May 5, 2025 Assembly Committee of the Whole Worksession

I call this May 5th, 2025 Assembly Committee of the Whole to order at 6:34. Um, Miss Wall, would you read the land acknowledgement? Thank you, Chair Smith. We would like to acknowledge that the City of Burlington is on Tlingit land and wish to honor the indigenous peoples of this land. For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

We're grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Tlingit people. Good evening. Thank you, Ms. Wall. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll? Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Mr. Braxton. Present. Miss Scandies?

Here. Miss Atkinson? Here. Miss Wall? Present.

Mr. Kelly? Here. Miss Hall? Here. Mr. Steininger?

Here. Deputy Mayor Smith? Here. And Mayor Weldon?

All members are present.

Very good. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Um, I did get a request regarding the agenda, and I would like to offer trans— flopping agenda items 4 and 5. So Telephone Hill next steps would be first, followed by the Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center operation, um, Parts A and B. Assuming that is okay with the body, if I could have a motion approving that agenda with changes, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the agenda as amended. Very good, thank you. Any objection to that?

Seeing none, the agenda is approved as amended. We have 3 sets of Committee of the Whole draft minutes. Any changes or a motion to approve those 3 sets of minutes?

We're supposed to make a motion is what staff prefers versus me just saying none. So thank you, Mr. Kelly. I move that we approve the July 15th, 2024 Assembly Cal draft minutes, the August 5th, 2024 minutes, and the September 9th, 2024 minutes and ask for unanimous consent. Very good. Seeing no objection, those minutes are approved.

On to our agenda topics. We are again starting with now with Telephone Hill next steps, item 5.

For discussion, the manager has a memo, imagine we've all read it, some options outlined.

But I know we're just trying to make some headway due to trying to keep this thing going along. Manager Kester. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I have a few slides in your packet, um, that are pulled from the Telephone Hill Place Guide, and I just want to go through them to kind of get everyone up to speed on where we have been on the Telephone Hill project. So, um, Telephone Hill was conveyed from the state of Alaska to CBJ in March of 2023.

Thanks to Senator Keel. Hats off to him for his work on that. I think the city had been working on that for many, many moons. Many years they've been working on that. Telephone Hill, the area that we're talking about, the neighborhood in general includes the Downtown Transit Center and the parking lot there.

But we're really talking about 2.5 acres of developable land on top of Telephone Hill. Currently there's 13 units there in, uh, 19 properties. So the kind of first order of business, one of the most important things is replatting that property because the, uh, property lines go through existing buildings. Um, we've spent over a year, uh, in a pretty extensive public process, uh, starting with, uh, public meetings, assembly meetings, committee of the whole meetings, listening sessions, And all of that process culminated in the Telephone Hill Place Guide. And these pictures are just pulled from the Telephone Hill Place Guide.

Um, you know, so that process kind of took all of the community wishes, the assembly wishes, and, um, gave a really pretty robust vision for what the assembly and the community want to see developed in Telephone Hill. And the assembly picked, uh, Concept C, and that's the image you have here, which is a mix of studio, 1-bed, and 2-bedroom units. Um, with a 65-foot height limit throughout the site, really wanting to preserve those viewscapes, but also build maximum density, uh, wanting to, uh, preserve or reestablish our tree canopy. There was a desire for some, like, open space incorporated throughout, um, really improving the pedestrian access with the stairway connection from Willoughby Avenue and Main Street. And principally, the assembly wanted to create affordable housing and make sure that 20% of those units were 80% AMI.

So this is kind of the vision, the Option C was the vision that the assembly talked about. That's 150 new residential units. So the next slide just talks about how these, how once you get rid of all the lot lines, you could develop Telephone Hill. And the reason these kind of lines are drawn like this is to maximize the buildable area. So, uh, you know, the consultants First 40 Feet, who we hired to work on this, really recommended, um, this particular configuration to maximize, uh, the size of the units that we would be able to build.

Uh, next slide. Another challenge of Telephone Hill is the— I guess a challenge and a benefit, right? Is the, um, the steep slopes and the grading. So it's lovely because it creates some elevation and some different views, but it creates some challenges for buildable lots. So, one of the recommendations that you saw in the memo, and that the place guide talks about, is doing some excavating to create those buildable lots.

So, basically, some blasting is going to need to be done up there to create those lots. Next slide. Another improvement that is going to be, uh, according to the first 40 feet, that is going to be needed to the property is to move Dixon Street. Uh, it needs to be realigned again to create, um, maximum density. And also to be improved for emergency access.

Right now, the slope and the alignment of it are not great for emergency access. So the kind of realignment of the road is another recommendation that First 40 met. And then I'm going to end on this slide, even though you should never show an image of a project that has not even been gone through a feasibility design stage. But I think it's kind of lovely to just think of what that area could look like. With, you know, some mixed housing, retail space up there, just a really kind of a vibrant neighborhood.

So don't get too hung up on, you know, the windows or the blockiness or the squares. Just take a moment to imagine the direction that we're all headed in. Okay, you can take down those slides now, Madam Clerk. So with the Telephone Hill Place guide, staff worked on a request for information to issue for developers. And the idea for this request for information was to give them the place guide and give them the parameters that the assembly and the community wanted to see in a development and ask the development community, what do you need to make this happen, right?

What improvements do you need? What incentives do you need? And we got one response, and that was from Johnson and Carr. Important to note that Northwind Architects, who's in the room, was the local representation on that response. We sat down and met with our respondent and with Northwind and kind of had the same kind of more colloquial conversation with them about what would be needed to develop the site.

And, you know, just to summarize, the uncertainty of having the units up there with a lot of hazardous materials and the expense in demoing is going to be really tremendous because of the hazardous materials, because of the unknowns. Now, we've heard from local developers, and First Forty, if you, you know, went through this process with us, said, you know, you might need to invest in demolition and site preparation just to be able to attract developers. And I think that's been confirmed when we talk to local developers and confirmed when we talk to outside developers. The question is, you know, where, where in the trajectory of the project would we need to kind of stop direct city investment and direct city management of the project and depend on a private developer to do that. And so the memo tries to kind of walk you through a few different options.

The option that is recommended by First Forty Feet is that, that we do demolition, site preparation, which includes excavating, and build the realigned road, basically leaving us with 4 4 developable plots of land. And I think I like land manager Blythorn, who says, I want to see a grassy patch with a for sale sign on it. So that is the option that the, that first 40 feet recommended. There are some challenges with that option, principally among them the price tag. So the CBJ Engineering took the original cost estimate from First 40 Feet, which was done, I believe, by RESPEC as a sub on that.

And it was a $5 million construction estimate. Difference between construction and project cost is about 40%. Added some contingencies because we're dealing with a lot of hazardous materials and came up with a $9 million price tag. So I think, you know, appreciate that there's a lot of challenges with coming up with $9 million to get a kind of, perfectly aligned for clean buildable lots at that site. I did build out a timeline in the memo that just tries to walk through how we could approach developing Telephone Hill so that we could build by next summer season.

And so you can see in the timeline, I recommend that by the next CAO, we get some direction on funding for development, a city-led project of development of Telephone Hill, that we notify tenants up there, uh, of, um, development and give them September 15th, um, as a date that they need to leave by. Um, the timeline also talks about bringing in a developer for construction before we've necessarily demoed and, um, done that site preparation work. So there's some advantage to, like, having that work started and doing that work so that the city takes on kind of responsibility of that, but bringing in a developer to develop the property or to have a vision about the development of the property before that work is finished. And the reason, of course, being timeline, and also as you, you know, get to a more complete phase and a time when we would hand that project over to a private developer, you know, there may be things that they want to add and contribute to that project. So, um, That takes me to talk a little bit.

The timeline is for like how we would get from, you know, demoing homes to building a road by next summer. But the very logical question is, how could we phase this project given the $9 million price tag? And so I did spend some time thinking about a phasing option that would be just doing just doing demolition, site preparation, and leaving the kind of future road development up to a future developer and/or a future phase. So, you know, I think that there's one scenario where we could demo the properties that are up there. And really, that's the bulk of that cost because of the hazardous materials.

We will be looking at having to container those and ship those materials out. We're going to be having to look at a lot of extra cost just in contractor time. And they're so staggering what it costs to demo those older homes. So, but looking at a phased project, we would do that demolition, we would do some of the excavation to make it a buildable lot, and most importantly, we would re-plat it, right? So the platting would be clean and the lots would be clean.

And then under a phased approach, we would want to bring in a developer to do the development. So we would issue an RFP similar to the RFI that we issued, but with a lot more concrete details of what the city is looking for. Now the unknowns are, I have no idea what it would take to leverage exactly what the assembly wants, right? So there's still unknowns in any one of these scenarios. There's a lot of unknowns like, okay, we invest $5.5 million.

Are we going to get a developer or 4 different developers that will build maximum density and 20% affordability. Those, those are still unknown questions, but we're certainly in a better position to leverage that if we've taken some of that uncertainty and, and really given a nice buildable lot. So I think there is a path where there's some phasing. I also outline in the memo some potential funding sources for funding, the $5.5 million investment that, that Phase 1 would look like. Um, we have $1.7 million in the current CIP.

We will after this year's CIP because you're transferring about $400,000 into it. Um, as part of this, the 1% funding in the CIP, I talk about Peterson Hill CIP being a potential place to transfer funds to Peterson Hills. Another high priority for the assembly. In fact, I think Telephone Hills number 4 and Peterson Hills number 5 on your assembly priorities. The Affordable Housing Fund is another potential funding source.

So that would mean not doing a round of Affordable Housing Fund or reducing the available funding for the Affordable Housing Fund. And that's about as far as I got, though members may have other creative ideas for potential funding sources, but essentially some type of funding that follows the, the budget cycle. It can be as a separate ordinance, but could could kind of follow that budget cycle. So you guys are making all of those decisions on what to do with fund balance at the same time would be ideal if you are interested in kind of launching a city-led development project. So in conclusion, I have laid out 4 different options for you to discuss.

As I mentioned, it'd be great to get direction tonight. But I understand that maybe you just have a lot more questions, in which case I could bring back answers at the next meeting. The first option is just replatting and, you know, putting it on the market. So kind of the least, uh, the least option would be, um, to get rid of all those confusing lines. Since we own the property, we could do that.

I've talked a lot about funding Phase 1 at $5.5 million, talked about funding the entire project, the entire project being to construct the road. And then another option, of course, is to do nothing right now but continue to save funds to do the project in the future. And in a way, that's how we've done Peterson Hill, right? We've appropriated a little bit of money here and there and are looking at kind of building up that fund so that we can eventually do the project. I think the main difference between Peterson Hill, or one of the differences between Peterson Hill and Telephone Hill, is we can still make substantial progress on Peterson Hill kind of a little bit at a time because of both the nature of the project And it's just a less visible project.

So, you know, I think this body has talked before about it being challenging to, like, just demo the homes and then wait for 2 years to collect more money to do more site development. And so that, that, I think, changes a little bit how to prioritize this project. So with that, I will stop for questions.

Thank you, Manager Kester. Questions from the team? Mayor Weldon. Mr. Bryson, then Miss Atkinson. Thank you, um, Miss Kester.

Um, so we received an— I think it was just me— maybe received an email today, and just to ensure that the tenants aren't competing with, um, the seasonal workers, if we move the lease termination to 10/1, how much would that affect you? Because it doesn't say we start our demo until October anyway. Can you speak to that a little? I think that would be fine. We, uh, we're just looking for a fall, uh, date that would have the maximum availability for, um, for tenants.

And if October 1 feels better—. Mr.

Bryson. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Uh, I agree October 1 would be better than any date for September to try and find new locations. My question is, um, we have, uh, the Juneau Fire Department has used abandoned or condemned homes for firefighting practice. They set them on fire purposely and are able to conduct training with them.

If we know that we are disposing of these buildings, wouldn't that be a good scenario to let the fire department conduct extensive training, and it removes the— some of the costs are getting rid of the building. Um, is there a reason why we wouldn't be able to do that?

Yeah, um, I defer to former Assistant Fire Chief Weldon. Thought the mayor might have some insight. It would depend on how much hazardous materials are in each building and what's the, uh, anything around it that might be a, um, questionable problem that might catch on fire too, including things like, uh, power lines and such as that. But it's not a bad idea to at least can ask them if they want to do search and rescue training if they can't burn it. So it's not a bad idea, Mr. President.

Well, Madam Mayor, just if I may, um, it's right in the heart of downtown which if we're going to have a problem downtown, it would be very similar to any circumstance on Telephone Hill. That's kind of what prompted that thinking, because if it happened anywhere in a 2-mile circle of that, it's going to be similar. So let's—. Yeah, but again, it depends on how much hazardous materials. If they're full of asbestos, it's not going to happen.

Miss Adkisson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question for you, or maybe city staff. I'm noticing on our agenda, we have a few things labeled for discussion, for action.

Are there reasons why we are just discussing some of these items instead of potentially moving them forward today? Yeah, thank you. Just as chair, I feel like it's beneficial for the body to have some indication of, you know, what I'm at least thinking of. And, you know, I discuss these agendas with staff, um, you know, for certain items personally I feel like they may need more than one hearing. Others may disagree, but it's kind of just to offer a guideline so people can determine how much they need to hone in, how much they need to ask, how much they need to prepare, how much they need to, you know, be ready to make a big decision.

So, um, Sure. So it's just a chair suggestion then.

I would guess so. Sure. Because we— people could move it at any point. But as you may see, Ms. Atkinson, you know, if we're trying to, like, jump process, you may lose votes when you do that. So, but anyway, we can— we follow Robert's Rules, so things can be in order.

Did you have a question about this topic?

Miss Wall.

Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, first question is about the 4 developable lots. This, this may be me not being not super well versed in some of these aspects of the city, but Um, where did that number come from? And does that decision to re-plat into 4 developable lots, um, restrict options? Like, how did that number come up with?

And could there be benefit to deciding the number of lots at another point in time? Thank you. So that specific alignment was determined by First 40 Feet after looking at our zoning code, parcels, our zoning code, our setback rules in order to kind of be able to build to maximum density. I think, you know, there's a, there's a slide in your packet that just recommends that the, um, it'd be divided into those 4 lots. You know, there's only so much room up there.

With alignment of the road and just all the other things that are necessary. That being said, certainly we could engage a potential developer early enough in the process that if, you know, that wasn't the preferred alignment, it could be replatted into something different. We are the owner of all that property. So it would be, you know, it's relatively easy to replat that when it is owned by one. Owner.

Very well then.

Um, so remind me, when we sell land, it goes to the land fund, correct? Because that's my first part of my question, and he's going to give me a follow-up. Is that correct? You are correct. So if we wanted to be creative with our financing Instead of taking it from the affordable housing fund, the $2.5 million, we could technically take it from the general fund, and then when we sell it, give all the money to the land fund except for the $2.5 million.

A loan from the general fund that we would repay when we sell it. I think that, uh, that is correct. You could loan the land fund The Valiant Fund doesn't have enough money to cover the entire cost of the development, but you certainly could do some arrangement where when those properties are sold, that funding kind of repays that initial investment. And it's an important thing to remember, this property has value and will have additional value once it's improved.

Very good. Miss Hall. A couple questions. Um, first, how many folks are living up there now? How many people will we be displacing?

It's between 14 and 16. Oh, okay. And then, um, second question, unrelated, is, you know, in, in the options it says there is no option that meets our goals without investing significant CBJ funds. Um, and this sounds odd coming from the social service gal, but what happens if affordability is removed and it's just kind of, you know, flat out market rate housing?

So I obviously don't have a crystal ball, so I can't tell you exactly what would happen. However, It would be premium developable land in downtown Juneau and more attractive for a developer. So, I—. One, one could assume that it would be easier, for example, for the city to invest, either invest less in getting it to— getting it to that place where— yeah.

Thanks. I had a kind of a— I don't know if it's the same vein, but I guess is the fact that we just got one response from our RFI, is that telling either about our design and, you know, the place guide that we created for that, or would there— anyway, should we read some kind of sign from the fact that only one company responded to that?

We have asked that question. Staff has asked that question of our local development community, and I think, um, you know, they were like, decide exactly what you want and issue an RFP, and we'll put the time and effort into actually developing a proposal. So I, I think, uh, that could be certainly a reason, um, but also it takes time to develop those materials. It takes time to put together that package and Um, only one respondent felt like it was worth their time to do that. Very good.

Thank you for the question.

Um, thank you, Mr. Smith. I listened into the Lands meeting today and, um, had seen the proposal that came through about 2nd and Franklin, I believe, from the same developer group that put in the RFI. Um, and obviously that has also been on our priority list, much smaller scale project, but that kind of came up out of nowhere a little bit for us, even though it's been on a priority list. And so, from our conversations with that developer, are we expecting that project as well to require city investment to move forward, or Um, was there an understanding that that would not— only because if so, I'd like to see kind of both of those projects together as we consider next steps, but hoping that that was not part of their proposal.

So I don't have a specific answer to that question. We did meet, um, and talk about a variety of challenges on that site, parking being one of them, and the expense of parking. Um, so, uh, it would not surprise me to expect, uh, the 2nd and Franklin development to also want to use tools like the affordable housing fund and tax abatement.

Very good. Any further questions on this topic?

Mr. Kelly, thank you. I, um, so it seems to me that we're going through this to, um, to try and make this more attractive to a potential developer. I guess I experience a little bit of hesitation in, in moving and asking people to, to leave their homes. Um, before we have, um, a project under contract and ready to go, would it be sufficient to just, like, have a general direction in where the Assembly wants to go, but maybe condition that on actually having something signed on the dotted lines?

That way we're actually guaranteed, or at least as guaranteed as we can be, to have additional housing at the end of this.

Andrew Koster.

Um, I'm, I'm struggling a little bit to understand the question, so I'm going to rephrase it and see if I'm meeting your intent. Is your, is your question, is there a way to guarantee, uh, occupiable housing units before the assembly, um, serves notice to existing tenants to leave their homes? Essentially. I'm also wondering if it would continue to be attractive to developers if we did that.

So, um, I don't know, right? I don't know. We certainly could issue, instead of an RFI, an RFP that says Hey, this is what it's, this is what it's going to look like. Are you going, would you, you know, commit to doing a project? I think the challenges with that is there are still so many unknowns with site development and hazardous materials.

There's also challenges with the timeline. So if you're a developer, you're not going to engage in a project and commit your capital and your funding to that project until, um, you know what's happening, right? So let's say we're you know, a year out or 2 years out. So those are some of the challenges I would see in, in taking that approach. But I think that would be, as the way I understand your question, the, the best way to try to get there would be to develop an RFP instead of an RFI based on the Telephone Hill Place guide and be able to kind of award a firm commitment to a developer instead instead of this, hey, we want to hear more from you.

I think the other challenge with that is just the level of design that we put into the product, right? Do we want 4 lots? Do we want Dixon exactly here, or does it need to be a little bit aligned there? So we'd have to kind of make some more assumptions and decisions with less information, you know, unless we wanted to, you know, fund design. And I mean, there are different ways to, approach that timeline.

Thank you, Mr. Bryson. Deputy Mayor, are we in just strictly questions or can we comment on some of the historical stuff? I was going to pivot to comments after questions. I think my question is, when did CBJ be informed that we were going to receive Telephone Hill? And maybe what was the date that we actually received Telephone Hill?

My suspicion was it was in 2018 we began discussing getting, uh, Telephone Hill. We might not have gotten it for a couple of years after that, but we absolutely have had discussions where we tried to let tenants know that eventually those buildings won't be there. They—. We know that it's been a touchy situation. Nobody wants to talk about people's homes.

It's very emotional when talk about what we're going to do to Telephone Hill. We can't move Telephone Hill forward if we try to reserve 12 apartments for people that are living there right now. So we have this one, and just looking at some of the numbers, it's hundreds of units. I mean, it could be a substantial improvement to downtown. And while I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the people We have been telling them for at least 5 years, you're going to have to move.

And here we are 5 years later, and we have people saying, well, you can't make us move until you have a plan. We can't move a plan forward until they're gone, because what Manager Kestler said was the point that will stick it. If they're still living in their homes, that is a whole different legal realm. And one person deciding not to leave could delay this whole project. So at some point, we have to say, this this land is going— it's going to be a flat land because no project can move forward until it has a zero vacancy in it.

And so while I completely understand, we don't want to sound heartless. We have been saying for years you are not going to be able to live here indefinitely. And I think that we're at the point where we need to make that decision and make that very clear to the people that are there so we can move this very important housing project forward. Thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

It seems that we maybe transitioned into comment portion. Um, are there further questions from anyone? Mayor Walden. I was going to say, if we're going into comments, I put a motion on the floor to comment on Deputy Mayor Smith. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you, Miss Yscandese. Did you have a question on this topic? Uh, well, uh, I had a question. I don't know if you guys are on a subset of the topic because I got kicked out halfway through the first question. Yeah, no problem.

Ms. Suscandies, I know you're having some connectivity issues over there. Go ahead and ask your question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Manager Custer. My question is about— and I don't have it in front of me now because everything got closed— but in your timeline, you gave the, you know, RFP 1, RFP 2, RFP 3. One of them, I was trying to better understand why we would be doing an RFP for the flatting.

And then I have another question, one, but it's not on that topic, Mr. Smith.

Was that— did that make sense? Do you understand me, Manager Koester? Yes. So the reason for our kind of first RFP being designing the new right-of-way and plat process is because that's the thing that we would need to get started the earliest, and it's a different specialty than demolition. So those would be two different firms that would be doing those, those things.

Maybe a better follow-up, a better question would be then, could you talk to me about what that what the bidding process normally looks like for us internally then? I know we have like a, you know, Land Department of One plus Roxy, but so every time we're developing, that is, we're going with a collection of firms, is that correct?

So the project would require design because it hasn't been designed yet. Designed, and that design and that survey work would inform the plat, and we would, in, in this instance, apply to CDD like any developer for a replat. So, like, we would have to do the work as the property owner to apply to get that property replatted. Is that helpful?

Yes. Yeah, I can— I'll, I'll follow up offline, but that— yes. Okay, I understand what you're saying now, because we would be representing just like a normal applicant. Gotcha. And Mr. Smith, I have one more, but it's on a different topic.

No, you may go ahead, Ms. Suskiandis. Oh, yeah, go ahead, Ms. Suskiandis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then, Manager Koesterich, you may have already gone over this, in which case I apologize, but could you just let me know when we put that RFI out with that telephone place guide, what exactly, where exactly we put that, what that consisted of that got us to one response?

I have to admit, Assemblymember Hughes-Candies, I do not recall exactly how we advertised that RFI. I do recall the Assembly being adamant that we kind of spread that far and wide and make sure we can to connect with non-Alaska developers, and we did do that. I'd have to come back to you with specifics on, you know, what exactly that outreach plan looked like.

Very good. Any further questions on the topic? Okay. Nope, that— nope, but that's a big one for me, Mr. Smith, just FYI. So I'll look forward to that.

That's right.

Very good. Um, seeing no further questions, we could maybe start with a motion, how we're all feeling about making a way forward here. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. I'll just throw it out there. I know it says discuss, but I think the staff would, uh, appreciate what we're thinking and kind of how we're paying for it.

So, um, I'm going to do a two-pronged motion. First will be the motion on what scenario I'm looking at, and second, I would come back with a motion on how I'd pay for it. So I would move we approve scenario number 2, and if I could talk to my motion. Yes, of course. Most people have heard me say I would love to just put it to the highest bidder.

But I don't, um, after talking to some builders in town and getting a feel of the assembly, I don't think that would pass. Um, and also talking to some developers, they said, um, what they wouldn't want to do is evict and demolish houses. And if we could do the platting, that would take the burden off of them for that. And they're mixed about the road, so I think we could start with Scenario number 2, and if we had to go further, we could go further, but, um, that's what my motion would be right now is the 5.5 million fund phase 1 of Telephone Hill redevelopment. Very good.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Manager, do you need us to describe what funds and what sources of funds to fund whatever option choose here?

So, if you were to move for introduction, I believe we would just have funding sources blank and then expect that to be amended at introduction.

Okay. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you. So, what we would do, we would have placeholders there. With a general description, which you can then amend. So, I think, unless we want to bring it back to a cow, then we could do full blanks.

Okay. Well, seems a little funky, but we could try.

Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just—. Objection for purpose of a question here.

Um, if we're going with the phased approach, um, Manager Kester, how concerned are we that that leftover $2.5 million or that we aren't funding right now becomes a lot more than $2.5 million later on?

Um, well, it's $3.5 million and, um, Construction cost escalation is certainly, um, still remains very high. We had a lot of construction inflation during COVID Um, it's a lot of civil work, which isn't as problematic. However, there will be, uh, so it's like a lot of like actual dirt work. However, there will be materials for the utilities, and those also kind of get caught up in that tariff unknown. And so we are already getting notifications from our contractors that they're not able to honor price estimates because of tariffs and impending tariffs.

So that's a long way of saying I don't have any uncertainty in, in today's environment. And those are the vulnerabilities that would— that $3.5 million road construction would have. I'll remove my objection. Mr. Kelly. I have a couple questions.

First, my first question will go to the attorney. And Mr. Chair Smith did mention that Robert's Rules, we can propose anything, but I did notice on the agenda it's specifically marked as for discussion. Would that have affected anything as far as Open Meetings Act if we did not advertise that we were going to take action on this?

If I might, through the chair, Mr. Kelly, anything on your agendas are actionable. That's why when they say for information or for discussion or whatever, it is a suggestion, but it is not a Robert's Rules violation should you decide to take action if something is listed as for discussion.

And I may be removing these from future agendas, by the way, but we'll see. Mr. Kelly.

Um, thank you. I think, um, I would object because I, um, I still like to do a little bit more work on this. I, I don't feel good about moving forward when we don't have a guarantee for more housing. If we're going to be asking people to leave, I would like us to be able to guarantee that we're not going to have something that's going to potentially sit idle. I would like to know that we are going to— if we're going to be removing 13 housing units, I would like to see at least 13 more housing units coming up somewhere else.

So, um, I, I, I'll object, um, to moving forward for that reason.

Very good. Other comments? Motion, Mr. Bryson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, what did Miss Gladyshevsky used to say?

Perfection is the enemy of good. We have a good plan here to get hundreds of housing, and I made the statement that, uh, delaying this after giving the people 4 years notice, that maybe 5 years notice, that they would have to move at some point, um, I think that notice has been given and, uh, We have been working tremendously on the amount of housing units, and we just made a motion to move it to October 1st. So we're asking these people to vacate during the easiest time of the year to find housing. We are not being haphazard or careless. This has been talked about and has methodically got to this point.

So I'm very, uh, strongly in favor of the mayor's motion. Thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Bryson. Other comments? Miss Wall.

Just ask a question. Um, you know, part of my, um, you know, if there's lots of great pros and cons here, but if we had all the money in the world, I'd be ready to, you know, fund this at the top level. Um, we don't, but we do have, um, budget conversations coming up. You know, if the assembly was to move forward with an ordinance for 5. $4.5 Million this year, or it coming up here, and after the end of our budget conversations, we still have $4 million that we want to spend on this project.

We could move that direction regardless of what we decide tonight. Is that correct?

Yes.

Very good. Ms. Youskandis, do you have a comment or—. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, I'll weigh in and I might weave in some questioning statements. I appreciate that I've missed wherever you all have gone with this discussion. So I don't have much of a sense. It sounds like you guys were revisiting some of the early days of telephone downhill or found a squirrel to chase or something like that. Based on the sort of direction and timeline, the different options that were in the, in the memo for us to discuss tonight.

I think obviously, like the rest of you, the higher price is— that's a big number. And I think we're all feeling like that there's a lot of competing pressures on the budget. That being said, um, I am interested in seeing what funding sources that we could get creative with. Um, I lean more towards that way because I know there are many flavors of in-between, just as Ms. Wall mentioned, but also I don't think there's anything magic about this particular date, uh, except I appreciate the manager's diligence in trying to keep us moving forward on it. So, I just, for, for the interest of discussing this topic, I lean towards us putting more money into it because I think if we do not, we are going to end up in a situation where we're going to be hearing that it doesn't pencil out and we can't keep the affordability or we can't keep the density.

Um, that being said, as the mayor referenced already, you can add money and you can add money as you go along. So why would you spend— she didn't say this next part, but why would you spend it all up front if you could go along and get it started?

I think the question there between those two options and whether the $5.5 million or the larger number, the $9.5 million, or whatever the two numbers are, I think part of my own question is, how much did we really do to, to get feedback? Um, I would want us to take another look at that because I think it's important that we do a better job of that. If, if we do end up going down just a demolition and, um, and site prep route, um, I think what we've learned every time is that I mean, I, I think if we want affordability, I think if we want density in this site, it is going to require a big commitment of capital funds from the city. And I just will say that we are— there are several other things we're looking at money for in the budget, and to me, housing would be more of a priority. So if people are comfortable doing the site prep tonight and drafting that, I think I could be open to that, but I also would want to keep our options open to add more as we go on.

Very good. Thank you, Ms. Euskandiz. You're welcome. Thank you, Ms. Euskandiz. You, uh, figured out my ploy, um, for one reason, um, talking to some of the developers You might want to have a say in the road and that kind of stuff.

And we do have a mechanism to loan money for road. But if it turns out that they can't do some of the affordable housing pieces that the body wants, then we can again look at helping them build the road. So, but I thought we should at least start the 5.5. Very good. My intent—.

My thought is I think it might be useful for us to selected option, and then the next step will be figuring out different fund sources to pay for it. A motion on an option? Miss Wall?

Um, I'll hold my comment to the next motion that the mayor is going to make. Mr. Kelly? Uh, thank you. I just— a question, um, for I guess anybody, um, in staff. So if we pass this today, would the effect be that this decision is forwarded on to the Assembly, or is the decision that's made today, like, this is what happens and we start acting on it right away?

Andrew Kestler. Yeah, so we wouldn't be able to begin any work without an appropriation. I mean, that being said, we've do have funding, we could like start the design work, but I guess it would be our intent to wait until, uh, there was funding. And, um, because we have to have funding to be able to do a project, so that means that the ordinance needs to pass. Um, we do— in the timeline, um, we have serving notice to tenants outlined once that ordinance is introduced so that there would be like clear direction from the body, but we wanted to also give tenants like the most notice possible.

So trying to kind of thread that needle of making sure there was like a real project that was really going to get funded and giving them the most time possible. So if you were to move to introduce an ordinance, once that ordinance was introduced, we would serve notice to the tenants unless directed otherwise. And then once that ordinance passed, we would work on issuing RFI number, RFI number 1, P number 1 for design and reply. Thank you. Very good for the comments on the motion.

I guess mine are just— I, Mr. Kelly, I guess I see this as we know we need to do this stuff to move this forward. I want us to move forward. I think the timing, especially due to the tenants, is the most compassionate in this way. 4 Months notice, leaving before, you know, after, you know, the peak tourism season ends. So hopefully more housing availability before the holidays, before the winter, trying to do stuff in the snow and all that.

So I feel like we know this work needs to be done. I appreciate the thought of it is, it is tough to say, oh, we're demolishing housing, you know, when something else should get built, but I don't think it's ever going to get built unless we do these steps. So I'm supportive of the mayor's motion. I think it also takes us, you know, as far as we know we need to go without putting in a road or some other things that we just aren't certain of. So I'm supportive of the motion.

We have a motion on the table and objection. Madam clerk, would you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for Mayor Motion's— Mayor Weldon's motion to go with option number 2, the 5.5 $1 million fund phase one. Mayor Weldon? Yes. Mr. Bryson?

Yes. Miss Huskandies?

Yes. Miss Adkinson? Yes. Miss Wall? Yes.

Mr. Kelly? No. Miss Hall? Yes. Mr. Steininger?

Yes. And Deputy Mayor Smith? Yes. Motion carries, 8 yeas, 1 nay. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Mayor Weldon, do you have a motion on the funding sources? Before I make a motion, I just have one quick question. How much money do we currently have in the land fund right now?

Through the chair, um, excluding encumbered funds, funds I believe are about $2 million. Okay, I'm ready for my motion then. Mayor Walden, um, I would move that we fund the $5.5 million Um, from $1.7 million from the Telephone Hill CIP, $2 million from the Peterson Hill CIP, and if I've done my math correctly, that leaves us $1.8 million we have to fund— find. So I would move $800,000 from the land fund and $1 million from the general fund with the intention of the general fund being paid back once the land is sold.

Madam Attorney and Manager, that— those are appropriate fund sources, and we've discussed the loan idea already, correct? So, very good. Any objections to the motion?

Seeing no objection, that motion is adopted. Thank you. That Settles our business for the Telephone Hill agenda item.

Do we need a short break before the Glacier Visitor Center? Very good. 5 Minutes, 7:28, so 7:33, please.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate you making that change, and I love you all, but I will be leaving you now.

Okay, yes, thank you. Miss Huskies is gone, for the record.

Very good. Thank you. We are now on to Agenda topic, agenda item 5, Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center operation. We have an ordinance that has already been introduced and a new resolution, um, but just we thought maybe worthwhile to hear from the body, answer questions. The resolution is new.

Um, Manager Kessler, anything you would like to direct us to? Thank you. I just want to, uh, briefly Summarize kind of where we are on the topic and let you know that Visitor Industry Director Pierce is in the audience for questions.

We did discuss this at the assembly retreat, the kind of concept of using passenger fees to help in some way make sure that the visitor center stays open and stays in public ownership and public lands. The kind of current vision that's coalescing is a way for CBJ funds possibly to support either Tlingit and Haida or Discovery Southeast in having an employee that would manage the multiple visitor industry tourism operators who have volunteered employees to help staff the visitor center, but that needs coordination. And because both organizations have existing operating agreements, there's actually a co-stewardship agreement with Tlingit and Haida and an operating agreement with Discovery Southeast. The vision would be that either one of those organizations or both could channel— those funds could be channeled to help that. In the meantime, U.S. Forest Service is still looking for resources internally to provide that service, and I know Discovery Southeast is applying for grant funding too.

You know, it's one of the options for the funding. It's not a sure thing because this issue is ever-evolving. But I wanted to just let you know that the intention isn't that like CVJ funds staffing of the center. It's that we help support our partners in kind of finding a collaborative solution. And I also wanted to let you know that we do have Executive Director of Discovery Southeast, Mr. Eisley, online.

And we have the program manager for Tlingit and Haida, Mr. Duvill, in the audience. Very good. So we have two items. We have the appropriating ordinance and we have the resolution. Maybe let's start with the appropriating ordinance.

So any questions on that item? Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I guess the first question I have about the idea that's kind of coalescing about us taking on a coordinating role is, how would that work? Because none of these organizations are under the umbrella of, of the city.

So how, like, what sort of authority or what mechanism would we have to coordinate operations there? Andrew Kessler. It would be a grant. Much like we make to other nonprofit organizations. So we'd have a memorandum of understanding.

We have a template that finance uses.

Very good. I just had a question, and I would invite them up, but we don't allow public testimony in the committee hall. Do you, Manager Kester, do you know if Tlingit and Haida supports this appropriating ordinance? And if so, do you know what their position is?

Thank you. Yes, uh, Klickit and Haida is supportive of a solution to, um, keep the visitor center open and keep it in public lands. Very good. Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

Um, Would $200,000 be, um, be absolutely necessary for this, this coordination role, or would we be able to get by with something less?

Manager, there's no real magic to the, the figure of $200,000 except for it would allow, uh, for, um, at least one full staffing position. I mean, I suppose you could You could cut it or you could grow it. In the end, we hope to not have to use it but want to have the flexibility to, to be responsive.

Thank you, Miss Wall. And Mr. Sanger. Thank you, Chair Smith.

Um, the, you know, this is— we, we do have limited marine passenger fees, so like to evaluate them against other things that we are planning on doing with them. I'd I'd love to know, and this might be a question for Miss Pierce, a reminder of what is our balance. And this is coming from our fund balance, I assume, our marine passenger fee fund balance. What is our current balance? And I know there's been talk of what to do with that excess balance— seawalk, other kind of long-term projects.

I think my question for Miss Pierce is, you know, what are we kind of pushing down the road or sacrificing if we were to allocate these funds.

Thank you, Ms. Wall. And through the chair, you talked for long enough to allow me to look that up. It's about $1.5 million. In fund balance. And I don't have the figure because you didn't talk for quite long enough for me to look at this year's budget, but we are projecting to spend in, in the budget less than we're projecting to, to take in.

We do say that remaining funds we would split between like the Seawalk and ShorePower. Those are big ticket, long-term expenditures that will probably require a conversation about some kind of debt with the assembly at some point. In, in my view, I don't see $200,000 as really making or breaking the need to have that conversation. So I don't think it puts our fund balance in jeopardy. I don't think it puts our our passenger fee budget for this year in jeopardy.

And since I have the floor, if I can add on the kind of intention behind the $200,000 figure— not that that number was particularly magic— was when we asked, um, when we were looking at staffing support for the summer if that was required. We came up with a number of about twice that much. So we cut that number in half and put it forward with the idea that we don't intend to use $200,000. We intend to, you know, if it does get used for funding a coordinating position, it would be a small portion of that amount of money. But it's kind of an insurance policy.

We know that there's another reduction in force or at least a plan for one coming. And we want to make sure that we have the ability to move quickly so that we can support the organizations that already have— the ability to operate out there to potentially either absorb staff or fund expanded operations from what they're currently doing today if they need to do that. But we are, you know, we're hoping that we lapse most of this back to the passenger fee fund balance and are able to spend it on fun things like sidewalks.

Further questions on the appropriating ordinance? Miss Wall.

Um, this one's also for Miss Pierce. Um, you know, I am of the mind that we've, we've gotten a lot of emails on both sides of this. Um, I'm of the mind that if we, if we do spend money It's because we're in a— what I would call an emergency situation where there's bear safety issues and there is garbage and the bathrooms aren't clean, as opposed to people aren't getting quite the same experience as they normally would. Maybe all the trails aren't open or they're not having access to all the naturalists they had. Like, is it helpful to get direction from the body on which of, you know, on the spectrum that we're interested in providing funding for, or do you feel like you're only, this would only be used in one of those situations?

Thank you. Through the chair, that's staff's intention as well. It's not to enhance the visitor experience, it's to provide kind of basic safety site maintenance, prevent vandalism, that sort of thing. And I do want to give a shout out to the operators out there. They've been— had people out there directing traffic and trying to answer questions as best they can.

I think that that could all go a little bit better with some support. But I think that their work to date has been pretty integral to the operations and the hours when the visitor center isn't open because it's only open 10 to 5 and tours are still happening. Any further questions on this topic? Madam Mayor, did you have a motion for us? Certainly, I, I move Ordinance 2024-01B AL to the full assembly for public hearing because I believe it's already been introduced.

Very good. You've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Miss Atkinson?

I recognize that we've already introduced it, and so we can have the actual vote at the assembly level, but I just wanted to say that I, I have a lot of concerns with this proposal. And I think we're going to face a lot of pressure to backfill for the federal government in the next coming years. And this is not the place I would start if we are going to be doing that. So I'll remove my objection for now, but I just didn't want to let it pass without saying that. Thank you, Ms. Adkisson.

I'll object for a comment as well. And that's, I hear the argument and I don't want to be backstopping or backfilling for the federal government as well as they're maybe shedding some of their responsibilities. But I guess for me, keeping this as a publicly managed and decently run, you know, facility that does spread the impacts of tourism throughout the community, you know, I worry if it's— we don't do something and it's just a disaster, like, what does that lead us towards? So, I'll support the motion here and likely at the full assembly too. I'll remove my objection.

Mr. Kelly, objection. Um, thank you. I share a lot of, um, a lot of the same concerns as Ms. Atkinson. I do feel like this is like a potential start, and if we just say yes here, then we're possibly inviting future instances of basically cost shifting from the federal government down to, down to our city. And there are other uses where we could be putting these marine passenger fees.

So I will remove my objection, but I am possibly bringing a couple amendments forward at the Monday meeting.

Very good. Any other objections to the motion? Seeing none, that motion is adopted.

Now moving on to the resolution. Questions on the resolution? Ms. Hall. Yeah, I'm just wondering where the notion comes from or where it's being suggested that the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area would come under anything other than public ownership.

Thank you, Ms. Hall. Through the chair, we are aware of at least one, I've heard a rumor of a second private entity that has expressed interest in taking over the Menhall Glacier Recreation Area.

I guess my follow-up would be, you know, anyone can say anything, but that seems kind of, you know, like a really something that I wouldn't think we'd need to be concerned about at this point.

Mr. Kelly. Thank you. Um, just to follow up to Ms. Hall's line of questions, Under what mechanism would it be possible for private ownership to occur?

Who wants that one? Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Through the chair, I'm not privy to the laws and regulations of the Forest Service. You know, we do have an administration with an expressed interest in privatizing public land. And I think I'll leave it there.

Mayor Walden. Uh, thank you. These are good questions, but I believe the federal delegation asked us for this resolution. Is that correct? To continue their fight to get Park Service employees hired.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through the chair, yes, you and I were both party to that discussion where we were asked by the delegation. For the record, I'm removing my objection. Very good. We don't motion, I don't think.

Yeah. I guess I just had one. On the bottom of page 1, line 39 and 40, the, you know, speaking to the firings of federal workers and forthcoming reduction in workforce prevent the Forest Service from minimizing Hull from providing effective services. Does that also kind of encapsulate the issue that, I mean, I actually don't know if this is still the case, but that they were moving staff from like permitting and other types of areas within the Forest Service to support the efforts there. I mean, are we also saying like that's gonna be a problem with that whereas?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, that was, The intention, I think that there has been a reduction in force across the Forest Service and they still are required to perform the same functions. Those functions, a lot of those functions have been moved towards the visitor center and away from other capacities that the Forest Service typically performs. And I was remiss in my answer to Mayor Weldon, I want to make it clear that it was not the entirety of the delegation, but specifically Senator Murkowski who asked for this resolution. Very good.

Further questions on the resolution? Seeing none, Mayor Weldon, do you have a motion? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Resolution 4010 to the full Assembly.

Very good. Any objection? Ms. Wall. Just objecting for the purposes of an amendment you have in front of you. I believe.

No, I just got a stack here I'm supposed to be handing to you, so I will do that. Very good. We'll pause for a moment for those to distribute and for us to read.

So, um, this amendment, um, uh, seeks to— just for, for the record or anyone listening— um, change Section 2 so that it now reads, the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area should remain a federally managed resource to ensure the public lands are accessible to all. Um, I struck the part about the Tongass National Forest. Um, the management of the Tongass National Forest is much more complex a political issue than this body, I believe, should be discussing. Um, we could spend many meetings talking about whether we believe that statement or not. Um, and so I think I think it's best if we keep our focus on the recreational— the visitor center recreation area and not, um, get into some other politics that we are a lot less knowledgeable about.

Very good. We've heard the proposed amendment. Any questions on the amendment? Any Objection to the amendment.

I'm still working it through, but I don't actually know if I have a question. Mr. Kelly. Um, thank you. I am, um, I guess maybe this might go to Manager Kester, uh, how— or no, I guess it would, um, probably go more to, um, Director Pierce. Um, if just we're going to be going around and changing the language, I'm just wondering how specific was Senator Murkowski in the language of the resolution that she needed, or she was just asking for a resolution?

Director Pierce. Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Kelly, it was specifically a resolution in support of the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area. That was the subject of the meeting. So I think Ms. Wall's amendment would be fine in terms of what the Senator requested.

Thank you. Very good.

I guess I remove my objection. Thank you. I guess I'm— I understand the maker's motion. I think it might have been fine before, but I understand it and I don't have an objection. Any objections to the motion for the amendment?

Very good. That amendment is adopted. Now we're back to the main motion as amended. Any objection to moving the resolution as amended? Very good.

Seeing none, that motion is adopted. Thank you.

All right, um, on to agenda topic 6. Ordinance 2025-13, Election Code, Ranked Choice Voting. This has come to us from the Human Resources Committee. My intent is— it's a significant change, possible change to our elections. My intent would— that it would be we discuss, ask questions, and then we can bring this back at a future Committee of the Whole.

We've seen the memo, we've seen the draft ordinance. Questions from the body on the ordinance? Or, Miss Human Resources Chair, did you want to, did you want to give any background or anything you thought the committee might want to know on this ordinance? Uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, I think that the memo covers a lot of the background on this. We just had as an as everyone knows, a vote on the statewide ranked choice voting. And looking at our precincts here in Juneau, that failed, the repealer failed pretty significantly here in Juneau. And there's a lot of support for ranked choice voting in our community. And especially in the last couple of years, we've seen quite a few people running for local office, which is excellent.

But I think that ranked choice voting in this case makes it a lot easier to, you know, build consensus in our community to fully, you know, express the nuances of every Genoite's vote and to, you know, prevent folks from needing to drop out or pressure folks to drop out if they're, you know, taking votes from other people. With first-past-the-post, there's a lot of that sort of thing behind the scenes that I think is detrimental to the election process. So the main The other thing I think that is also covered in the memo, the decision points are there's a couple instances where we do block voting. So in the event that an assembly member resigns early, there will be a block voting with the person who the higher vote getter getting the full term, second vote getter getting the partial term, and then also in the case of the school board. So those are, I think, are the main decision points, though certainly the City Attorney can correct me if there are some anything I'm forgetting.

So, happy to take questions. Very good. Madam Attorney, did you have anything to add on this topic? No, I think that's a good summary, and those are the main decision points. Very good.

Questions on the ordinance? Miss Wall, followed by Mayor Weldon. Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, I admit I have not been in any of the committee meetings that have discussed this so far, so But thank you for the work on the committee and getting it this far. But my question may have been covered.

And so if it has maybe, you know, a high-level answer now would be fine if somebody sends me the more detailed information that was already presented. My, my, I agree with Miss Adkinson that ranked choice voting makes sense for Juneau. My question is really about the, the extra cost and the extra time. I know we— our staff works extremely hard during election season, and we have added resources over the years to continue to improve our process and access. So what is that looking like in terms of what this will change from a both budget perspective and how long it will take us to you know, get results.

Madam Clerk, thank you. Through the chair, Ms. Wall, for that question, um, it will take approximately $14,000 more dollars annually for the software module that's needed. With respect to how soon you'll get answers and results, um, that will delay things somewhat.

If we continue with the by-mail election process, I would anticipate that we would have results within the first week, but maybe not on election night. But we also have an initiative petition that's being circled, so that may, depending on where that goes, change our processes as well. So It all depends on what the election— when this passes, if it passes. Right now, you're looking at an effective timeframe for the October 2026 election. So we will know more in the fall after this election cycle what kind of timing that might include.

I'm sorry, I don't have more definitive answers to your questions on the timing. No, that's helpful. I think just a note for next time we do this, I'd love to know kind of if things continue the way we're doing them currently with vote by mail, what our estimate would be for changing the timing of how we get in results will be helpful. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, have we heard from the school board? What their thoughts are.

Through the chair, so, um, I reached out to the school board twice, um, we did hear back from, uh, the president of the school board that they are waiting to be invited to participate in a conversation with you.

Um, beyond that, they have not responded. Invited in a conversation I'll hop in really quick. Madam Attorney, does the counting and I guess just the structure, you know, of this ranked choice voting ordinance as drafted, does it mirror how they do it for the state? So like, it will be a, it'll be the same thing and people should expect to look at it kind of similarly and it'll be, anyway, is the structure the same as the state of Alaska's ranked choice voting? Mr.

Chair, it's exactly the same. We took it from the state statute. We just modified language for what we call our elections. We have slightly different language, and I would expect the timing and some of those other things to track with what happens at the state level. Very good.

Mayor Weldon, you had a question? I did. Um, since if you look at, uh, On page 2, the very top line there, votes cast for the defeated candidate shall cease counting for the defeated candidate and shall be added to the totals of each ballot's next highest ranked continuing candidate. Is this going to change our seniority at all?

Madam Mayor, that is a very good question. I don't think it would change your seniority, but that's a good question. We can look into it and see what the state's done on anything and if there is a change, and we can also clarify language to ensure that that is retained here. That's a good question. Ms. Adkisson.

Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since one of the decision points we're looking at is block voting and whether we preserve it, I wanted to ask the clerk, how, how well is block voting handled today? Is it an issue with voting?

Do you see a lot of ballots that are not marked correctly with block voting? That's right. Thank you, Miss Adkisson, through the chair. And I may phone a friend who is on Zoom with us, our Deputy Clerk Andy Hirsch. If I don't cover all the points of that, right now for a multi-member race, when we have, say you have 5 candidates and you have 2 or 3 seats, so let's say in this case you have 2 seats that are open, it goes to the top 2 vote getters, and that's how that is determined.

If in that multi-member race, say it's a district assembly race and one is a vacancy for a 2-year term versus a full 3-year term, the second highest vote getter would get the second term, a 2-year term, and the top vote getter would get the full 3-year term. For ranked choice voting, depending on how you guys decide to go that route in multi-member races, This is where I would call in my Deputy Clerk for her lifeline because she can explain it much better than I can, and I've tried to articulate this, but Andy does a much better job. If you wouldn't mind, Ms. Hirsch. Sure, thank you. Um, through the Chair, so, um, I believe part of Ms. Atkinson's question was with our current block voting setup, are we finding that people are confused in how they vote.

We don't see a lot of overvoting in block voting setup. If we say vote for 2, we do see people who choose to, who undervote, who only vote for the top candidate. But we can't ascribe any voter intent to that. We don't know if they just don't like any of the other candidates or if they don't know that they can vote for more than one person. But we rarely see overvoting for candidates like we do in Assembly District 2, where we more frequently see an overvote than in any other district.

And then I believe part of the other question was about block voting in ranked choice. Is that correct? Okay, so this can be— this is a little complicated, so let me know if I need to explain things differently. Generally speaking, when you have a multi-member seat in ranked choice voting, there are two different ways that, that it can go. And so one of them is what I generally call like a cascade ranked choice vote, which is you run ranked choice vote as if it's a single seat.

Somebody wins, the winner is removed, and then you run the entire process again. That, however, that option, we are not— my conversation with Dominion Voting, which is our election support, back in January did not indicate that that was an option for us, that their software module doesn't work for that version of block choice ranked choice voting. Um, Ms. McEwen had another conversation with a different Dominion person, I think Thursday or Friday, and walked away from that conversation with a different, um, understanding than I got. Um, so that's something that we can look into more. The, the type of ranked choice voting for multi-member seat that Dominion absolutely does is called single vote transference, and What that does, it's a much more complicated system.

And so what happens is if we have 5 candidates and 2 seats, we say each candidate must get 50% of the winning vote. And so everybody, everybody, you vote and you pick your 1 through 5. And then let's say Candidate A, everybody loves them. They get 55% of the vote. Awesome.

They're elected, but they actually got too much of the vote. So then 5% of their vote is then reallocated back into the second choice vote getters for those specific ballots. And then if nobody has hit the other 50%, then you drop the candidate who received the least number of votes and reallocate their votes to the next down in the ballot. And you you continue on until you get another candidate that hits 50%. And so it's, it's mathematically like all of this is done on a computer in the background.

We set it up, it works. It is hard to explain to the public and would require a large level of public trust in order because it's, it's a very complicated mathematical system on how the votes are actually delivered and whose vote counted for what. And then also, it is a change from our current process where in block voting, if there are 2 open seats, you get to vote twice. In this case, single vote transference means once your vote is counted towards one candidate, your ballot is basically taken out of consideration. You get to vote for one person regardless of the number of open seats.

So that is the type of multi-member ranked choice voting that we know is available to us. And not the— we're unsure about the other version.

I hope any of that made sense. It did. Thank you, Ms. Seargeant. The third option, of course, I just want to clarify, is to designate seats and not do multi-member races at all. Is that correct?

Correct. So if you, through the chair, if this would just basically take multimodal seats out of the equation at all, and every seat would be run as a pick one. So every seat would look the same as kind of what's on the state. Very good, thank you, Ms. Serge. Mr. Kelly.

Thank you, and I believe I did ask this question. I did have the opportunity to participate in the Human Resources Committee, but it's been a while. So I believe I did ask this question of Ms. Wright before, and it seems pretty relevant now.

What would, I guess, would we be able to switch to individual seats away from block choice voting without a charter amendment? Could we do that by ordinance? Through the chair, yes, you can. You can switch all of these— you can switch the school board to 5 separate, you know, um, or to per year, I guess it's just 2 or 3 separate races. And you can switch if there was an early, um, uh, if somebody left early from the assembly.

Normally that's a multi-member. You can make them individual races. Very easy to do None of this requires a charter amendment.

I had a question on the school board conversation invitation piece. Um, was your sense that they wanted like a joint meeting with us to discuss it, or can we just ask them to respond, you know, in writing about any of their preferences on you know, the voting structure that would impact their races and have them give us a letter or something back? Do you have a sense on what they want? Mr. Chair, I think they're just looking for something official from the assembly versus me reaching out and ask— and letting them know that an ordinance is in play.

So I think that you could do that through a specific, uh, communication. Okay, um, thank you for that. Um, further questions on this item?

I'm just trying to—. Miss Hall, just to clarify, this the—. What's—. It was the $14,000 an annual expense or a one-time expense? Thank you, Miss Hall.

Through the chair, um, the $14,000 was the initial outlay. I believe $12,000 of that would then become an annual expense, and then that would increase. I believe they generally have a 3% increase per fiscal year.

Very good. Trying to work through my mind if I need to make a motion about the conversation with the school board, but maybe we can figure something else out. Um, very good. We have some outstanding questions. Again, my intent was just to get this before the assembly, ask questions, um, and then get those questions answered at an upcoming committee of the whole.

So I think we've achieved that. Any other questions on this topic? If not, we will move on to our last item of business.

Stay on my agenda.

Um, agenda topic 7, ordinance 2025-05B, an ordinance regarding policy and procedures for the release of body-worn camera video footage in critical incidents.

Seen this before. I think the history and the memo are in there. Ms. Wright or Madam Manager, any introduction for the body? Again, we are looking to take action on this. It's the second time we've heard it in the council.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the ordinance that you see on page 52 of your packet does have a change, um, that, that this body requested at the last Committee of the Whole. Um, we moved from referring to things as involved in a traumatic incident, uh, to the new title, um, that was presented. Everything else is the same.

However, there are two staff recommendations based on the conversation with the state I spoke with the chief and Deputy Manager Barr, and we have two recommendations to present to you tonight. The SRRC also made some recommendations, and I can speak to those. I know Ms. Atkinson was there, and then I'll remind you, I guess, to start, um, because Ms. Kemp was invited this evening. I don't think she was available But in general, the state's position was they were looking for a total of anywhere from 45 to 60 days. That was their kind of acceptable timeframe.

I mean, as you remember, she wanted— they want more than that, right? They want until the investigation is over. But the range that their office is working through is 45 to 60 days. So if you would like, I can explain the two amendments that we're recommending. That sounds good.

I guess, do people have general questions or any just broader questions on the ordinance and the proposed policy? Okay, we do not. Um, so yes, maybe let's start with the first staff recommended amendment. That's right. So the first staff recommended amendment was Um, it's on the bottom of page 55.

We had stated that footage would not be released if JPD was in receipt of a valid court order prohibiting release. The state indicated that there could be lots of reasons why something might be prohibited by law, and, and so that's a valid point, and that's kind of assumed in most things that we wouldn't do something if it's illegal. But our first recommendation is to make that very, very clear that unless there's a court order, you know, that we won't release if there's a court order or if there's some other prohibition by law. So I think this one is fairly non-controversial. It's what we would do anyway.

The second one probably is a little bit more conversation, and I know the Chief is here as well. So as we were going through, one of the things that the— and this is on page 57— one of the things that came up was, what do we do in instances where the safety of individuals involved, including officers, witnesses, bystanders, or confidential sources, or investigative techniques, does that need to be more than 10 days? Do we, do we need the department to have a little bit more time to redact footage, blur footage. Are we placing too— is that too short for the department? I would note we did not change what's required of the state.

There's nothing here changing theirs. That may come— other people may want to do an amendment for that, but this is only to give the chief and the manager's office time to deal with, um, those specific instances. And we realized that we had kind of limited them there. So the recommendation was to delete that. There's still language that the expectation is 30 days release, but a delay if they can't get redactions done, they would have longer to delay.

I will note that SRRC, and Ms. Atkinson, correct me if I'm wrong, They, um, expressed frustration with that. They felt like it would be a pretty large loophole, um, and could be really, um, used by the city to, to, um, delay much too long. So they didn't like that. Um, and that is a valid piece of feedback, um, from them. The other thing, and I'll just note the other thing from the SRRC, Which I think I was asked whether there was any legal difference between the phrasing officer-involved use of force versus officer use of force, and legally there's no difference.

It was brought up that kind of historically we've used this concept of officer-involved use of force, and as a society as we've encountered more police shootings that we're talking about in the public, you know, sphere, that the term officer-involved allows this kind of step back. It gives a distance in how we use our language. And so they recommended the more common current language, which is simply officer use of force. And that was a recommendation. Legally, there's no difference.

And so it's really just kind of a societal shift. So I think that is it for the recommended amendments and information from SRRC.

Very good. Maybe just to help us move ahead and just stay in order and then maybe even address them as they come. Um, might be worthwhile to move the, move the ordinance should anyone want to, and you might get to do it. We'll see. Um, Mayor Weldon, did you have a motion?

I move Ordinance 2025-05B and offer an amendment. Very good.

So that would be Amendment Number 1 on page 55. And if you have any questions, you have to ask the attorney office because I'm just moving it for the department. Very good. Miss Atkinson, and then Mr. Steininger. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Uh, just a question, uh, for Miss Wright on this one. Um, I, I understand trying to say we're not going to do anything illegal, which, as you is probably not necessarily put in writing, but since we're putting it in writing, there could feasibly be a situation in which the state and the city disagree on whether or not something is illegal. What would you do in those sort of edge case disagreements? Sure.

Thank you, through the chair. So as your counsel and the working with the manager and the chief, We would advise you based on our understanding of the law. Certainly the state could differ with that, but our advisement would be based on our understanding of the law and going forward. Hello. And putting this explicitly in the ordinance doesn't change or alter how CVJ law would approach that, correct?

This changes nothing for us. We always look at whether something's prohibited by law. Whether we have court orders. Perfect, thank you. I'll remove my objection.

Mr. Sheninger. So, so I guess just, you know, I don't have any objection to the amendment itself. It's, it just kind of brought a question to my mind. You know, the example was, you know, if a minor child is involved, and I'm curious if, if it would be the totality of the footage that wouldn't be released, or if that would guide the redaction of the footage, and the public would still see, you know, some form of the footage, just removing anything, you know, in this specific example related to minor child. Through the chair, so it would be just specific to whatever the prohibition is.

So if we can do that by blurring a face, that's fine. If we have to piecemeal out some of the footage or stop footage in the restart it, we could do that, but it would be the least, um, the least effect on the video footage as possible to protect whatever we're not supposed to be showing but still release the video. Very good. Miss Hall objecting for a question. Yeah, I guess my question in this, you know, I'm not opposed to the amendment, but, um, Does the footage have to be released on social media, or where would we cover that?

I find that pretty shocking to have that type of footage on social media and doesn't feel appropriate, you know, like a professional appropriate place to post, post something. So where in all of this would we have that guidance?

Thank you. Through the chair, so We could add an additional piece, um, um, that specifies exactly where things are shared. Um, currently when items are released, it's on JPD's webpage. There are warnings ahead of time, um, before you click on something. Um, and, and it's not widely— I guess I'll, I'll just double check.

I don't believe it's widely disseminated on social media. I believe that there are press releases that come out on JPD's Facebook page saying, here's— this has been released. You would have to go somewhere to look at it. But, but if you're trying to make sure to limit who's clicking on it or to, you know, protect in some way, I think the only thing that we have are disclaimers that images may be violent or may make you uncomfortable or may be very hard to see. That's the limit of what we have right now.

Do you remove your objection? I do. Very good, thank you. Any other objections to Amendment 1?

Madam Mayor, so that amendment passed. Oh, I thought you were objecting to it. Um, seeing no objection, that amendment is adopted. Sorry, I was too quick on my Madam Mayor, entertain another amendment. Very good.

This would be Amendment Number 2. Again, uh, going to the attorney if you have any questions. Uh, Miss Adkisson. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair.

This may be for the city attorney, it may be for Chief Boas. Um, part of the concern that SRC had, and one that I share, is that there not that the 10-day is struck, but that there is no specific time constraint here. So there could potentially be, um, in perpetuity. So I, I have great trust in our city manager and our current police chief, but, uh, it's always good to plan this for the worst possible city manager and the worst possible chief of police. So, um, is there a recommendation for a set timeline that the chief or you, Madam Attorney, would be comfortable with to put instead of leaving it open?

I, I think I'm going to defer to the chief on that one.

Thank you, Chief Boss, for being here. Welcome. You bet. Thank you. [Speaker] So through the chair, to answer that, I think there's two parts to it.

One, you know, it would not be in perpetuity because once the investigation is finished, there's that deadline always on the horizon. So if it takes 60 days for AVI and OSP to finish, then that's the end. So, you know, once that's finished, there's nothing to stop us per se. The other part of it is if that investigation gets elongated for some reason and we have a reason to withhold the video feed, there's probably— it ties into that extension. So it's hard to say, you know, they are doing an investigation that's lasting longer.

We don't know what that timeframe is going to be. So it's a little challenging to say, you know, 90 days is it, because it might take them 100 days. Um, one example I would give is if, um, toxicology is a key part of an investigation, toxicology could take up to 8 weeks, 9 weeks, 10 weeks. Um, so we might have those kinds of delays. So it's tough to put that final timeline on it, but it is not a forever thing because it will always be at the end of the investigation.

Not the best answer, but that's kind of Follow-up, Ms. Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In that case, if, if the concern is the state may say there's this— if a court order, we can't do it, we have to delay the release for this reason, or perhaps they— everyone agrees that it would be against the law, couldn't we then tie it to that court order?

Or something like that instead of leaving it open? So, 'cause as I read it currently, if the chief of police and city manager were to agree that there is a need to protect an individual or something, they can just delay it past what the state is allowed to delay. So I guess I'm a little confused on that. [Speaker] I think that's fair to be confused. Our intention is to release the body camera footage as quickly as we can.

So we're not looking to push this out in perpetuity. Our end goal would always be, you know, if we can get this done in 15 days, let's get it done in 15 days. If we can get it done in 3 extra days, we'll do it in 3 extra days. So that's our focus. We're not looking at it the opposite.

I think the other part of it is if there's a court order, that kind of trumps all of this. So if the judge says, You know, it's going to be 90 days. It's 90 days.

Brief at ease.

Bring us back. Some slight discussion on at ease. So, um, did you have more follow-up, Mayor Waldman? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to withdraw my First Amendment Number 2 and move to my Second Amendment Number 2, and that would be, um, on page 57, where it's, um, Item C, where it's struck out, in no case shall the delay exceed 10 days, I would change that to, in no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation, per Chief Bowe's thoughts, and also just to stay with the spirit of the SRRs. Essentially, that is, would make it so, yeah, so there is some kind of finality and not just an open-ended time period. Mr. Kelly. Uh, thank you. I did, um, I also had an idea for amendment that might address the SRC's concerns.

I think this might pair with, with this one. Okay, I guess I'll maybe propose it and see what the assembly's feelings are.

Right, um, and I was going to move an amendment to the amendment. Very good. Proceed. Um, thank you. Um, I would, um, I would also amend to, to add the language that any delay exceeding 10 days shall be subject to Assembly review in executive session.

Okay, I'm not quite sure how that melds with this, but Mayor Wilden, response? I'll object. I don't think that's necessary added language.

Miss Wall, I, I think that's— I don't think that's an amendment. Oh, because the—. Because it adds on. Oh, because she made a new amendment. She didn't amend her original amendment.

Okay, I, I withdraw. Thanks, I'm trying to keep up. Ms. Adkisson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll object as well. It does feel a little separation of powers-y issue there. That makes me a little uncomfortable. So I will object to that.

Any other comments on the amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Kelly, I think I did like initially have this idea before. I did want to float it out. I think I'd be okay with the revised Amendment 2, and I can kind of count votes here, so I'll go ahead and withdraw my amendment to the amendment. Very good. We have Amendment 2, or maybe it's 3 because you withdrew the second one, but We have that amendment.

Um, would you restate it for me one more time, Madam Mayor? Certainly. So, um, in Item C on page 57, it would now read— ignore the strikeout— but it would now read, in no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation, period.

Very good. Mr. Saniger, question or objection? Yeah, object for question, I get, and maybe just an objection in general. Maybe there's a question for you, Chief Boz, or if I understand current policy, the footage gets released at the end of the investigation under current policy, is that correct? Yes.

Okay, follow-up. So, with this amendment, effectively without any, you know, justific— other than, you know, an agreement between the chief of police and the city manager, you know, this wouldn't really change current policy other than, you know, at each instance you would have to, you know, decide that you felt there's a compelling reason, but that compelling reason wouldn't become public until after the footage was released. So during that kind of intervening time period between 30 days and the end of the investigation, we'll still have sort of a vacuum of information that the public will be ruminating on. I, I think there's other elements of the ordinance that require us to explain why we would do the delay, um, so I don't think there would be that necessarily vacuum, uh, it would be more about we are delaying release for these reasons.

Mr. Steninger. Um, if I understand subsection D, the re— maybe I'm not understanding it right. The reason for the delay isn't released until the release of the video. Is that correct? Um, through the chair, so that's correct.

Um, and this was contemplated, um, because we only had a 10-day there. So, um, if you would like to, um, if you want to delete that upon the release of video, uh, clause, then it would require the chief and the manager to provide an explanation to the public as to why it was delayed at the 30-day mark.

Mr. Senninger, can I offer an amendment to the amendment? Sure. To require that the reason for delay— oh yeah, upon release of— strike out upon release of the video in subsection D.

Mr. Senninger, where did you— what was your change and where did you want to implement it? Uh, so it's in Amendment 2 under subsection delay. It currently reads, if delayed by the manager of chief or chief of police upon release of the video, an explanation for delay shall be released to the public. So I propose to strike upon release of the video, which at least in my mind would mean that that reason would have to be released, you know, at the point of choosing to make a delay.

Madam Mayor, objection to the amendment to the amendment. Um, I see where Mr. Steininger is coming from, and he's pointed out that my amendment may be a little bit vague and probably might perhaps allow a loophole. So I'm going to withdraw my amendment again and offer a different amendment, and hopefully that will— so I'll call this Amendment 3. 4. Madam Clerk, can, can we take a brief at ease so we make sure that we're not losing amendments that need to be maintained, or we are losing amendments that are intended to be removed?

To clarify where we were when we took the at ease and what we would recommend is we were at where Mr. Steiner's amendment to Mayor, um, Weldon's Amendment Number 2 was on the floor. The cleanest way to handle that is if both of them want to remove their amendments, whichever one of them wants to move forward with one of the amendments should do so. A vote should be taken and then whatever happens after that, the next amendment can be made and the vote would be taken on that next amendment, just to be crystal clear on what we're voting on and what action we're taking, if that helps. Yes, thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Steineger, did you want to withdraw your amendment to the amendment?

I'll withdraw my amendment to the amendment. Very good. Madam Mayor, do you want to withdraw your amendment to—. I would withdraw that amendment and offer another. Very good.

We'll call it Amendment 3. I would ask the clerk what she wants to call it, what number she wants to call it. Can we call this Amendment Number 3, please? Sure. So Amendment Number 3, and I apologize to everybody, I realize after hearing Mr. Steininger that it might be some ambiguity to Item C. So Item C would now read, if delayed by the manager or chief of police, in no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation.

And I'm trying to close any loophole that the state could use to say we don't have to abide by our timeline because you've granted us till the end of the investigation. So hopefully that's made it clear and, uh, trying to get rid of some of the loopholes. Very good. We've heard the motion. Are there objections to the motion?

Mr. Kelly? So would you be striking all the other language that is in Part C then?

I—. Okay. Again, it would read C from the very beginning. C would say, "If delayed by the manager or chief of police, in no case shall the delay exceed the end of the investigation." So exceed 10 days would be replaced by exceed the the end of the investigation. That's helpful.

And then the rest of the sentence would remain. And the rest of the sentence would remain. That was my question. Thank you. Very good.

Sounds like you removed your objection. Miss Adkisson, objection. Uh, objection for a question, uh, for the City Attorney, because I realize I know what targets state has, but I don't actually know— is there anything that says the state has to complete their investigation by a certain time? I know they aim for 60 days, but is Is that anything solid? Uh, through the chair, no, they do not have any statutory requirements for when those investigations are done.

Miss Wall, um, I'm going to object. Um, I appreciate, um, what we're trying to do here, but I liked the original version that, um, had a 10-day, um, limit on it. I feel like it's more close to what the goals are that we, um, stated originally, and I'm not sure why we would be putting— with, again, with all due respect to the current trusted people in these roles— I would be, be putting more— why the public would trust, um, our city government more than, than the state government and I would hold them to the same standards. Thanks. Any other comments on the amendment?

Or Mr. Saniger? I guess just a general question for Chief Baz, um, because if I, if I understand the, you know, the need for 30 days and the potential need for additional time, it's really around ensuring that the video released doesn't harm your ability to investigate, doesn't harm a confidential informant, you know, so on and so forth. How time-consuming is the redaction process? Like, is that a process that actually needs 40 whole days?

So that varies greatly depending on how long the video is, uh, and what we have to redact. Um, so I'll give you two examples. The incident in July, uh, required a significant amount of work to do redaction. Uh, that took about 3 weeks total, uh, for us to complete redaction on because there were so many witnesses that had to be redacted in the crowd. Um, the incident in, uh, December, it was about 8 hours worth of work to put everything together.

Um, so two extremes. It's really hard to, to say it's always going to be this amount of time.

Miss Adkisson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Senninger's question, um, brought to mind another one for the chief. Um, I, I know, I think the city attorney mentioned that, uh, you've worked in a state that had a much stricter timelines for release of footage.

Um, were there are in that state cases where this chief of police was able to delay like this? And did you ever have an issue where that strict timeline did endanger safety of an officer, for instance? That's a very loaded political question. The short answer is I never had to delay release. We also were not allowed to redact, so we had to release the raw video.

And that was that. So very different dynamic there.

Very good. Mr. Kelly.

Thank you.

I think the answer to the question that an investigation theoretically, like, there is no required and to win an investigation has to be. That makes me very hesitant. I think I was willing before to maybe entertain something along these lines because it has to deal with the safety of bystanders, witnesses, confidential sources, and I was a— I was willing to take a little bit of leeway if that we would be able to provide some sort of check on this, but I'm not seeing a good check that is available, uh, to the assembly or to the people, um, who, who care about this. So I will be objecting, uh, for that reason. I'll object for the purpose of a question.

The man— the mayor pointed out to me the second part of the, of the subsection or paragraph or whatever, that the video imagery in question shall be released as soon as the reason for delay has been resolved. So I guess, may I ask you, the shall there compels the release of that information whenever the actual reason, which has to be given, is resolved? That's how I understand it. So That's correct.

So, I'm wondering if we need the first part. Um, Mr. Kelly. Thank you. And to kind of tagline off of that question, um, is there any, ever any guarantee that something would be resolved?

I'll strive for resolution, but I'll let somebody go after that. I think an easy example would be redactions. So if it takes us, you know, 35 days to complete redaction, once it's finished, it's resolved and we would release the video. You know, we're discussing kind of the 1 to 2% of cases that might come up. We just don't know what those are going to be.

But I think 97, 98% of the time, this will work flawlessly. Um, those other times, it might be a discussion with you again, uh, as an assembly, saying here's what we're up against, give us guidance.

Very good. Um, we have a motion. Madam Mayor. So, and that's the purpose of the amendment, is, you know, we're— I'm trying to stay with the spirit of what the ordinance is saying, plus the spirit of what SRRC is saying. So they have to release it as soon as their delay has been resolved.

But I don't think 10 days is long enough. Certainly you heard the chief give examples when it's not, but it is an endpoint with the end of the investigation. And that's what I'm trying to carry for both, care for both of those ideas. Thank you, Madam Mayor. With the second part of the question, or the second part of that subsection, In my mind, I, I'll support the amendment.

Madam Clerk, we have a motion with objection. Would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is Amendment Number 3 for Section C to read, if delayed by the manager or chief of police, in no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation.

And then that section continues with the remaining sentence: The video imagery in question shall be released as soon as the reason for delay has been resolved. Madam Mayor? Yes.

Mr. Bryson? Yes. Ms. Atkinson?

Yes. Miss Wall? No.

Mr. Kelly? No. Miss Hall? Yes. Mr. Steininger?

No. Deputy Mayor Smith? Yes. Motion carries, 5 yeas, 3 nays.

We're back to the main motion, Mr. Chair. We're back to the main motion. As amended. Thank you, as amended.

Mr. Saniger. I'd like to move, I believe, Amendment 4. 4. So Amendment 4 would amend the next section, subsection D, under 2D, which I should have pulled up to find exactly where that is in the bill, but currently reads 57. Thank you.

57. Um, if delayed by the manager or chief of police, upon release of the video, an explanation for delay shall be released to the public. I'd like to amend that to read, if delayed by the manager or chief of police, an explanation for delay shall be released to the public no later than 30 days after the incident.

And if I could speak to my amendment. Very good. Yes, Mr. Saniger. So my, my thinking here is just to ensure that if we have to delay, especially if that delay could be of an indeterminate length to the end of the investigation, that we're not leaving a time period with kind of a vacuum of information to the public. Because I think the intent here is really to make sure that the public has timely information about, you know, concerns in the community.

And providing an explanation of why we're going past that, you know, 30-day deadline that we're setting for ourselves is important in communicating to the public what's going on and what's happening in what are frankly fairly distressing times in the community at large. Great, thank you. Mr. Sinek, would you restate your amendment for me one more time, please? Yes, so would Change the language to read, if delayed by the manager or chief of police, an exception— explanation for the delay shall be released to the public no later than 30 days after the incident.

Would you like it one more time?

I guess if I can just ask a clarifying question. So you are specifying a certain timeframe? Um, after, after the release of the footage, or—. So the, the idea is that, you know, so under the current, you know, under the ordinance, if there's an incident, 30 days after that incident will release the footage. However, there's now the ability for the manager or chief police to delay release, but This amendment would require that on that 30-day deadline there be some communication from the city as to what's going on, effectively, and in the form of an explanation of the delay.

Thank you. I'll remove my objection.

We've heard the motion. Is there objection to the motion or the amendment?

Seeing no objection, that amendment is adopted. Madam Mayor, I think we're on Amendment 5. Um, Amendment 5 would, uh, basically anywhere it says officer involved would switch to the word just officer. Very good. And I, when I looked through, I think I only found that in one— was that only in one place?

Madam Attorney.

Oh, excuse me, there's two. Yeah, page 2 of the ordinance, lines 5 and 7. Okay, very good. Any objections to the amendment? Seeing none, that amendment is adopted.

Madam Mayor, are we on 6, Madam Clerk? Amendment 6, which might not go down quite so easily. I would, um, we heard the prosecu— prosecuting attorney, and I know, um, people got excited about this, so I'm not going for the full window. I'm just asking for on page 2, line 24, the prosecuting authority may result may request and rate up to a 15-day delay. And then on the next page, under, um, line 7, subsection I, only one 15-day may be requested.

They asked for a little bit longer, but I am taking a shorter window. Very good. You've heard the amendment. Objection to the amendment, Miss Atkinson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

I appreciate the collaborative thought process that the mayor is engaging in. I do, um, I want to emphasize that the state prosecuting office is not representing Juneau and that I found some of the things said by Ms. Kemp to be a little dubious, and so I do not believe an extension is necessary and that they have the ability to extend if there is a legitimate reason to do so through a court order or if there's a prohibition by law. And so I see, frankly, no reason to give them any other leeway.

Thank you, Ms. Atkinson. Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I, um, I won't call into question, um, the motives of our state prosecuting attorneys and state law. However, I think I feel in a much similar way that this responsibility belongs to the state and that it would be— I believe it would be within their capacity to complete it within the timeframe that we've provided, assuming assuming that they were adequately staffed.

Um, and so I think that is not, um, that is not an issue that we should accommodate for them. That is an issue that they should take on themselves. And so I will also object, but I also do respect and appreciate the Madam Mayor's attempt. Thank you.

Very good. We have an amendment and objection. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, for Amendment Number 6, to change 10-day to 15-day on pages 2, line 24, and page 3, line 20: Mayor Weldon? Yes. Mr. Bryson?

Yes. Ms. Atkinson? Um, Madam Clerk, I apologize, uh, you have the wrong line. Sorry to stop the vote. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you.

It would be—. It was page 3, line 8, or— yeah, thank you for that correction. Page 3, line 7, 8, somewhere in the middle there. So, Mayor Weldon, let's start the count again, if we might. Yes.

Mr. Bryson? Yes. Miss Adkisson? No. Miss Wall?

No. Mr. Kelly?

No. Miss Hall? No. Mr. Steininger? No.

And Deputy Mayor Smith? Yes. Motion fails, 3 yeas, 5 nays.

Very good. We have the motion as amended before us. Is there any objection for any reason to the motion as amended?

Seeing none, that motion is adopted.

Very good. And that takes us to the— well, to the next item on our agenda, staff reports. Madam Manager. Thank you, Mr. Chief.

No staff reports. Very good. Our next meeting date is June 2nd, 2025. Madam Manager.

Madam Mayor, um, did you want to make a statement about something? Well, I was going to let you, but, uh, just wanted to say thank you to, uh, our Madam Clerk who provided cookies and goodies for Public Service Recognition Week. And we'd like to just recognize all our public service employees. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing that up, Madam Mayor. And yes, we appreciate you all. Okay, seeing no other business for the Committee of the Whole, we are adjourned at 9:01.