Assembly Regular - June 9, 2026 - 2026-06-09 17:00:00

Okay everyone, I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the regular assembly meeting. Today is Tuesday, June 9th, sorry, and we will go ahead and first call the roll.

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

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

Member Brawley. Here. Member Volland. Happy to be here. Member Baldwin-Day.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. McCormick, will you please lead us in the pledge?

Yep. I pledge allegiance to the flag.

Thank you. Mr. Perez-Fordillo, will you please read the land acknowledgement?

A land acknowledgment is a formal statement recognizing the Indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present Indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity. The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land.

It is with gratitude, 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. So we have two items today, both on the addendum, the regular meeting of May 12th, 2026, and the regular meeting of May 26th, 2026. Is there a motion to approve?

So moved. Second. Moved by, uh, Vice Chair Vohland, second by Member Baldwin-Day. Is there any discussion about the minutes? Any objection to adoption of approval of the minutes?

Seeing and hearing none, um, both of those items are now adopted. Next, we will move on to the mayor's report. Madam Mayor. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening, everyone. Just a quick update before we dive into tonight's agenda.

This summer we're seeing steady progress on housing in the municipality. Accessible attainable housing is a fun foundational piece for supporting a healthy local economy and for community stability. I'm happy to report that this Friday we will celebrate a tangible win as Debenham's Raspberry Townhomes project breaks ground. The multi-family property tax incentive we implemented last year worked exactly as intended by helping to make this development pencil out. It'll bring 58 much-needed market-rate rental units to Anchorage.

Our recent policy reforms have also helped cut unnecessary red tape and speed up progress for two Cook Inlet Housing Authority developments. This includes a senior housing campus with 72 units, the first phase of which breaks ground this summer, Additionally, SEHA is already taking applications for its multifamily development on Baxter Road. Economic development remains a priority for my administration, and last week I testified before the Alaska House Finance Committee about the Alaska LNG project and potential impacts on our community. Tomorrow I will testify in Senate Finance on the same subject. This project represents an opportunity to strengthen our economy, improve long-term energy security, improve affordability for residents and businesses, and bring more jobs to Alaska.

But we must make sure we are part of the community impact program so we can address housing shortages, classroom sizes, and effects on our public safety services as thousands of people move to the municipality. Creation of the Anchorage Public Safety Partnership Commission, AO 2026-62S, is on the agenda for the assembly's consideration. This ordinance would create a modern version of the Public Safety Advisory Commission that existed for many years. This commission would be a forum for the community and our public safety agencies to work together and come up with solutions to help make Anchorage a safer place for everyone to live. Thank you to Member Perez-Verdía and Chair Brawley for the many hours you have worked to incorporate feedback from my team into the proposal.

I know there's still more conversation to be had as the 12 of you take up this item. Lastly, summer has officially arrived, but my team is still laser focused on snow removal for next winter. We are laying on the table tonight an appropriation to help hit the goal of a 72-hour plowout during heavy snow events. And this is one more great step for my administration's Snow Solutions team to provide better services for our community. That's all for now.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Next, we will move on to the Assembly Chair report. So good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regular business meeting.

Today I will highlight a couple items of recent assembly business, some ways to have fun and engage with your neighbors this month, and usual reminders to start our meeting. First, I want to report that last Friday the assembly had our quarterly joint meeting with the Anchorage School Board. At that meeting, we discussed several topics: what we don't— what we know and what we don't know about state education funding after the regular legislative session ended, with some items still pending; anticipated impacts on our local budget and interaction with the tax cap; ways to collaborate to improve operational issues like snowplowing and making sure our kids can get to school safely. And we also discussed a really big, complex subject that that the school board, assembly, and community are all interested in. What does our future look like?

What do we— or how do we as a community work through difficult decisions like right-sizing, budgeting, and making the best choices with the real constraints we have? As a next step, we didn't make any decisions there, but as a next step, I as chair will work with school board president Jacobs and some other members to bring a proposed path forward that allows for an inclusive process while still respecting the two bodies' separate lanes and authorities. Next, I'll report on the Alaska Municipal League board meeting. I had the opportunity to engage with our peers across the state at the Alaska Municipal Board— Municipal League board meeting in the municipality of Anchorage's designated seat on that board. AML is a statewide organization representing all local governments and is governed by a board with representation across each region, as well as liaisons from associations such as clerks, attorneys, and other municipal professions.

We discussed financial matters as well as how to implement AML's strategic plan with goals for the organization like strengthening local capacity through shared services and supporting next generations of local government leaders. AML is a leading and trusted voice for federal and state leaders about how their choices impact the work we do for our communities, and any member of the assembly in the municipality can get involved in AML. So I encourage you to do so. Next, it's been really nice to enjoy some warmer days in the past few weeks. But with this warmer weather, we know it's now forest fire season.

And of course, we know some other parts of the state are already experiencing that. To help us prepare and to avoid that from happening if we can, this month's Civic Anchor display at Lusak Library features— highlights tips— excuse me— highlights tips, tools, and resources from the Anchorage Fire Department's Wildfire Division to help you and your family stay prepared during our wildfire season. You can learn more at the display outside in the atrium here or visit muni.org/civicanchor. Staying prepared also means staying informed. Smart911 is a municipal— sorry, the municipality's official emergency notification system for all emergency alerts and provides customized, reliable, real-time information from emergency responders.

This free service lets you choose which alerts you want and allows you to share important information about your family and home with first responders in the event of an emergency. Emergency. To sign up, you can text Anchorage to the word Anchorage to 67283 or visit muni.org/smart911. A couple events coming up. Summer in Anchorage means a full calendar of community events.

Here are some that are coming up between now and our next meeting. Next Friday, June 19th, is Juneteenth, celebrating the end of the Civil War and emancipation from slavery, and it is now a municipal holiday. Two upcoming events if you'd like to celebrate. First, Monday, June 15th, is the annual Ebony Aurora Awards and Juneteenth Luncheon, co-hosted by the Alaska Black Caucus and Anchorage Chamber of Commerce at the Denaina Center, 11:30 to 1 PM. Also, there's the annual Juneteenth Festival, which takes place on the Park Strip downtown from 1 to 6 PM on Friday, June 19th, Saturday, and then through Sunday, June 21st, hosted by Juneteenth Anchorage, NWACP Anchorage, and Stand Up Alaska.

This is open to all. The theme is celebrating Black excellence, past, present, and future. And another event, uh, that's happening all summer— the Summer Night Market kicked off last Friday and will run downtown every Friday through July 31st, except for Friday, July 3rd, from 5:30 to 8:30 PM on F Street between 6th and 7th Avenue, just next to City Hall. It's a great market with live music, food trucks, vendors, and it's great for all ages. Thank you to Downtown Partnership for sponsoring music this year.

And with that, I will move on to our usual announcements. So that we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible. This is a business meeting. We are here to do the work of the municipality. Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers.

Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing unless it is in order. Please keep signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Please keep the aisle 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.

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, and if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave.

Um, and I will also remind folks that if you're here to testify on a public hearing item, that we'll ask you to come forward, state your name, the community council or area of the municipality in which you live. I'll ask folks to please stay on topic and direct comments to me or to other people on the dais, and I will interrupt you if you're off topic. Um, you'll have 3 minutes. Community council minutes— community council representatives have 5 minutes. And as a reminder, assembly members don't typically answer questions during this period.

That comes later in debate. So with all that, we will now go to committee reports, and I will start with Mr. Handlin. Nothing to report. Thank you. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee is this Thursday, June 11th, at 9:00 a.m. at the Permit Center. We will hear the regular reports from Planning Department, Development, and Public Works, as well as a couple of presentations from Anchorage Wastewater Utility and on their infrastructure financing and economic development with infrastructure. We'll also hear a report, or I'll be presenting a report on Lessons from Lahaina, the lessons that we can learn as Anchorage from the 2023 wildfire in Lahaina recovery, rebuilding, and resilience. So, Chair, your acknowledgement of the wildfire season is important, and I look Looking forward to continuing those discussions as it relates to resiliency, development, and economic development and wildfire.

And then also, Chair, I just wanted to thank the Chamber of Commerce. I was unable to attend the annual meet and greet with Assemblymembers, but the Chamber held a meet and greet with Assemblymembers last week at their Make It Monday, and I'm appreciative of Assemblymembers that were able to make it there. Your presence was important to the community members who are part of the Chamber of Commerce, and they appreciate it. So thank you. Nothing further, Chair.

Thanks. Thank you. Member Gerker. Nothing to report. Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair. A couple of updates. The next meeting of the Housing and Homeless Committee meeting will be on June 17th at 11 AM. The agenda will be an update on the coordinated shelter operations as well as a pretty significant update on Housing and Urban Development grant funding. We'll be looking at the 2026 action plan, which is the details of the description of the distribution of the HUD funding.

We'll also be looking at the supportive housing recommended awardees and be looking at the True North Recovery Anchorage Center, the acquisition of property. So, uh, please join us for that meeting. I also wanted to give an update on the last public health and safety meeting that we had. That meeting— let me see if I can find it. Here we go.

That meeting was on June 3rd, and we reviewed both Title VIII and camping ordinance data and had a pretty robust discussion around that. So that is recorded, and you can access that online. So I encourage folks, if you were not able to meet be there, please listen to it online. Thanks so much. Thank you, Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee of the Whole will be on Thursday, June 6th, 2018, from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. in Conference Room 155 at City Hall. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair.

The next meeting of the Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee will be next Thursday, June 18th, at 11:15 a.m. :00 AM at City Hall and also available online for those who would like to call in. And as the Vice Chair of Transportation, I want to be sure that the community is aware that there is a public hearing on speed reductions on Muldoon and Tudor Roads hosted by the Alaska Department of Transportation tomorrow at 5:30 PM. And that's here in the Lusak Library, but it's over across the way in the Wilder Marston Theatre. They'll be hearing public testimony on, on that topic. From 5:30 until 8 PM, or whenever the queue of testifiers runs out.

So if you are concerned about safety on those two major arterials which are owned and managed by DOT, I recommend that you show up and get in the queue. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Scout. Nothing to report, thank you. Thank you, uh, Mr. McCormick.

Nothing to report, thank you. Miss Park. Nothing to report, thank you. Mr. Johnson. The most recent meeting of the Assembly Legislative Committee was on May 27th.

Primary topic of discussion was a recap from the legislative session down in Juneau. Couple highlights is we received $15 million in funding for the Port of Alaska modernization project with the potential of an additional $10 million contingent upon oil revenues meeting a certain threshold in the state. Also happy to see that the Community Assistance Fund received $50 million this year, although we don't know yet what portion of that will be allocated Anchorage. Also discussed House Bill 184, which passed the legislature, although it may still be awaiting the governor's signature. This would allow ADA to support workforce housing, which aligns well with our goals here in the municipality.

We also covered House Bill 13, which has also passed the legislature and would expand options, optional options, for municipalities to create new property tax exemptions. For example, it could covers such items as supporting first-time homebuyers, mobile home parks, and others. However, for any of those to take effect in Anchorage, it would also require us to adopt a municipal code change. This just gives us the flexibility to consider that. And then finally, we had a presentation on the Basics Act, which there's a resolution relating to that on the agenda for tonight, and I will not steal the sponsor's thunder on that one.

That is all, Chair. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to— one second.

Okay, thank you. Next, we'll move on to addendum to the agenda, and before we get to the addendum, we will address late on the table items to incorporate those into the addendum. I will note that we have Some supplemental items, one item for introduction, and we may have one or more additional items that will take up— oh, it is here.

Okay, sorry, just getting some clarity. So we do have a couple supplemental items. I will read those first, then we'll move on to the other items. The first one is, uh, number 9A1, supplemental material from our appearance request, Mr. McKee. The second informational item is, uh, 10F3, unnumbered AIM 2026, answers to assembly questions.

So those are the supplemental items. And then we have one item for— I guess two items for introduction, but we need to treat them differently. So first we will do the ordinance for introduction, that is unnumbered AO 2026. An ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 8.25.030 regarding the unlawful use of air rifles and air pistols to add an exception for persons possessing a valid nuisance wild animal control license. For this item, it is an introduction and setting a public hearing, so we need a first, second, and third to move it.

I would move to introduce and set the public hearing for the second meeting in June, June 23rd. I'll second that. Third. Okay, uh, we have a motion from Mr. Johnson, second from Mr. Handeland, and third from— was that Mr. Martinez, or— oh, oh, and then third from Mr. Presidio. Thank you.

Um, so, uh, with no further discussion, that item is introduced, and the public hearing is set for our next meeting on June 23rd. The other item is a resolution. It is also for introduction because it requires a public hearing, and I've been advised by the the clerk that this does take a majority vote to introduce, even though we're not taking action tonight. So I will read it first. This is unnumbered AR2026.

It is a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly appropriating 2025 lapsed budget as fund balance within the Anchorage Roads and Drainage Service Area ARDSA Fund 141000, Maintenance and Operations Department 2026 operating budget, in an amount not to exceed $3,500,000 to support snow removal and Road Maintenance. So I believe for this one—. One second.

So I need a motion to introduce and set for public hearing.

So moved. Second. And— go ahead, go ahead and do it. You can do it. Okay.

I was going to move to have the public hearing on June— move to introduce and have the public hearing on June 23rd. Second. Uh, thanks. Do we need a second? I think we got— okay, so, so move by, uh, Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Park.

Uh, so we will introduce that item, set a— or that's the motion to set a public hearing for June 23rd, and I believe this one does take a majority vote. Um, yeah, I think if there's any discussion, um, so Ms. Baldwin-Day, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I'm wondering if the administration could speak to the, the timeliness of this particular item and the rationale for laying it on the table tonight.

Certainly I can speak to that. Thank you. Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, um, this is a— this item has a couple of different components, but one key piece of it is moving some funding over to the labor column, which would enable us to hire more operators moving into the next snow season. We're basically reallocating non-labor funds to labor funds as part of this. There's also a rollover appropriation that's part of this, um, but that funding is particularly timely because, um, we need lead time in order to create those positions within, uh, the municipal HR process to go through all of those administrative layers and then to be able to go through the hiring process prior to the start of snow season, which we all know sometimes starts in September.

So, uh, the goal in getting it into the queue now for consideration at the next meeting is to make sure that we have sufficient lead time to be able to, um, go through that process, provided this item is approved, and have those operators prepared to hit the ground running with the team when the snow season begins. Thank you.

Okay, any other discussion? Okay, seeing— hearing none.

Okay, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent, but if there's any objection, we'll take a vote. Is there any objection to introducing this and setting for the public hearing? Okay, seeing and hearing no objection, that item is set for a public hearing for our next meeting. So then, um, so we will continue with incorporating the addendum to the agenda. We've done that.

So now I am seeking— and with the late on the table items, I am seeking a motion to incorporate the addendum as printed and distributed, including laid on the table items. So moved.

Second. Okay, moved by Mr. Bullen, second by Ms. Scout to incorporate the addendum. Is there any, um, any objection to incorporating the addendum as printed and laid on the table items? Seeing and hearing none, the addendum is incorporated.

Next, we will move on to appearance requests. So we have one for this evening, so I will invite Mr. McKee to come up. And of course, you have 3 minutes. Please make sure the microphone is on, and you may begin.

I'm sorry, can you please—. My name is Charles McKee. Thank you. Go ahead. Correct spelling is M-C-K-E-E.

Easier to remember is Mother of Christ is the key. I'm here to pull down strongholds that have caused this occurrence to— so I can bring this to you, um, this letter written by Mr. Clayton Blank, no relationship to the Clayton Act of 1914. That's a supplemental to the Sherman Act of 1890. And the letter, it's part of this package, is addressed to Federal Trade Commission and outlined my difficulty that I've had in Spinaard, which became Anchorage, and I'll go beyond that. I got here in 1967, so I bring to your attention the spoiling system that you are part of, and it's addressed to the trust estate and business companies.

What you— what the people don't know, they don't want you to know, and it's Bar Association. It's a private money-making organization. The National Bar, each state has a bar, each commonwealth has a bar, every territory has a bar. They're all interconnected, but this local community has seen to it to have this business company trust, and you are the business trustees. Of the trust.

And now you have a copy out of the Black's Law Dictionary that outlines the members of the shareholders, or it's no different than a credit union. And the, the common seal is on that banner behind you. It's on the banner on this municipal anchorage. So that's your common seal. So you're operating as a trust.

And the spoiling system is creating what I call it a spoiling system. It's a legislative intent by the legislature. It causes a crash of the economy, and you then foreclose on the real estate because they can't pay the property tax. They spent 20 years in paying off the mortgage but then they lose it to a foreclosure because they cannot pay. I came here because my van got crashed and I was homeless, but totally made homeless because of this crash.

I'm looking for—. Thank you, Mr. McKee.

Okay, next we'll move on to the consent agenda. So the consent agenda is items 10A through 10G, typically non-controversial items such as bid awards, new business information and reports, and items for introduction. These may be approved by the assembly by a single vote and motion prior— or motion to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, items may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion and separate vote. And so ordinances and some resolutions have an opportunity for public hearing at a future date.

So we will go down the dais and ask folks what they would like to pull from the consent agenda. I will start with Mr. Johnson. 10A3, that is all, Chair. Thank you, I have 10A3, Mr. Johnson. Next, Ms. Park.

Nothing, thank you. Okay, next, Mr. McCormick. No items, thank you. No items, thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

10A2, please. 10A2. Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Chair. 10A1 for reading.

Thank you. Mr. Peres, read ya. No items, thank you, Chair. Okay, Miss Silvers. No items, thank you.

Mr. Gerker. No items, thank you, Chair. Mr. Martinez. No additional items. Mr. Handeland.

No items. Okay, so I will read back. We have, uh, our 3 reading resolutions, 10A1, 2, and 3, and no additional items at at this time. Just one last call if there's anything else to pull. Okay, well, in that case, then I would need a motion to adjourn— or sorry, motion to adjourn.

Sorry, we're a little early for that. So moved, Madam Chair. I'm getting way ahead of myself in the binder.

A motion to approve the consent agenda minus the 3 pulled items. Madam Chair, motion to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Bullen, second by Mr. McCormick. Um, and is there any, uh, objection to approving the consent agenda as presented minus the pulled items? Uh, Ms. Baldwin. Madam Chair, I, um, I failed to do something important, um, with respect to item 10G6.

I would like to set the public hearing for the meeting of September 15th, please, rather than— I don't see that noted as the intention of the sponsors on that item.

Okay, yeah, thank you. Item 10G.6, um, it looks like as printed it is set for the meeting of September 15th. Oh, it is? Great. Okay, thank you.

Just wanted to be clear. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you. Better to check. Um, so yeah, just to be clear, uh, that is consistent with what was printed on the agenda.

Okay, any further discussion? Okay, any objection to adopting the consent agenda minus the pulled items?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the consent agenda has now been adopted. If you were here for one of the items that was on the consent agenda and was not one of the 3 items pulled, that item has been now unanimously passed by the assembly. So with that, we will move on to our 3 items. So first, we will start with 10A1, and Mr. Voland, you pulled this this item.

Yes, Madam Chair, move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Vohland, second by Mr. Gerker. Uh, any discussion?

Okay. Any objection to approval?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, this item is approved. Um, and I believe Mr. Vohland will be reading. Yes, I will be reading, and Mr. Gerker will be presenting. Okay, so, uh, Mr. Perry and anybody who is here, uh, to recognize him, please Please come forward. Okay.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing James Perry for 25 years of service to the people of Anchorage as a PeopleMover bus operator. Whereas public transportation operators provide an essential public service by safely connecting residents to work, school, medical care, businesses, and community activities. And whereas Mr. Perry began serving the Municipality of Anchorage as a PeopleMover bus operator on April 23rd, 2001, and has dedicated 25 years to safely transporting residents throughout Anchorage. And whereas during his career, Mr. Perry is estimated to have driven approximately 1,080,000 miles and completed the equivalent of roughly 43 trips around the Earth while serving the community. And whereas Mr. Perry transported an estimated 460,000 riders and whereas Mr. Perry's service has been performed through Alaska's demanding conditions, including snow, ice, extreme cold, earthquakes, and other major events, with thousands of shifts beginning before most people wake up, and whereas professional bus operators are often among the first public employees residents see each day, and Mr. Perry's 25 years of professionalism, patience, consistency, and commitment reflect the vital role public transportation employees play in supporting Anchorage's economy, safety, and quality of life; and whereas a career spanning more than 1 million service miles represents not only an extraordinary personal accomplishment but also a lasting contribution to the community and thousands of lives positively impacted through reliable public transportation service; Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly honors James Perry for his 25 years of dedicated service to the people of Anchorage and expresses its gratitude for his commitment to safe, reliable, and professional public transportation service.

Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 9th day of June, 2026.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Thank you. And Mr. Perry, if you would like to, you're welcome to say some words on the microphone. You're not obligated to, but you're welcome to.

Gotcha, gotcha. Matter of fact, my director told me the same thing, and he— but he did say if you say something, you're going to be in trouble. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. You know, not thinking that I was going to have anything to say, this is all off the cuff.

Having driven this long, you know, you hear people say, I can't believe— I never planned to stay here this long. But when you're doing a job you really enjoy, it doesn't really feel that long. These past 25 years have gone in the blink of an eye. And sometimes it chokes me up a little bit to think that pretty soon I'm going to be tendering my resignation. Resignation to this, uh, fine establishment.

And, um, I'm going to miss it. I thank you all for the opportunity to, to drive. This is a really great city to drive in. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, and thank you for your service, sir. Um, so next we will move on to item, uh, 10A2. This was pulled by, uh, or I believe I need to read it. This is a— and apologies, I did not read 10A1's title.

This is 10A2, AR 2026-151, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating Robert Clark Bo Bassett for 27 years of service with Points of Light Institute, PLI, youth leadership training in Alaska, and for 55 years of positive youth development work. This item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Miss Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Martinez. Any objection or any discussion on this item? Any objection to adoption of this item? Seeing and hearing none, AR-2026-151 is adopted. So I believe we have Miss Baldwin-Day presenting and Mr. Martinez reading.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating Robert Clark Bo Bassett for 27 years of service with Points of Light Youth Institute, PYLI, youth leadership training in Alaska, and for 55 years of positive youth development work. Whereas Robert Clark Bo Bassett was born and raised in central New York, migrated west to Minnesota, and spent more than 30 years in Alaska, leaving a legacy of raising Alzheimer's awareness promoting community service, and providing training for positive youth development. And whereas Bo led the Pilai Youth Leadership Training in Alaska beginning in August 1998 and ending summer of 2025. Bo led over 1,000 diverse Alaskan Pilai graduates from across the state who are now passing the baton of contributions to their communities And whereas Beau spent more than 3 decades living and working in youth development in Alaska as a VISTA volunteer, teacher, counselor, wilderness trip leader, nonprofit director and board member, Project Adventure trainer, Points of Light Youth Leadership Institute coordinator, and youth— Anchorage Youth Commissioned member, Beau was designated the Anchorage Promise Coordinator for the National America's Promise Alliance for Youth led by Colin Powell, and he also created a coalition of community partners called Friends of Alaska Pilai. And whereas Beau has lived a life of service in whichever community he resided, as his life's effort has always been building and strengthening the community.

And now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly celebrates and honors Robert Clark Bo Bassett for his many years of service and community impact and development. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 9th day of June, 2026. Thank you, Bo. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, and I would also invite you to speak if you would like to. Thank you very much. I'm humbled by this appreciation. I appreciate your giving me this recognition. I want to thank the mayor, thank the assembly.

I came into the country in 1976. John McPhee had published his articles in The New Yorker, and I left the East Coast and came to the Great Land. And I look up at the banner 75 to 84, I remember well, 85 to 94, and I see each of the decades and it just strikes me that to love a community, you want to stay in the community and you want to create and build a community. I come from a family of public servants and I discovered in Anchorage a life of service. And there were excellent examples at the state level and at the municipal level.

And I remember Tony Knowles jumping off a trapeze supported by a young person, and he was an example of a young public servant leader in the community that everyone looked up to. As I look at the assembly and I see how young you are and, and hear the laughter, those are good telltale signs for the future. And, uh, in conclusion, I have a little gift for you, the little booklet there of 120, 150 years of loving Alaska. I think we can have a sequel for 150 ways that we love Anchorage. And I think if we increase our love and we build that into our youth, I hope that the Youth Commission takes off.

I love the Civic Anchor idea. And I leave you— there is a fund that I created for the Community Foundation. Called the Anchorage Diverse Student Servant Leadership Fund to fund students at schools on service projects. So I look forward to supporting the Youth Commission. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and thank you again for your work. Okay, next we will move on to our last recognition resolution for today. This is AR-2026 158, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing June 20th, 2026 as World Refugee Day. This was pulled by Mr. Johnson. Move to approve.

Second. Thank you. Moved by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Voland. Is there any discussion on this item? Yeah, Ms.

Scout. May I please be added as a co-sponsor? Yes. Does anyone object to being added? I'd rather not, thank you.

Okay, same. Okay, so, uh, yeah, so members other than Mr. Gurka and Mr. Handlin will be added as sponsors. Any other discussion on this item? And okay, seeing and hearing none, then any objection to adoption of this item? Okay, seeing and hearing none, this item is adopted.

And I see we've got folks assembled at the front, so I believe we have Mr. Johnson reading and Mr. Perez-Rodilla presenting. So go ahead, Mr. Johnson. Whereas, in 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution designating June 20th as World Refugee Day, and whereas, currently there are over 36.4 million refugees across the globe who have been forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, violence, or human rights violations, and Whereas we recognize that finding a new sense of, or a sense of home in a new country is a long-term process, and we warmly welcome these new residents to make Anchorage their home. And whereas Alaska has welcomed individuals from countries such as Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Somalia, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, Guatemala, Haiti, Ukraine, and many more restart their lives. And whereas we recognize the refugee leaders who are contributing to the well-being of our community and ethnic-based community organizations, as well as fostering the economic growth of our city as business owners.

And whereas the Alaska Office of Refugees, a program of Catholic Social Services, remains steadfast in its commitment to the over 1,000 refugees and other newcomers who have made Alaska home in the past 5 years by coordinating essential employment, health, and case management services as they adjust to life in the U.S. And whereas we also honor the humanitarian workers and volunteers, as well as residents who greet and assist these new refugees as new Americans. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes June 20, 2026, as World Refugee Day and welcomes all refugees living in the Municipality of Anchorage and encourages all residents to join in celebrating refugee community contributions to the community. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 9th day of June, 2026. Thank you. And I'll invite anybody who would like to give some remarks, please come forward.

Thank you so much. I'm Sarah Schinkfield, the state refugee coordinator at the Alaska Office for Refugees. We all here are so honored to be celebrating refugees this June, and especially on June 20th, but also throughout the whole year and all that they bring to our community and our state, all that they contribute and the life that they bring in their stories and their food. And so thank you so much for this recognition and this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um, so that concludes our consent agenda. We are doing well on time, and my understanding is the next item, Item 11A, is something that we may be able to take care of quickly. So I'm going to suggest that we do that, and then we will break for dinner. So next we are taking up 11A, AO-2020-640, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 7. 10.010 And Chapter 7.20 to create a veteran-owned business preference program for specific contracting categories.

So I believe— let's see, there was a motion on the floor already, and so I would entertain from the sponsors, I think. Mr. Gerker, go ahead. Madam Chair, move to continue to the meeting of June 23rd. And second. Thank you.

So a motion to, I believe, postpone because the public hearing has been closed. Has it? Okay, that's right. Move to postpone to the meeting of June 23rd. Okay, motion by Mr. Gerker to postpone to the meeting of June 23rd, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Mr. Gerker, would you like to speak to that? Yeah, we just had a couple more things we were working out with the administration. We've requested some more data this afternoon out of a conversation we had yesterday that I think is germane to the topic. So just a little bit more time would be appreciated. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other discussion from members?

Not seeing anyone in the queue. Is there any objection to postponement of this item?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, this item has been postponed to the meeting of June 23rd.

Thank you. Sorry, folks. So, and I am going to— there was one item I forgot to— I'm going to ask for a moment of personal privilege and hand the gavel to Mr. Wallant. Member Brawley. Thank you.

This was actually an item I had neglected to say in my chair's report, so I will do it here. And that is we have one other good item— good item— sorry, item of good news from the branch. So I will note that our communications director, Ali Hartman, who is currently out on maternity leave, had her baby on Sunday night, June 7th. So hopefully she's watching this. I will note she had a healthy baby boy.

I saw a couple photos and both seem to be doing well, the family. And she also wanted to point out that the baby was born on 6/7, which is a date that has new significance. Yeah, so thank you, Mr. Martinez and Mr. Gerker, for— yeah, so, so we'll give one of these to Ms. Hartmann. She will of course be back from maternity leave in the fall, but we wish her a good summer and wanted everybody to celebrate that new life in the world. So Thanks, everybody.

With that, we will break for dinner and be back in about 20 minutes.

I just would probably look at them like a sci-fi TV story and I would be like, "What the fuck?" But I'm like, "Oh, that's just their way of paying attention to you or to you." Yeah, so it's just— Yeah, I was just at a movie premiere last night and I was watching things like that. I was like, "Wow, this is crazy." So it's really, um, I know, I mean, it's a bit of a metaphor, but it's just Okay, so after the— Yeah. Oh, okay. So, you have any experience with that? No, I've just heard a couple stories from different friends who've suffered.

What I've heard through my work is that they may have a skin allergy to the virus. They can't even feel their face.

Okay everyone, we're gonna call this meeting back to order.

So if we can have members return to their seats, we are going to get the meeting started again.

Uh, Miss Silvers and Mr. Johnson, uh, we are starting the meeting again.

Okay, so we'll call folks back to order. We are moving on to our continued public hearings. Um, so I, um, I read out our kind of, um, procedures and, and what happens, uh, in our meetings, but I'll just give a few brief reminders because I know we have folks here to testify on at least a couple items tonight. Um, so just a reminder, uh, to keep signs 8.5 by 11 inches in size to keep the aisle clear unless you're lining up to testify. If you are testifying, you are welcome to start lining up once we get to that item, however.

And then of course, if a point of order is called, then we'll need to pause the meeting so that we can rule on the point of order so the record is clear. If the rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance. If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption, I'll give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. And then just a reminder for folks, you will have 3 minutes unless you're representing a community council, then you'll have 5 minutes.

And if you do have any, anything in writing that you would like to provide to the members, then please hand them to Travis down there at the clerk's seat. So with that, we will move on to our first public hearing, continued public hearing item AO-2026-13, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Municipal Code Sections 460.190— or sorry, 090.27.30.080 and 27.30.085 to establish a review and comment procedure by an advisory commission for capital improvement projects within the Chugach State Park Access Service Area, or CASA. So anyone in the room wish to testify, please come forward. If you do.

Okay, uh, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 4th. Second. Thank you.

Motion to continue the public hearing on this item to August 4th, uh, moved by Member Voland, second by Member— or sorry, Vice Chair Voland, second by Member Johnson. Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Voland? Sure. This is at the request of the administration, who is, uh, working on a draft of an alternate proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, any objection to postponing that item to the meeting of August 4th? Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, then that item is postponed to that meeting. Next, we will move on to 13B, 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 and two-family, compact mixed residential low, compact mixed residential medium, and urban residential high to compact mixed residential low, urban residential high, and park or natural area. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Would anyone wish to testify on this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, and none signed up on the phone, the public hearing on this item is That's closed. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Mr. Voland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I will just say this updates our land use plan and land use plan map to more accurately, accurately reflect the, the land use in these areas.

And I think that's going to be really important as we are working on the targeted update. You know, when we look at the map, we, we need to have some consensus as a community and some realistic expectations in the future for where housing can go and where we want to continue our green spaces as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments?

Seeing and hearing no one in the queue, then members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, item 2026.47— AO 2026.47 passes the body unanimously. Next, we will move on to item 13C. 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, or R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, R-10SL, B-2A, B-2C, B-3, B-3SL, I-1, I-2, PCD, PLI, PLIP, and PLISL to PR, the Parks and Recreation District. Um, public hearing on this item is now open. Would anybody wish to testify?

Please come forward. Anyone at all? Okay, seeing and hearing, uh, no one, and no one signed up on the phone. The public hearing on this item is closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Moved by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Volland. Would you like to speak to it, Miss Baldwin-Day? Yes, just noting that this is the, this is the follow-on after amending the land use map to make similar changes to the zoning map, and that the fact that you had to read that entire list of zoning designations says something about our comprehensive plan.

Thank you. Any other members' comments? Seeing and hearing no one in the queue, members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Silvers. On a vote of 12 to 0, item AO-2026-48 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to AO— uh, 13D AO-2026-62, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 4.50 to create a new Section 4.50.120 and establish the Anchorage Public Safety Commission. There is also an S version establishing the Anchorage Public Safety Partnership Commission. Public hearing on this item was continued from the meeting of May 26th, so folks who would like to testify, I will also remind folks that if you have previously testified, you are welcome to testify again, but you must keep your comments limited to the changes in the new substitute version.

And if you have not testified before, you are welcome to speak to any of those items. So please come forward if you would like to testify.

And I'm sorry, just as a reminder, please state your name and then you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Caitlin Pass, but I'm speaking on behalf of Marcella Baskoski-Grounds, who is not here due to medical reason today. She's here to talk about her first cousin Cassandra Lee Buskoski. In September 2019, Detective Lee contacted me asking if I had seen or heard from Cassandra. I told him the last time I spoke with her was in August 2019 when she told me people were after her.

I tried to get more information, but she didn't want me to get involved. At the time, I was struggling with homelessness myself and wasn't in a position to help the way I wanted to. A few days later, Detective Lee called again and suggested filing a missing persons report. I agreed because the more people looking for Cassandra, the better. Then years passed with very little information.

On July 26, 2024, Detective Lee called me and asked me if I had heard of Brian Steven Smith. He showed me photographs recovered from Smith's phone, and within seconds I identified Cassandra. What was devastating was learning that other Agencies had believed for years that that was the woman in the photographs, was likely Cassandra, yet my family was never shown those images. We also learned there had been delays in the missing persons reports being submitted. Those failures changed everything for our family.

I'm speaking tonight because AO 2026-62S is being presented as a step toward transparency and accountability, but families like mine need more than an advisory body that can only make recommendations. We need meaningful civilian oversight that can independently review concerns, identify failures in policies and practices, ensure that families are not left in the dark for years. When families experience delays, communication failures, or unanswered questions, there should be a place outside the agencies involved where those concerns can be heard and reviewed. Trust is not built by limiting oversight. Trust is built through transparency, independence, and accountability.

If my family had been shown those photographs years earlier, we could have been searching for Cassandra sooner. We could have had answers sooner. No family should have to spend years fighting to be heard. As you consider AO 2026-62, I ask you to think about families like mine. Civilian oversight should exist to serve the public, especially those seeking answers after tragedy.

It should be independent, transparent, and capable of earning the community's trust. Cassandra mattered. She still matters, and families deserve a system that listens when they ask questions and seek answers when things go wrong. Thank you. Thank you.

Please make sure the microphone's on. State your name What part of town you in? If you press the button in the front and the light will turn green. Uh, press the button on the front of the microphone. There you go.

Yeah, go ahead. Hello, my name is Scott McCord.

Um, Emma McCord's little brother. I'm not here to— I'm not here to ask for sympathy. I'm here because my brother was shot 16 times, and every person in this room gets to go home tonight while my brother never will. You have titles, you have authority, you have power. My family has a grave.

So before you talk to me about procedures, policies, or investigations, remember that I am not looking at a report case. A case number or a file. I am looking at people who were trusted to serve and protect this community. My brother may not have been perfect. None of us are.

But he was a human being. He was a son, a brother, an uncle, a friend, a person whose life mattered. He was shot 16 times.

After an interaction with police that lasted only about 20 seconds. 20 Seconds. In 20 seconds, a life was taken. In 20 seconds, my— in 20 seconds, my family was changed forever. And every day— and every day since then, we've had the— We have had to live with the consequences of those 20 seconds.

So I am asking each of you a simple question. Do you truly— do you truly understand the cost my family has paid? Because for you, this may be another meeting, another agenda item, another case to discuss. For us, it is an empty seat at family gatherings. It is birthdays that will never be celebrated together.

It is holidays that will never feel completed. It is— it is the knowledge that no one— it is the knowledge that no matter what happens in this room today, my brother is not coming home. We are not asking for sympathy. We are not asking for— we are asking for accountability. We are asking for honesty.

We are asking for the same value to be placed on my brother's life that would be placed on anyone else's. Because when a person can be shot 16 times after only 20 seconds of contact, questions deserve— questions deserve answers, and families deserve the truth. My brother deserved better, and my family deserves better— and my family deserves better than silence.

My family lives with the consequences of that day every single day. I hope none of you ever have the luxury of forgetting it. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. Please come forward. The microphone is on, so please state your name, what part of town you live in, and you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Megan McCord. I am Emil McCord's sister.

Emil was more than a headline. He was a son, a brother, a friend, and a human being who deserved to be treated with dignity. A badge is not a license to take a life, and we will not be silent, and we will not rest until there is true justice for what was taken from us. I have to see the pain and suffering from our mother, but not only her, me and my siblings as well. We constantly lose sleep over this, having to question it every day of what happened.

This is a tragic, tragic and devastating, not being able to wake up or see talk to my brother anymore. I have to live with that the rest of my life. They tried to silence him, but his memory will only grow louder. We are his voice now, and his light will not be dimmed. Our brother wasn't a criminal, and he wasn't a person on the streets.

He's a kind, loving person who'd do anything for his younger siblings. And they took that away from us. I'm here today to show up for my younger siblings, but not only my own children as well. The fear that we grown today is unacceptable, and we demand justice to be served so that our brother could rest in peace. Cops are just the same as everybody else and should be treated and prosecuted the same way like the rest of us out there.

Taking somebody's life shouldn't be awarded or treated like a trophy. This isn't the first time.

Jonah McCord. Thank you. One, one second. Um, would you like to continue testifying or would you like to have someone else testify now. That's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you very much for your testimony. So next person, please come forward, state your name, microphone is on. You all may remain up there, but just so it's clear who's speaking right now. So she's going to read for her brother.

I am Emma McCord's youngest sibling, Jonah. Today I have to stand in front of the person who allows these situations to occur. I was in the village, Tionik, at the time and unaware of the situation of my brother's passing. It was during my promotion to high school that I heard. Hearing about everything made my world collapse.

I was in disbelief, lost, and in denial. Having to go through this makes me question my future. I have to think about my family's safety. Are we really protected by police? They need to take away these officers' badges and should be prosecuted.

My brother deserves justice. Emil's life is not a trophy award to add to your collection. Seeing my family suffer like this is life-changing. We should be grieving in a normal way, but this is a tragedy.

This amendment shouldn't go into effect so no other families have to go through this. My family should have a place they can get to to get real help, not a place that will not have the power to really help us. I'm only 15, and I know the true meaning behind putting someone behind bars for their wrongdoings. Enough is enough.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. The next person who would like to speak, please come forward. We'll restart the timer and you'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Melissa McCourt. Emma McCourt was my oldest child. On May 19th, I should have been celebrating my youngest son's promotion to high school. My baby had to sit up on stage watching me cry for my oldest son.

I was denied to identify my son, but the officer in charge had the time to call my Native Corporation Cook Inlet region and tell them to move forward with this probate.

I feel like I was treated unfair.

I want justice for my son, and I want APD and the mayor to remember my son when you go to bed at night and when you wake up. And I want you to remember the suffering I have to do for the rest of my life.

This new law just makes me think human life doesn't mean nothing to any of you people.

When my son died, I stayed up for 5 days. No answers. Answers from nobody.

I got outside information from my corporation. Everything at the Native Hospital is up to date. I want you guys— thank you guys all for my 3 minutes, but my son only got 20 seconds.

I'll have to live with this for the rest of my life. I want you people to take into consideration about another human being's life. I would never want to see a mother go through what I have to go through. Thank you. Thank you, and I'm sorry for your family's loss.

Next person, please come forward. You will have 3 minutes to testify, and remember to state your name, and the microphone's already on. Yes, ma'am. Hello, hello, my name is Catherine Jones. I am the mother of Tyler May.

He was shot on 6/3/24. I am here tonight not as a politician, not as an activist, but as a mother whose son was killed by the police. When your child dies, every birthday, every holiday, every family gathering becomes a reminder of what was taken from you. There is no moving on. There is no learning how to carry the weight of that loss.

I have listened to discussions about this new version of a public safety oversight. I appreciate the effort for the create of a dialogue between the community and law enforcement, but dialogue Talk alone is not accountability. Families like mine do not need another committee that can only talk. We need a system that can, that can ask hard questions, review actions independently, and ensure that no agency is left to police itself. Accountability is not anti-police.

Accountability builds trust. Good officers should want transparency because it protects both the public and officers who serve them interiorly. When my son Tyler died, our family joined a community of other families who have lost loved ones during police encounters. We learned that many people feel unheard, dismayed, or forgotten once the headlines fade. Tonight, I ask you to remember those families.

I ask you to create a body that truly— that is truly independent, one that has meaningful authority, one that can review incidents without influence, one that gives public confidence that every life matters. People of Anchorage deserve more than promises. They deserve transparency. They deserve accountability., and they deserve a voice. My son's life mattered, y'all.

The life of every person affected by police use of force matter. Please do not settle for the appearance of accountability when our community needs the real thing. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please step forward.

You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is already on. Say your name and what part of town you're in. Go ahead. My name is Penny Helgeson.

I say hello to all the assembly members and other people who are here. I am proud to be from South Anchorage District 6 and represented by Zach Johnson. I am here to speak on the amended version of Administrative Order 2026-62, namely AO2026-62S.

I am deeply troubled by the changes reflected in this new version. My primary concern is that the civilian oversight that was the focus of this administrative order has been changed by the new modifications to such a degree as to place the control of conduct into the very hands of those it was intended to monitor. A commission that gives permanent structural control to the subjects under scrutiny is not civilian oversight. It is accountability whitewashing. The commission is to consist of 9 representatives from the community.

However, this order allows for up to 3 people from that community to have been previously employed by the police department, fire department, Office of Emergency Operations Management, or Department of Law, or to be a family member of those previously employed in one or more of these occupations. This means that up to 3 members of the so-called public may be inherently sympathetic to those that this commission is designed to independently— excuse me— oversight. In such a case, only 6 of the 9 members could be unquestionably considered independent. Couple this with the new version of Administrative Order 2026-62S, Also adding 5 votes to those agencies that are the subject and focus of this administrative order means that this group has the potential to control 8 votes of a 14-vote commission, or a majority vote margin. Of additional concern is that under Composition Section B.5, additional language was added that advises that a majority of The authorized seats of the commission, whether vacant or filled, shall be considered a quorum for the transaction of business, provided that no fewer than 6 seats are filled by community commissioners.

However, as I previously mentioned, 3 of those could be very sympathetic to the people we're intended to oversight. Um, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Same stuff. Um, there's— that there is no true oversight. It will be questionable, or at least give the appearance of a lack of impartiality.

I believe more work needs to be done on this order. Please do not pass this version as it is written. Make the necessary changes to make this endeavor worthy of the efforts of the assembly. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward. You'll have 3 minutes reminder to state your name on the record and what part of town you're in, and the microphone's on. My name is Lincoln DeBerry. I'm a resident of District 3. For over 6 years now, the people have been demanding and fighting for proper civilian oversight.

Instead, AO 2026-62 was introduced, creating a so-called Public Safety Commission that is entirely advisory, with specific language barring all of our demands, and now you have released this substitute version, which is even worse. Our demands have been clear, concise, and practical. We want the ability to review internal investigations, the ability to conduct independent investigations, and the ability to recommend disciplinary decisions and policy changes. Having the ability to review internal investigations would actually promote real transparency and trust between the people and APD, unlike what this ordinance claims to do. Having the ability to conduct independent investigations would actually hold APD accountable and provide an effective method of community oversight, unlike what this ordinance claims to do.

And having the ability to recommend disciplinary decisions and policy changes would actually give the people a voice and provide real insight into the problems that exist in the Anchorage Police Department. By implementing these demands, the people will finally have the power to hold APD accountable for the rampant acts of barbarity that have been brought against the people of Anchorage. Since 2024, there has been 17 officer-involved shootings, one of which involved a 16-year-old girl. A kid younger than me was shot and killed by the very people sworn to protect them. I ask every person in this room specifically, how many more kids need to be shot before you realize the need for proper civilian oversight?

How many more children need to die before real progress is made? AO 2026-62 is nothing more than a backroom deal between politicians and APD, and by enacting it, you are directly contributing to more deaths at the hands of police officers. Every person here who supports this ordinance has blood on their hands. And I will leave you with this: to all the parents in the room, as you reflect on this ordinance, think, what if it was your kid? What if the next victim of APD is your own child?

How would you feel about this ordinance then? And if at any point you have some doubt in it, remember, You have the power to change it. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward.

And I know Mr. Patterson, you spoke, so you'll speak to the changes. Thank you. Go ahead. My name is Michael Patterson. I live in District 1.

The S version is fucking trash. Are you fucking serious? Are you serious? 6 Years of coming down here and saying we want oversight, we want accountability and transparency, and you bring this bullshit?

I'd like to quote Assemblymember Presverdia from an ADN article. Presverdia declined to share what feedback police in the union have provided, saying he couldn't speak for them. Well, you're speaking for them in this bullshit substitute version. He said his concern— he said he heard concerns such as giving the commission oversight authority and the ability to issue— to compel police cooperation investigations would be problematic for public safety agencies. Well, no fucking shit.

We have been talking with them, we have listened to them, and incorporated some of their ideas. I fear what the ideas that didn't make it were. Pres. Rodriguez said, so my hope is they at least— is that at the very least they would be neutral on this. That is just dumb.

There's no other way to put it. That's stupid. In this substitute version, you even took out officer-involved shootings in the whereas clause. We are not here because AFD killed a child. We are not here because the Office of Emergency Management killed a child.

We are here because they killed a child. For the folks in the room, you want to know an example of how this government doesn't give a fuck about regular people? This is a government of the few, not the many. When you can have a majority of the public keep coming to you clearly and concise every year for the last 6 years and tell you what they want, and then you bring this up here and then say, oh, we're trying to be balanced. This is not balanced.

This is complicity. I came— this is collaboration. You are just as— you are just to blame for what's happening. How many more people have to get killed before you actually do something? You all know There's something seriously wrong with the Anchorage Police Department.

17 Shootings in 2 years, 10 have been deadly. Have you watched the videos? Have you watched all the videos? No, I don't think you have. So the reality is, is that the substitute version is trash.

Do something better. You know what people want. They want actual oversight. They want independent investigations. The ability to compel APD to cooperate in those investigations and to recommend discipline and policy changes.

It's that simple. We've been saying it for 6 years. How many more fucking moms do you have to come down here and talk to you like this? What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

You don't give a shit about regular people. You give a shit about a few interests because they give to your donation. They donate to your political campaigns. Proudly endorsed by APD, right, Perez Verdia? Proudly endorsed by APD, right?

You still proud of it?

All right. Thank you. Clapping in the chambers is out of order during public testimony. Please come back to order. Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward as you did. The microphone is on. Please state your name and you have 3 minutes. 3 Minutes. Hello, my name is Katherine Hickman.

I live in Spenard area, and I'm here today— I came a little bit late, so I'm kind of catching up. I have worked in the community as a social worker for nearly 10 years. In that time, I have worked with family after family after family who is hoping for good change, who is hoping for accountability, who is asking asking their government to represent them. I have been reading through the ordinance, and what I see here is that you guys recognize that too. You say here, whereas community members have expressed a desire for greater transparency, communication, and meaningful opportunities to engage with public safety agencies— you know that this is what people are asking for.

Yet when I read the parts that were crossed out here that took out the aspect about reviewing police shootings, the points that my fellow community members have made that say, hey, if there's 3 people that are related to APD or previously worked for APD or are family members of APD, and then there's 5 people from APD and other agencies, On a board of 14, 18 to 14 kind of just gives that automatic slide, and I don't think that that's what community members are asking for when they come repeatedly begging for more— excuse me— for more voice in what is going on here. I have worked with great APD officers. I believe that they do exist, but I also sit in the professional recognition that that's not all of them and that's not every situation. But you're never going to be able to say that this is a true movement to clear communication and oversight if you set this up in such a way that the community says, oh well, they aren't listening to us again. So that's my request.

Please listen to the community as we come together and beg for representation and clear outside oversight regarding these situations. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. You will have 3 minutes, and please state your name on the record, and the microphone's on.

Good evening, I am Klaasayklaa, or Amanda Bremner. I am a— I'm Tlingit. I'm a mother. I'm a resident here in Anchorage. I'm also the deputy director of Native Movement that served on the special task force to reimagine the Public Safety Commission.

Just to be clear, Native Movement opposes not just the S version of this, but also the one that was put forward. We feel that we had a community process. We had collaboration, and that process was very clear in the asks of this commission. What is put forward is not a partnership. A partnership is built on a foundation of trust, and as you've heard tonight, that trust has been broken with BIPOC communities, particularly Indigenous communities, time and time again.

This S version skips What Native movement feels is a step that cannot be skipped in order to build trust. When the original ordinance was brought forward, it did not include the oversight, subpoena power, or records accessibility that was voted on by the task force. However, it's still structured around community voice and input. The S version of this ordinance takes us even further in the opposite direction. A commission where the Anchorage Police Department can vote against its own recommendations.

Is not community-led. It's not accountability. And it is precisely what communities have pushed back against since 2024. As community advocates, it is our responsibility to think long-term about the impact and ramifications of any structure once codified. Do we believe the mayor and chief of police have good intentions?

Yes. Do we believe the commission might work? Maybe. Do we believe that under different leadership, this structure would continue to serve the communities? No.

Do we believe the structure could cause significant harm? Yes. We're not opposed to partnership. We do oppose a permanent structure built on the assumption that good faith will always be in the room and appointed to the table. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, first, next person please come forward. Um, Miss Clock, I know you testified last time, so I assume you're speaking to the S version. You have 3 minutes. Yes, I will be speaking to the S version.

Hello, my name is Emily Clock. I live in District 3, and I'll be speaking to the S version since I spoke 2 weeks ago. Before I read my prepared testimony, I really want to say that if there, um, if the words of the community members who came before me have not convinced you that this ordinance and this commission is not strong enough, I don't think I can say anything to convince you. These families deserve justice and our community deserves safety. Uh, first I want to make a note about the timing of this process.

After the original ordinance was introduced, community members had one full month to review the ordinance, ask questions, and prepare testimony. Compare this to the S version, which was released last Friday, June 5th, giving community members only 4 days to review the changes. And that's if they were aware that the new version was announced. For most of the general public, they might not have known about the S version until yesterday when it was covered in the Anchorage Daily News. And I believe there's also a lot of people who may not have seen that article and have no idea that this is even happening.

So because of all this and because of everyone who spoke before, I strongly encourage you to keep public testimony open after after this meeting to hear from more people. This is obviously of intense interest to the public. I oppose the S version of AO 2026-62 because it clearly consolidates power with APD. APD should not be part of the commission in a voting capacity. APD should not be the only department providing staffing, and the commissioners should decide whether a vice chair is needed, and if so, the vice chair should be a community member, not a representative of APD.

The need for transparency and accountability in APD's law enforcement operations is immediate and pressing. I support an amended version of the original ordinance with amendments that include investigatory authority, subpoena power, and broader access to municipal records. If APD wants a partnership with the community, then that has to begin with building trust. And the key to building trust over time is to give Anchorage residents more say in how we are policed and more input and oversight into how the process unfolds going forward. The S version of this commission is structurally set up to give more power to the police, but a Public Safety Commission should be structured to empower the public.

While I am not testifying on behalf of the Alaska Coalition for Justice today, I do want to reiterate that the Alaska Coalition for Justice remains committed to seeing a community oversight body with investigatory authority, subpoena power, and meaningful access to information. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Um, Ms. Arciniega, I know you also had testified, so speaking to the S version, you have 3 minutes. Thank you. Hi, my name is Mercedes Arciniega, and I'm a resident of West Anchorage.

Um, wow, uh, I really thought that maybe bringing in an S version would have been an improvement, but this is greatly sliding backwards. I mean, we last time talked about the idea of this commission being completely watered down, especially from all the meetings that we had all last year within the community. And this is kind of what we came to. So by putting further power at the hands of ABD to fully staff it instead of rotating it between the departments, as it originally had said, and changing who has voting powers, we lose the whole point of independence of such an oversight body, which is a key point that the community has been driving home over and over again. The yes version also lacks subpoena powers, investigative powers, and unfettered access to records, which we know are principles from NACOL in order to have a successful civilian oversight body of law enforcement.

And if anything, the specifications of this version demonstrate that this potential commission is absolutely barred from having such abilities. And so I have to ask again, are we just heading right back to where we were, where this thing is going to just get sunset and just kaput? Community-centered model is one of the phrases that's used in this memo to describe this, but this is really a mother knows best model, a father knows best model, a parent knows best model. I hear you, I'll pat you on the head, I hear your concerns, but we know public safety, only we do. And I get it, there's specific training within all of these fields that we have to respect and we have to learn from, but what about us?

What about all these people? We have a democratic right to be here and to express our voice, and we are telling you and over and over again, we are met with a no. We are met with, we hear you, but let's introduce something that's worse. And it is heartbreaking every time. We told you we wanted transparency and accountability and education and understanding, and you tell us that you're listening and learning, and I don't ever want to hear that phrase again unless something is different this time.

You're not telling me you're learning anything by doing the same thing over and over again. You're not telling me you're listening by just pushing ahead your agenda versus what the community says. Not just last year or this year or the stray of officer-involved shootings, but for years. We have a member on the Alaska Coalition for Justice that I do sit on, but I'm not representing that body, I'm representing myself. And we have a fellow who has been talking about this stuff for his entire life, an older Black man that has had said, you know what, this is just over and over again.

So while this body can rotate out and you guys can get voted out, this issue persists in our city. And you should not fear something that should also benefit both sides of public safety, both the residents and the department. And it can't help make me feel of why you fight a tool and why you need to hide. You shouldn't be hiding if you're doing the right thing every time. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. State your name on the record. You have 3 minutes. Good evening.

My name is Casey Peavy, and I've lived in Anchorage almost all my life. I'm Inupiaq. I am a grandmother, and I'm also a prior victim of police violence. As a person in long-term recovery, I have seen firsthand how tense police interactions can be and how I understand how much is at stake for the officers. During my time on the streets, APD helped me many times.

They also hurt me badly when they didn't know how to deal with me. There have been over 20 officer-involved shootings in Anchorage and the surrounding area over the last few years. People were killed. A child in a mental health crisis was killed. Say her name.

Easter. Out of all the shootings by APD, zero officers have been held accountable. When things get tense, it seems APD's default is to come in guns a-blazing. There are better and non-lethal ways to deal with these tense situations. The police need oversight.

This is clear. Something needs to change. I do not support the S version of this ordinance as it is a watered-down version of what the Task Force to Reimagine Public Public Safety came up with last winter. The task force was set up to come up with a new way for the public to advise law enforcement. What you are proposing is basically the same type of system that has already proven not to be effective.

What I do support is the original ordinance as written, with maybe some additional amendments made ensuring investigative and subpoena authority to the advisory group. The power needs to be in the hands of the people. I do not oppose having APD involved in the new design of this group, but I do oppose giving them as much power as you do in the S version. APD has already proven with their onslaught of violence that they are incapable of policing themselves. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Miss Capuchin, I know you testified last time, so I assume I assume you're speaking to the S version. You have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Cynthia Gachupin, the Executive Director of Empowerment Advocate Alaska, and I live in District 1.

I want to make it very clear, I am representing myself and I am representing my nonprofit here. I do not believe that APD can have a collaboration with the public on public safety when it comes to complaint processes. That's just really simple. I think that you've seen that time and time again, and if you haven't, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess you're not listening.

If you've lived in this city for more than 5 years, you should fuck— you should know.

I've laid out some of the issues with the S version, but I want to make it clear that I didn't approve of the original version either. But I'll just go over some of the issues here. One of the first things that stood out to me was the change in name from the Anchorage Public Safety Commission to the Anchorage Public Safety Partnership Commission. That major— that may sound minor, but it reflects a much bigger shift in who has influence over this body, because as I said, I don't believe there's actually a partnership, and that should be very clear by all the families that you've heard. And if you don't see that something is wrong with you.

I hope you guys really listen to that. In the original version, public safety agencies could provide information and input, but they didn't have voting power. In the substitute version, APD, the Anchorage Fire Department, the Department of Law, Emergency Management, and Department of Health all get voting seats. Instead of being the subject of oversight, they become part of the decision-making process. One of the biggest concerns is giving the department a lot of voting seat.

This is the same office involved in reviewing officer-involved shootings and use of force incidents. Having them vote on the commission raises obvious questions about independence and impartiality. The substitute also makes APD the permanent administrative home of the commission. The original version rotated those responsibilities between agencies but now APD will handle scheduling, coordination, and staff support. When the agency being reviewed has that much control over the commission's operations, it's fair to question how independent the process really is.

The commission's authority is also more limited than before. It can only review cases after everything is finished, and it can't seek information about active investigations. In other words, it can't get involved when families are looking for answers the most. The substitute further limits any role the Commission could have in disciplinary matters and guarantees public safety agencies a leadership position through a permanent vice chair seat. Taking all of this together, these changes move the Commission further away from independent oversight and closer to a partnership model where public safety agencies have a significant role in shaping what the process means to oversee them.

Lastly, I'll just say you guys need to do the right thing. You've heard these families. I really hope you understand. I actually work with these families over and over and over again. Thank you.

Which is also why I'm not a nonprofit that's going to sit here and tell you that you guys can have a partnership because you guys cannot. So listen to the families. Point of order. Point of order. Mr. McCormick, what's your point of order?

Uh, we need to end testimony at the 3-minute mark. Thank you. Yeah, the rule in this chamber is 3 minutes per person. Next person, please come forward, state your name on the record. The microphone is on.

Thank you for your time. My name is Kayla Ewert and I live in District 3. If this substitute version of this ordinance is passed, I believe it will only be a waste of people's time and also municipality resources. The first version of this ordinance was drafted to meet a very real felt need of the community. We are not certain that public safety officers will be held accountable for actions they take against community members, especially ones that result in harm or death.

My background is in business and also nonprofits, and it's bad practice for oversight and audits to be performed by an internal department. That is just good business. For true accountability, oversight must be the duty of an outside organization., and the first proposed Public Safety Commission was closer to being fully in the hands of the community. This substitute takes that away. Others have mentioned tonight the specific concerns about the S version removing the phrase officer-involved shootings, as well as changing the 5 commissioner roles given to public safety officers to voting positions, and then allowing up to 3 of the community positions to be held by people intimately connected with these public safety departments.

Moreover, the limitations to the commission's ability to seek information on active cases doesn't help. Active cases can go on for years. So when families are seeking answers and an active case can be held open for a year, that is not serving the community in any way.

I do not— the underlying message that I've heard from each person who has spoken tonight is broken trust. The S version only breaks whatever trust still remains.

I do not support this version of the ordinance. More work is needed in order to make real change and hopefully start to rebuild trust. But if the, if the assembly disregards these community members' concerns and repeated requests for, for an, um, for actual oversight from the community We will not move forward without that. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, the microphone's on, you'll have 3 minutes.

Hello, I'm sorry, uh, yeah, me, oh yeah, it's on. Sorry, thank you, couldn't see the green. Okay, um, hello, my name is Casey Hobson. I believe I live in District 1. I live in Spenard.

I'm a lifelong Alaska resident, and I'm here to speak on the substitute version of this ordinance. I want to start by acknowledging everyone who's worked on this, and especially those who testified about the heartbreaking losses that they've experienced. Those families and the people that we heard from earlier truly deserve justice, and I believe that everyone in this city deserves safety and deserves a police force that they can trust. And that they can rely on. Regarding the S version, I understand the intent to increase the sense of partnership between the community.

However, I am very concerned with several elements of this substitute, and I believe it does move us further away from building trust between the community, between the police department, and between the assembly and the municipality. I will say that my trust my family's trust with the police is at an all-time low, and that this has been a recurring theme for so many people that I've spoken to as of late, and I do feel that rebuilding trust is of utmost importance. As it is right now, the substitute version leaves out key elements that I believe are critical to that trust-building process in establishing a Public Safety Commission that is truly capable, um, of earning that trust and is capable of accountability to the public and helping all of us to be safer in the process. I'm disappointed with some of the proposed changes. The current, uh, amended version does not allow the commission, uh, the power to subpoena, to investigate, or have access to the level of information necessary to be an effective body.

As it is right now, I fail to see how this amended version of what the commission could be is responsive to the community's requests. I also feel it's important that this commission be staffed by a neutral body outside of the police department for the best chances of rebuilding community trust in, in the process. With respect to everyone involved in crafting this so far, I just do not believe that this version makes me feel safer or would make my family feel safer. If we were in a position of experiencing any of the loss that was described earlier, I don't believe that this commission would help any of us in any significant way different than what families have already struggled with. And it doesn't give me hope that we can rebuild trust between the community and the police force, or that we can make substantial changes that really lead to safer outcomes for people.

So for me, this, this version is not, um, is incomplete. It's very incomplete. It's lacking a lot of substance. So thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward. Mr. Lessard, I know you testified, so speak to the SBIRs and changes, and you'll have 3 minutes. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jason Lessard, District 4.

I'll start by saying that I'm the author of the resolution that you received from Spernard Community Council, written very intentionally that way so that it supports this original version. I wanted to get our community council on record before things started to get chiseled down towards this path towards irrelevance that I see this body moving towards with this S version. Briefly, I want to share a phrase from that: Whereas evidence shows that public safety commissions improve accountability enhance community trust, and foster safer communities when they are independent, community-led, and structured to allow for meaningful community involvement. Community-led to me means more than community chaired. That means that all of the leadership and all the decision-making on that body is within the hands of the community and not, uh, 5 votes given over to members of the municipal departments that are tasked with working in public safety.

I've served on and under a number of boards and commissions and so on and so forth. Any of those bodies worth their salt would have had those members recuse themselves due to their conflict of interest. It's offensive somewhat to me that it would even be proposed for them to be on this commission, allowing for a vote. Very disappointing to see that. Speaking specifically to the S version, those 5 members, 36% of the voting membership would be compromised and have a conflict of interest in any other given body.

That needs to go. I definitely feel that the original AO version was the compromise from the work that happened in the community. That was the compromise. That's where the line needed to be drawn. And that's why we wanted our community council on record there.

I agree with echoing giving the APD all of the administrative tasks. I also think that that creates this false sense that public safety is about police. It's much bigger than that. There are other departments in here, and I think we need to kind of spread that task around. I don't have— I don't have a problem with municipal staff helping with the task of the admin, but it doesn't have to be just one department.

And let's recognize this, that public safety is much more than APD. It's— this APD is a big focus of public safety clearly, but I, I envision this body working more than just on, on police issues, and they should. Lastly, I will say the only thing that I do support in the S version is having a date when the body needs to be put together and reaching quorum. So thank you for your time. I really hope that, that you consider reverting back to that original AO version.

That was the compromise with what the public wants, and I think you should understand that.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. We'll reset the timer. Uh, microphone is on. You'll have 3 minutes, and state your name.

Thank you. My name is Miranda Walso, and I live in Chugiak-Eagle River. I think it's important to note that few issues bring out the, the public, uh, when it comes to to things that the municipality is looking at. There will be 100 things on the agenda, maybe 2 of them reach the general awareness of others. Public safety is one that people have an incredibly vested interest in, whether it's the ability to walk down the streets and feel safe, whether it's to see justice for crimes that were committed against yourself, whether it's officers that are responding, you know, to dangerous situations and putting themselves in harm's way every day.

It's an important issue. This ordinance and this commission is trying to do a lot of different things. There's discussions about oversight and accountability, investigations into officer-involved shootings. There's questions of, you know, broader discussions in community activism and engagement. Those are very different types of activities, and when you have a commission that attempts to do any of those or all of those, it's really important that it be resourced appropriately.

Asking any of the departments that, you know, participate in this to provide, you know, staff support for something is an unfunded mandate in a lot of ways. Ways. If you want a commission that's going to take on issues like this, it needs to be given the support and resources to operate, you know, successfully without requiring, you know, diversion from other resources, whether that's other community forums that AFD is having, whether it's other meetings that the public are attending. I think the question of access to records and the ability for enforcement is important, especially when it comes to use of force, in that there are very different legal considerations when you start talking about you know, if it was, you know, a criminal level of misconduct, whether charges are brought. The discussions about reforms and policy and police procedure are different than investigations into specific incidents.

And I think recognizing that at times you will need individuals that have a certain level of training or expertise to weigh in on something. You know, the changes in the S version and the discussions of it being a technical advisory commission rather, you know, than a broader less targeted one, recognize some of that. You know, if there is importance of getting access to information that is not available to the public, then provisions to ensure that— there's precedent in municipal law for that. The ombudsman is able to get access to records that others might not as part of their investigation. That is supported if the advisory commission is independent.

And I encourage you to take that into consideration and provide the support if this is going to address these issues long term. Something has to happen, and I feel like the conversations that, you know, the police and the community are having are important. We're seeing higher rates of violence within our communities. We're seeing disproportionate responses to different types of things because of it, and it's important that we don't limit those to when there's a problem. We should— this commission would also want to look at what's doing right, talk about the changes in technology and how they're introduced, the cost of operations.

These are all critical factors that affect have the ability to respond, and I encourage you to take that into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you for testimony. It looks like a couple more folks are coming forward to testify, so please come forward.

And also note we have no one signed up for phone testimony at this time, which is— needs to be done 24 hours in advance. So go ahead, Mr. Lopez. I did testify. I do have the S version. Yes.

Thank you. So Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. Unprepared remarks. I would like to thank my therapist, Mr. Michael Patterson, here for channeling my outrage so I don't have to do it as hard as he did. A quick death, you know, a slow death, do you even care?

What I will say is this, is this sort of task force came about through the officer-involved shootings, and you know, it played out over a period of time. I attended that thing. I was involved in that thing. And I have to say, I am extremely disappointed in some of you. It is very sad.

So, you know, if you're looking at the S version, obviously you took something, you gutted it, and you gutted it even more. You took out the independent investigations. You basically made it so instead of having 5 ex officio voting members, now you have voting. And do you think the people that are working under this administration are going to, you know, question whatever it's decision comes from their boss. No, not at all.

And then you have the additional 3 in there, uh, just to make sure, you know, you rig the vote and stack it even more. So that is really what this is. It's a charade, uh, you know, theater. And the pre-selected outcome was already determined long ago. Uh, what do I say?

I don't know. Uh, you know, I would say, where's your humanity, sir? Uh, you know, what's worse than this, uh, making Alaska Natives Criminals on their own land, or basically saying the equivalent of going through a 12-week civic academy is the same as somebody who's been involved in a shooting and suffered from it, or else. And it's not just the shootings. Who has the highest interactions with the officers in town?

It's the homeless people outside. And they fear retaliation for basically reporting any number of things. And they're being driven like cattle right now and run into the to the ground. And more or less, yeah, you're applying military tactics and attrition warfare to break people physically and mentally. And those policies should be examined.

But is anybody going to examine them? Where did the Homeless Lived Experience Advisory Board go? I don't know. Uh, you know, advisory boards typically, as they work, uh, if somebody likes what you say, they give you a pat on the head, they hand you a cookie, they say great job. If they don't like what you say, they ignore you.

You create an enemy. And so that is the puppet show that this thing is— it's not serious. And it was already determined apparently 2 years ago, but the process was delayed to the point where the outrage diminished, and so that you could put forward this, uh, you know, whatever it is. It's, uh, it's very, very sad, and I expect better of you, both of you that submitted this. And you should be ashamed of yourselves if you vote for this.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. State your name on the record. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is already on.

Koyaanis. I'm Ayukatsatok. I live in West Anchorage. I think you're my representative, Anna. I want to love up and thank our relatives that came here today and And really just take a moment of silence for those that were taken from us too soon that were named today and so many more that haven't been.

I had an opportunity to serve on the Anchorage Community Police Advisory Council founding committee from 2020 to 2022. And over the course of those 2 years, so much of our time and energy was spent trying to find out what these various advisory bodies and councils had the ability to do. What was their function? What was their authority? What change could actually happen?

Something that I found time and again is that our community has and will always show up as they have tonight to give voice to injustice, to give voice to things that are going wrong, things that need to be better. And that energy was moved around in all of these different spaces with these different committees and councils and commissions. And what really has changed since then? Very little. I was looking at the different versions of this and speaking to the current version, I was thinking about what this commission creates and thinking through a lens of my relatives that are here speaking to what their family have just gone through.

The way that it currently stands, this commission After an investigation has concluded and personnel actions have been taken and cases are closed, the commission can ask for information. After all of that, they can then provide a recommendation that APD is under no responsibility or obligation to respond to.

From my perspective, this version In recognizing the inherent tensions that exist between community and institutional needs, it rests in the favor of institutional comfort.

APD is paid for by Anchorage citizens to protect and serve our community and should welcome the opportunity for true transparency and accountability. My encouragement to all of you is to take this back to the drawing board completely. I don't think any amendments will fix where it is now.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone like to come forward and testify in the room? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public, uh, hearing on this item is now closed. Um, before I move to the queue and before we take up this item, I want to say, uh, one brief comment and one, uh, procedural reminder for the members.

First, to say I acknowledge which, regardless of what subject, it is difficult to come here and share your personal story and share your pain. So I want to say it is— I want to acknowledge that it's especially difficult to do that in this room with the procedures we have. So thank you to those who shared in procedure, and then we will move to the queue. I want to also remind members and the public that, because we may not have done this since you all were on the body, um, we closed public hearings in order to start debate. That is what the charter says.

It is also possible for a member to move to reopen the public hearing, so I want to put that on the table as an option for folks to understand because I don't believe we've had a situation where that's been discussed before. So with that, I'm going to turn to the queue and ask, what is the will of the body? Move to continue public— reopen public hearing and continue it to the meeting of July 24th. July 21st. Okay, there's a motion to— second motion and second motion by Mr. Perez Verdia, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day, to reopen and continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of July 21st.

Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Perez Verdia? Yes, I would, and I would first like to thank everyone for coming tonight. Um, the testimony we heard was, um, painful and compelling and important, and I think there's more work to be done, obviously. It's more important that this is done right than it's done fast. So I really want to go back and to— right now we have, let's see, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 amendments, 4 of which are about who's on this commission, 2 are about the powers of the commission, 2 are about how it's staffed, and one is, is, is, is a sunset amendment.

So there's, there's still, even from this body, a lot of work to be done. And the testimony we heard tonight clearly shares that, um, that we need to have more, more conversation about this before we move, move it forward. So I would really encourage my colleagues to, uh, to support the amendment to postpone and to continue the public hearing. I will commit to planning a work a session with the chair to give members an opportunity to bring their amendments forward and go back and work on this more to make sure that it's something that we can all feel is the right direction. This is— I think there is a balance that we're trying to find, and I think it's important that we continue to work towards that.

So I would encourage my colleagues to support the motion to postpone and continue the public public hearing. Thanks. Thank you. And I'll just note, I did check with the clerk, just a procedural note, because the public hearing is currently closed, this is a debatable motion. Reopening the public hearing, of course, would put us back in the space that we would not be debating the item until it is— the public hearing is closed again, for everyone's information.

Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I do— I certainly appreciate the opportunity to have a future work session and I think process some of the amendments, have some dialogue around those. As Mr. Perez-Fuente said, there are quite a few that we received just today, in fact, during the meeting. Um, that being said, my preference on this item would have been to have a little bit of a debate first and then make this motion.

One of the things I feel like I have clarity around is that we should be working off of the original version and not the S version, and this doesn't get at that. This makes that a future decision. I think that I've heard enough from the public that if either of the versions that have been before us were to go forward, the preferred version, at least from the input that I'm receiving, is that original version. Um, so yeah, I guess I'll just state that for the record, and then I likely will be in support of this motion. Thank you.

Next, Ms. Scout.

Thank you. I would like to thank everybody who showed up tonight and provided testimony, particularly those, um, immediately impacted by police violence. I will not support the motion that's on the floor. I don't believe it's respectful to the dozens of people who have showed up tonight and spoken out and made real requests over many, many months of deliberation. I support Vice Chair Voland's, um, idea of moving to the original version tonight.

I believe there's been meaningful involvement of the community. I'm sorry that it took us getting to this point to recognize that, but I will not support this motion. We need to have real debate today.

Okay, I don't currently have any other members in the queue. Um, I guess I'm going to put myself in the queue. Miss Brawley. Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr.

Chair, Mr. Acting Chair. Uh, um, thank you. I— one thing I will note, um, with my co-sponsor is, I guess, two things. One, um, you know, we brought this forward knowing that it would generate a lot of conversation. And knowing that, that many people would not be happy with this version.

And so, uh, want to acknowledge that. The second thing to say is, in terms of having a work session in the future, I think the assumption would not be that we are picking one version or the other. I know my co-sponsor and I have talked about potentially bringing forward another version, but not before we've had some sense from the body what direction you'd like to go, you know, looking, knowing there were other amendments. And so, um, and so I would urge support for postponing this. It is, and again, it is not to say that, that it is only postponing for the purpose of taking up one version.

It is really to have that larger conversation. And so, so I certainly respect other members' views of wanting to debate this tonight or, or move forward with one version or another. But just to say that the intent of the sponsors is not to limit the discussion in the work session to one version, but to allow for that broader discussion as well. Thank you. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I think it's really— I was really compelled by the timescale that we allowed for testimony on the S version. And the fact that there was only a very short window in which the S version was available to the public for review. I, I think that's a critical misstep, um, and, and I am personally not prepared to take up debate on either version tonight because I don't believe that that is respectful to the public. Um, I think it's really important that we get this right And if it takes us months to do that, I think it's worth the investment.

We have a raft of amendments before us, and to start to dig through those on this dais tonight feels like a, a, um, an adventure that I'm not sure I'm prepared to undertake. I think we need to have a really candid conversation in a work session and talk through some of these issues without there being a presumptive version on the table. And if that means that we come to a place where we need to move to postpone this thing indefinitely and start over again, I think we need to take that as a very real— as a very real option. There comes a point where the sausage making is impossible and we need to start from scratch. I appreciate Member Perez-Verdía's comment that it is more important that we get this right than we do this quickly, which is why I am in favor of postponing this item until July to give this body more time to do the work that's needed.

We've heard very, very clearly from the community tonight, and I hope that we hear from the community again with a reopened public hearing for those who were not able to join us this evening and say what they wanted to say. So I urge my colleagues' support of the move to reopen the public hearing and postpone. Mr. McCormick. I'll be against, uh, pushing this. This has been ongoing issue for years.

It's been noticed for months. We've had multiple public hearings on it. I'm ready for this body to, to do its work and find this to its conclusion, whether that be, as Member Baldwin-Day said, to postpone indefinitely and start over. Let's get this process moving. Thank you.

Mr. Voland. Thank you. I know I've spoken on this already, but I do want to, I think in response to some of the things that I've heard, kind of provide a little bit more nuance. First of all, I share Member Baldwin-Day's concern. Some of the testimony that we heard here tonight about the public's sort of short time to be able to digest and speak to the changes in the S version.

I guess what, what I would have liked to do— when I say that I would have liked to debate, or at least enter to start debate— what I would have liked the opportunity to do tonight is for us to all sort of get to a place of understanding that we're working off of a shared foundation of what is this document, which one, which version are we going to move forward. Because, you know, um, in my limited experience on this body, I feel like when I've seen where we have a lot of different versions, um, of an ordinance, sometimes that is successful, sometimes not. Sometimes we get in a place where we have a lot of chefs in the kitchen. And, you know, I'm thinking of, for instance, a sales tax proposal where we had, I think, 5 different versions at one point, and it ended up not really going forward at all. Um, you know, maybe this is a go back to the drawing board moment, I don't know.

But, you know, as further amendments come in, it's also about, I think, assembly members knowing which version am I amending. And so what I was prepared to do tonight is to— had a version been moved forward, to move to amend, to substitute with the original. And that's as far as I wanted to get. In terms of candid conversations in work sessions, well, we are actually a little bit limited by how candid we can be in work sessions. We do not enter into debate in work sessions, unlike a committee meeting.

So I think that's something for folks to be aware of. You can bring forward your, your amendments that you're proposing and sort of explain what they do, but we don't really get into the meat of why we're for or against in a work session setting. So it's just something to be aware of. Um, I guess, um, what I would like then, if this motion does prevail, um, I— my hope will be to work with the chair as part of your leadership to, um, get to a place where we give— if there is an S1 version or, or something that comes forward that maybe includes some of these amendments that have been brought forward, that we do try to give the public a little bit longer timeline to digest some of those changes and speak to them. Thank you.

Mr. Berrios-Ruiz-Diaz. Thank you. And I spoke before, but I just wanted to, to try to wrap this up a little bit. Um, Yes, to many of the things that my colleagues have said. I think that there is a foundation here.

I don't think there's any debate as to whether we should have some form of this or not. This is a— I think it's vital that we develop this commission. That's what I believe. I believe that the debate is about who's on it, what powers they have, and how it's staffed. That's, that's what we need to wrestle with, and we've heard some really compelling testimony tonight that I think we need to consider.

I think the amendments we need to consider— I would prefer to incorporate as many of these as we can, and I'd be very open to thinking about the format of how we proceed forward because I think, as I said, more work needs to be done. I do continue to believe that this is really important and that we can find a path forward. So I really appreciate my colleagues' willingness to continue to do the work. I appreciate all of you for being here tonight and for your words, and I realize this has been a long process, and I just, I mean, there's no other way I can say it, but we are listening to you. We do hear you, and we are trying, I think, our best to make this the best that it can be for the community, because that's what we want.

We want a safer community. So, um, with that, I would continue to encourage my colleagues to, uh, to vote to postpone and continue the public hearing and, and commit to continue to work on this. Okay, I don't have any other members in the queue, um, so the motion on the floor is to reopen the public hearing and continue this item to the meeting of July 21st with the intent of holding a work session in that interim time. So members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 8 to 4, that motion passes. So this item— its public hearing has been reopened It will be on the July 21st agenda under continued public hearings. No more secret conversations with APD and the union, please. Okay, so our next item is we're moving on to new public hearings. So we are on item 14A, AO 2026-01.

6.72, An ordinance authorizing the competitive disposal with conditions of Heritage Land Bank Parcel 2-156, Parcel ID 02018168000, legally described as Tract B2 Legacy Point Subdivision, Plat 202318, and located on Goldenview Drive across from Mowen Park in Anchorage. The public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward to testify if you would like to testify.

And the microphone is on. Please state your name and what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Rachel Bernhardt. I live in South Anchorage, and I am a founding member and the current board president for Alaska Natural Burial. This project has been close to my heart for nearly 5 years. It is built on thousands of volunteer hours and the generosity of more community members than I could possibly name here. A point of order, Chair.

Could you pause the time? Thank you. Yeah, pause the time. I was wondering if we could perhaps give a bit more time for folks to move out into the lobby so that we can hear the testifiers clearly.

Okay.

Okay. Please proceed. Thank you. So as you Probably no. Anchorage Memorial Park has reached capacity.

Angelus continues to serve our community well, but its prices mean it's out of reach for many Anchorage families. When the 2024 cemetery bond didn't pass, it gave us a useful, a useful number— $4.1 million for a municipal-funded solution to Anchorage's shortage of affordable cemetery infrastructure. What today's ordinance offers is a way to address that same need minus the price tag. Uh, natural burial isn't a niche offering, it's a different approach to cemetery management. There's no vaults, caskets are optional, lower density, there's no grass to mow, no pesticides, herbicides, and no embalming fluid.

The interest in our project has been really humbling. Our waitlist stretches from Juneau to Fairbanks and beyond. Just this morning I spoke with to former Alaskans now living in Ireland who want to come home to be buried here. We've had consistent support from the Neighborhood Community Council and from residents across the municipality and now from around the world, if you can believe it. This AO is a chance to expand cemetery infrastructure for Anchorage families with conservation woven into the foundation.

I am grateful for your time and I would respectfully ask for a yes vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. You will have 3 minutes.

Please state your name, the microphone's on, and what part of town you're in. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and thank you, um, assembly members. My name is Jacqueline Summers. I live in District 5. I've been working with Rachel Bernhardt on this project right from the beginning.

We've been working on this for 5 years. I met Rachel when I ran a nonprofit that Works with Alaskans who want to move forward creative ideas. I've been a champion ever since. I think Rachel has brought forward a very elegant solution to a difficult problem where we've run out of cemetery space, and this would provide us with a way to expand our, our cemetery space in Alaska in a, in a really wonderful way. She's found a site that overlooks many exciting places around Anchorage, and I think that many of us would welcome an opportunity to be there forever.

I think this opens an opportunity for us to speak about this difficult subject with our family members. I know I have done that, and I think that it provides us with a way to really care for our community in the future. I would urge you to, to vote yes on this. And I just want to commend Rachel for her persistence. I mean, she has answered every possible question about whether this would attract bears, whether it would be difficult for the water.

For— she has just really answered every possible problem that anybody could come up with. And really, there's really nothing that would be a problem with having this in our community. So thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you tonight and for the opportunity to share this with you. So thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward, state your name, what part of town you're in, and microphone is on. You have 3 minutes. Yeah, uh, my name is Dave Worrell. I've been a resident of Anchorage since 1981, uh, when I came up as an adventure seeker to climb in the Alaska Range with the National Outdoor Leadership School. After 45 years, Anchorage is my home.

It's where I've built a family and where I intend to remain through the end of my days. Now that I'm in my 60s, I've had the experience of losing loved ones and the issues that passing away can bring. For the sake of my family, I'd like to have a plan ready that they can implement upon my passing. Part of that is to do with my remains, and I can think of nothing better than to return to the earth here where I've made my life. Anchorage has been good to me and has made me who I am, both literally and figuratively speaking.

Returning all that I am to this land is, for me, the right thing, the only thing to do with my remains. I hope the Heritage Land Bank land Parcel 2-156 will become Alaska Natural Burial Cemetery in Anchorage, and that someday my remains will return to nature there, overlooking the city that was my home. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward.

You'll have 3 minutes. State your name, and, and you can adjust the microphone if you need to. Yes, thank you. Okay, you ready? My name is Debbie Hinchey.

I live downtown Anchorage. I think this is a very good and reasonable project. I used to think that cemeteries were a waste of land. I slowly realized how much I enjoyed the green space in the downtown cemetery. It offers to me and many others a stunning contrast to the blacktop and buildings that surround it.

On nice days, a view of the mountains through the trees is an uplifting view that makes me smile and appreciate the beauty of this place that sometimes I actually forget. I used to be into cremation, and then I realized the amount of non-renewable resources it takes to do the job. In life, I recycle every nutrient I can into my garden soil. I even do some other people's leaves and grass clippings. Nothing I can compost in my home is thrown away.

Except weeds. So I can use my nat— so why would I use natural gas to burn up and waste all the nutrients of my carefully fed body? If body composting was available like it is in Seattle area, then I would also look at that option. I have visited many cemeteries in large cities because they were designated as arboretums or bird-watching hotspots. Many were on hills and afforded nice views.

The land was put aside for the dead, but they are wonderful places for the living to be rejuvenated by the quiet beauty. I think this is a brilliant way to fund and preserve wild green spaces. I would think that the property values would increase for the neighbors. I know I would much rather live next to a cemetery than some fancy subdivision. I cannot think of a better way to have a legacy than being one of the people, one of the many, to help preserve this site by paying to be decomposed naturally— not with natural gas— into more trees, grass, and insects and birds.

And I have my old-fashioned checkbook here ready to write down for a new burial plot. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name and what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi there, my name is Amy Franz, District 6. I'm a lifelong resident of Anchorage. I was born here. I went to college at UAA. I raised my child to adulthood in this town.

I will likely continue to live here until I myself am personally in need of a cemetery plot. I'm also on the board of Alaska Natural Burial serving as the treasurer. I'm here today obviously in support of the disposal of Parcel 2156 to Alaska Natural Burial. Anchorage really faces a real and growing need for affordable burial space, cemetery space. Existing options are limited Traditional burial has become increasingly unaffordable for many Anchorage families.

As a result, cremation is often the only practical option available. However, for many families, cremation is not an acceptable alternative because of religious beliefs, cultural traditions, or just personal preference.

A community of our size in Anchorage and with the diversity that we have, should ensure that dignified and affordable burial options remain available for current and future generations. This proposal addresses that need while also protecting a remarkable parcel of land. Parcel 2156 has been in municipal ownership for decades without a clear public use. Its steep terrain and natural characteristics make conventional development difficult and costly. A conservation burial ground is one of the few uses that works with the landscape rather than requiring the landscape to be transformed.

What I find especially compelling is that this proposal preserves and, um, It preserves what people already value about this area. The land remains forested. Wildlife habitat is protected. The corridor connecting the Chugach foothills to Potter's Marsh is maintained. People have testified that these are the important things to preserve that natural green space that we care so much about in Anchorage.

At the same time, this parcel would serve a meaningful public purpose rather than simply remaining undeveloped. This is consistent with the Heritage Land Bank's responsibility to manage municipal land for the benefit of both present and future residents. Rather than sitting without a defined public use, this parcel would address a very important community need while being protected and stewarded for generations to come. This proposal doesn't ask Anchorage to choose between conservation and public benefit. It achieves both.

I respectfully ask that you support the— for the disposal to Anchorage Natural Area. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. State your name and what part of town you're in.

You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, I'm Michelle Worrell and I live in South Anchorage. I support establishing a natural burial cemetery on this property and approving the transfer of land from the Heritage Land Bank. Personally, I would choose natural burial. I see little benefit in embalming, placing a body in a manufactured casket, and then enclosing that casket in a concrete vault. In researching the purpose of vault— burial vaults, I learned that primary function is to prevent ground settling and simplify cemetery maintenance rather than to serve the needs of the deceased or their families.

Natural burial offers a respectful, environmentally responsible alternative that allows a body to return naturally to the earth. While this approach differs from burial practices many of us have traditionally experienced, Whoops. Differ from burial practice many of us have traditionally experienced. Changing circumstances call for thoughtful consideration of new options. Anchorage is facing increasing pressure on valuable available burial space.

Although plots remain available, the cost of traditional burial, often ranging from $6,000 to $8,000 or more, places a significant financial burden on many families. A natural burial cemetery would provide an additional option that is both affordable and sustainable. Equally important, this proposal presents an opportunity to permanently preserve a beautiful, valuable piece of open space. I've come to appreciate the land for its scenic views peaceful setting and recreational opportunities. As a natural burial cemetery, the property could remain protected for generations, allowing future residents, including my own children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, to enjoy that beauty and serenity.

Approving this land transfer would address a growing community need while advancing environmental stewardship, land conservation, and burial choice for Anchorage residents. I respectfully urge the assembly to approve the transfer of this property from the Heritage Land Bank and support its development as a natural burial cemetery. Thank you for considering and for serving the community. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward.

Uh, you'll have 3 minutes. State your name and where— what town you're in, and the microphone's on. My name is Ricky Ludman. I live in the Rabbit Creek area. In fact, I live— I have a home just 1 mile north of this proposed Alaska burial site, Parcel 2-156.

I have walked this area. There's trails there. I'm very familiar with it, and I appreciate the undeveloped nature of the area. As an environmentalist, 71 years old, I hope to be buried in such a location. I am opposed to the current burial practices.

It's not something that I would do, and I'm hoping that the community of Anchorage recognizes there's many of us who would like to have a burial in a more natural way. I am in favor of the site since it's close for family and friends to visit. I'm not concerned about bears or other wildlife.— the activity of having a cemetery there and people walking the trails will actually diminish the wildlife in that area. So people who are afraid that bear activity will be— I don't see it. I believe that Parcel 2-156 offers the best and future way for burials that are coming around the country.

And Anchorage could be proactive in this way. I urge you to support Ordinance AO-2026-72 and transfer the land so we can establish Alaska burial site. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. State what part of town you're from and your name. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, I'm Bruce Seppi.

I live and own a residence directly adjacent to the Potter Marsh Watershed park at Bellardi and 172nd, about a half mile from this parcel. I'm not here tonight to judge anyone's wishes on what they want to happen with their body when they die. That's very personal and, and not what I'm here to talk about. But I do feel as though the use of this land for a cemetery has already been decided. It's been in the works with Heritage Land Bank and the, uh, Alaska Natural Burial for several years, largely outside of the public view.

We are just now having a public hearing for, uh, to finalize it. I know this parcel has— I know this parcel well, and it's known to have bedrock close to the surface. The upper portion of the Moen Trail, which was inside this proposed cemetery, has solid bedrock right at the surface. Also, the area is wet even now during the driest time of the year, especially during breakup And rainy periods in the fall, water is flowing downhill and some areas are muddy. Water stays near the surface because of the shallow bedrock and water moves downhill over the bedrock because of the sloped terrain toward Potter Marsh, like much of the surrounding Potter Marsh Watershed Park.

Shallow bedrock and wet hydrology of the parcel were brought up by several members of the public in a February meeting during the Heritage Land Bank public hearing testimony, but it was largely, um, disregarded or left for further investigation by Alaska Natural Burial. I question how an area with shallow bedrock and a wet hydrology could be a good place to make a cemetery of any kind, or particularly a natural burial cemetery where they're proposing to have 2,800 or more grave sites. I think Heritage Land Bank is willing to overlook these factors because of the disposal of the property for a cemetery fits perfectly with the land uses of the current zoning, public lands and institutions, and the cemetery is viewed as a public benefit. Alaska Natural Burial wants the parcel because it's free and it's a beautiful spot overlooking, uh, the inlet. But I question how well-suited the parcel is for the burial of over 2,800 bodies.

I don't think Alaska Natural Burial knows how many grave sites the parcel can actually accommodate that can be dug deep enough for a natural burial and avoid wildlife conflicts given the shallow bedrock and the wet hydrology, or where the bedrock is close to the surface. The few holes that they've dug last fall is not enough to know the extent of the bedrock. I'm also wondering if they are required to determine that before this is approved. Approved. I don't think this cemetery is a good use of this land given its hydrology and geology, and contrary to what Alaska Natural Burial is suggesting, a cemetery does not fit well with the Potter Valley Watershed Park that surrounds it.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name and where you're, uh, living on the record, and you'll have to 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Samantha Minskens. I live in District 3.

Burial is personal, from the way our bodies are prepared to the way we're clothed and presented or not, and how and where we rest. To honor choice and burial, I ask that you support this ordinance. As a lifelong Anchorageite, I was raised on blueberry picking alongside my neighbors, strolling under the midnight sun, and glissading down remaining snow-packed to celebrate my dad's birthday each year. The Chugach is home for me and so many others. Burial space in Anchorage is hard to come by, and natural burial is scant an option in the area.

Recognizing that local burial choices are limited and involve or require— sorry, yeah, local burial choices are limited and involve or require formaldehyde, concrete, incineration, I ask for another choice. Now I must either be buried far from my family and the land I call home or be shipped to Seattle, processed, and returned to Anchorage. No thank you. The land identified by Alaska Natural Burial was unanimously approved for burial by the HLBAC and local hydrologists. I ask that you honor your neighbors and constituents by providing them with a choice in burial and support this ordinance supporting preservation of local natural habitat.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name, and you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Miranda Walso and I live in Chugiak/Eagle River. I strongly support AO-2026-72 and the transfer of HLB parcel 2156 to Alaska Natural Burial for the development of a natural burial cemetery.

Cemetery. Simply, Anchorage needs more cemetery space. The Memorial Park Cemetery is approaching capacity and has very limited openings for additional public members, and this is a known issue that's been recognized for years. When the 2024 cemetery bond failed, the need for additional burial space didn't disappear. What did disappear was the publicly funded solution being proposed.

This proposal provides a way to meet that need without placing the cost on taxpayers. Natural burials allow people to be laid to rest in a way that is simple, affordable, and environmentally responsible. I also appreciate, though, that this is not a giveaway of public land without accountability. The ordinance includes extensive protection, includes strong safeguards such as funding requirements, deed restrictions, permitting requirements, conservation commitments, and provisions that allow the property to revert to municipal ownership if the project does not move forward successfully. I think it says something about the project that municipal agencies reviewed the proposal It did not identify another public need for the site.

Parks and Recreation supported the concept, and the Heritage Land Bank Advisory Commission unanimously voted unanimously to recommend approval. This parcel has been sitting in the municipal inventory for many years, and previous ideas discussed for the property never materialized in viable solutions. It was ultimately determined to be unsuitable for some uses that had been considered in the past. This proposal finally puts the land to work in a meaningful— for a meaningful public purpose while still preserving its natural and recreational value. At a time when Anchorage needs additional cemetery capacity desperately, and when taxpayers have already indicated they do not want to fund new municipal cemeteries, and a local nonprofit is willing to step forward and provide the service while protecting the surrounding environment, this seems like exactly the sort of project we should support.

It's a thoughtful use of a parcel that's remained undeveloped for many years and it addresses a community need. I urge your support. Thanks for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name on the record, and you have 3 minutes. Great, good evening.

I'm Hezekiah Holland, or Kai Holland. I live in District 6. I just want to take a moment to support the ordinance. I'm speaking on my own behalf, but I was a community council president back in the early 2000s when we started seeing a number of proposals come up for these parcels to be developed. And again, Committee Council President, you know, a few years ago when this project came forward, and I just want to relate that the history of this parcel and the area has been, I think as we've heard tonight, considered over and over again and never been found suitable for various developments.

We've seen projects that have been proposed in this area that were high-density, multifamily, efforts. We've seen single-family efforts come through here, and this project now represents, I think, an appropriate use for the property. And I just finally want to just commend the efforts of Rachel and the nonprofit approach. They have been very involved in the community council. We've had numerous meetings to consider this and to learn about it, have the opportunity to ask lots of questions.

So it's been a project that has taken a lot of tenacity and persistence, but I'm very supportive of the effort and the use of the land and just bring 25 years of history of seeing many people try to do something. And now I think we have a good plan to move ahead with, and I hope you'll support it tonight. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name and, uh, what part of town you're in on the record, and you'll 3 minutes.

My name is Jamie Bates and I live in Chugiak. I am here to support the acquisition of this land for natural burial. Very few people think about death and who they will entrust with the care of their remains. I'm a lifelong Alaskan with a unique perspective. I'm a licensed funeral director in Alaska and as well as an embalming apprentice.

While completing my mortuary science degree, I started working for a cemetery. In my time at the cemetery, I learned we are are far more than a resting place for the departed. We are the protectors of history, facilitators, allowing grieving individuals a safe place to reflect and connect with loved ones. I also have been on the front lines for the past 5 years hearing my neighbors asking for a greener, more cost-effective option. Alaska Nigil burial provides both.

In traditional cemeteries, embalming is not mandated by law, but oftentimes families desire viewings, and thus funeral homes require embalming. Tanks. Then the remains are placed in a casket, then a vault, either concrete or polypropylene. Following all those barriers, caskets are buried at such a depth that natural microbes in the soil are suffocated by lack of oxygen. Natural burial works with nature to facilitate decomposition, utilizing the microbial life within all of us and in the layers of soil, thus facilitating natural decay and allowing the byproducts to be used by plants contributing to the cycle of life.

This also does not mean families can't have viewings or ceremony, but rather creates an opportunity for my industry to grow and meet the needs of our community. Some will argue animals could dig up the bodies. This is a myth, and a simple Google search would prove otherwise. Um, no recorded instance by any natural burial site, um, following the guidelines that are being proposed has ever had this happen. It was only in September of 2003 that this body defined what a cemetery was and mandated that residents of Anchorage use one.

By doing so, it limited options and forced citizens to buy into cemeteries. As you all are aware, Anchorage Memorial Park space is limited and soon to be non-existent to the public due to private tracts. Lack of affordable burial spaces is only going to compound unless this body and others facilitate the opportunity for growth. Alaska Natural Burial has built a coalition of knowledgeable professionals to guide them in the creation and management of the burial sites. They intend to steward the land in a way that protects native species and offers sanctuary and security for residents of Anchorage to return back to earth, as our bodies are naturally designed to do.

As a death care professional, I know families are interested in this option and space is needed. Alaska Natural Burial is a viable solution. You have the opportunity to allow Anchorage residents the option to remain in Alaska, feed her soils, and for the future generations to enjoy the bounties of home. Please vote yes on this measure. Thank you for your testimony.

And also note, we'll finish testimony in the room and then we have two folks to call on the phone.

So welcome. You have 3 minutes. State your name on the record. Yeah. Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage Family Coalition, formerly homeless.

So I was thinking about this. Shelter for the dead. Where's the shelter for the living? We have tracts of land that are basically being allocated for people that have passed, but we don't have spaces for the people that are still alive. And so the only thing I can think of is the way that the sort of playbook is going right now in policies is that, one, you don't have enough space for the dead, but two, are you gonna add up more bodies by not giving them places to go while they're alive?

So I would ask you to think about that issue. I'm sort of, put it this way, Anna Bryant, she's a very smart lady, she understands what's going on, and more or less, there is a lack of space for those that are being buried. You have to sort of resolve that issue. I don't know if it's vertical burial, where you take the existing land and then you find a way, to do it that way. But yeah, I would revisit the existing topic of shelter for the living and, and find out where these people are going to go before they end up in the ground, because literally you're driving people to the ground right now.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the room? Okay, so we will call two folks on the phone. So first, let's call Julie Raymond.

Yacopian. Hello? Hi, uh, Miss Raymond Yacopian? Yeah. Uh, thank you.

Uh, we're calling, uh, this is the assembly chair calling for testimony on AO 202672, um, regarding HLB disposal for natural burial, and you'll have 3 minutes. If you can state your name. Thank you. Good evening, my name is Julie Raymond Yakobian. I live in Girdwood, and I'm speaking tonight to ask you to vote yes on Ordinance 2026-72.

I am a board member of Alaska Natural Burial. I'm also an end-of-life doula and a home funeral guide. Part of my work involves collaborating with individuals and families to help them navigate planning for the end of their lives. Including planning for what they would like to have happen to their bodies after they die. Many people in Southcentral Alaska are interested in burial but currently have very limited options because Anchorage Memorial Park is essentially at capacity and private options are very expensive for some families.

Many people are also interested in having the option of green or natural burial available to them, which it currently is not. Personally, I would also like to have natural conservation burial cemetery options available to me and my loved ones. This is one of the many reasons I decided to join the Alaska Natural Burial Board and dedicate my time to establishing the cemetery. Having access to a variety of options to meet different individual preferences, cultural or religious needs, and income levels is an important part of supporting choice and dignity for our citizens. Currently, families are making disposition decisions based on a very limited set of options and would make other choices if other options like natural burial were available to them.

Many people avoid talking about or planning for death, which is understandable, but as a municipality, Anchorage does not have the option of avoiding this topic. We are approaching a public infrastructure crisis, and Alaska Natural Burial is an organization that has stepped up to help address this. In addition to addressing our infrastructure issues, Alaska Natural Burial would also be protecting Parcel 2-156 in perpetuity through the implementation of a conservation burial ground. This has many benefits, from preserving green space for public use and protecting wildlife corridors and watershed. Additionally, natural burial is far less energy intensive than other methods of disposition, like fire cremation, for example, and is in fact a carbon sink.

The low-density, low-impact, low-cost cemetery format that Alaska Natural Burial is proposing will meet a crucial community need for decades. Will contribute to the Heritage Land Bank's mandate to benefit residents of Anchorage and will provide continued public access to and use of this parcel. Alaska Natural Burial is excited to continue to work with the municipality and Heritage Land Bank to bring this project to fruition. Alaska Natural Burial is committed to carrying out this project to the highest standards and with industry best practices, and with stewardship of the land and service to the community as our highest priorities. Again, I urge you to vote yes on Ordinance 2026-72 and recommend the disposal of Parcel 2-156 to Alaska Natural Burial.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony.

And next, um, second person on the phone, um, is Anne Rapoport.

Hi, if you record your name— Yeah, yeah, I think if they have a screening, then screening system, we don't really have a good way to get through to them.

Um, okay, yeah, I think if we have a screening service, it's really difficult to take testimony. So, um, we will then move on. So just checking, is there anyone else who would wish to testify in the room? Seeing and hearing no one. No one else on the phone.

Public hearing is now closed. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Johnson, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. I, I don't feel like I really have much to add beyond what has already been covered by a lot of very thoughtful testimony, but I do want to acknowledge and thank Alaska Natural Burial for their persistence and commitment in shepherding this project along over a course of, I think, quite a few years to get us to this point. Um, really applaud them for getting us here to this day, um, significant milestone. I just also want to highlight that this is a proposal that broad support in the community and really throughout Anchorage, as we've heard tonight, but does come with the full support of the community council in which the project would be located.

And then just finally to say that this is an effort to meet a real need in our community that we have struggled with, but does so in a very thoughtful way. And so I'm very, very happy to see this moving forward. Mr. Peresverdia. Thank you. Just, I'm, I'm, uh, one of the Ted One of the testifiers said to Google some of these things, so I did.

But so I found— you're right, it's pretty easy to find. But I do want to hear from the administration, just, just to— so I understand the— if there are— if this, if this property has been assessed for, you know, the depth and, and wildlife and these kinds of, of— is that part of the process of assessing whether this is the right location or not? So I would just love to hear someone from administration as to whether some of the concerns that have been shared both through email and in here are valid at all. Do the chair and members of the Planning Commission ask our team from Real Estate and HLB to come down and speak to what we've done with respect to this property?

Tiffany Briggs, Real Estate Director, for the record. I will probably punt to Emma for most of this because this has been her project that she's shepherding through.

Hi, Emma Gibboney, land management officer for Heritage Land Bank. So regarding the— I believe it was the burial depth, is that what was the first question? Okay, so we did a geotechnical study just preliminarily to see if this was a suitable site. They did 8 test pits, 5 of which were deeper than 4 feet, which is the minimum depth for a natural burial, and We were always under the understanding that there was probably not going to be 100% usability of this site, and we discussed with Natural Burial that there could be alternate uses for the areas that were not suitable. Walking through this area, there are outcroppings of rocks, so it's— sorry, it is noticeable that, you know, some of these areas are more for the scenic beauty and the viewing, not necessarily burials in those sites.

And then what was the next question? Sorry, I think you, you answered, but what the other one was, just any fear about wildlife. I think that was another concern that was brought forward. Yeah, so that was a concern that we received early on, was whether bears would be interested in this site. And we're working with Alaska Natural Burial and the Department of Fish and Game to address those concerns.

One of the testimony, uh, testifiers mentioned that there's no record of any disturbance from bears on graves. And we have to remember, in Alaska, natural burial has been in our state in perpetuity. This is not a new concept. This is just the first time in Anchorage that we're doing this. So no bears on record, and Fish and Game, they're working with Natural Burial to create some guidelines for best practices.

Thank you. And I just— just a comment that I had an opportunity in the last few years to visit Sitka and Bob Sam, who's an elder there and who is a part of creating their cemetery, their natural cemetery there. And it is absolutely beautiful. It's something that would— something like that would be lovely because it's something that people go and walk through and look at just because it's so, so beautiful. So just an idea for everybody.

For you to consider thinking about as an example. Thanks. Thank you. Next, Mr. McCormick. Thank you.

Yeah, um, natural burial was kind of a new, uh, prospect for me, something I hadn't considered or really heard of. Sounds very interesting. It sounds like you guys have a lot of people interested in support in that, but this— that's not what this ordinance is about. This ordinance is about disposing of these 10 acres to a nonprofit for free. And that's where I'm not sure that that is in the best public interest with this land.

The, the business plan sounds great. There's, you know, 300 plots per acre, about 10 acres, $5,000, looking at close to $15 million. You have a lot of people interested. So why Do we need to give away this land for free? It seems like the business model is there.

There's interest. And we're going to lock up in perpetuity 10 acres to the first 3,000 people that can pay up $5,000. And then in 2 generations, 3 generations, there's less public use of that land. So I'm not sure that it's— but if they want to purchase the land, by all means purchase it. I'm just not sure giving it away is where I'm going to be in for the best public interest.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. I really want to— I think first I want to say I learned something new every single time we have a meeting, and tonight I learned that you can get a degree in mortuary science.

That was a revelation. Thank you for that. Secondly, Rachel, I think my only concern with this is that 9.6 acres might not be enough land for the demand that you've expressed, particularly since the predecessor of this assembly has stated that folks who are buried in Anchorage must be buried in a cemetery. So I'm, I'm really aware that we've actually created a demand structure. Like, that's what we've done as government.

We've created a demand structure by which people are required to be buried in a certain fashion. And we haven't necessarily solved how that happens because the cemetery that we currently own and operate is, as many have stated tonight, nearing capacity, if not already there. So I do believe it is in the best interest of the public that we dispose of land that cannot be developed in any other way, given the slope, given the hydrology, uh, given the quality of the soils, uh, to do exactly the thing we've told the public we want them to do, and that is to be buried in a sanctioned space. So I'm delighted to approve, uh, to vote to approve this particular ordinance, and I, um, and I hope that, that we find other creative ways to attend to the needs of our residents after they are no longer alive. This strikes me as a really really fantastic use of public assets.

So, um, thanks to Rachel for all of the work that you've done over the last 5 years— is that what it's been? She's nodding— 5 years to bring this project to fruition. It is not easy to start a nonprofit from scratch, having done that myself. And so my hat is off to you and all of the folks that you have mobilized in this effort. We have received overwhelming testimony and support, so You clearly have a very, very dedicated group of folks in Anchorage who appreciate the work that you're doing, and I would love for you to count me among them.

Thank you, and I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this disposal. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Uh, just for the sake of the community and economic development aspect of this conversation, I'd love to follow up on some of Mr. McCormick's questions to, uh, both HLB and to real estate.

What is the charter for HLB with respect to the land that it holds and possesses? What's the purpose of the land and the charter for the disposal of those lands? Thank you. The purpose of HLB lands is to serve the current and future residents of the land. And to develop the land in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

And the first part, just to repeat that on the record, was to serve the current and future residents of the municipality— residents of the Municipality of Anchorage— and then within the charter to dispose thereof. Thank you. And to follow up on that, We do have a sense of the inventory of the land. I remember recently, especially with the conversation around wetlands, for example, and converting, moving designations across. Is this the housing land?

Is this the land for the housing? 'Cause if it is, then this is a problem today, I'm sorry. But is this the housing land? I don't believe that it is. Within the last 10 years, the Real Estate Department performed an analysis to determine whether this area was usable for residential development, and it was found that it would be extremely expensive and, um, and not suitable for residential development.

Okay, I just want to make sure I'm following the logic, the logistics of the process in terms of the disposal of land. If there was a usage that was determined for a development purposes, we'd have probably found that. It was what I'm getting from the initial answer. Through the chair, yes. Because that's what you're tasked to do.

But if there isn't a development, financial development kind of project that could be driven into this, the other side of it is the disposal toward the future needs of the current residents Is that part of the mission, the charter that I heard again? And where's the— where's the money associated with that? How much do we have to pay for that?

Through the chair, can you repeat? Sure. What was the mission again of the HLB land? To manage lands consistent with the comp plan and to benefit future and resident citizens of the municipality. So we determined that building the land was— developing the land was the best, highest usage.

That's the beneficiary of our choice there. But if there's not a developmental potential, there are other potential benefits that are not necessarily economically driven that we would also be inclined to maximizing with respect to the charter. Is that fair to say? That is. All right.

Cemetery needs is a clear need that I think this body has heard, this administration has heard, and the community is aware of. I wasn't aware of it until obviously learning more about the— our own cemetery, the plots, the private plots, and then this particular project. So I just wanted to be real clear again on the record. HLB is not necessarily disposing of land for the highest profit return, it is for the best benefit to the people today and for the future. It could mean an economic incentive, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

Through the chair, that is correct. Thank you, I appreciate that. I think that's clear, that, that's helpful for the public to understand the process of which we use the land. Not everyone fits into an economic bucket. If it serves a larger purpose, it also meets the mission.

Is that fair? Yes, that's fair. Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll be supporting this. Next, Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, I just had a quick question. Um, so if this property doesn't have, I guess, other uses, I guess why was it valued at, uh, $583,000? $1.2 Million. Through the chair, that was what the appraisal came in at, so that's the appraised value. I'd have to go back and look at the actual appraisal and see what they said, but I think they're just valuing the land, not necessarily use-specific.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, item AO2026.72 passes the body. Next, we will move on to item 14B. Ordinance AO-2026-73, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, authorizing and providing the issuance of not to exceed $70,679,000 in aggregate principal amount of general obligation school bonds of the municipality for the purpose of financing the costs of educational capital improvements for district-wide major building systems renewal in the municipality. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify.

Anyone in the room wishing to testify? I know some folks are, are heading out of the room. Uh, seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Mullins, second by, uh, Ms. Scout, uh, to approve. Uh, Mr. Mullins, do you want to speak to it? Okay.

Um, don't currently have any other members in the queue. It looks like, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day, go ahead. Yes, thank you, Chair. Um, I, I had a couple of questions, um, come through my inbox today about this particular item, and so I, I wanted to ask a question that I, I believe I already know the answer to, but just to have it on the record. Um, would the administration please clarify when exactly voters authorized this debt?

And I'll jump in for a second to also ask, I know a couple members from Anchorage School District were intending to be on, or I should say not members, but staff members of the district. I don't know if they're on the phone or not, but I believe they could also answer questions. To the chair, if they're on the line that we had anticipated, these are questions appropriately directed to the school district for their bonding authority. So I would defer to representatives at the school district if they're available telephonically.

Okay, um, yeah, I believe we should have Mr. Ratliff on the phone. Okay, so we need to call him first, so let's do that. So just one moment while we give him a call.

Hi. Hi, Mr. Ratliff, this is Anna Brawley, uh, with the assembly. We, uh, are on item 14B and we have a question. Um, I don't know if you've been following along, or we could restate it. I did.

Was this about when the voters approved the bonds? Yes. Um, yeah, it's a question from Miss Baldwin Day, if you'd like to provide a summary. Sure. So these are going to be approved in the fiscal year in which the ordinance is listed on the, um, in your packet.

I believe it goes, spans back from 2012 up until the 2025 or 2024 bond or voter authorization. So it would have been April of each year.

Um, thank you for that, Mr. Ratliff. So, um, so as I understand it, this is debt that we have, uh, that we have approved in prior bond packages, school bond packages, but have not actually obligated to this point. Is that correct? Uh, through the chair, yes ma'am, that is correct. Those have all been voter approved, and now we're just going to sell that debt that they approved us to go ahead and sell to do these projects.

Okay, thank you, that's helpful.

Okay, any other comments from members? I don't see anyone in the queue.

Okay, no further discussion. Um, thank you so much, Mr. Ratliff. Oh, sorry, Mr. McCormick, go ahead. I guess I had a question of, so we're going to pull up bond debt voted through 14 years ago because the voters didn't approve this year's bond? Is that kind of what I'm grasping, of that if voters approve the bond, then we would spend that money, but because they didn't, we found another way to still get that, that bond money?

Uh, through the chair, no, sir, that's not really what's happening. As we, as we go through and, um sell these bonds, you know, we do these projects incrementally because the building season is pretty short in summer in Alaska. So it takes us many years to complete these. For those really old bonds, for that '12 and '13 debt, that's actually tied to have state bond debt reimbursement. Prior to 2015, the state had a program where they would reimburse us 60 to 70— 60 to 70% of our bond debt, and— but it has to have deed-approved projects.

So those particular bonds have been taking a while to find or to get approval on deed projects to actually spend that money to save the taxpayers, um, some money and have the state reimburse it. Thank you. Miss Brawley. Thank you, uh, Mr. Ratliff. Just one follow-up question on that.

Um, so, so as you said, this— these are the, the older projects for example, 2011, 2014, and so on, are tied to the period of time in which the state was reimbursing with school bond debt reimbursement. So, so for some of these projects, for example, so, so the state has essentially lifted a moratorium on reimbursement for those. So, so pending appropriations, those are now fully funded. So my question, Mr. Ratliff, is if, if these particular projects, these older ones, had moved forward, say, 2 years ago during that moratorium, would there have been any opportunity for a part of it to be reimbursed by the state rather than paid for by Anchorage taxpayers? Potentially.

So it was really— the moratorium was on new debt that was issued or voter-approved after January of 2015. So any of our old bonds, whenever we would go out and sell those, they were still subject to the state's bond debt reimbursement program. So had we done it a couple years ago, We possibly could have got debt reimbursement. We have to have those projects approved through D to be able to get it since it's— they're reimbursing it. Okay, thank you.

That answers my question. So no other members in the queue. Thank you again, Mr. Ratliff. Then members may proceed to vote if there's no further discussion.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-73 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 14C, AO 2026-74, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, authorizing and providing for the issuance of not to exceed $55,175,000 in aggregate principal amount of general obligation General Purpose Bonds of the municipality for the purpose of financing the costs of road and drainage improvements, renovating, replacing, and renewing park facilities, and a long list of other items. Public hearing on this item is now open. Would anyone wish to be heard? Please come forward.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one in the room or signed up on the phone, uh, public hearing is now closed. What is the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by, uh, Mr. Bullen to approve, second by Ms. Scout. Mr. Bullen, would you like to speak to this one?

Nothing for me, thank you. Okay, um, not seeing any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO-202674 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 14D, AO-202677, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan, Land Use Plan Map to change the classification of approximately 5.2 acres of land from Town Center and Public Lands and Institutions to Light Industrial/Commercial Commercial for the parcels with a legal description T12NR3W SEC Section, um, or Section 20 NW4SWNE4SW4, Parcel 17, Lucky Hoffman Track C1, and Lucky Hoffman Block 1 Lot 2. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone please come forward to testify?

And I'll remind you, it looks like the microphone is off. Please state your name and what part of town you're from, and you'll have 3 minutes unless you're speaking for the community council. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Jason Norris, South Anchorage.

I believe this is my first time before the newly constituted body. I'd like to welcome the new members and look forward to speaking with you on matters near and dear to me. Not here to oppose this action in particular. These businesses are valued members of our Southside community. My quarrels, not with them.

Rather, I'd like to use this as an opportunity to talk about the broader issue of what value our comprehensive plan is bringing to us if after a quarter of a century we're going to begin walking away from town centers we never implemented. Of course, it isn't just that we haven't implemented these envisioned spaces of dense mixed-use walkability, it's that we literally can't. The majority of the Huffman Town Center, the entirety of the Airport Heights Town Center, and various degrees of the others are zoned in industrial, which precludes housing from being built. And indeed, the vast majority of lands in the Huffman Town Center are zoned industrial but being used mainly for commercial purposes. Uh, that is, of course, unless we think banks and fast food chains and coffee shops as industry.

Uh, now we face a shortage of industrial lands across municipalities, so we're certainly not going to zone away from them. But if that's the case, why were these areas ever designated designated for the incorporation of housing? Was it to pay lip service to the idea of mixed-use walkability while incorporating a poison pill to ensure it never happened? The bottom line is our comprehensive plan has been successful in delivering 5 things to us: that's sprawl, car washes, garage condos, some generations with a lot of equity, and other generations with nowhere to live. We're losing approximately 3,400 working-age individuals every year right now.

And this situation is a big driver of why. And it is, of course, a fortuitous coincidence that Item 10G.6 is on the agenda tonight because it seeks to implement what the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent actions have never delivered. And of course, when that public hearing arrives in September, you're going to have a throng of naysayers at the mic extolling the sanctity of the Comprehensive Plan because they always seem to care about it when they're opposed to putting housing on the table. Off the table. But you'll notice not a single one of them here tonight when we are, for admittedly good reasons, taking housing off the table in over 9,000 acres, including the 5 here.

Their fervent adherence to the dogma of the comprehensive plan applies only to when they're defending their neighborhood character against the perceived hordes of unwashed who weren't lucky enough to get a mortgage with pipeline money. And I'd like to remember that in September when we finally seek to advance a version of the vision of these town centers that we had back at the turn of the century. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else like to testify?

Anyone at all? And no one signed up on the phone, so seeing and hearing none, um, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve, second by Mr. Voland. Ms. Baldwin-Day, would you like to to speak to it.

No, nothing, nothing for me. I would defer to my South Anchorage colleagues if they have any comments to offer. Uh, yeah, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I want to thank Jason for coming out and testifying. We've had, uh, dozens of conversations around, um, town centers.

I'll be in support of this change today, but with the recognition that I am looking to, to change town centers and see them actually and appropriately utilized. As that, as centers around our larger town, our larger community, but a place that people can come from their local area to visit that's walkable, that does have housing and business options. And I agree, locking down town centers, which as identified in land use plans, uh, should, should be places people want to go and not just industrial locked up places. So with that said, we'll keep working forward, but I'll be in support of this today. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, actually, my colleague's comment reminded me of an experience I had over the weekend. I needed to take my son to Chain Reaction in order to buy a part, and they didn't open until noon, and so we thought we would be smart kids and walk across to Sonic to grab something to drink. And I realized in that moment that there is no place to cross the street on Huffman.

There's not a crosswalk anywhere between the highway— between New Seward and Old Seward Highway. There's no place to cross Huffman. So if you did in fact want to hang around in Huffman Town Center, you can only do so legally on either side of the street. Otherwise, you're kind of hosed. And I think that's a major missing piece of any place that purports to be a town center.

So excited to work with my colleagues on the south side and really from around town to see our town centers implemented in the way that we originally envisioned them. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think there's also a further conversation to be had around where we allow, um, light manufacturing, and I think maybe going through, and looking at that as a use. I know when we updated the downtown, um, plan and code, we actually allowed in downtown more light manufacturing, and I think that'd be overall, um, just something positive for our economy. So, um, yeah, I think I actually see potential for more of a blend of town center, light manufacturing, and commercial areas going forward. Thanks. Next, Miss Scout.

Thank you. I just want to express my gratitude to Jason, um, for your comments and express my intent to support yes on this, um, despite my shared concerns about abandoning the 2040 land use plan and taking housing off the table. However, what I do like about this ordinance is that, um, it still aligns with the missing middle housing opportunity proposal. And so for that reason, I'll be voting yes.

Okay, seeing no additional members in the queue, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AO 2026-77 unanimously passes the body. Next, we'll move on to Item 14E, AO 2026-78, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan to change the future land use designation for 36 lots from University or Medical Center, Community Facility or Institution, Compact Mixed Residential Low, Compact Mixed Residential Medium, Neighborhood Town Center to Urban Residential High, Main Street Corridor and Town Center. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward and make sure the mic is on. You'll have 3 minutes to testify and state your name.

Thank you, Chair Brunelli. Paul Hatcher, H-A-T-C-H-E-R, like Hatcher Pass, District 5, East Anchorage. I'm here specifically as the president of the Patterson Townhouse Condominium Association. Most of you probably got emails from quite a few of my members and a few from the Tudor Townhouse Condominium Association also over the last couple days. We're specifically talking about Site 6 in your packet that's in front of you.

Unfortunately, when you group 10 properties into one packet, it kind of mixes and mingles and they don't always meet all the criteria that you think they should. Uh, specifically in the AO, the planning department has heard from several local institutions that the existing land use plan designations do not align with their long-term plans. Uh, what— there's nothing in there that says what in the land use plan designation that the South Central Foundation doesn't align with the foundation's long-term plans. And are these long-term plans in keeping with the intent of the comprehensive plan and the 2014 East Anchorage District Plan? There were some comments about South Central moving to— moving services to the valley if these weren't able to be done.

Southcentral already exists in the valley. They also exist here. So not sure they're really leaving us to, to go to the valley. Goal 10 of the 2040 LUP calls for Anchorage to support its anchor institutions and facilities to recognize the importance— important local and statewide benefits to provide while mitigating adverse impacts associated with development and expansion. However, the second paragraph under Goal 10 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, when it talks about our institutional anchor institutions, points out some key points that should probably be addressed.

Anchorage institutions include University of Alaska Anchorage— that's one site— Alaska Pacific University, Providence Alaska Medical Center, and Alaska Native Medical Center in the U-Med. This site is 2 miles from the U-Med district. Alaska Regional Hospital, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Port of Anchorage, Alaska Railroad, and Merrill Field. Site 6 is not anywhere near these. Um, the other whereas statement supports Action 1.3 of the 2040 LUP.

Uh, 1.3 is kind of interesting because it just reverts back to 1.1 and 1.2. If you were to look at that, 1.1 talks about update to maintain and publish a land use and buildable lands inventory. This is a completely developed area, so is the surrounding area, has been since Well, this site's been there since the '80s when they did the original AO for the special limitations, but the surrounding residential area has been there since the '90s and prior with Scenic Park. 1.2, Identify key indicators of progress or on issues by the 2040 Land Use Plan, monitor progress and report to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the progress. Again, the site is fully developed with surrounding impacts.

What impacts have been verified regarding the site in the 2040 MTP that it calls out, the bike plan, the fair housing plan, and the 2040 East Anchorage District Plan? Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, um, turn the microphone on. You can adjust it as needed, and you will have 3 minutes. So please state your name and what part of town you're in.

Oh, thank you. I'm Duane Hyman, and I'm representing St. Mary's Episcopal Church. It's at the southwest corner of Tudor and Lake Otis. 4 Years ago, our congregation decided to commit a beautiful 9-acre tract of land that we have right on south of Tudor for affordable or workforce housing, and We are in support of this because it will enable us to more effectively consolidate 3 separate types of zoning that we have on this one tract of land that we would like to put 120 or more affordable housing units on. So it's an important step for us to be able to accomplish this project.

So thank you for considering it, and, uh, I have not been listening to music all night. These are earbuds so that I can listen to you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Hyman. Oh, are you in— Ms. Silvers, are you in the queue for— oh, sorry. Oh yeah, Mr. Hyman, if you have a— here, Member Silvers has a question for you if you don't mind coming back up.

Hi, I'm Ms. Way. Thank you. Um, was Site 6 in the packet, uh, one that you had recommended to be included in this packet? Um, from what Planning and Zoning told me, uh, this was not actually one that you had requested to be included.

This— we've been working with Planning and Zoning and they've been extremely helpful in helping us trying to resolve this 3 zoning problem that we have. So I don't recall whether we requested that it be put in this, but it very effectively will help us solve that problem by being able to apply to a type of zoning that will, uh, allow us to put the type of affordable housing that we want on the property.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. Um, okay, uh, so is anyone in the room wishing to testify? Okay, seeing and hearing none, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to postpone to the meeting of 6/23. Second. Motion by Mr. Vohland to postpone this item to the, uh, meeting of June 23rd, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Can you speak to that, Mr. Bullock? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

We received an amendment, um, just moments ago, and I'd like a little time to research that myself, and I'm sure that the planning department would like that opportunity as well. I have been told by the administration that this is not urgent, so I appreciate this work coming forward, and, and particularly I appreciate the desire of the community to, um, to bring forward that workforce housing that we so need. So yeah, hope my colleagues can support taking a little bit more time with this and allow some responsiveness from the department. Thank you. Point of information, please.

Yes, Miss Baldwin-Day, what's your point? Would it be, uh, would it be in order to divide the question if we wanted to take up— if we wanted to dispense with items— well, everything 1 through 10 with the exception of item 6? Would that be a motion that's in order or not so much? Certainly that type of motion would be in order, and maybe I can turn to the clerk to briefly describe the procedure.

The motion to divide the question The mover moves to divide the question and explains the way they would like it divided, and then the chair restates it and asks if there's objection. If there is objection, it must be processed as a motion that people vote on. It is not debatable, and it is only amendable as to how the motion is divided. It needs a majority vote. And if the question is divided, each section is treated as a separate motion that has already been made.

And so you discuss one, vote on it, and then go to the next one. Does that answer all your questions? Um, yes, I think— well, mostly. I have one more question. So would— in order to do that, would we need to vote down the motion to postpone and then divide the question, or could the question be divided first?

You need to vote down the vote, the motion to postpone. We need to make a motion to approve and then motion to divide the question. It's a subsidiary motion. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

And I'll ask one additional clarifying question to the clerk. Is if, if the question is divided, a vote is taken on you know, Part A of what is divided, then can Part B— or would all the same motions such as postponement also still apply? Uh, that is my understanding. So if you're moving to divide the question, um, one can move forward to be approved and one could be postponed to a later meeting. Yes.

Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Voland, you're in the cube.

Thank you. So I, I think I will save us a little time then, and I will withdraw my motion to postpone, um, and turn it back to my colleagues. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Miss Silvers, um, I move that the motion be divided and that we consider consider the commercial development at Tudor and Patterson, property IDs 00720186000.

I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt you. I realized that because there is no motion on the floor right now, we need first a motion to— motion to approve, and then we can take up other motions. Okay, move to approve. All right, second. Okay, thank you.

Motion by Ms. Zellers. Second by Ms. Scott. No, we're all, we're all learning up here. Um, so, uh, okay, and I'm going to turn back to Ms. Silvers because you had the floor originally. Okay, all right.

Um, and so I move that the motion be divided and we consider, um, the commercial development at Tudor and Patterson, property IDs 00720186000, 00720197000, and 00720186000.

62000 Separately. Second. Okay, there's a motion to, uh, divide the question by Miss Silvers, um, specifically the three, uh, property IDs named, uh, for the commercial development at Tudor Road and Patterson. I will not belabor and read the IDs again. Um, it's also, I will note, considered, uh, Site 6, I think is the way it's described in the packet.

And the second is by Ms. Baldwin-Day. So if— so is there objection to dividing the question?

Okay, seeing no objection from members, then we will take— I'm just making sure. Okay, so next we need to take a vote to divide the question. And first I'll just see— Ms. Winn-Pearson, I know you're in There's no objection.

And apologies, sorry, Ms. Wynn Pearson, you were in the queue, so we have taken the vote on dividing the question. And I apologize, and perhaps now I'm no longer timely. I had been— I was trying to hop into the queue to say that to the extent that you are seeking to go through this complex procedural process in order to make it easier for either staff or someone who is waiting to develop a property to move ahead with the remainder of this, there is really no such facility on the other side of this. It doesn't actually make it easier for staff, nor is there anyone really waiting urgently for the rest of this. But I feel like we may be already further down the train than that comment was fall towards.

So go forth, divide the question, and I will remain quiet. Thank you. I think it's— I think it's still relevant to note that, that there is no urgency attached to these projects as stated, so, so they can go where they may. Okay, so now that the— now that the question has been divided, First, I would suggest that we take up basically the remainder of the items. So that would be Sites 1 through 5.

I'm not going to belabor and read off all the parcel numbers, but I think we have a general understanding what members would be voted on. So, so I'll see if there's any members in the queue to discuss Sites 1 through 5 in this packet. Point of information also, I think it's 7 through 10. Oh yes, thank you very much, Ms. Silver. So yeah, 1 through 5 and 7 through 10.

So everything except Number 6 in the packet. Okay. I'm not seeing any further— oh, Mr. Martinez. I have a question to the administration, to the Planning Department.

You can hear my question as you come to the dais and then you can answer it when you get to the microphone. Why did you put all of these projects together?

Through the chair to Member Martinez, I think I would like to pass this off to Long Range Planner Daniel McKenna Foster to answer that question since he is in charge of this project. Thank you.

Through the chair, thank you, Mr.— Member Martinez. Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. So last summer we were talking to some of our institutional partners sort of in the U Med area and they were looking looking for a way— they were doing their own long-range planning and they were looking at, you know, we'd like to develop but we can't quite do it with the way the plan is set up now, so we want to change the implementation zones of the plan to allow us to use this zone. And we looked at that and it seemed to me— to us that the problem was more that maybe the designation in Landy's plan wasn't quite appropriate for what they were looking for, right? This— so any of this, it doesn't change zoning, it doesn't change what you can actually do.

It changes just the types of zoning you could choose to rezone into. So anything that changes here tonight or whenever or not just makes a difference of what could your possible choices be for a future rezone. So they were looking at their options. They said the plan doesn't really give the options we're looking for. And so we thought about it and we said, well, maybe we just redesignate this section of the plan if it works for you.

And then other areas with that same designation don't have to be changed in the same way. They can maintain that. And then we talked through— we talked to a number of community councils and some other groups. And we found that some other institutions were interested as well. They said, you know, we actually have a parcel that's sort of in the same situation.

We'd like to rezone it to something else, but the plan doesn't allow that right now. And you can change the land use plan, you can go through that process, but with the abbreviated rezone process, it's a little bit easier to go through the process to change if you're implementing the comp plan. And so, you know, there were some partners trying to build housing, some educational partners, some healthcare partners. And so as we looked up and down the corridor, we really started looking at other properties owned by institutions. And I'm talking about institutions because goal 10 of the 2040 Land Use Plan tells us the Anchorage community supports its institutions.

They're of regional importance. There are a lot of jobs. And that was a big piece of this as well. So we started with maybe 5 properties. And then we talked to more institutional organizations.

And we found there were more along the corridor. So this was initially just the east side. And really up and down Muldoon. It started on Tudor and then it went to Tudor and Muldoon and Lake Otis because more people came to us. They said, actually, that would help us as well.

So that was the thinking of this. And since we've done that, we found that maybe there might be some on the west side as well. So it's just changing sort of the way the expectations are with what the land use plan map said they should be in 2017. Thank you. That's been helpful.

You use the term corridor a few times. Is that a choice that you used, or is that a slip of the— of your vocabulary? And if it's a choice, why are you using the word corridor? Through the chair, um, when we looked at it, we noted that there were certain types of, uh, land use designations along Tudor and along Muldoon. Um, and so we, we, we're trying to, you know, thematically keep the proposal more or less linked and thinking about Well, maybe expectations along these areas where the land use designations are sort of clumped together in a neighborhood center here or public— the dark blue somewhere else.

So I guess I'm not saying corridor in terms of what exactly the land use plan says. You know, it indicates this is a Main Street corridor, this is a commercial corridor, or a Main Street corridor is a technical designation. As I'm talking about it now, more thinking about Tudor as a road that connects a lot of different places together, Muldoon as a road that connects, you know, different parts the city together.

Well, I appreciate that. I wanted to flag the word corridor. I think that was the appropriate use because when we changed the transit supportive maps, we identified the entire corridor essentially of Muldoon all the way around to Tudor through St. Mary's as kind of like an area for this sort of conversation. The follow-up to the individual parcel the parcels out, you described that these changes wouldn't necessarily change zoning, right? You still have to go through processes.

So to what extent is a pause or the bifurcation or the pulling out of one particular site to have more community— I'm not sure what the— if I could ask my colleague a question. Member Silvers, what was the point of pulling out about Site 6?

To deal with it separately? Because it had issues, whereas the other sites seem to be non-controversial.

I'm going to try to follow up on that. Is it to deal with the community's responses to the questions around that site, or is there a particular issue that we know exists with that site? That's different than the other sites? I think when we get to that site— right now we are discussing the other 9 sites, and so I think that when we get to Site 6, which will be after this vote, we can talk about that. Well, the reason that I'm asking that is because the body moved to separate that.

Now we're going to vote on it without it, essentially, right? And my vote, yay or nay, essentially is driven by why was it removed, that, you know, like— it was a unanimous vote. Like, people kind of— we just— that happened. But I'm not sure why it was removed and what we're looking to do in the long term. So essentially, Member Silva, my question is, what do we get from the time?

What are we hoping to get from more time so that I kind of get a sense of whether I'm going to vote for this particular item at this point? What do we want from more time with it? What do we hope to get from that?

I mean, what I would like to do when we get to the discussion on 6 is to remand it back to Planning and Zoning to correct some of the errors and reconsider the change using the correct information as the basis, as well as to consider the testimony in opposition And so we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. I kind of, you know, wanted to wait until we discussed number 6 before discussing this, but—. Thank you. Mr. Foster, Kenneth Foster, does removing any one of these particular things change the work that you all are doing, or is this just delays part of the work? I mean, how do you see removing any of these items?

Beneficial? Does it— is there a commitment from the administration or from folks to do the work that potentially we're asking to be done with a delay? Through the chair, I'll just say that because it's changing the land use plan map and it's sort of changing the direction of the policy guidance, it doesn't actually make any difference. Even if somebody was planning to do a project tomorrow, or, you know, immediately, if, if this changed tonight, it just means that tomorrow they could potentially go in and do a rezone. Put in their rezone application.

So postponing it or talking about it in 2 weeks wouldn't make— it'd just be that, you know, 2 weeks before they put in a rezone application. So this is really focused on sort of the big picture and sort of cleaning up these pieces where we expect that there might be, um, you know, some sort of activity in the future, but not anything specific or time-pressing. Thank you, I appreciate that.

Okay, uh, thank you. I don't have any other members in the queue for this item, so, uh, just to restate, um, the vote, um, I think we're past the motion to divide the question, so we are on the first item, which is voting on sites 1 through 5 and 7 through 10 in AO 2026-78. So members may proceed to vote.

Once the system procedurally catches up. So it's going to look like it's a motion, but it— the motion's already been made, but OnBase doesn't let us do it according to Robert's Rules, so it will say it's a motion, but that's the only way I can make it. Okay. Okay, so just to be clear and restate again.

So just to restate again for members, whatever it says on the screen, what we are actually voting on is sites 1 through 5 and 7 through 10, and not just voting on divide the question. And then we can move on to the other item.

Member Park.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, most of AO 2026-78 has passed. Again, that is items 1 through 5 and 7 through 10 in the packet. Next, we will take up the other piece of the divided question, which is specifically same ordinance AO 2026-78, uh, Site 6. And, uh, Miss Silvers, go ahead.

Um, so, please, your microphone wasn't on, but what I heard was, um, can you restate your motion? Sorry. I move to remand, um, to PCC to correct the parcel descriptions, uh, and current designations, consider testimony in opposition, and renew its recommendation.

Second. Okay, motion from Ms. Silvers to remand this item to Planning and Zoning to take up the item more fully in here. Opposition/concerns? Second by Ms. Park. Um, do you want to speak to that further, Ms. Silvers?

Yeah, um, so this particular parcel did receive a lot of comments, and in looking closer at it, I I do believe this process happened fairly quickly. And there was several errors in the packet of information. The current zoning has special limitations which don't appear to be— have contemplated in this plan. The online land use mapping shows that one of these parcels is not actually currently designated as a neighborhood center as the AM indicates., but it's actually designated as compact mixed residential medium. And then it states that the 3 parcels are already zoned B-3, unlikely to ever change, but one of them is actually zoned B-1A.

And so I think that, you know, kind of the errors in the public testimony support further process and for the planning staff to develop a correct and accurate record, uh, for the parcels.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Chair. Um, I guess I would just like to give the department a— an opportunity to respond. I know that you maybe are just seeing, um, some of the information now, but, um, in terms of what Mrs. Silvers is reporting?

Is that something you guys have taken a look at?

Thank you. Through the chair again, Daniel Ken Foster, Long Range Planning. So if you're looking on the map, the area we're talking about is right over here. It's sort of where the coffee shop at the Muldoon Curve is. And if you look at the map, it looks like there's 2 parcels.

There's actually 3 parcels. So that's something great that came out of these comments. It was my error to include those 3 parcels. There's one little substation parcel a larger square, and then another square in that. And so when this went to PCC, PCC did see all those 3.

And again, it's an error of including that little substation, which, as Member Yarborough— as Member Silver mentioned, is we said that it's designated as compact mixed residential medium, and it should go— we're recommending go to Main Street corridor. In our recommendation, just say take that out. Because PCC did look at the rest of that. They looked at those 3 together, and that error in there doesn't substantially change that PCC looked at the, the bigger picture of moving those other 2 parcels, the, the larger square where the coffee shop is, and changing that designation from neighborhood center to main street corridor. So again, it is— and it came through the comments, very helpful to get that, and we saw that and immediately saw that little substation substation should be removed.

But also, that is also unlikely to ever change. That substation is probably not going away. It's currently zoned B-1A, and it probably won't change. So in the AM, it does— in the explanations, it just— it does say that the purpose of changing the designations here was to create alignment with existing zoning and future land use designations. In parentheses, already zoned B-3, unlikely to ever change.

So we weren't specifically referring to that one because, as is pointed out, it is zoned B-1A. A, but it's more about the B-3 SLs and the potential of removing that. So we've noted the error. There is a small error there, but we would mention that when PCC looked at it, they did look at the two parcels ending in 97,000, the parcel ID ending in 97,000 and 62,000, and they did look at those as going from neighborhood center to Main Street corridor.

So I think if I could just follow up, Chair. Um, so to me it sounds like, uh, if I'm understanding correctly, the department would still kind of move in the same, um, direction maybe, uh, in terms of a recommendation, but change, um, I guess maybe address a couple of the specific parcel. So I don't know, I think if this does come back before us, it sounds like Member Silvers is wanting PCC to take another look at it, but I might appreciate just like a short synopsis from the department saying here's what our recommendation would be going forward in light of a response to some of the language in the proposed amendment. Thanks. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, thank you. I'm, um, I'm not, I'm not sure I'm supportive of sending this back to PCC based on the comments and the fact that they have already heard testimony in opposition and opined on this, and per the comments in the, um, in the packet we received on this item.

Um, I think it's page 807, um, if you all are following along, uh, the second page of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2026-017. Um, the commission heard and discussed commentary in opposition to the redesignation of one area along Tudor Road. I will confess I did not go back and watch that section of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, but I'm reasonably convinced that if they have already heard the commentary in opposition and still recommends approval of this ordinance. I don't, I don't necessarily think we should send it back to them to review again if they've already opined once. So I would be in favor of postponing this item so that the rest of us can do our due diligence with the amendment that's come forward tonight, but I'm not sure that I think we should send it back to PCC.

So I think I would be in favor of a motion to postpone rather than a remand. Thank you. Next I have Ms. Silvers and myself in the queue, but Ms. Silvers, you have spoken once before, so I'm going to hand the gavel to Ms. Sprawley. Thank you.

I just have a question for planning staff, and I understand— so the discussion is really planning and zoning. I will confess I did not read every page page in this packet regarding this item. Can you characterize or describe— did Planning and Zoning Commission discuss kind of the meaning of neighborhood center and the meaning of Main Street corridor? Because as I understand it, that's really— it's changing from what's currently neighborhood center. That's what the comments really focused on.

And can you describe just generally the material difference between those two designations?

So the— just for the record, the public hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission had was on March 2nd. Um, I don't recall that they discussed the in-depth meaning of what a neighborhood center should be, or versus the Main Street corridor. Um, and in general, I think I should probably refer to the plan on the specific definitions of of what each is. I think the, the neighborhood center concept is focused on commercial that's sort of integrated into the neighborhood, so people are getting there on foot or connected to the neighborhood, where the Main Street corridor is more of a place that people are traveling to, potentially to get to, and it's about access. But there are a lot of similar pieces to both of them.

For example, B1 and B, I think, is considered an implementation zone of both. I could read the specifics as they're defined in the plan if you'd like, or leave it at that. Thanks. Uh, yeah, no need to do that. I think the part of my question was really whether Planning and Zoning discussed and considered those two things in detail.

Um, so if, if this does go back, then I would ask that they dig into that, but we'll see where the body goes. So, um, so thank you. Next, I'll move to Ms. Silvers.

So I did see some comments in here for Site 7. I don't believe that Planning and Zoning heard from all of the community on this. You know, and I do think that remanding it back to them would give them the opportunity to kind of renew their recommendations in light of the testimony and remove the one parcel that they are speaking about. From the recommendation. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, I have Ms. Voland. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Chair. Um, well, I, I was gonna just point out that there is some information, um, in the, the packet, uh, language about a Main Street corridor versus a town center.

So for Main Street corridor from the 2040 Land Use Plan, this land use designation provides for commercial and mixed-use within urban neighborhoods that can evolve as pedestrian-oriented, transit-served Main Street development. And then there's a description for Town Center: These centers integrate community-serving retail that meets the daily needs of several surrounding neighborhoods and includes public services and civic facilities. New apartments, compact housing, and live-work units are encouraged to develop alongside longtime property. With additional housing and public investment, town centers can evolve into mixed-use core areas as envisioned in Anchorage 2020 and area-specific plans.

One of the things I guess I'm interested in— so I personally share, I think, Member Baldwin-Day's concern about remanding this back to the Commission.

I think that the findings— I'm not sure that the findings that Member Silvers is bringing to light and seeking clarification on is actually from the Commission. I think that they are presented with a packet of information from the Department and the agency review that is done, and then they put forward in their resolution what their findings are. Sort of what the Commission's recommendations in light of the information that they're presented. I do know that Planning and Zoning has a lot on their schedule. They are— they have long timelines and, um, and are— they have a lot of matters that are going to be coming before them and that are coming before them.

And so— and I just don't know I'm not sure how substantive them, you know, the details are that would cause them to change their findings. And so I think for my part, I would prefer to hear from the department rather than the commission, and to that end, to postpone this to 6/23. And so I think that that would be the motion that I would make. I don't know if that's a— can that motion, Madam Clerk, usurp the motion on the floor? No.

Okay. All right, well, I'll just put it out there then for consideration. In case this fails, I think that that might be a more expeditious approach at essentially getting to any changes to the record that we would like to make going forward. Thank you. Oh, and Mr. Korman came out of the queue.

Sorry, no one else is in the queue. The motion on the floor is to remand this item to Planning and Zoning Commission to take it back up and come back with a further recommendation and correct the record. So members may proceed to vote on this.

On a vote of 2 to 10, that motion has failed. Right now there's no motion, I believe— Motion to divide. That's right, yeah, we're in the motion to divide, we're in the second item, so no one else is in the queue. Move to postpone to the meeting of June 23rd. Second.

Okay, there's a motion from Ms. Baldwin-Day to postpone this item, this piece of the item, to June 23rd, second by Vice Chair Buland, would you like to speak to it? Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, I think this gives us time to potentially get a memo from Planning, and I would be very open to hearing from the administration or the Planning Director as to whether that is a, a reasonable timeline with which to produce a memo. And it also gives, gives us an opportunity to look through the packet in more detail and do our own homework, as it were. Thank you.

Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, I think that does give us enough time to produce a memo, answer questions, and I apologize for not being able to answer your questions earlier. Um, but yes, that would be plenty of time, and we'd be happy to answer questions at a work session as well if you'd like us to. Okay, thank you very much. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you.

I appreciate the, the, the, the discussion and the, the item for the pause. And just to, uh, Director Babb as well, um, I'd be interested in getting a sense of the— I'd be interested in getting a sense of the the actual prospects of development on these particular parcels meets the fixing of the code and the land use descriptions that we're describing. Because a lot of times what we'll find are, like, community members who hear about changes to descriptions and land use designations will make the assumption that development's coming, the shadows are coming, and it's all going to happen next week.. And I think it would be really helpful to kind of get a sense of the practical implications, where we are with respect to are there, are there really developments coming or are we doing administrative things at this point. I'm just getting a contextual sense of the moment I think would be helpful as well.

Through the chair to Member Martinez, for this particular item that has been separated out from the rest, We are not aware of any particular developments that are on the horizon for that property. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not happening. This is more of an administrative cleanup than anything else. Thank you. Next, Mr. Gerker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just going to call the question, but nobody's behind me, so I'm going to get out of the queue. Thank you. I think, uh, that member's intentions has been stated, so no one else is in the queue. Um, so the motion on the floor is to vote to postpone to a time certain for next meeting, June 23rd, to take up these, these items, Site 6, as described.

So members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 2, this item has been postponed to our next meeting of June 23rd unanimously. So that takes care of our public hearings other than our quasi-judicial items. So we will move to the last section in our agenda or last public hearing section. So these next items involve applications for a liquor or marijuana license or a special land use permit for alcohol or marijuana. And of course, we will have public hearings on both of these.

So first, we will start with Item 15A, Resolution AR-2026-152, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating its conditional protest Regarding the renewal of beverage dispensary tourism license number 4987 for Host Chen, ANC, FB LLC, DBA Denali Spirits, located at Ted Stevens International Airport, Suite SB2750, Anchorage, Alaska 99502. Public hearing on this item is now open. Would anyone wish to testify? Please come forward.

Seeing and hearing none and seeing no one on the phone to testify, this This public hearing is closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Vohland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve.

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

Very exciting. On a motion of, or on a vote of 12 to 0, Resolution AR 2026-152 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 15B, Resolution AR 2026-153, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating its conditional protest regarding the renewal of club license number 4522 for Daniel Chappie James American Legion Post 34 dba American Legion Post 34, located at 916 Ingress Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone please come forward to testify?

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

Motion by Miss Scout, second by Mr. Bolland to approve this item. Any discussion from members? Seeing and hearing none, then members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-153 passes the body unanimously. That takes care of our business items, so next we will move on to audience participation. If— would anyone like to testify? Please come forward.

Thank you. And make sure the microphone is on. And then please state your name, what part of town you're from, and you'll have 3 minutes. If you press the button, make sure the green light comes on. There you go.

Go ahead. Raymond Flores talking for Showdown Alaska. Anchorage says it wants a vibrant, revitalized downtown, but right now the city's actions are making it harder for the people actually bringing energy foot traffic, and private investment downtown. Showdown has invested significant private dollars into nationally touring concerts that bring thousands of people into downtown Anchorage. These events support restaurants, bars, hotels, parking, security, production crews, and local workers.

The previous administration was more collaborative and supportive of downtown events. This administration claims to prioritize revitalization. We are facing more red tape, more restrictions, and less support. We were asked to move from Town Square to F Street during the renovation. We adjusted, invested into the new site, and now continue to face added challenges, complaints, permitting issues, noise restrictions, and infrastructure costs.

If the city wants people to choose downtown, why is it making downtown the hardest place to activate? Why is it easier to produce events in Wasilla with less red tape and more resources than it is to produce events and downtown Anchorage. Showdown is not asking for subsidies, grants, or public funding. We're asking for a consistent, collaborative, and supportive process that recognizes cultural events as part of downtown revitalization, not an obstacle to it. If Anchorage truly wants a thriving downtown arts and entertainment district, what is the city's plan to support the organizations already doing that work?

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Perez-Berdia actually has a question for you, if you don't mind. I just want to— I didn't hear who you're with. Can you— uh, Raymond Flores.

I own Showdown. Showdown. Also Shirts Up. Okay, thank you very much. Of course.

Thank you. Thank you. And there was also a question from Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Flores. Uh, what, what types of support, um, would be the most helpful to you? Um, basically just collaborative efforts from, uh, City Hall, local businesses, um Parks and Rec, Shaman, a variety of health and noise ordinances is proving to be quite difficult. The convention centers, downtown traffic, and just keeping the events downtown. So, so it sounds like there's a variety of, of players and places that you're experiencing friction.

Have you had an opportunity to, to visit with folks, or has the Muni facilitated any of those conversations in a helpful way? We've been actively having meetings, um, this morning alone, as well as leading into the events, putting in as many, um, notes, messaging, um, in both email, social media, and whoever we can. I think, uh, this is just kind of a step to reach out to our community first. Sure. Yeah, I'd love to continue the conversation.

Thank you. Thank you. And there's actually a few folks in you now. So if you want to stay up here for now, uh, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I was going to say, a personal note, I'm not a huge music guy, but I really do value the— what you guys bring to downtown.

And you're right, like, the, the hip, vibrant, uh, atmosphere, uh, for the events that you bring up. So thank you for doing it. If you don't mind, yeah, send me an email kind of like listing out places you're having friction where, where I can help, uh, or be an advocate for you guys to help you navigate very happy to do that. Yeah, that'd be awesome. Thank you.

Thank you. And there's a few other members in the queue, and I would suggest also, yeah, if there's things you'd like to share, please do email the assembly members. Uh, Ms. Scout is next. Thank you.

Yeah, I'd like to echo Member McCormick's comments, um, with the added note that Vice Chair Voland and I represent downtown, and I know I speak for myself and, um, can guess that Vice Chair Voland would also be very willing to sit down and meet with you. I just yesterday was meeting with Melinda Gant of ACDA about the Meet Me Downtown campaign, providing my own feedback and offers of support for that. I'm extremely dedicated to revitalizing downtown Anchorage and working with folks like you who are putting in the elbow grease for our community. And so, yeah, again, just I just want to reiterate, um, what other folks have said. Would love to sit down and learn how we can support you through this role.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, two more folks. Mr. Voland. Yeah, thank you. Um, yes, absolutely.

I, I think you guys bring a lot of excitement and energy to not just downtown but, um, to Anchorage in general. And music is, uh, I think a big thing that we've been trying to support. I know my colleague Member Martinez has talked about the, the music economy, um, and I, I think we do want to find ways to, to support y'all, especially as, um, downtown is, is going to be in a time of, I think, good transition. You mentioned Town Square Park, also Peratrovich Park is going to be going under some remodeling, the new downtown library. So there's a lot happening, and if you guys put on events, I'm sure Member McCormick will be visiting, maybe he'll do some, uh, more social media videos in downtown.

Um, I— one question I have for you. I know that there's an event, um, coming up where I think we are closing part of City Hall's parking lot for y'all. We're not closing any lots this weekend. Okay, I, I guess my understanding— and I'll follow up with the administration too— but I think that there, in conversations that I've had, um, I, I perceive, um, a shared willingness on the assembly and the administration to, to support y'all. So we'll work on that going forward.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you. And Mayor LaFrance, go ahead. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and thank you, Mr. Flores, for coming here. I put myself in the queue just because I wanted to talk with you afterwards and get your contact information, as your feedback hasn't— I have not heard this feedback yet.

And so we want to address these issues and appreciate flexibility and agility that folks have during this time as we've worked through some of these newer processes to deal with the closure at Town Square Park. So I just want to get your contact information so we can follow up directly. Thanks. Thank you. No further members in the queue.

Oh, Miss Baldemar, go ahead. Sorry, one more thing, shameless plug. Um, if downtown is complicated, come hang out at Cuddy Park in Midtown. We'd love to have you. Need parking.

No. Madam Chair, can we strike that from the record? Mr. Martinez. Yeah, I was going to say they tried the Midtown. You haven't tried East Anchorage yet.

Yeah. Russian Jack Eastward, we got you. Thank you. Thank you for coming. And it sounds like there will be some follow-ups.

So thank you. Thank you. Next, anyone else would like to would like to provide audience participation. Come forward, Mr. Lopez. All right, uh, Jamie Lopez, D.C. Anchorage, formerly Coalition, formerly HOMEless.

Sorry, looking for Phil Cannon over there, he's afraid of my shadow. Uh, so I've been in the music for a while and promotions, they do good ones. Uh, it was sad a couple years ago when literally a camp was abated right next to Cuddy in the National Archives lot, and, uh, well, they had a $25,000 $25,000 sort of, you know, event. Well, they— $25,000 I think for the permit. They pushed a lot of people out of there, and I had to track them down and feed them.

And so that was sad. So aside from that, you know, I'll move on. So taking a page out of Ron Eleven's book, from the free books cart, Working Together: Why Great Partnerships Succeed. So right now I'm not seeing a lot of community-driven efforts here, uh, on any number of things, whether it's AO 202662 or the homeless stuff or anything else. I wish people would ask me questions.

I never seem to get any. It's almost like people don't want to know. Uh, I'll just mention something. So, uh, there was a guy, Jason Lessard, he was here earlier. Uh, it's been our community council, and so I went to that meeting, and more or less they were starting to discuss our resolution to you know, sort of support AO 202662, but I'm sorry, I was very disappointed in what I saw at that meeting.

Basically, it was a resolution pre-prepared. Nobody in the room even read the ordinance, and they went ahead and voted for it in lockstep without actually reading the thing. And so the support is really not there if you sort of advocate your duty to, you know, read something before you agreed to it. And so it's just, you need to go back to ground floor and look at this. It's not really fixing the problems if you just don't have people on it that are interested in doing it, or if it's just a show.

How do I rephrase this? It's a puppet show right now. Okay, moving on. What I will say is things that are semi-working.

Yeah, it's tough to say. Maybe at some point in time I'll talk about the bifurcation of the HOT theory, the homeless outreach theory, where you separate a member of law enforcement from a member of outreach to build trust and relationships. That is something I think would be good to discuss. But anyways, I'm going on a tangent. Uh, I sort of did the improv in there, and, um, yeah, I need to refine the process.

So, uh, maybe for the next time. Thank you. Thank you for your participation. Anyone else wish to provide audience participation? Okay, not seeing anyone, then we will move on to assembly comments, and I will start with Mr. Johnson.

No comment, thank you. Ms. Park. No comment, Chair. Thank you. Mr. McCormick.

No comments. Thank you. Miss Scout. No comments. Miss Baldwin-Day.

Nothing for me. Thank you. Mr. Voland. No comments. Thank you.

Mr. Perez Verdia. Just appreciation to my colleagues and the work you do. Have a good night. Miss Silvers. No comments.

Thank you. Mr. Gerker. No comments. Mr. Martinez. Don't forget to wear your helmets when you ride those bikes or you get those scooters.

Protect your brain. And Mr. Handeland? No comments.

Okay, um, seeing no other business, uh, we will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Okay, so, uh, we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Sweet home, a place to find some peace.