior chair, um, was to generally grant them unless there was an issue, unless they were prohibited in code. Um, and then there's also a couple of provisions that say typically we have up to 3 in theory we could have more, but trying to limit, you know, how many there would be per meeting. And then also, let's see, there's 3— sorry, I lost my— Oh, [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] yes. And then there's also— this is not a hard and fast rule, but if somebody continually makes appearance requests, they can be limited to 1 appearance per 90 days.

And we have at least 1 individual who typically engages in that. So there are some rules. Some of that is the discretion, but I think the general posture, at least what I intend to continue, is being very liberal with that, granting those appearance requests when they are given, or when they are put forward. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Point of information, how far in advance do you have to submit a request, an appearance request.

Stand by as we look up the answer.

So we can add them to the addendum. Um, and so I believe that it is certainly by, um, Wednesday, about 6 days before the meeting, but that we would need to receive the application to be able to process it. So 6 days before the meeting so that we could add them to the addendum.

Thank you. And do you have further questions or comments, Mr. Handlin? No, thank you.

The code does say that I had the municipal clerk no later than 14 days.

Oh, that's in lieu of appearance request, sorry.

Um, next I have myself in the queue. Chair Brawley. Thank you. Um, I just want to offer brief comments. Um, first to again thank, um, my former colleague for bringing this forward, um, and for I think the intent.

We've had a lot of good discussion about. I think everyone— it sounds like everyone agrees that, that we value public engagement. We want the public to be involved. I've raised some logistical issues. One additional one I just want to note is basically this reorders the consent agenda to be number 9 and moves appearance requests to number 10.

This is just all, you know, our, our basic agenda structure, but it would then move parts of the consent agenda up and then put puts that next item in the middle of it. Essentially, we would do some, like, the recognition resolutions, then we would go to parents' requests and audience participation, and then we would go back to the rest of the consent agenda. So I think that's something to consider, the way it's constructed. Um, and also, I will note, I think it could set up a, um, challenging public expectation, essentially, that, um, that, that there should be 30 minutes or there should be 15 minutes, but there is there's only 3, or there's 2 and a half, or there's 1 and a half, and it's just very hard to predict the flow and the timing of our meetings. And so, so I see some logistical challenges there, but I will also lastly say I am, like most folks up here have already said, very much in support of finding more ways to bring the public into our meetings.

But I want to separate that broad intent and question from whether this particular ordinance is the way to do that. So I am on the side of of not agreeing that it is the best way to do it, but I certainly commit to continuing to work on it. And I would be interested as, as we proceed as a body for folks to bring those ideas forward and really let's, let's talk about them. Let's see how they can work and let's see if there's other ways that we can innovate. But I urge a no vote on this at this time.

Thanks.

So next I have Ms. Scout.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to acknowledge what I've heard from previous speakers about the existing ways to engage with the Assembly, emailing, calling, texting. I have my Assembly number on the website and many other folks do too. And community council meetings, which I will say are on a spectrum of welcoming and reflective of our neighborhoods. But it is our job to meet the community community where they are at, and that's not always here in the library on a Tuesday night.

Um, I have some concerns about the precedent being set by removing and reinstating public comment based on the time we're at in history, basically. I, yeah, I'm concerned about the message that that sends, and I have a I have a couple of questions as well. The first has been sort of alluded to, but I wonder if we could get a direct answer to what the problem is that we are addressing here and if there are examples of community members who have been left out of a public process or conversation on an issue we were considering because of the way the agenda is set up. So that question is for the sponsor or for— Mr. Rivera. Thank you.

Miss Silvers, would you like to respond? And feel free to call up Mr. Rivera as well. I'll just make my response part of my comments next.

And I have an additional question for folks who have spoken on this previously, which is, um, another thing that's been alluded to is that there are many other options to increase public engagement. This—. I'm open to this being out of order, but I'm curious if folks have ideas for other options to increase public engagement that they would prefer.

So I would offer that we do have 3 additional folks in the queue who may want to speak to that, but also if anyone else would like to respond to that.

Okay, I think Mr. Vollen would like to respond. Um, yeah, so one of the projects that is happening right now that I'm pretty excited about, that Legislative Services have been working very hard to get together and is now currently on display out in the atrium of the library, is the Civic Anchor Project. I think that is a great way for the public to engage via technology. There's QR codes they can scan informational items posted out there. And so I think that's one example of a project that we're all supporting around greater public engagement.

Thanks.

Any further comments, questions? Okay. Ms. Silvers, you're next in the queue.

Yeah, so as someone who used public audience participation Often, actually, to hold an administration accountable.

I disagree with the assessment that previously the audience participation failed. I think accountability can be uncomfortable, but I don't necessarily think that it failed. You know, when the administration started building the Elmore tent under the table, I came here I came here when the administration emptied the Sullivan Arena into Centennial Park. I came here. I testified about these things.

You know, so I disagree with the assessment that it failed. I think it is important to open ourselves up for accountability. You know, and I have heard this is a business meeting. Whose business are we doing? I think that's a question we need to ask ourselves.

Thanks.

And Mr. Martinez. Uh, thank you, Chair. I appreciate this conversation, and my, my offering would be essentially, uh, as the current chair of the Quality Municipal Services Committee, um, at least while that's still a role that I'll hold, I think that may be a really good conversation to continue this discussion because I think that this conversation is meritorious of a continued discussion. And I would welcome at some point in the near future us to put that on an agenda for that committee if folks do not move forward on it tonight. I don't— I'm going to vote no tonight, and as I mentioned, and I just want to just continue to just reiterate a few different things.

Accordingly, if the past amendment that was voted down did pass, um, Member Silva wouldn't be able to speak so often as she had taken advantage of in the past. And so I just wanted to flag that as well. Um, and I think I'm— and I'm glad that you weren't limited by how many times you showed up, but there lies kind of the, the nexus between the complication of of the straightforward nature of an idea and the implementation that often is more difficult. And just to note, it was mentioned as well that why some folks have to wait until the 14s to testify. That's because their item is in the 14s.

And Chair, Vice Chair, can any member make a motion to reorganize the order of the day to essentially accommodate, I think as has happened, members of the public who are here for a particular item, because there may be several 14 items, but usually there's like the one that folks are coming to testify on, if at all. And there has been petitions to, or motions to reorganize the day. Is that something that's common as well? Yes, that's correct, and that's been a past practice. Right on.

And so just to urge my colleagues, this is not the end of this discussion. I think it's a worthwhile discussion, but I come from I come from the school of if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it again. But if you can improve every day, let's continue to do that. I invite this conversation to a committee, and I will be a no today, but I will be committed to finding a way that we can find a balance between the work that we need to get done, the interest that we have in to invite folks into a space that they may or may not otherwise be interested in, And then the larger conversation of how we communicate our business across the diversity of our community, because no matter how often they'll come to this body and testify here, this is still basically a single-language body. And so the larger questions around our communication with our diverse population I think still persist.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I have no one else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 3 to 9, AO 2026-64 has failed to pass the body. Next we have, uh, just a few more public hearing items. Next we have 2026-65, an ordinance authorizing a 25-year easement Agreement between the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, and the U.S. Department of the Air Force grantee and grantor for the use of premises located on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to be heard?

Please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, the public hearing is closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Moved by Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any comments? Okay, members may proceed. Oh, go ahead, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you. Just a question. I'm curious if the annual rate of this easement actually covers the operational repair maintenance and/or management expenses related to it.

I see Ms. Lang from AWWU approaching the podium.

Through the chair, Allison Lang, Assistant General Manager at AWWU. I will do my best to answer your question, but my understanding is that the lease, the fee you see here, that is all money that we, AWWU, pay to JBear, and then we bear the costs of maintaining our, um, sewer main on top of that. Thank you. That was unclear to me. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 12 to 0, this item has unanimously passed the body. AO 2026-65. Next we have Item 14K, AO 2026-66, an ordinance authorizing a 25-year easement between the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, and the U.S. Department of the Air Force grantor for the use of the premises located at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Uh, please come forward if you wish to testify.

Seeing and hearing no one, uh, wishing to testify and no one on the phone, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Any comments? Any other comments? Okay, I don't see anyone in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Park.

On a vote of 12 to 0, this item AO2026-66 unanimously passes the body. Next we have item 14L, ordinance AO-2026-67, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal by perpetual non-exclusive telecommunications and electrical easement to Chugach Electric Association, Inc., to install facilities to provide service to a new maintenance and operations facility on municipal property. Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none in the room or on the phone, then the public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms.

Scout, seconded by Mr. Boland. Any comments on this one?

Okay, seeing, uh, no one in the queue, then members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO-2026-67 passes the body unanimously. Next we have Item 14M, AO-2026-68, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal by perpetual non-exclusive telecommunications and electrical easement to Chugachuska Chugach Electric Association, Inc., to install facilities to provide service to the Glen Square PRV facility on municipal property. Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to be heard? Any— anyone at all?

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

Out. Uh, any comments on this one? Okay, seeing and hearing no one in the queue, members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-68 passes the body unanimously. So that concludes our, uh, regular public hearing items. Uh, last we have our For close to last, we have our quasi-judicial items. So these are the 15A and B. These are typically applications for liquor or marijuana licenses and/or special land use permits for same, typically our public hearing items.

So first in this category, we have 15A, Resolution AR-2026-118, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating conditional request regarding the renewal of a beverage dispensary license number 4568 with a restaurant endorsement for GMRI Inc. DBA the Olive Garden Italian Restaurant number 4413 located at 800 East Diamond Boulevard. Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify?

Not seeing anyone in the room and no one on the phone, then our public hearing is closed. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Bolland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Any comments?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Martinez.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-118 passes the body unanimously. Next we have 15B, Resolution AR 2026-123, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly approving an alcoholic beverages conditional use for beverage dispensary license 200 for Northern Hospitality Group, LLC. DBA 49th State Brewing at the Rail in the PCD, Planned Community Development District, located at 721 Depot Drive, Suite 50, within Downtown Edge Subdivision, Tract 1, Plat 201848, and Alaska Railroad Anchorage Terminal Reserve Subdivision, Tract G. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Wouldn't you like to testify? Seeing no one in the room and no one signed up on the phone, this public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved, uh, by Mr. Vohland, second by Miss Scout. Um, any comments? Okay, uh, seeing and hearing none, then members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, item ARM 2020— AR 2026-123 has unanimously passed the body. That concludes our public hearing items. Next, we have audience participation. If you would like to provide audience participation, please come forward and you will have 3 minutes. And as a reminder, the microphone is currently on.

Please state your name and what part of town you're from, and we will give you 3 minutes. I'm William Backstrom from Fairview. And, uh, the state FFA state convention was really good. And also I want to talk about, uh, Habitat for Humanity. I think a lot of times Habitat for Humanity, we should have— should be bigger, and also it should be out in the valley.

I, I, uh, helped build for the Habitat. I was—. I worked for— I volunteered for Habitat and helped build a couple, uh, houses for Habitat. Yeah, but the store. People don't—.

I donate a lot of stuff to the store for Habitat for Humanity, and, uh, it's very important. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Please come forward and state your name, what part of town you're from, and you have 3 minutes. And welcome to one of our former youth rep members. Hello, happy AAPI Month. My name is Jacob Lavarias.

I'm from Russian Jack, but I also used to live I live in the neighborhood of Spenard. Most of you know me, of course. I am the former youth representative with my term having just ended on April 28th. I'm happy to see the assembly as it is, and I'm grateful for the celebration of the AAPI month as an Asian American myself. However, it is unfortunate that I am not here to speak on that mainly, I am— I would like also like to speak on a more serious issue.

The very morning after my term ended on April 29th, I woke up and I found many of my friends and acquaintances and then myself grieving the loss of 3 people, one having been missing for a year and never found, one having went missing and has been recently found dead near my old home in Spenard, that being Kelly Hunt. And most personally of all, a dear friend of mine named Michael Williams has ran away and committed suicide, which does shine a light that there is still a big issue of mental health among us youth.

All of these, all three of these individuals aforementioned are both of Native descent and they too are all as young as me. After hearing of Michael's death, I went to visit and bear news to one of my old friends. He who himself is also native and he who I also unfortunately fear for his own life. For last month as well, he was involved or he went through two dangerous encounters while wandering through, again, my old neighborhood of Spenard, unfortunately. Had he not have been accompanied by one of my other— one of our other buddies, I too fear that he could have been either kidnapped or even worse.

So I recognize part of the responsibility to address this, this very grave issue rests on the state government, and I do know that they have taken steps to address this issue. But I do also urge the municipal government to recognize that there is still a concern for this city's neighbors unvaccinated population and ensure the safety for the city's most vulnerable people, as these deaths have a broad impact, especially for me and my peers. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your testimony, and I'm sorry for your loss. I want to also just note briefly that we— the clerk and I had, had neglected to notice that we had not reset the public timer for public testimony, and so we added a minute to that testimony because it was still utilizing the prior person's time.

So we made sure that you had 3 minutes, just to be clear. That was our oversight. Thank you again. So next, if you would like to testify, please come and share again your name, what part of town you're from, and you have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Stephen Reynaud.

I'm in Spinard. I think the very first time that I addressed this assembly, I wanted to hand a map out and it was discounted from my time. And I think that would be appropriate that if there were maps to be handed out, that we hand out the maps and then we start the time. Otherwise, it seems to— it took a minute to hand out the maps. So I was limited to 2 minutes to my speech, and I thought that was unfair.

So I hope that if someone has some paperwork so you can follow along. I mean, the map is very important. It's very hard to explain the situation trying to put a sewer under parkland. And the choice is the sewer under parkland at $25,000 or the sewer through 100 feet of real wetlands. The parkland is dry.

That's why it's only $25,000. To do it under the parkland. To do it the other way, the choice where I have legal permission from the Corps and from DEC and from Fish and Wildlife and everybody, that direction is through 100 feet of true wetlands and then under the creek and then it connects to the sewer manhole, which is not something that AWU wants to do. AWU wants you to connect to the mainline, but the mainline is so corroded that they won't let me connect to it. So, um, Park seems to hold their parkland as sacred, even though they got it for $10, all 10,000 square feet of it.

So At any rate, but the reason I came up here is to beg that if I do hand out maps the next time, that my time start after all of you are looking at my map and have it in your hand. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else like to be heard during audience participation? Please come forward.

Okay, there we go, 3 minutes. Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. So I want to apologize, I'm 14'9". You know, I came up, I took a look at the late on the table item, which was an amendment, and that was sort of my basis on that thing. But yeah, I think it's bad to introduce barriers to allow people to speak for various reasons.

And if you sort of want to work that problem, the best you can do is just set a time limit, you know, 5:00 to 5:30, first come, first serve. And if you get in with that time period, then you're great. Otherwise, come back next time or stay to the end of the meeting and then you don't have to worry about going, you know, long and you can hit your agenda and then hit the end of the meeting and then you're out of here. Um, so other things to talk about. Part of the reason why I started going to community council meetings was because, uh, there was a little bit of a more robust discussion process with elected officials.

And, you know, here you get to say things but nobody sort of interacts with you. And so part of the problem was, is I started going to some of them and then it became, nope, you're gonna ask one question, and then what ends up happening is you ask the question, the public official says whatever they you want, and right, wrong, otherwise, or not being honest, then, you know, somebody does not like that because they're a public official, and bam, you're banned. And then bam, you're banned again when you try to engage in the meat and potatoes of the thing and get to, you know, sort of trying to work the problem. And so I stopped going to Mountain View Community Council meeting just because of that, because I thought it was a puppet show. So moving on.

Mr. Conrad James, um, yeah, he had this manifesto and it was like 20 pages and he sort of turned it in, uh, to liaison, and it was supposed to be on the next special assembly— or excuse me, next regular assembly meeting. And then so you check the agenda online and that manifesto is not attached to the agenda here today. I want to read that thing, you know, for entertainment value alone, let alone if it's informational. Please make it public, you know, we deserve that much. It's a public record.

And then getting, uh, to one or two other things. So, um, let's see. So there was a code enforcement on a property, uh, 616 Price, and more or less, uh, was it last Friday, Friday before? So they semi, uh, pushed that family right off the sidewalk, trashed their belongings, stripped them of their pets, and it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. And so they sort of said, uh, do you want us to take your pets?

Uh, you can get them back in 7 days. But they did not understand, I think, that there are fines attached with that their pet. And so literally it costs close to $850 to get their pets out of pet jail just to get them back and reunite them with the owners. And one of the ladies, you know, she would have been broken if she did not get her precious back. And so luckily sort of semi-worked out, went over, we tracked them down, got them into a place, and they're better now.

But there needs to be a policy and a process to sort of find ways not not to break families up. And I think I'm close to time, so I'm— we'll be back, but I'm in the back of the peanut gallery if anybody has any questions. Thank you very much.

Sorry. Thank you. Would anyone else wish to give audience participation?

Okay. With that, we will move on to assembly comments. I will start this evening with Mr. Johnson. No comments, thank you, Chair.

Miss Park, sorry, no comments, thank you. Mr. McCormick, no comments, thank you. Miss Scout, no comments, thank you. Miss Baldwin-Day, congratulations to the new members, you have made it through your first full meeting, ta-da! Mr. Boland, thank you, Madam Chair, congratulations on your first time chairing us, or chairing the meeting as chair.

And thank you to all the members for your patience with us, also for the support of the clerk and council and the whole team, the administration, and helping us prepare for tonight's meeting. Thank you. Mr. Peresverdia. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, congratulations on your first meeting to you, Mr. Volland, as well as vice chair.

To the new members. Welcome. And we're all— it feels new. We're all sitting in a— well, some of us in a new seat and, uh, and looking forward to, to this new assembly. So thank you everyone for your, for your work and your, your commitment.

Um, have a good night. Ms. Silvers? No comments, thank you. Mr. Gerken? Yeah, just congratulations, Madam Chair, on a damn fine, well-run meeting.

Um, and also thanks everybody else for all the memories. Mr. Martinez. 10 O'clock is a good time. We can get earlier, even better. Great job, Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Handlin. Uh, no comments. Thank you. Thank you.

And I will just echo thank you to everyone and have a good evening. And I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Uh, any objection? All right, we're good.

Me. Too scared to see, too scared to be on my own, you see. But I know I just need some selfish.