Anchorage Assembly: RESCHEDULED: Legislative Committee Meeting

No unfinished business. And our new business.

We will review the committee purpose statement, which is that the Assembly Legislative Committee provides guidance to the assembly and the administration and recommendations regarding the municipality's federal, state, and local legislative priorities. The committee prepares recommendations for the municipality's 6-year capital program and budget priorities, as well as potential statute changes, and collaborates with the administration to create the Anchorage legislative, legislative program submitted annually to the state legislature. The committee also serves as a forum for review and deliberation of statute changes and other legislation and policies that affect impact the municipality and Anchorage as a whole. Individual members may work with the committee on communication of district-level priorities and engage with other levels of government.

So for new business, do we have people that we need to call in?

Okay, okay. The chair recognizes Ms. Brawley. Thank you. Uh, just briefly, I'll note, um, so I think this item reviewing the purpose statement or the mission statement is going to be on several of our committee agendas. So not necessarily because they'll change, but just to note, we did make some changes to our committees, and of course it's always useful for, um, for us to look back and kind of see what the intent of these, uh, various committees are.

So again, I'll just note, um, I think that's a discussion to have with this committee if there are substantive changes that we would want to make. But otherwise, just pointing folks to that and showing that the scope of this committee is both the legislative program, which we'll be talking about today, and then generally a place to discuss pending legislation or things that would affect us at the local level. So thank you.

Thank you. So I want to give a brief overview before we move on. So most of today's meeting, I think the intent is to discuss the upcoming legislative program, but in order to do that, want to remind folks of, again, the purpose of this committee. And I'll also note there has been pretty much a full turnover of leadership over the last few years, and so we're also kind of restarting this committee as we move into one of our core functions, which is the legislative program. So just very briefly, I'll describe the legislative committee has existed for a long time.

It has in the— it really, I think, has always been charged with developing the legislative program not meaning that we, the committee members, are in it, but that we go through the process because in code we are required to introduce a legislative program before the budget is approved and pass that legislative program before September— or sorry, before December 10th. And so there's a very specific timeline in code. The legislative program is not specifically defined in terms of its format, so we'll come back to kind of what it has looked like and what we would want it to look like now. But just in general, That is and has been the core function of this committee. In 2023, I was a prior chair of this committee, and we also really expanded its scope and function to meet not just during the fall to develop this program, but also to meet semi-regularly during state legislative session to discuss what was going on during session.

You know, things, whether it was folks bringing resolutions of support for state bills that were moving through, We heard from our lobbyist at the state level what was going on with the budget and other issues. So that's kind of been the function of this committee. I think right now, currently I'm serving as vice chair with the intent of stepping down after the conclusion of this year's program and bringing on new leadership there. And then having Ms. Park be chair and maybe either another vice chair or another co-chair at that time, but really making sure that we have that overlap. I was not participating in this committee because I was conflicted out with a prior job that I had.

And then Member Johnson, who has been the chair or vice chair of the committee for most of the same timeframe, also is conflicted out right now. So putting all of that on the record just to say that we are just taking a few minutes to remind folks what this committee does, what it's for, and what our job ahead is. So I'll turn it back to the chair and see if there's any questions or additional comments on that. Are there any questions?

Yeah, we can move on then.

27, Like number C there, letter C. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. Do we have anything written on that?

This is the 26.

Okay. Yeah, so we'll refer to the timeline in 2026, and that will follow somewhat the same process as it will for 2027 legislative program. Our priorities are our budget requests.

Okay, okay. So, um, actually, Mr. Clowder, do you have anything to offer as to our timeline and budget requests?

Uh, Madam Chair, I, I don't have more to offer on, on the timeline. I can, I, I can share if it if the committee would like more of an update on kind of the general thinking or shape of legislative program as we're seeing it now, I'm happy to provide that. I don't know if that fits into this item of the agenda or you want to save that for later. Sure, go ahead. Sure, all right, all right.

Yeah, I think as far as taking a high-level view of things, the timeline I think works. I think each year we've done work within the introducing prior to the budget and then passing before December 10th. And I think that we're, we should— that leaves a generous amount of time for us to thoughtfully develop a program. I think we also, of course, know that we don't know the results of the forthcoming elections for the state legislature and for the governor, and that may— we may want to preserve a little bit of time to modify our approach depending on some of those results. We are generally thinking that there's potential interest in a general obligation bond, which has been talked about for the last few years.

But that there may be increasing interest in that statewide as there's a lot of, you know, sort of backlogged infrastructure projects around the state that haven't had much investment, you know, the last several years. So we do see that as an opportunity to position some of our capital needs as well. In the absence of a GO bond, you know, the state's revenue picture is looking right now pretty good. It can always change, but there will be, I think, more appetite for capital, significant capital budget. And so I think that positioning our capital needs is pretty important for that.

I think that we will always have the Port as a primary and as a top, one of our primary asks. So I think that will remain, but we're also thinking a lot about all kinds of infrastructure needs that we have with our roads and our drainage and our public facilities, all of those things. I'm sure that members have their district-level priorities and interests as well. For capital types of needs. And we're concerned especially about housing and JBARE with the Fighter Town recapitalization.

And so some of the infrastructure that it can enable— housing development is something that we will likely want to put into the legislative program too. There's a lot of interest, I think, in education funding. So both, you know, adequate amount of education funding, increasing what is going to schools, but also a few changes that help provide more stability, like, like the, as much as possible, earlier forward funding for schools to be able to make better budgeting decisions, the smoothing of the average daily membership, in other words, that enrollment number that determines foundation funding. There were some good measures proposed in the last session that didn't pass, but that would basically provide schools a more glide path when it comes to future budgeting. That would be a good one.

And then there's, there's still potentially some legislation, you know, come AML and, and, and others around the required local contribution that local governments, you know, have to put in towards schools. Some reforms around that. I will be interested in some behavioral health funding. Last year, we secured a small increase to that general relief assistance, which allows for, for assisted living for a lot of folks that, that are coming out of the shelter system. Thanks to Representative Genevieve Mena for that.

But I think that an additional increase this year would be something that would also be beneficial. There's perennial items like Community Assistance Program, which provides us with, when it's fully funded, around $4 million in revenue per year. Relatively small amount in terms of our overall budget, but still quite significant. And so we would certainly want to see that funded. There's other items from past programs that we can make some decisions about and we can consider, you know, with what what we propose as administration, what the body wants to talk about, things like whether we talk about pensions, anything like that as well.

But otherwise, that's kind of the current thinking on the legislative program at this time.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

Not a question, but just to add, Jennifer VanClausen, Legislative Services. Just to add to the timing question that came up earlier, The intent is for the administration to bring kind of a written draft to the October 6th. Is that right, Nolan?

Through the chair, we, I think we had talked about a very preliminary outline sketch for that meeting, yes, if that's my recollection. Right, because I know that's just very soon. So October 7th is your next meeting, because the kind of progression for the committee has been to see the draft from the administration, make any suggestions for changes or additions, and then it comes back to committee again in November in a more fulsome format. And possibly— actually, the design happens after that November committee meeting. So just to give you a little bit of idea on timeline, and then comes to the assembly in November as well.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Also, we were joined at 11:58 by Member Silvers.

Yes, and Anna is in the queue. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Um, so, uh, yeah, I think it's, it's helpful to emphasize the, the timeline. Uh, you know, certainly this, this committee is, is going to be running parallel to the budget process and these other things, and so we don't have a lot of committee time to do this.

And so I think a couple kind of general suggestions for members. One is we always look to members in all the 6 districts to really look at your district priorities. Those are often, often capital projects historically. So, you know, something that you're requesting through the capital budget or, you know, a funding ask. It doesn't have to be, of course.

We don't typically put a lot of— I guess if it's a broad policy that affects the whole muni, I wouldn't say that's the best use of a district priority per se, because those are really locally focused and again, mostly capital projects. But in the past, we've asked members really that each pair in each district to work on what you'd like to put forward as those priorities. And then of course, a lot of those are local. And so the work is really talking to the legislators that overlap with your own district, especially on the Senate side for the capital budget, and to try to get those in the budget. So that's kind of one piece that will be— and I know members who have been here a few years know Ms. Fennec Lawson will reach out and kind of ask folks for that input.

So that's one way to kind of participate outside the meetings themselves. And then just in general, I think if anybody is interested in having that more deep dive conversation or catching up on what's been happening in the past, speaking with Mr. Clowder in particular, he's kind of running point along with Suzanne Fleet Green with the Mayor's Office and has been really actively engaging with federal and state folks on a lot of these issues. And so those are just opportunities to avail yourself of outside of the meeting itself. And I'll also just note part of what we do and why is to try to have—.

Sorry, this is a—. Yeah, one second. Member's alarm who is not here, but I don't know if we can—. I'm not trying on this piece of clothes. Yeah.

Is that Johnson's phone? No, it's Cameron's. Yeah, sorry, one second while it's beeping. Yeah, we'll put it in the hall if we have to, but yeah. Oh my goodness.

Okay, okay, we're removing the device. Um, okay, um, what was I saying? Oh, so part of the goal really is, um, because this is not just a regular resolution, it's not just a piece of text that we edit, is certainly we welcome floor amendments to the program the night that we are going to be voting on it, and those— especially if there are things that there's disagreement on. But part of the goal is to not have to essentially redo the entire design of the document. We'll go through the documents from the last couple years, but the implication of, say, adding 3 things at the end, you know, 3 paragraphs worth of text, that could push a lot of the design issues around as well.

So, so it's not that we make decisions based on our design timeline, but it is important to remember the implication of amending this at the end can create a bunch of additional work. And so that's why really the goal is to, as much as possible, bring those discussions earlier in the process. Again, not because we can't make changes, but this year it's going to probably be the December 1st meeting. That's the only meeting that we have before that December 10th deadline, unless we schedule a special meeting to address this to meet that code deadline. So, so just to say also, that's really why, sort of like with the budget, it's important to engage early, um, and, and talk these things out as opposed to, um, bringing a stack of amendments at the end.

And of course, uh, members— the wisdom with members is if you— the later you bring something, the less likely people are going to vote for it if they haven't seen it, right? So that's another consideration. Um, and then I actually have a question for, um, Mr. Clowder as well. Um, can you maybe just briefly describe— and this is getting into Item D, I think— could we talk a little bit about this? We've talked a lot about kind of the state focus in that timeline, um, can you talk a little bit about federal policy as well, or kind of what we are imagining for federal policy in this program?

Uh, yes, Madam Chair, we are— we've, we've talked about, uh, as a group having a shorter list of federal priorities that goes along with the legislative, or that is kind of a component to the legislative program, but maybe works as a separate handout piece, um, that, that gives a high-level, you know, here are our federal priorities for the year, which often dovetail with our, with our state priorities, typically because, especially because the Port is, is always very important for our federal advocacy efforts, but also JBRR housing-related efforts are as well. So, so we would like to have that go along with the state priorities this year.

Thank you. Are there any other questions?

Okay, so to review the former programs. We have the '26 program in front of us, and at that time the top request was port modernization, which I think will continue to be one of our priorities.

We do have the Real Time Crime Center, which is progressing.

Blight funding is especially important. We've got a lot of derelict buildings that need to be either, you know, rehabbed or demolished, and we need to continue that work. We will continue with Community Assistance Fund and support public safety. This is a big part of our budget. And we will continue to have unmanned aerial drones for the fire department and other public safety uses.

One of my priorities that I'm very interested in is restoring the defined benefit package for public employees. That's something that did pass the legislature. This legislative session and was vetoed. There is strong support for that throughout the community, and it's an important tool for us for recruitment and retention across all the departments, you know, whether it's public health, whether it's police and fire, and it just creates stability for the community because people who don't have a good pension program have less reason to stay, and that contributes to our turnover and training costs.

We are looking at security for state park access, assisted living, and general relief for people who are unhoused. And have disabilities. They may be living in homeless shelters, and if general assistance or general relief could be increased sufficiently, they could possibly maintain housing on their own.

We also have concerns in the community on utility rate setting. I think everyone has noticed that their utility bills have increased. And become a real hardship for a lot of families.

We do have a priority for winter road maintenance. We did really well last year, and because of the number of state-owned roads, those are a priority as well because people commuting in town and out to the, out to the port, out to the valley, um, depend on the state roads just as much as the roads that we maintain for the municipality. Um, I don't know where we are on staffing of DOT-PUF. Do you know whether that was Thanks. I am not sure.

One thing I might recommend is maybe asking our administrative folks to walk through, just briefly walk through the 2025 and 2026 programs. Because I think the goal is to really identify items that we do want to carry forward. So maybe that's one where I know Mr. Cloutier has been tracking a lot of these things. He could probably answer some of those questions. And then maybe also commenting on the— because the programs look significantly different for some reason, so maybe explaining those differences as well.

Yes, if you may, Mr. Clowder. Sure, thank you, Madam Chair. We positioned— we broke the program into kind of our top ask headline being the port, and then the 3 topic areas: safe, secure, and affordable. And a lot of the items that you see in here across all of those categories are capital items, and they were calibrated as very small capital, bite-sized capital requests written with the expectation, uh, you know, going into legislative session last year, we didn't know that there was going to be a war with Iran that was going to spike oil prices, right? And so, so we, we had been anticipating a very austere, you know, state budget, and so we, we tried to, we tried to find very small capital asks that might fit into a a skinny capital budget.

And I think partway through the year, the revenue picture changed, a capital budget came together.

But it focused still in a pretty self-restrained way on some prioritized lists from the state, major maintenance, school maintenance, and things like that. And we did manage to get port funding in there too, which was couched, rightly so, as a statewide infrastructure need. But I think, but last year we had, for safety, we had items that were related to public safety. So that's the unmanned aircraft and the blight reduction funding, APD, real-time crime center capital. And so those were those items.

They're generally, you know, generally related to public safety. The secure one was about more about resilience and infrastructure. And so modernization of essential systems. And so we have— we had an ask for a Chugach State Park access study and some stuff that were like a successful one was increased rates for general relief assistance, general relief for assisted living. There was an AWU one related to amended rate setting.

And then that mentioned the staffing with DOT. There had been a hiring freeze that has, I believe, been lifted, but staffing still is going to, you know, may continue to be a concern. And then the affordable bucket was sort of things that might help to reduce the cost of living for residents, right? And so that had our waste-to-energy project and some weatherization funding were the big ones, as well as some through AIDA AHFC for providing gap funding for impatient capital for housing, which is, which also likely to be a perennial ask, I think, in some form or fashion. So that was the general sort of tour of the legislative program last year.

I think this year, I think all of those things still would be valid asks, most likely. But I think that we might position them a little bit differently, I think, in terms of what we're asking for for infrastructure investments, especially. Some of these were very small, modest asks, I think, calibrated to a different time. And I think we might think about a little bit bigger about some of our infrastructure asks this year.

Thank you. I have Ms. Silvers in the queue.

Thank you. So I am looking at this and I want to kind of go through and ask some questions about the items really quickly. I want to focus on, so which capital asks were granted last year? And then what, what of these were one-time funding that we don't need still? So I'm looking at APD real-time Crime Center capital, $1.5 million.

Was that granted last year, and do we still need that? Through the Chair to Member Silvers, we were not granted the— we did receive one very important capital ask was for the Port of Alaska. Okay. We received the $15 million with a $10 million waterfall that looks like it looks good, like, as far as getting that conditional on oil prices. But no, the other capital asks in there, we did not receive funding for.

Okay, so nothing else in here we received funding for? Of the capital asks, no. We did get some of the other things that we wanted though. Okay, can you tell me the things that we did get that we wanted? General relief assistance, one of the items under Secure was what we did secure that increase.

The community and then community assistance program was fully funded and actually, actually had an additional allocation on top of it, but that was vetoed. So we would have actually gotten a little bit more than usual from that program, but that was vetoed. Then of course, the, you know, defined benefit pensions for public employees was part of it. That was passed but vetoed as well. So those were, those were some of the, those are some of the items and we had some other, other, other successes too that maybe aren't as clearly reflected in here, but like the required local contribution cap, which, which wasn't in our legislative program but something that the mayor supported, that ends up being a really good thing for taxpayers in the municipality and also for our ability to fund our schools, kind of a win-win.

That was a, that was a success, I think, as well. Okay. And so some of these things I think we've already paid for, like, have we already paid for the real-time crime center and the Drones, Chugiak Park access study. And so like, should this funding be shifted to like a continuing need? Like, is there a next step need for the Real Time Crime Center that we should shift to?

Or, right, like, I'm not sure I want to ask for things that have already been funded, you know, but instead put that request towards like a continuing need?

Yeah, through the chair to Member Silvers, I would— through the chair to Member Silvers, I would take a lot of those asks, I think, are ripe to be, you know, updated, reconsidered. I think— I don't know the status of those projects or like the access study or the real-time crime center exactly where things stand with that. I'm not quite ready to answer that. We do— what we do is we canvas our all the departments to, to hear what, what they would prioritize as far as legislative updates, and that's part of what goes into that list. So that's where things like the unmanned aircraft and, um, and real-time crime center came into it.

Okay, so that process hasn't been done yet? That has not been done yet. Okay, and so you'll come back to us with that, and then we can kind of compare that with this and—. Yes, yes, and we're not changing—. Think about what changes that we might want to make?

Correct. Okay. All right, thank you.

I have Ms. Bromley in the queue. Thanks. Yeah, I think the goal today, just to restate, is like these are our starting point. We're not starting from nothing, and it is helpful to see what we've kind of consistently asked for. Like the port is the biggest example of that.

But I wonder if I could ask Mr. Clowder to briefly walk through the 2025 program as well, because I think another Another kind of distinction here I want to make is, and not in super detail, but just I think it's helpful to compare. This one would have been done in fall 2024, December 2024. Then the last one was done in December 2025. But if you could also kind of briefly speak to how we think about it when we have a new session starting, which is what we'll have in 2027, and that was the case in 2025 versus the interim and the second year of session where we have bill numbers and we have a lot more kind of clarity on where things are. I think that's helpful for all of us to conceptualize too.

So maybe just if you very briefly speak to kind of the logic behind this one and then maybe pointing out things that were carried forward or didn't carry forward, that might be helpful as well.

Through the Chair, thank you to Member— to Chair Brawley. This one we broke into, and it takes me— this has to take me back. I had to get my head back into this one, but we boiled it down to our— we did a top 4 priorities list. We did not include the— we included a port modernization update in here, but we didn't have a specific ask for the port. We had our top 4 asks were lumped into safe and secure anchorage and strengthening Alaska's workforce, and so there were 4 items that adequately funding snow removal on state roads, securing our energy future.

There was sort of a package of energy-related updates. And then we also had stabilizing funding for public schools and restoring defined benefit pensions in there too. So, you know, priorities that are not wholly divorced from what we looked for the subsequent years and what we might look for into the future. This one had, you know, we broke down things into budget requests versus other— versus statutory changes.

We had, yeah, so we, you know, it did have some of the similar items. Last year, I think we took the approach of focusing more narrowly on very specific, you know, municipal— very specific municipality-focused requests. That maybe incorporate— we didn't incorporate school funding ask, for example, not because we didn't support it, but because we were trying to keep our legislative program very focused on stuff that, that more directly benefits us specifically as an organization and as a unit of government.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, and I'll just note again, we won't have bill numbers. We have a decent idea of things that we've heard legislators want to bring back, and We know what's currently being discussed is kind of the major issues in the state level, but, um, but that's really the thing to think about is like, what is our kind of more abstract version, knowing that as session goes on and we move into the 2028 program, there'll be a lot more clarity on what's on the table at that point. Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Yeah, I guess, um, as we're looking back at these prior ones, and of course talked a little bit about what the priorities would be, I guess, um, I would ask Mr. Clowder to kind of generally characterize, you know, whether it's based on these things that were in there before, you know, what, what you guys are thinking about, um, or if there's questions you have for members that you'd like feedback on at this point. I think that'd be helpful.

Yes, yes, Madam Chair, the— I think you can certainly see that there are a lot of things that roll over from year to year that are always going to be, you know, concerns and interests of ours from a legislative standpoint. I think that, I think that a lot of times the differences from year to year are about where we think is— what we think is strategic to ask for, what we think is achievable, right? And so sometimes that's why our, you know, some of our capital asks, we can dial them up and down depending on what we, what kind of of a budget year we think we're looking at. But I think that we're likely to— we would want, I think, as an administration, a lot of thoughtful investment in capital that benefits municipality. We historically received a lot more state capital funding that we don't anymore.

And so our infrastructure has suffered from underinvestment. I think that Things like community assistance, things like pensions are one that's likely to be, you know, under consideration, and education funding, which we've gone back and forth whether we included in part of our program or not. I think that's one to make a decision about too.

Thank you.

Mr. Clowder, looking at the, the back of the '26 plan, I'd just like to know which of, which of these priorities have had any progress.

If any. Yes, Madam Chair, the— that none of those were funded last year, and the reasoning there was that the approach that the two bodies took, the Senate and the House took to capital projects, was that they wanted to work through kind of existing prioritized state lists of— for there's the school major maintenance list, the deferred maintenance backlog. And Renewable Energy Projects Fund. Like, they wanted to stay very focused on statewide priorities and ones that were prioritized and in sort of documentation from, you know, put together by the state itself. I think that was partly a strategy of, you know, avoiding vetoes, but also they didn't want to kind of open the floodgates to all kinds of regional projects that they didn't feel that they had the means to support all of them, right?

And so, so we didn't see those district-level projects either in Anchorage or really anywhere in the state supported. I think everything that got funded was really couched as a statewide need, or— and the port was something that wasn't on one of those lists, but that we got funding for, you know, largely on the rationale that it is a statewide asset that serves more than just Anchorage.

Thank you. That's disappointing, but thank you. And does the legislative staff have anything they'd like to offer?

And perhaps how to, how to have members bring forward those projects that they're interested in. In seeing developed. Yeah, um, this is my annual reminder that it would be good as you're going through the capital improvement program and budget for the 20— municipal 2027 budget— that you should be making sure that if you have any projects you want to ask the state for money, that they are in the CIB or the CIP. Um, otherwise they're not real. They don't have a budget or a scope of work.

Um, and so then you'll need to make sure if they are in the CIB and CIP and they're up for '27, there are staff in the municipality who will make sure that it gets entered into CAPSYS, and that is the state system for tracking capital requests. If it's not in CAPSYS, they can't really do anything with it. So that's kind of, that's really key. So if you have a new project bubbling up from your community, make sure to get it in the CIP and CIB this fall before the legislative program is set.

I think also that traditionally members have just deferred to each district to pick their top 2 to 3 priorities. So we will reach out to membership and allow you to, to give that feedback to us, and then we'll put it in the draft program. But it's been pretty Um, simple. If West Anchorage says they want 1, 2, 3, then the rest of the membership usually obliges and says, yes, that makes sense for us. Um, also, there's no requirement that the district priorities be put in the program this way.

Um, it is just— so it's really, it's a choice. Um, we've found that maybe not in the past 2 years, but in the past, um, it can be helpful to have these laid out so as legislators are kind of— there's trading going on, or, you know, there's sort of last-minute negotiations about what gets in and what doesn't get in, that they have something easy to refer to that knows there's agreement in that area of anchorage. But again, not a requirement. Thank you. I will just note that we have only 1 minute left.

I have Miss Brawley in the queue, and does anyone wish to testify?

Okay. Oh, thank you. Yeah, that was just noting we have 15 minutes left. Of course, we don't need to use all that time if we don't need it, but I just wanted to give some background. I'll look at the legislative program just as a member thinking about West Anchorage.

I'll also note I was not actually involved in the program last year because I was conflicted out of voting on it, but I remember These two particular priorities we did put in for 2025, so my district partner, Mr. Perez-Rodilla, must have carried them forward. One of them was the West Anchorage area pavement rehabilitation, and you'll note here that it's got the different— if it's a letter, it's a Senate district. If it's a number, it's a House district. So there's four Senate districts that touch my particular district. So the Senate District H, actually, I think it wasn't this year, but last year Senator Clayman did successfully get some money in the budget just for that.

But I want to point that out because historically the way our state requests have been written is to say, because it's the capital budget, it is broken out. So the literal line in the request was essentially pavement rehabilitation for local roads for Senate District H, for Senate District G, you know, it listed them out each. And so one, thing I want to suggest that we do is, you know, certainly, well, I guess, yeah, I'll say one thing that I would like to see us do is to have something like that. We may not get it, but to ask for that rehabilitation funding, you know, consistent with what we've gotten in the past, again, knowing there's a lot of priorities, but to not phrase it as Senate District because then essentially you have one senator chooses that, those folks' roads get paved, and then it doesn't— there's no ability to go anywhere else, right? And so I think in a world, in the old world where there was, you know, not infinite but a lot more money on the table, it was easy for probably every, you know, every Senator Hanker to request that, but I think it's more fair and it allows for, you know, our departments to say, oh, it's really important that we do this road even if it's not in that particular Senate district.

So anyway, so that's one thing I'd like to say. That I'd like to see in the new program is maybe rewording or rethinking that, how we do that. And then I'll also note the other request we had had for the last 2 years was the Dempsey Anderson Ice Arena. Of course, we know a number of our facilities need work. These are locally owned, and so bonding is also an option.

But the approach Cameron and I took really 2 years ago that he had carried forward here was— excuse me— that we should really be fixing and maintaining what we have. And so that's kind of the general lens that we looked at it. And of course, that doesn't mean everybody has to take that approach. One other thing The other thing I'll note is, for example, I guess it's not in these two programs. The one before this, if you go back to the 2024 program, one of the things that we put in as a priority was not a funding request from the state, but was to say, make the erosion at the airport, you know, the Point Warren's Bluff erosion around the airport.

It's taking out the trail. Eventually it'll start taking out the runway. That is a federal issue because it's at the airport, so it would require federal funding in coordination with the state.

Dollar amount attached to it, but we put it in here really more as a talking point to say this is something we need to keep attention on. And then we ended up not carrying that forward here. It's still an issue, but just wanted to note that's another way to use these district priorities if it's a way to elevate an issue, whether or not it's attached to a specific project or dollar amount, especially if it is relevant to your particular area. So those are— I just wanted to offer those as some examples of how it's been done in the past. Thank you.

Yeah, go ahead. So just, just to note, for District 4, there was a request for funding for the Midtown Park Chalet project at Cuddy Park, and I toured the area, and I understand that some, some money has been donated. Some money remains from a, from a prior bond, from a prior parks bond. And just on cue, I got a strongly worded letter from the committee that has been advocating for that chalet, wondering why they haven't gotten any money or a park bond. So I see that that will likely be a priority for Midtown.

Any other questions?

Okay, um, we will have a meeting of this committee on October 7th from 1 to 2, and if there are no other questions, um, we're open for audience participation.

Thanks. I hate podiums.

So, all right, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition for Women with Illness. So I'd like to recognize the new chair. You know, it's a baby steps thing. You'll get it. You know, it just takes time.

You work your way into it. So it can sort of be, um, overwhelming at first. But anyways, all that said, uh, so, uh, HB 334 went through the last session, and it originally was not a Tay Bill. I approached Genevieve Mina basically in the fall of 2024, and the reason why is because I've seen any number of people not be able to get IDs or birth certificates. Uh, some people had not had IDs 5 years, 10 years.

Uh, women who had had documents held over them for for particular reasons, and it was not good. And so I showed her all this stuff, and more or less sort of where it went from there is the, you know, started in last fall being introduced as a table. I think part of it was people being afraid that others think— but then it was going through the agenda in the policy session and Committee of Regional Affairs Committee, if I remember correctly. Basically, Republicans up there said this applies to everybody. Why not just pass it for everybody?

And so, uh, for that, I think we'll hear, uh, to support it because there are any number of people that cannot elevate themselves out of a bad state when they have no money. And sort of, if you get the state government to go ahead and support this, then you can use things, and then you don't have to worry for the master of your own destiny. So with that said, um, I want to say that I did not notice anything in here about supporting people, the poor, uh, in any particular way. And the last sort of, uh, guy— and my concern for this, uh, in various ways is that people are falling into a poverty state every single day. Some are right on the edge.

Some people are supporting their income with Uber and Lyft. Some are doing 2 or 3 jobs. And what if those jobs evaporate very soon? And that is a very realistic possibility, and it is coming, and you have to be prepared for for it, whether it's capital improvement bonds for shelters, for places for people to go. And there are any number of people right now that are being turned into criminals simply because they have no place to go.

And so when you knock down buildings that people can go into, usually they're trying to escape so that they can not lose fingers and toes and stay alive. And it used to be you could pitch a tent, you know, in a, in a, in basically the woods or in a park, and now you can't. And so there are only so many options, but Uh, I beat that dead horse regularly. I'll save for the next one. So aside from that, um, I think there's probably a couple things I'm forgetting about, but maybe I'll save for the next time and end it quickly.

So, uh, anyways, uh, did a good job, make it better. And so see if the next one was smart. Thank you for your testimony.

Any other questions?

Thank you. We stand adjourned.