Legislative Committee Meeting - October 23, 2025

And that's— do I read that correctly? Okay. All right, well, I'd like to go ahead and call the meeting to— oh, sorry, we're recording. Yeah. All right, well then I will call the meeting to order.

We're here for the October 23rd meeting of the Assembly Legislative Committee, uh, scheduled from 2:30 to 3:30 PM. Um, go ahead and start with introductions. Members in the room, uh, Yara Silvers, Zach Johnson, and online we have the Ms. Baldwin-Day. Present. All right, wonderful.

I believe that's everybody. If I'm missing someone, uh, speak up. If not, without further ado, let's just go ahead and dive right in. Uh, if Mayor's, uh, Policy Director would like to go ahead and jump right in the first item of business, review of the 2026 draft legislative program. Sure.

Um, Nolan Clowden, Mayor's Office. Um, Mr. Chairman, so I have, uh, What you've got in front of you here is a draft of our legislative program. This has gone through, you know, the main folks on the 8th floor. We've crafted this in line with the requirements in code for legislative program. You know, it needs to be introduced by before the budget is approved.

So this is scheduled for introduction to November 18th, and then it has to be approved before December 10th in code. So we are on track for all of those requirements. This has been drafted, you know, for discussion and consideration. There is, of course, a window of opportunity and plenty of time to incorporate feedback into it, and before we, you know, before it goes on to the agenda for approval by the body. We couch this one, and I presented this, the theme, high level on it by way of reminder, the three themes of safe, secure, affordable, and that our top ask would be for capital support for the Port of Alaska Modernization Program.

So you'll see that the top request listed there for the Port, you know, I think we know that we're in a very budget-constrained environment. I think we've gotten that message really clearly, and the administration met with most of the Anchorage delegation a couple of weeks ago, and that was definitely a clear message. But nonetheless, I think we have a responsibility to try to get resources for the important needs that we have, and there is still some possibility of a general obligation bond. But so the Port ask would need to be something, you know, It's a large dollar ask, but it is a statewide concern, I think, as well. So the safe category is sort of where community safety is the main connecting thread.

The main asks that we have in there right now, capital support for the APD Real Time Crime Center.

We had included an ask for blight reduction funding. This would be to, For development services, for their— they have that nuisance abatement fund. We've been able to deploy capital from that, you know, effectively in the past to deal with nuisance properties that don't have a chance of— don't have much prospect of being rehabilitated or that are not viable for rehab. The inflation-adjusting, the E911 surcharge, which creates revenue for the municipality, that surcharge hasn't been adjusted for inflation in several years and also doesn't apply to voiceover IP systems, so it's a per-line charge that would create revenue that can go towards our public safety response. The Community Assistance Program, which is always something we're always going to have in our program, I think, in one form or another.

That's couched as public safety because, you know, public safety is almost half of our budget, and that is the likely use of that funding, you know, if we continue to get it. The Secure category is about kind of infrastructure and resilience. So I think, you know, this port modernization would fit there. A lot of our asks here are related to infrastructure, but there are a few other kind of categories that fit that fit that. One is increasing rates for general relief for assisted living.

This is related, this one might require a little explanation, but this is the issue that we have if you go to some of the congregate shelters that we have. You find that there are a lot of people that are living with disabilities that are in those shelters, and that's not a very good and supportive environment for them to be. And there's a challenge with them getting into supported, you know, assisted living arrangements because if they're on general relief, if they're not on Medicaid, if they don't, if they don't, if they aren't eligible for Medicaid, that the reimbursement rates are too low. And so this is a state issue that changing those rates for general relief assistance could create more space there. So get folks into a better situation, that'll freeze up more shelter space for people that are, you know, shelters are great for people kind of getting them into the next stage, right, off of out of streets and into the next stage, whatever that might need to be.

And I think Representative Mina is interested in working on this. She's been working on more support to expand assisted living beds anyhow, so she understands the issue very, very well. So I think she's interested in helping on this. Um, we also did include, um, came through via our Public Works, uh, the Chugach State Park access study. You know, we've had the ongoing CASA issue, and this would be a modest ask for support that project to consider stakeholder feedback and recommendations for roadway parking lot trailhead and trail projects.

Prioritize winter road maintenance coordination. This is really more of an ask between, you know, for State DOT to better coordinate our, you know, for the purposes of snow removal and road maintenance more generally. Obviously, a lot of our roads in Anchorage are state roads, so. That issue. The hiring freeze on Alaska DOT Central Region, you know, this is making a lot of the coordination with our departments and public works more difficult.

Another ask here, amending statutes concerning utility rate setting. This is something that AWU has brought forth, you know, a water and wastewater utility, about the way that infrastructure improvements can be passed on to ratepayers. That would include— they're allowed to include their horizontal infrastructure, that pipe expansion, but not vertical plant in their rate setting until they do a full-blown rate case. This would allow them to do that without doing a rate case. The bottom line with it is that it makes it easier to resolve the issue where infrastructure is holding up housing development.

This is something that would create a little bit more flexibility for AEWU to have the equity to actually put money into some of those projects. That's why we included it in the program. I think before we move on to the, uh, the last category of affordable, uh, and member Silver's— make you with a question section. Yeah, um, first question I have is on the safe section, um, the blight reduction funding. Uh, so it says there's 200 derelict structures for abatement, um, and you're asking for $500,000.

I guess my question is like, How much headway will $500,000 actually make? Like, what will $500,000 do to address those 200, over 200 derelict structures? Yeah, we, um, demolition, we've got a lot of recent quotes on demolition from having, from the Development Services having done, done several of them recently. And like a typical single-family house that needs to be demolished, it can cost somewhere in the ballpark of $30,000, a bigger one up to $50,000, $60,000, $70,000. Um, so, so, you know, that's probably, that could be in the ballpark of 10 10, 11, 12 houses, something like that.

It's a matter— we could use millions of dollars, right, for this, but it's a matter of kind of like an ask that is kind of in the ballpark. We feel like it's kind of strategic to have some of these lower, you know, dollar value asks that are kind of in the, you know, couple million and lower. If, you know, we're looking at a lean capital budget year, some of those things could, you know, become viable, you know, in that environment. And I think that's exactly right, Nolan. I think the other piece of this, um, is we believe the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation is going to have a larger dividend going to the state this year than usual.

Um, and so an overall message trying to reinvest that dividend back into housing programs for versus going into the state general fund. And so this would be one aspect of where we think actually compared to a lot of other things that really would have a high return in terms of neighborhood revitalization. So, yeah, and then I would just say we have Wendy Chamberlain online here too. And Wendy, if there's anything that you want to add, just again, we talked about it at the first meeting, but that general atmosphere that we are walking into with the legislature this year and funding.

Thanks, Suzanne. Yes, I think it's going to be a very, very bleak year. I think the legislators brought that up at their meeting with the mayor and their staff, but we're looking at a minimum of $200 million deficit for the current year we're in. Of course, the Western Alaska floods, as you— disaster, the typhoon, as you know, they underfunded disaster assistance by $30 to $50 million. That's going to have to be put back in, and then they're going to have to put back in more money for match.

Federal DOT match needs more money. One of the education areas needs more money. So there are a minimum of $200 million. My guess is right now today, talking with, uh, oh, to Ledge Finance, they're probably at least $300 million for the current year having to pick up. And then the oil companies, that their recent gatherings of resource development and that are looking forward, and even though we're looking at a projection of $67 a barrel oil, they're saying that all of their analysts say for next year oil could drop as low as $55 a barrel oil.

So we're in a very grim situation until we can get the pipeline announcement, until we can get something on We have $3 billion in the CBR. All of our analysts say we need to keep $2 billion in the CBR for emergencies like the typhoon. So it really gives us very little leeway. I mean, what it really gives us is to implement a fiscal plan, which will be tough to do in an election year, or reduce the dividend down to 3-400. That will not be palatable either.

Going into this session, it's going to be tough, particularly if you see oil drop. If oil drops much below $68 a barrel, the legislature's got a very difficult task ahead of them.

Okay, thank you. And then I had another question on the secure section. Um, Shugiac State Park access study. How many How many studies do we currently have funded for parks? I just feel like I, every time I turn around, I see another study.

Oh, you mean somewhere for like municipal parks? Yes. Good question. We'll have to get back to you. I know that there are several in the work.

I mean, it's frankly, it's part of the process when we're thinking about making a significant investment in any one park. So, like, I just feel like we have a lot of studies funded and maybe the funds haven't been spent yet. Spent for even some of the stuff. You're talking about plans? Yeah, plans.

Right. So, like the Cutty Midtown plan. Well, this is different in terms of this is access to the Chugach to do a general view that will also help us with the CASA planning in the out years. So, different— okay, different type of planning exercise than a plan that we would do for, like, Cutty Midtown or Right. Town Square, East Chester.

Okay. Yeah, I guess I'm just interested in, in like how many studies we currently have funded. If that funding has been spent or is being spent towards completing those studies. We can ask Parks and Rec to get that information too. Thank you.

But I don't think we're currently doing anything that's directly related to access to Chugach State Park. I think we've funded the CASA study for Stuck Again. The design, there was the design for the parking lot design, right? Okay. Yeah, I think, you know, as I read it, the intent of this is to take a broader view of sort of what should we contemplate putting in the cost of bonds.

I mean, this would be the 3rd year that we are talking about having a cost of bond before the voters, right? So it's still relatively new. And somebody who's been here since the, you know, the first one, like, it has been an ongoing conversation to figure out what is the best way to identify and prioritize projects. And I think, you know, as I understand it here, this idea is like to figure out how can we do a better job of kind of conceptualizing what, what should be in the bond. It's been sort of a very kind of a somewhat ad hoc process thus far.

And so I think if I'm understanding it, you know, please correct me, the idea is here is if we had a study that would give us a more wholesome look at how do we do this, it's a broader strategic look. That's exactly right. Okay. All right. I'll just add too quickly, because CASA can, you know, touch almost every part of Anchorage, right, or at least every part along that touches Chugach State Park, it's more than like one district.

It's something that I think a comprehensive look, how does the whole community access the park, I think probably be, you know, a fair rationale. Right, right. Yeah, and people from all over the municipality, you know, access Chugach State Park too. Yeah. I just quickly want to note that Member Bolden may join us in person at 2:39.

With that—. Looks like Dean has his hand up. Oh, sorry, uh, Mr. Gates, are you, uh, trying to—. Oh yes, thank you. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes. Oh, thank you. Well, I just wanted to mention, and while it's mentioned the CASA priority here, uh, there's a little momentum, I think, over the past year. I guess momentum, uh, from one point of view, sort of a slow roll to where we get really, uh, rid of legal obstacles that were in our way before some CASA bonds. And by that I mean, uh, they've been going to spawn projects in the park boundary, right?

Municipal bonds need to be something on property the municipality owns. And I think we have a changed situation with SB 47 that passed last session, was effective July, that authorized, um, the state to grant easements to municipalities, easements into the parks. So now they can grant us no illegal easement for roadways and so forth. I think it would be helpful to mention legal access and not paragraph about the study, legal access, easements, and then the rest— roadways, parking lots. I think that sort of was one of the big barriers we had in the past.

That's a great point.

So, Mr. Chairman, if I can continue, if you want to continue, the affordable section, any measures that can help make it easier for residents and families to live in our fairly high cost of living. One, we have the waste-to-energy project, which has submitted an application to the Renewable Energy Fund. And as I understand it, the Renewable Energy Fund, you know, the legislature has been essentially like, you know, getting the kind of scored applicants and then making appropriations decisions about what they're willing to fund from those. And so we have a submission for $2 million. And, you know, I think everyone on the committee has briefed well on the waste energy project, but has a lot of potentially strong benefits for municipality and offsetting natural gas usage, among other things.

And then there's an ask in here related to affordable housing, developing new mechanisms through AIDA and AHFC, and there's been various ideas proposed for this to provide gap financing, patient capital for housing developments. So, and then allowing AIDA loan participations to be used for housing, which is also— there was a— there's a bill that's active sponsored by Senator Dunbar to that effect too. And then the final one here is weatherization funding, you know, especially targeted at mobile homes. So through AHFC or a similar partner to help weatherize those homes. We have higher energy costs and also, you know, housing stock that continues to age.

The final section that's here is that for the district-level priorities that Legislative Services is helping to, like, kind of go for each of the members, each of the districts, kind of the top 5 projects. Those will be filled in, I think, as well.

Member Bolden. Yeah, so a question about the affordable housing piece of this.

Is there a reason that we are asking for gap financing and patient capital versus an infrastructure bank? What's the rationale there?

And also, is there a reason that the focus here is on affordable housing versus attainable workforce housing? Yeah, yeah, it could be. We could have it be argued for that. I think that we're likely to see, you know, if anything, small amounts of money going into that. And so I think it makes sense to prioritize affordable housing in that context, but it also, it's also something that could create more housing for people that are currently unhoused.

But I think that we could think about it more expansively and more broadly. I think that we're not imagining like great abundance of resources that's going to be available to this. So I think we're talking about an infrastructure bank. I don't think we're going to see the kind of money that could capitalize that to the extent that it's needed. Is that because we don't—.

Yeah, why is that given the resources at ADA's disposal right now? Uh, well, I think that that's a whole complicated conversation. It's, it's been, I think, okay, but I, I would say we would welcome your interest, and if you want to offer an amendment to it, um, I, I mean, again, right, we've just gotten a lot of reluctance. Yeah, um, but there are definitely some legislators who are championing, trying to break out more ADA money and— Yeah, maybe. Yeah, I mean, I'm just thinking about, you know, things that might fall more closely into alignment with how ADA presently views itself and potentially an infrastructure bank versus housing-specific financing or patient capital might be more aligned with the way that ADA sees itself.

And that would be I could see that being very supportive for development across the board, not just for affordable housing, but also for attainable housing for workers. So, since, I mean, I think all of our, all of our emails have had developers saying, hey, the cost of infrastructure is killing us. So, yeah, I'm just curious about that. And I guess I would just ask Wendy again, sort of her impression. I know she's been watching different bills trying to put pressure on ADA, sort of where that is.

But I think, yeah, that's a good, very good point. And maybe that does more align with their general, we invest in infrastructure posture, maybe. I'd add that we do have a conversation going, you know, with, with ACDA about ADA working on making some capital available for, for housing construction loans as well too. And so, so I think that, you know, that, yeah, that, that it ADA strategies are definitely something we can think about. Wendy, do you have any—.

Sister Wendy? I just agree. I think we need to sit down with ADA in the next couple of weeks, and we need to sit down with AFHC. And once we get them to agree that they won't fight us, then we go to the third floor. Because if we put it in, that red pen comes after us fairly quickly unless we've got some sort of agreement from both ADA, AFHC, and the third floor.

So I think we start with AFHC and we start with ADA and we just sit down and have a realistic conversation. They're all, most of them from Dana Prews on down are construction and they're in Anchorage and they understand the struggle. So I think that's the first step. And then we go to the governor and Tyson. But if we can get that, at least we can get legislative support if they support it.

But otherwise they'll just say, you know, it's going to be vetoed. Mm-hmm.

So, Suzanne, I can set that up in the next couple of weeks for us. Yeah, again, welcome you. I was going to say, if my, if my participation would be helpful, I would be really happy to attend. Okay, good, good, good, good.

Okay, I have myself in the queue now. We'll go to Member Silvers first. I think a quick comment on the district priorities. Typically, we left this up to the individual Assembly members for their districts to figure out what those priorities are. I think there's been an ask from the administration to try and coordinate perhaps with them to make sure that we're looking at projects that are probably already on the CIP, right?

We had them for a while, so I think— and I'm getting nods so far—. But just that would be helpful. Yeah, so I think probably my recommendation would be for the members in these districts to talk to each other, figure out what projects they might want to put on the list. And then perhaps have a conversation with Suzanne about what should go in there. And I think typically—.

I mean, that just helps us be able to answer legislators' questions, because if it's not already on there and we're asked, we just won't have the background to really make a justification for the need for funding for other projects. And I mean, I would point to perhaps the way we've done in the past is sort of reference. I guess last year we did 4 or 5. I mean, I think we give individual members some latitude here, but I would just sort of suggest that recognizing it will be a small capital budget, if any, to think strategically. And for the past 2 years, probably only 3 things in the entire list have been funded, and I think 2 of those got vetoed.

So it was a lot of work to put that together and then work with, um, PME and other people to make sure it was loaded into Capses, um, and then nothing came of it because no one really advocated. I don't know if they're legislators for those things. So if it's been at the mayor's, you can also be advocating for that. Would really help. Yeah.

Uh, member Silvers. Um, oh, back to the housing conversation. Um, Jen Levy has historically vetoed, um, housing projects, including ones that have, you know, been very well leveraged. And yeah, so I think that's something to really consider when we figure out, like, how do we make this ask? You know, how do we present it so that it doesn't get vetoed even if it is given to us?

I kind of liked where you were going at with maybe focusing more on infrastructure. I think the other is both of these are instead of the money coming to the municipality of Anchorage, there's a way that it goes to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. So, just, um, it goes back to one of his agencies. That's a really good idea. He likes that.

And then I'll, um, jump back in the queue myself. I wanted to circle back to the port modernization, and it's been presented in this draft, it's the top request. In the introduction, we explicitly ask capital support for the, the PAMP, although we don't have dollar amount. And then we have a paragraph here at least talking about why the port is important, which I don't think is disputed. I will say I think if there is a GO bond, which I've heard there's maybe some serious interest in that, that it would feel like a no-brainer that the Port of Alaska should be part of that.

I mean, that's sort of— what is the point of a GO bond if not to do something like that? But I think the question I would put out there perhaps to members to contemplate is outside of the GO bond, do we want to have an explicit ask for the port modernization? When we went down to Juneau last year, We did not. We just sort of presented an informative overview of here's the status of the project. Thank you for your past support.

We were told don't ask for money, and so we did not ask for money. So I think it's a question, do we pursue a different strategy this year, recognize that money's tight? And then I also just say, well, I think strategically there's an argument for a lot of the smaller asks, you know, that we put into this draft program. Small ask really doesn't move the needle much for the board. Given the scale of the project, I mean, I would argue if we get $5 or $10 million, that's not really going to do anything to actually meaningfully affect the overall fiscal plan for the Port of Alaska.

And in fact, I would be a little nervous about giving perhaps Juneau an opportunity to have an out to say, look, we contributed to the port. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yeah. So I'm kind of putting that out to the members. I don't know if anyone wants to comment on it now. If not, it is something perhaps to think about.

As we go through iterations of this draft. But I think it would probably be to our benefit to maybe be a little bit more clear about what our ask is in the LEDGETT program. So frankly, this feels a little ambiguous or open-ended right now. It is a bit, you know, Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat tentative. I think that there's some strategic calls to make about what You know, the strategy for how we're going to approach this, I think it's still taking shape.

We know that it's an overarching priority, and we knew that last year it was strategic for us to take a pause on the port as far as advocating for something for a big ask at the time. But I think that, you know, we have to think through whether it's wise to pin ourselves to an exact number that we want to put into the program or not. I think that we do, you know, I think that we do have a mandate though to pursue a sizable ask for the Port, you know, regardless. I think it'd be helpful perhaps if when we take this up again, if we had something, I mean, if the administration is recommending a specific ask, that we have that and we can discuss what that would be.

Member Bulmonde? Do we have, do we have a sense from the acting Port Director or or the— let's see, what is Jim's official title? Deputy Director. Deputy Director, as to what a meaningful contribution from the state would look like at this point? Through the Chair, Member Baldwin-Day, it is, you know, I think that it takes 100 $200 million.

It's got to be in that kind of ballpark, you know, right? I think in order to make a meaningful contribution, um, I mean, and we're talking about a GO bond, that could be feasible. If we're talking about a lean capital year, that doesn't seem feasible. But I think that it's got to be somewhere in that kind of a ballpark. I think that we need, you know, the two, the, you know, T1 and T2 together is right— updating the plan of finance right now, but it's about $1.9 billion, right?

And so what is it that gets us towards a meaningful offset for surcharges, you know, to— that get passed on to users? Yeah, I mean, it seems like if we had— if we could make the case that we need X amount of dollars for this offset, that, you know, that— I think having a concrete ask and a rationale is a stronger position than just saying, hey, we have this big project going on and you should help us with it. So I mean, personally, I would be in favor of attaching a dollar amount and a rationale to this this particular ask, and especially since we had a visit from Secretary Duffy, both senators were at the port for a visit. I mean, I feel like the port has the profile of the port, at least in the conversation around, like, defense and the national security and all of these, you know, related sort of threads, might give us a better position from which to say, hey, we need state buy-in at this level. So, I mean, that's where my brain goes is, I mean, let's capitalize on the fact that we just had CODAL here and the Transportation Secretary and like really drive the point home that this is, this is an Alaska project and we need the legislature to step up.

Yeah, I think I encourage everyone to take a look at the handout we had for last year, which I think touches on some of that. Obviously, it'd be good to update it, but one of the things we did is we had different scenarios to actually say what are the impacts to the grocery prices, for example, if we do this all through a tariff surcharge model versus diversified funding. So I think trying to find ways to make it feel meaningful to the legislators. Member Silvers.

Yes, and that argument, I think we've made that very strongly to legislators and federally as well. And, you know, we do have a parallel federal strategy going for the port too, you know, where we're thinking, you know, big and ambitious, right? Working with our, with the port users and their government affairs folks as well. I think, you know, I think that, yeah, there's strategy to put into this, I think, as to what we ask for. And I think that right now, the fact that there isn't a dollar value here doesn't mean that we wouldn't want to put one in the program, because I mean, I think we still have time to like decide that.

But thinking through the the challenges we have. I think sometimes too it's good to think about the legislative program. This becomes— things become very dynamic once session kicks off, and the legislative program is a fairly static document. And so there's also that. I think that we're going to pursue as much as we can under the circumstances.

I think regardless, it's a matter of whether a dollar figure is going to help us get as much as we can done.

In terms of process for legislative programs, a couple things I want to remember is we are looking at having a work session to discuss the legislative program. I think we're looking at perhaps November 21st as a target date, but you can wait for your invites to hit your inboxes before considering that official. Uh, as Mr. Plata pointed out early on, you know, this will be up for a vote at the assembly meeting, our first meeting in December. And it's something that we need to adopt at that time. Now, we have the right as members to make amendments.

However, I will say, by the time you get to the meeting and you have a nice shiny draft, if you start messing with it, you will create a lot of headaches with our very overworked and very appreciated staff. So, uh, the more we can work together to hopefully achieve a a draft program that, that, you know, enough members feel comfortable with, that we do not have to make sausage on December 4th, I think will make everyone's lives much easier. So that is part of the intent for why we're looking at having a work session. So I would strongly encourage everyone, if you have changes you want to see happen, have them ready to go not later than, than that date, please. Um, is there anything else on the legislative program?

I have a quick 2 comments. One, concur, we really appreciate ledge services help in putting that document together. And so, yes, that would be very helpful. And then, Member Brawley actually handed me this in the elevator and wanted me to share it. So I'm not—.

This is not—. I have just read it. So, but it is sort of timely and It looks— it is from the Anchorage Local Emergency Planning Committee, and maybe I just will submit this to our chair and do with it what you like, but it is a request for state funding to support the Local Emergency Planning Committee, and the Anchorage Office of Emergency Management is one player in that, so And it looks like potentially there is a risk of losing federal FEMA dollars if the state does not contribute. And so that is the extent of my knowledge. Yeah, I guess quickly on this, um, since this is new, could you send an email to the clerk's office for them to share with the members?

I do not have that by email. I got the print. I think maybe, and do you have a copy to have a scan or some way for us to fairly make sure that it gets attached to the committee site and shared with the membership. I probably actually had to retrieve that from recycling.

Oh, I suddenly realized, wait a second. It was very carefully filed. Sorry. I mean, at this point where we put in the committee meeting, I think we have to make it part of it. But I think given, again, the western storm disaster we are currently in, that that might be a ripe conversation to have.

Yeah, and I think I can get an electronic version from Amanda Loach or from Brian Parche. Okay. Yeah, let's just make sure. I mean, I, again, I'm not the expert on these things, but I think now that we've sort of put it out here in the committee meeting that getting nods from the clerk, we need to figure out a way to make this document a public document.

Right. Um, I had a couple questions for you two. Um, are the everything in the program Legislative action or executive side departmental action? Some of them, I mean, like the question about winter road maintenance, I mean, certainly the legislature could direct DOT in the operating budget to do a better job. So I think it could be, but that is, I mean, more of an executive action, but I think what we would be asking for is more legislative attention to their road maintenance in Anchorage.

Okay, for that road one, I feel like we did have that the last two winters, and I'm not sure if any action was taken. Should we have a more specific request? Or I know, like, money that goes into South Central doesn't necessarily go to Anchorage. You could come to the valley or something even as large, so I don't know if giving them more money helps. So we do, I mean, I will say that, that, like, that through our departments, we do have ongoing dialogue with, through the departments and through the mayor's office and through AMATS.

We have a lot of ongoing dialogue with DOT, you know, at the highest level, at the commissioner level. And so it's not something that we're not doing anything with, but it's not always, like, super visible and it doesn't always play out through the legislative process. Okay. I'm thinking about this in terms of for Ali when she makes the program, if we need to mark anything. Oh.

—Like last year, like legislative versus executive ask. Yeah. And then if you could also, if any of these link to existing bills that are out there, that would be nice to add that information to it. And then I'm guessing that this is my cue to reach out to assembly members to get the district prior to give those instructions, start working on the district priorities. Would you like me or Jennifer to do that?

I think that'd be lovely. Okay. And then Nolan and Suzanne, do you think— do you have recommendation for how many per district you'd like? That list lasted pretty long. I think given the comments from Wendy, I think no more than 2.

I mean, just each member picks one. If we get 2 per district per year instead of 0 out of 5 per year, we might make more progress. I think that— I think that is all my questions. My comment is just thanks so much for getting this in the same format as last year. I think that'll make it really easy for Ali when she gets back from vacation.

She can start plugging this into a draft that we could probably have a formatted draft for that people could review before that work session. Are we— is this group reading for the work session?

No, the calendar is dynamic with scheduling this committee. This committee, our November meeting is on the 19th, so— Oh, I see it right there. Yeah, I think it'll give us— that may be pretty close to the work session, but, you know, I think it'd be nice if perhaps, you know, we had it. I think, yeah, if we had an updated draft that we could present there and share, and then hopefully the members, you know, that between what we have there and what they see then, they'll have an opportunity to come in with any last-minute quite last minute, but, um, you know, they're weeks. Okay.

Uh, Member Silvers, can you remind us, um, especially for the Assembly members that are new, uh, this year, um, how successful was our legislative program last year? Like, what did we ask for? What did we get? What got vetoed? Just like a quick overview, if that's possible.

Yeah, I think we set a goal in the annual plan to achieve at least 3 things from the program, and I think we did one of them. I think we got 4 things. One of them was the BSA that got vetoed and overwritten. So I would say probably 3 or 4 things, I think, from the land grant accomplished.

I am sorry, what are you looking for? Can I look at it? Program? Absolutely. Yeah, I think we— it's at our last meeting.

You can also We have extra copies and they're available digitally as well. It was like the Chugach Access Bill got passed. Money did get put in for forest fire prevention that I think didn't get vetoed in the supplemental budget. I think it got vetoed the prior year and then put in the supplemental. We're counting that as a win.

And we did get $10 million for behavioral health too, which was one of our priorities. Oh, yeah. That's true. I think even in lean years, there's value in having a program so that, you know, if we ever come back to better times, that we can say these are things we have been asking for, you know, for a long period of time. So I think having some continuity in the program has value in and of itself.

Member Bolden-Day. Thank you. Have we considered, have we considered sort of rubber stamping or adopting ASD's number one ask to the state as part of our municipal legislative program. Their number one ask is that the state develop a fiscal plan. That's a good idea.

Sounds good. So, I mean, I'm just curious if we— if that's something we want to say co-sign, you know, and incorporate into our legislative effort. I like that. Last year you did have the BSA in increase. So I think it would be equivalent to that, and that is something that Assembly should just consider do.

Okay. Yeah, I think we were trying to be conscious of, you know, not even— even when there's very complementary, you know, not, not taking other groups' requests and putting them into our program necessarily so that we could keep it focused, you know, more towards municipal asks. So I think we were trying to take that approach as much as possible. Fiscal plan is important, though. I mean, that does impact Anchorage.

Yeah. If the state does not have a fiscal plan. Yeah. And I mean, it's a can that keeps getting kicked down the road. So let's keep pulling it up, put it in front of them.

And maybe that's, you know, I don't know how the assembly would take action on that independently of the legislative program. But I mean, that does seem like a pretty significant ask that if that doesn't get addressed, then we continue to be in the situation where we're questioning what the state's position is relative to municipalities statewide. So anything else on the legislative program?

Okay, let's go on to the next item of business, discussing our 2025 legislative visit to, uh, Juneau to promote this, uh, what I'm sure will be a magnificent program once it's done.

So as I understand it, for this year at least, the mayor has already planned or is actively planning a visit to Juneau earlier in the session. We don't have dates nailed down, but yes, we are thinking earlier, and then she probably will also go back for AML. Okay. So in the past, I mean, in the years I've been on the body, we have sent members of the assembly down to Juneau, and I think it's generally been any member that wishes to go down and participate. So we schedule a series of meetings with legislators, you know, thinking strategically about who to meet with, but also casting a fairly broad net.

The first year I was on the body, we had a different administration in place, and there were different, completely separate visits between the Assembly and the mayoral administration. And I think it led to a little bit of confusion because the messaging was not always consistent, and I think it undermined our position you know, in terms of being able to advocate for our interests in the municipality. Last year, I think, went better in that we had the Assembly and the Mayor's Office there at the same time and very much sharing this message that this is about unity and emphasizing the fact that the legislative program is an official document of the Assembly and the Mayor's Administration. So, I think we're still maybe in the early stages of figuring out the timing. And I don't know if the— I mean, it sounds like the mayor's office may be making 2 trips.

I think we have made our visit either— I think we've done it both around AML and then also not around AML. The timing is always a little bit tricky because things get very busy down in Juneau and trying to hold on to the attention of legislators can be a challenge. So I think for now, just for this meeting, and we can maybe have a more specific conversation at this November meeting, but just have members to start thinking about whether or not it is something they'd be interested in doing. And then also, I think for us to continue to talk to the administration about what the, the time that should look like. Yeah, and again, I think we can work with Wendy to sketch that out and get her recommendation as well, and the Assembly can then take that into consideration.

For AML, this year it falls on the week of an Assembly meeting and it could not be avoided.

And then they shifted their schedule. It used to be like Wednesday through Friday, but now I think it's Tuesday through Thursday. So I think it'd be pretty hard for assembly members to go to ANL this year. It's ANL. Okay.

We have the winter conference in December that we can pay for if you want to go check it out and see if you want to get more involved. That's in Anchorage this year. Yeah. Captain Cook. Yeah.

Or—. It's at the Denali Dome. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Um, so just putting that out there that it might be hard for assembly members to make it today.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Because if you wait till after the assembly meeting and take the flight to Juneau, you already missed most of the conference.

But I think assembly members would like to go. Unless we go and everybody calls in from Juneau. Yeah, which the clerk would love.

Oh, uh, okay. Uh, anything else on that? February 17th. All right, so moving along, we have, um, our legislative budget priorities. I think we pretty well covered that as we've discussed the legislative program, so I don't know if anyone has any other comments they'd like to add under priority for the budget for '26.

All right, not seeing anyone. Uh, I'll go ahead and note that our next meeting of the legislative committee will be on Wednesday, November 19th. Um, between November, December, our schedule is a little, um, dynamic. We're working around holidays and other factors, so we have the next two meetings scheduled. Um, and then once we get into 2026, I think we're going to fall into a regular schedule of it being the last Wednesday of the month looking towards— to double check.

We'll have to double check, but I think what the high-level takeaway is, November, December are going to be somewhat anomalies, and then we will fall into a regularly scheduled time starting in 2026. Okay. With that, that carries us through the agenda. Is there anyone who would like to participate from the audience? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Okay.

Since you brought up AML, if you don't mind, I'll just say, if you want to, um, want to comment as a member of the audience, uh, if you just move a little bit closer so the mic picks you up. Sure. And then just, uh, briefly introduce yourself, where you're from, and then we give you 3 minutes. Okay, cool. Thanks.

Um, I'm Carol Treem. I'm actually Government Affairs Manager at AML. Was in town this week for our tax conference. Um, so I just wanted to plug our annual conference is the week of December 8th, and it's our 75th anniversary. So We're gonna go big right across the street.

Get your tuxedos rented. Oh wow, the gala. Yeah, we're really going big. And then of course, of course we've got our legislative flying in February. You know, we could probably work something out with CBJ, get your assembly meeting set up in there.

Do you have some connections? Oh yes. And then finally, I wanted to say, so Assemblymember Rivera is on our board. Assemblymember Brawley is on our legislative committee. I don't know that she's going to be able to continue that commitment.

So if anybody's interested in serving on our legislative committee, we'll be recruiting for that during our annual conference. Thanks, guys. Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Now it looks like we saw a hand go up online. Is there somebody here in the Teams meeting who's here for audience participation? And if so, I think you can just jump in, say your name, what part of town you're from, and you'll have 3 minutes.

If that is me, I'll go ahead. My name's Amanda Thompson. Let me see if I can get that. And I am an ESD teacher and just a member of Turnagain and Girdwood communities. So thanks so much for bringing up about the, you know, ESD priorities and things like that.

Just on the teacher side of things, just want to put forth there that a lot of teachers are really concerned about their high classroom numbers. And so accountability for ASD through what happens at the state for reducing class numbers would really help a lot of teachers, a lot of families, a lot of students. And apologies there. Um, oh, go ahead. Did you— can you still hear me?

Yep, you're fine. Okay, thank you. And also accountability for how special, um, special education is handled. So we've noticed that there's not as much supports, and I think this was noticed at— many assembly members noticed this in the ESD budget last year as well and called attention to that. So thank you so much for those who have eyes on how our special needs students are being met.

Um, and then just in general, there are issues coming up with a lot of the community councils that we're really concerned with. Community councils not having the voice, movements being made to restrict community council voice both at the municipal level, and we don't know where, right, even at the state level, if some of those changes will be. So just want to encourage everyone to really protect local voice, and local voice starts in our neighborhoods. So thank you so much. And also I want to say, as an art teacher, sorry, that all of you I noticed are matching today with a nice monochrome palette.

Black and white.

We planned it out.

All right, well, thank you. Is there anyone else, uh, online for audience participation?

That's—. Um, yeah, I think that'd be all right. Actually, Amanda, could you just send me an email, please? So that we, we could have a dialogue about some of the things that you spoke about. I'm Yarrow, Yarrow Silvers.

Okay, all right, thank you so much. Yes, I will certainly do that. Thank you. Thank you. Sound like yes.

Um, also, we are the—. Say that again. Starting the new year, we looked at the fourth Wednesday. Okay, thank you. So yeah, just confirmation there from the clerk staff that, uh, starting in January it'll be the fourth Wednesday of the month for this committee to meet.

Uh, with that, that takes us through the agenda, so we will go ahead and get out a little early. Thank you everyone, the meeting is adjourned. Great job. Thank you. You know what, she's right, Nolan, if you'd worn something like white, we would have really had a nice—.