Juneau: July 13, 2026 Assembly Committee of the Whole Worksession

Not tonight. The project needs to get an amendment to their CUP, so they have requested that pre-application meeting and are going through that process with the Planning Commission. Because the CUP was adopted as part of the lease, we cannot amend the lease until that CUP process is through. So when and if the Assembly approves that amendment to the CUP, you will then see the project, back before you as an amendment to their, their lease. It is important to note that the conditions that the Assembly placed in the lease, these changes don't materially impact, but that would be kind of the Assembly's moment to weigh in on the project.

So, with—. If there are no questions for staff, I'd be happy to hand it over to Ms. Bell. Thank you, Madam Manager. Ms. Bell, thank you. And yes, please go ahead.

Sorry, excuse me, unless there were any like questions we had for the manager on process or any pieces like that. Okay, seeing them, please, Ms. Bell. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide an update, and I'm looking to see if we can move to the next slide. Are you, are you my lieutenant on that? Thank you.

Um, of course we're talking about Oak Landing, the development that Hoonah Totem is working hard to advance, and it is commonly known in this community as the subport property. I put some additional information in this short deck. It's about a dozen slides for context, but I'm going to focus on things that have happened in the last year since we've formally addressed the Assembly.

And here again, this is major milestones, a little bit of background. Some of this I feel like I have like etched into my brain for perpetuity. I'm going to focus starting in April 2025, where Um, the assembly adopted the ordinance authorizing the city manager to negotiate a lease with Hoonah Totem. Um, and also, for those of us who stayed up till about 11 o'clock that night, there was one other really important document, and that was the resolution supporting the application for the state-owned tidelands. And both went forward, and, um, actually, by I think 8 o'clock the following morning, Port Director Carl Ucattel had that resolution and, you know, reinitiated the process on that state process.

And so I just want to talk a little bit about what's in this bullet because there were some interrelated steps and a lot of work that was done. And it's not— it wasn't the kind of like press-worthy work, and some of it had to be refined as we went along. But I just want to give credit where it's due. As I said, docks and harbors, you know, They had already engaged Department of Natural Resources, but said, we've got a resolution, we're going on the state-owned lands. Also, Docks and Harbors has term contracts for some of the work that needed to happen for the lease, like the appraisal, legal description.

I have to give, again, appreciation to Department of Natural Resources. That was an unknown of their timeline, and there were procedural steps that they have to do to follow state statute. But as they saw the property, did their public outreach, did their work, they had the preliminary findings and recommendations before Thanksgiving. I have these pegged with the holidays. Before Thanksgiving in 2025 and before Christmas and year-end, they had their final recommendations.

So again, what that allowed is that when the lease was executed, it was for the full dock property. And we're, you know, I know the assembly worked to create a provision where the city could enter into a lease and amend it. Amend it later, but it just, it was just clean. The Coast Guard coordination, I'll talk in a moment about the letter that, you know, the written authorization or not authorization, written assurance from the Coast Guard that the projects were going to be compatible. But as more information came to light about their intentions to not just upgrade the wharf but create a pier, that created a lot of communication between us and our contractors and the Coast Guard.

To make sure there was sufficient distance between the vessels and the piers. And the Coast Guard sponsored a second round of vessel simulations in September that was in Seattle at MITAG, a training facility that's very close to their property. As we were going through these different steps and we made minor refinements to the dock position, that meant that, you know, minor adjustments had to be in the appraisal and the legal description. So again, everybody was working together, working well. Department of Law, of course, has the standard lease template, had to incorporate all of the provisions from the assembly and the conditions.

And then also just working with commercial terms, working with us, just making sure that things worked. We, you know, we're right there working with our contractors, working with all of the, all the city departments, and also, of course, with our partners, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings and other cruise lines that are interested in docking at the facility. And I have to finally, you know, there's probably much more credit I could sprinkle, but City Manager the tourism director. There was a lot of like, where are we? What needs to happen next?

And I just really appreciate that everybody moved through that process, that, you know, there's— there was a lot of work between that April adoption of the ordinance and the April signing of the lease. It's probably the slide I'm going to spend the most detail on, just to recognize there was work. So if we go to the current site plan, I think this slide and the following slide, which we don't— please don't go there yet, I think helps assure the Assembly and the public and our clients that we've worked really hard. And Jensen Yerba Wall in particular, our architects really work to help preserve the uses that were approved by the, by the Planning Commission. The facilities, although in a scaled-down way, we still have a welcome center.

Waterfront retail and dining, a cultural center, the seawalk. But obviously you can see in this we've scaled the building size down to approximately 18,000 square feet. The parking, and instead of being in a— the parking underground is at grade. We've made sure that we've exceeded the minimum number of parking requirements because we want to be sure that there's parking for residents and other visitors in addition to the bus staging. And One of the things that will be, I think, more apparent in a subsequent slide is the property line for this extends out into the water.

So much more of the development, not just the seawalk, but more of the dining deck and, and other things, are going to be out over the water. And all of that meant pilings and dollar signs, and we've pulled back to the lot as it largely exists now. We can come back to that, but I want to be sure that you have a chance to see The next slide with the site renderings, and we have more of this which will be introduced in the planning commission process, but I think it's again helpful to see that working with our, our contractors and our project team, we've really worked to retain the design elements, a year-round attractive waterfront development, and the, the elegance that we were trying to have on this site. So again, you know, some of those design elements being reflection of Tlingit culture. I'm just pausing to see if there's any questions there.

On this slide, this is—. Oh, Mr. Kelly appears to have a question.

Thank you. One of the reasons that I voted to approve the lease application and Yeah, but basically, yeah, one of the reasons that why I was voting to support this was because of the improvement to the traffic. And when I heard that, that you guys were scaling back and not doing the 2 floors, one of the things I was worried about was not having an area for traffic to turn around. It sounds like you, you do have that still addressed in this current rendering. Through the chair, if we can go back to the prior slide.

Traffic still enters and exits at the Egan, at the Egan and Whittier intersection, and so the site, the site is accessed right before that traffic curb so that buses will come off and on Egan and also not often on Egan, often on Whittier, and so that signalized intersection will— it makes a difference in how all of the tour vehicles, something like 98 or 99% of them, you know, are going back out Egan and, you know, out to the glacier or to Auke Bay or to other locations. And so again, the traffic flow is very similar. And I know in prior meetings we talked about the traffic study that was conducted. The recommendations that came out of Dowell Engineering were minor in terms of signal timing, traffic striping. And so we feel— we still feel like that is retained in this plan.

Thank you.

And I saw a question from Ms. Wall and then Mayor Weldon. Ms. Wall. Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, you know, you talked about how you wanted to retain the elements that were part of the plan, but scale it back. Is there elements that are more scaled back than others?

Like, how would you describe the balance of kind of when you bring the parking, what had to shift and where that had the most impact. And through the chair, thank you, Assemblymember Wald. This— the building size is, you know, we've sort of, using Corey's phrase, kind of preserved the, you know, preserve the icing on the cake, preserve that top portion, not the underground parking. There was much more leased space, so we've had interest from retailers and food and beverage operators about our plans. We've not gone through that process, but the building size is approximately 18,000 square feet, where previously it was approved to be up to 50,000 square feet.

So, you know, a third.

Mayor Wollin. Thank you. You mentioned year-round. What parts of this do you think are going to be year-round? Thank you.

Through the— through Deputy Mayor Smith, um, as we've talked with our dining and retail vendors, we've told them about the expectation and desire, and I think it's going to be probably easier for food and beverage. We You know, some of the concepts people have talked with us about are, you know, to give us options as we have, as we go into our fall and winter months or legislative season and other events. So, and then also the cultural center as we work with our partners, the Alaska Heritage and their educational programming in the schools, we think that, you know, there will be year-round use and we are also required by the provisions to make sure that the landscaping and other things are cleared for public access.

Thank you. It looks like no further questions on this slide or the slide following. Just give a moment there and we can go to the next. Again, the, um, these conditions are summarized from the conditional use permit coming from the Planning Commission. As City Manager emphasized, you were compliant with all of the conditions.

I just wanted to briefly highlight what's going on. This, this little Spirograph diagram is out of the navigability study that was required. And, you know, we've, we've completed that. We've completed the tideland lease. But those, those blue and red little squiggly lines are tenders coming from ships at anchor.

We have 95 of them this year. And so as this, you know, FIS dock comes into the waterfront, I'm looking forward to what it will do You know, because otherwise we're compounding the harbor vehicle and pedestrian congestion in the, you know, in, in the most difficult spot right now. So just wanted to explain why we selected that little image. If we move to the next slide, this is the first of two slides summarizing the lease provisions that came from the Assembly's work. And I just want to— I've, I've talked a little bit about the Coast Guard, but we scanned in the letter that we were able to get from the Coast Guard, particularly Rear Admiral Rear Admiral Campbell in April before the ordinance was adopted and just underscored that our coordination with them didn't stop with that.

As I've described in the planning process, in the construction, and in ongoing operations, and also we hope to have— we hope to have Coast Guard vessels, as they've indicated, at the dock at various times throughout the year. That will continue. So there's a Another slide that is also the lease provisions, and I just thought it would be fun to see, to share one of the images from the navigability study. As I said, the first one was commissioned by Hoonah Totem. Marine Exchange did the coordination with sea pilots and cruise ship captains, and it was at UAS Ketchikan in March.

And the Coast Guard contracted also with Marine Exchange for the simulation at MITAGS last September in Seattle.

I wanted to be sure you had an opportunity, and it was in the packet, to just be reminded of that overhead view. And I think here you can see some of the things that I emphasized. Much more, you know, much more building mass. Passengers, as they exited the cruise ships, would have come up a curved walkway to a plaza level. And you can see below that there's the seawalk level.

So again, just much more, much more, much more movement, more complexity, a bigger scaled, you know, a bigger size facility. But again, as I've, as I've mentioned, you know, we were proud of this bold vision, but we really worked to retain a lot of the functional uses and the attractive site.

So I want to be sure we talked about, you know, what what the drivers were, and it's really— it's cost. And costs would have increased with time.

I put just a couple of screenshots from, you know, news stories on this just to remind all of us that public and private projects have been subject to these same forces.

2023 To 2026.

Costs would have escalated with time. We had delays. It took time to resolve the legal appeal. It took time to restore the public and assembly process, and I— that's where I entered the picture as a Hoonah Totem employee in fall 2024. Also, you know, we're in a unique— there's some unique challenges to our construction environment right now.

I highlighted the cost of steel. Which, you know, is actually a very fluid situation right now. But the cost of steel was about $620 a ton in August 2023, and it was north of $1,100 recently. And so as we're back to our contractors at this stage and asking them to update pricing, again, it's a fluid situation. And but we are still wanting this project to happen and we don't want to lose more time.

The fourth bullet, I just wanted to give a little explanation. And I think a lot of, a lot of people, contractors that work with Sealaska or the State Museum and Library that have built on tidally influenced tailings could have, they did tell us, you know, about, you know, the challenge of that. But one of the things that we did is we were advancing, advancing different pieces of the project. In this planning process was P&D, who's part of the Uplands team as well, did some geotech work, and they just, given what we were proposing to build, informed us that we were going to be having 100-foot pilings on land in order to, in order to make sure that everything, you know, maintains its integrity in that environment. And so again, I mean, we knew that was an expensive element and just realized that compound, you know, with everything else, we couldn't retain the parking garage and still have the uplands development and meet the goals that we have for the project.

We did ask our contractors initially if they could, you know, where they could pare down things and help look for cost savings with the original plan. It didn't go far enough. Those were—. And again, that's where we, you know, we just said, give us options and we work through that. And you see the plan that you have now.

The last bullet is that we have formally engaged Community Development. The—. We submitted our request for the pre-application conference in June. We have that meeting coming up this week. And again, I, you know, that will be, you know, public hearing.

It will be, it'll be very public. And, and as has been said, we'll be back to you at a future date. I just wanted to close my formal remarks with the fact that we're really— we can go to the next slide. We're just pleased with Something that we think will be a wonderful attraction to our waterfront and our community, will serve visitors well, will do a lot to reduce the vehicular and pedestrian congestion that I know has been a top issue through— you know, it's been the top 1, 2, or 3 issues in the annual household surveys. It was something that came up a lot when the Visitor Industry Task Force just asked for public comments.

So again, you know, having a safe harbor And reducing that pain point in our community for our visitors and residents is something this project does. But there's more, and I think the residential benefits do include the opportunity to extend the seawalk, add the, you know, event space. There is additional parking that we're bringing to downtown. There is— it's smaller, but there still is a small park. And of course, we honor the 5-ship limit.

The reductions in, in ship emissions that come from, one, bringing ships from anchor to a dock, and two, the shore power that will be there eventually, and also the economic and educational opportunities. So again, I'm happy to answer any questions, but wanted to keep this brief for tonight.

Thank you, Ms. Bell. Were there other questions from the assembly? Again, knowing there's Plenty of process left.

I just had one.

Sometimes I'm not sure if it's an inappropriate question, but I usually just ask it anyway, so I'm going to just do that. Do you—. What is the new expected project cost for this design? Thank you. We asked our team to shoot for $150 million, as you know, and that would include contingencies of things that we don't know now.

So again, it was bringing it back to the number that we had Royal we, the Hoonah Tohono O'odham had in mind going into the project. We did our economic analysis on it and also need to be sure that the fees for this are, you know, it needs to be economic not only for us but for our clients and tenants who might be leasing the facility. So the whole puzzle has to work. So $150 million.

Very good. Thank you, Mayor Weldon. Oh, thank you. Um, now that the Coast Guard is— their preferred dock is also one that goes out, um, are you still going to stay on this side of your dock? Are you contemplating going down the other side?

I remember there was something to do with winds or something too, but I can't remember what it was. Thank you. Um, and through the chair, what we've— what we've chosen to do in particular with the Coast Guard's clear statement, they want to use the dock is preserve, you know, we changed the alignment so that it had, you know, kind of harmonized, you know, made sense with the Coast Guard's work. And also just to highlight in that second vessel simulation, the Coast Guard was looking at ensuring that cruise ship traffic into the city-owned docks worked efficiently and effectively as well. So it wasn't just at the Hoonah Totem or Coast Guard, but But yeah, so we, in the navigability study, we wanted to be sure that, that in any wind or wave conditions that there was safe, you could dock safely on either side and give, you know, and defer to the captains and the pilots in that.

So it will, the fendering, and it will be on both sides.

Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there any type of, you know, future tentative plan that's like loosely been gathered already for that shore power installation, or is that in combination with, you know, waiting for other, you know, companies or organizations to start something before you guys pursue it?

Assemblymember Brooks, through the chair, I, um, we did some work and we're fortunate to have Ben Haight from now at RESPECT, who is very, you know, very, um, aware of cruise ship and Coast Guard needs. He's worked around the state in that area. So AALNP, Jensen Yerba Wall, and RESPECT did some additional planning on some scenarios, and some of this is, you know, thinking what are the cost elements? And then also, where would the power come from? And considered if the city's docks, if, you know, like the sequence, if the city's docks are powered next, then, you know, instead of coming from the bridge, it could come from, you know, come from this side of town.

So it was some scenarios that helps us with our planning, but that's where things stand at this point.

Well, thank you very much for this update and coming before us. I don't see any other questions, but yes, thank you very much.

That moves us to our next agenda item, Public Safety and Emergency Response MOA with the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. Madam Manager. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. You have in your packet an amendment to the memorandum of agreement that CBJ and Tlingit and Haida entered into in 2024 for public safety services. At that time, really, this MOA really acknowledged the shared work that we were doing on providing emergency mitigation response for all kinds of natural disasters, but chiefly the Glacial Lake outburst flood.

This amendment builds off of that to talk about police and fire protection. The tribe has an interest in making sure that the Two Coppers Casino that opened just this month in July has that police and fire protection, and they want to compensate the city for those, those services. And so the MOA is broad in nature. It just talks about the need to provide the police and fire protection. It talks about the fact that there will be a public safety compensation amount separately negotiated for that.

It gives the tribe a way out, a 30-day notice way out, and it also gives the city a 30-day window to get out of the agreement if we should wish. Practically speaking, you know, we provide We provide these services, and this is also an acknowledgment that there's a cost associated with those services, which we appreciate from Tlingit and Haida, and it gives us kind of permission, in fact an invitation to enter their property to provide those services. The Two Coppers Casino is built on Native allotment land that the tribe recognizes as sovereign, so we have had no involvement in doing any zoning or permitting or enforcement on that property. That being said, they have told me that it was built to building code standards, and our Fire Marshal has done a walkthrough of the building, not to enforce anything, but just to be a friendly kind of, hey, these are, these are things that I would be looking for, and to just have that friendly conversation. And they very much appreciated, you know, the, the outreach and that effort.

It is a sprinkler facility. If properly maintained and tested, a sprinkler building really reduces those, those life safety issues. Because Two Quarters Casino is outside of the fire service area, it's about just shy of 2 miles outside the fire service area. We would need to develop some operational protocol just to make sure that we're not exhausting our our resources. For example, we prioritize fire and protecting structures within the fire service area, and if there's a fire outside the fire service area, it's really about life safety and not protecting structures.

And that's just a, a something that we have to do. Eagle Crest is a great example of some operational procedures that we have in place to prevent kind of a long response that would pull staff away from the core fire service area. They they have a code word that— so if the fire alarm goes off just because someone burnt popcorn in the microwave, there is a way to safely call off an immediate response. Doesn't always work. I know that we always— we have people going up there sometimes for false alarms, but there's a lot of those systems that I've already worked on scheduling a meeting with Kliniken Haida and CCFR to develop, like, where's the fire lane, where's the emergency access, just to make sure that we can provide those services as efficiently as possible, acknowledging that, you know, they're pulling outside the service area.

We do provide EMS services outside our fire service area. We also tax separately. We have a fire service area that has a third of a mill rate tax. Most of the cost is borne by the general tax, but those are just some distinguishing characteristics.

Has proposed to pay the commiserate value of property. Property taxes would be the mill rate equivalent for the value of their structure. And so that again will be negotiated separately and in an operational agreement that will spell out a lot of those other details. But obviously that's a detail that you would like to know. And of course, as I mentioned, the agreement cares for if, um, you know, we find that it exceeds our resources or they find a different way to provide those services, either one of us can pull out.

That being said, you know, our We're, we're all neighbors, we're all citizens, and so it just makes sense for, uh, CCFR and JPD to provide, uh, provide those services. And this is their way of acknowledging that. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Manager Kester. Um, we have the memo, we do see the recommendation at the bottom, we have the draft. MOA, or the draft amendment, excuse me. Questions from the assembly?

Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just because the termination clause was mentioned a couple times, is saying that either party could, you know, essentially back out of it with 30 days, but in here it's saying that at any time upon mutual written agreement by the parties. So is the intent to allow either, either/or to initiate that termination, or is the intention for it to be agreed upon before the 30 days given? So, um, I think that the intention for both parties would be to make sure we maintain those life safety services. The clause for Tlingit and Haida talks about if they decide to provide their own services, they need to give us 30 days notice. The clause that I consider more of the CBJ out clause says we can come back to them and say, hey, we're going to need more compensation because we're pulling you know, 2 ambulances a day, and it just isn't working for our staff.

And if we can't mutually agree upon that new compensation amount, then we would give 30 days notice to stop providing those services. It's hard for me to say stop providing those services because if you know a firefighter, or they're not gonna not respond if they're needed for a life safety event, but it just acknowledges that is a possibility, and we want to make sure that we're transparent with our ability to respond and they understand our level of resources that we can bring.

Seeing other questions, I have one. In the amendment, it doesn't spell out like what property we're talking about. Is that because that would be done in the whatever operation agreement, or is it just because this is maybe the only property we foresee? Anyway, just curious about that. Yeah, I think the intention here is that this would apply to all property that is recognized as, you know, tribal land.

Right now that only is Two Coffers Casino, and then you're correct, we would have to negotiate that separately but not necessarily amend the MOA to provide those additional services.

Thank you. And I had one other. My memory would say that this is probably the first type of MOA we've done in— I mean, this first type of MOA we've done in this style. I guess we've used MOAs from other municipalities in Alaska or whatever that kind of form the foundation of this, I guess.

Yeah, thank you for that question. Um, it is not common for Juneau to have these shared services agreements because we don't have a lot of neighbors to share services with. But in other communities in the U.S., and specifically in Alaska, uh, for example, in the city of Homer, the city of Homer provided fire protection for Ketchumak City. That was a neighboring city and had a similar agreement that would, for a certain mill rate, provide those services. And so it is something that when you have a lot of neighboring communities, you see this sharing of services, and we are certainly trying to learn from our other governments as much as possible.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions, a motion. Madam Mayor, uh, thank you. Um, I move Amendment Number 1 to Public Safety and Emergency Response MOA with the Central Council of the Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska to the assembly.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Seeing no objection to the motion, that motion is approved. Thank you. Moves us to our third item of business, the Burns Building project cost update. Um, we have a memo informational only, but Madam Manager, please go ahead.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. I have to admit, I was hoping to have more information for you at this meeting. We are waiting for bids to come in on the Burns Building renovations. You see in your memo the budget that was included in the bid. Um, that budget includes a list of alternates at $1.3 million.

Those alternates are flooring upgrades, ceiling replacements, paint, restroom doors, and mechanical system control upgrades. Um, I was hoping to have information for you to be like, hey, we came in, the bids came in, and we need a couple hundred thousand dollars more, or hey, the bids came in and it turns out we're not going to be able to do floors or ceilings, and just kind of have that conversation with you. But because I don't have that information, all I can do is provide you an update and an The important update is that we are not going to be able to move out of the Marine View building, or this building, by the end of the calendar year as we had originally hoped. So we have entered into an additional 6-month lease with Marine View. We anticipate the project to be complete by May.

However, the way that leasing works when you're over a barrel is you don't necessarily get a better rate for 3 months versus 6 months, and the risk of it taking, let's say, 4 months was such that it was just made more economic sense to sign a 6-month lease. So, because that is now eating up some of our contingency in the project cost, the general fund portion of that will eat up contingency. I wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. I also, um, you know, if there is some small gap or, uh, or even, you know, a large gap, um, we will, because we need to award this bid on the 27th, we will likely communicate that at the assembly meeting on the 27th. One way you could pay for that, that additional funding that could be needed is to transfer it from the Lands Fund and then anticipate that the sale of City Hall would repay that.

And I just want to plant that seed. I'm— it's like, I'm really hoping to not have to do that. But I also could see a situation where we're like this short and we would need to award an alternate that's really critical. Great example, ceiling tiles, right? We're ripping out all of the ceiling tiles because we have to replace— run new conduit and replace all the mechanical and electrical systems.

You know, is our new ceiling tiles really an alternate, or do we need a ceiling? So just those, those types of things. Again, I was hoping to be able to have that conversation with you tonight. I can't because I don't have that information. Hope springs eternal that our bids will come in under, and, um, we will— I will not have to, you know, kind of have that conversation on the fly, but just wanted to keep you informed.

Thank you, Madam Manager, for the update. Uh, questions? Miss Hall. Yeah, thank you. And, um, with the Marine View lease, are they honoring the terms of our previous lease, or with new ownership of that building, has that gone up substantially?

Um, so we had, uh, already— so we were already at the end of our lease term and needed to renegotiate with a new owner. So, um, so there, there was no breach of contract from the new owner because of— because we were at that point in our negotiations, and they have raised the rent substantially.

Madam Mayor, I think it's kind of a weird question, but the 1% for arts, do we have enough art in this building and to take over, or do we have to spend that? Can you talk about that a little bit? Yeah, that is a requirement in city code, so the assembly certainly could exempt the project from that requirement.

Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you just speak a little bit on some of the things that are involved with the demolition portion of that?

Is it all like demolition of like the mechanical system, or is there interior structure that's being demoed, or what exactly is being demoed? I'll have Deputy Manager Barr talk about those project details. Thank you, Assemblymember Smith. There are interior structure demo that's going on here too. It's not just mechanical and electrical.

It's also, as the manager Kester mentioned, ceiling tile. And there are some walls, some non-load-bearing walls that are coming out. If we're able to award the carpet replacement, demo for that would be in the carpet replacement alternate. But what's in the base bid does include some, some interior walls. They're getting reconfigured.

A good example of that, if you remember from your tour, where the current— or where the, where the old Board of Education met, where that dais is, there's a wall between that room and the next room. Kind of closer to downtown, if you will, that would come down to make for larger assembly chambers for, for these meetings.

Not seeing any further questions, I think we can continue on. Thank you, Madam Manager, Deputy Manager Barr.

Next item. Disposal of 155 Heritage Way, the current City Hall. Madam Manager. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. So you will see that this memo is dated May 4th, 2026, and I did not rewrite a memo because when I went to rewrite a memo, I was just writing this memo.

We didn't get to it at a Committee of the Whole because it— the meeting just went on too long. So I'll just briefly summarize how we got to this point to make sure that, you know, it was a while ago and I had to go back and reread all of the memos. But you did introduce introduced an ordinance to dispose of 155 Heritage Way, the building that we sit in. After discussion at the Lands Committee and the Committee of the Whole, you introduced it to— and that's the ordinance in your packet— to dispose of City Hall, sealed competitive bid with a minimum bid of $2.5 million. And we explained kind of how we got to that number.

We have a— in the Lands Office there, you know, with a commercial assessor is on staff, did some math, you know, and, and got to that number. There was really no nothing super magical about that number because our argument was no need to pay for an appraisal because the market will determine that rate. There was a lot of discussion at the Committee of the Whole and Lands Committee about wanting to put some conditions on that sale, and we kind of talked through the different types of sales that the city can do. You can do like a negotiated sale, sealed competitive bid, but really it It comes down to if you want to have put conditions on it, then it would look more like a request for proposals and less like a sealed competitive bid. And you would have to develop, even if, you know, even if it's just a small condition, you would develop that condition and then the responses would be scored based on that criteria.

So again, there's an earlier memo that talks about, the March 16th memo talks about all those different types of bidding. I don't think it's, I don't think knowing which type you want to do is as important as knowing kind of what what you want to achieve from it. You also have, you also have been approached by Sealaska Heritage Institute with a proposal to enter into essentially a negotiated sale for $1.5 million for the building. You've heard their visions for this as an extension of the arts campus, possible, you know, addition of the city museum on top that has some cost considerations that a future assembly would need to wrestle with. But if you chose to do that, you would essentially be authorizing the manager to enter into a negotiated sale.

You see this all the time in the Lands Committee when you go to, you know, someone asked to buy something and you see an ordinance and then you approve an ordinance and then we negotiate it and then we come back to you. So that would be the action that you would take if you wanted to go that path. We have, just for information, we are trying to collect— the Lands Office is trying to collect city facilities for sale and kind of bundle them. It's like the same amount of effort to sell one property as multiple properties. So with Mount Jumbo and some other properties, we're trying to do that work.

You know, our guesstimate is it's about 9 months to sell a facility, and you can add 3 to 4 months if you want an appraisal. Again, we talked about kind of the pros and cons of an appraisal. At the— gosh, March meeting, I believe you asked about mothballing City Hall and what that would cost. So the memo outlines a couple of alternatives for mothballing: caretaker status, which is kind of a higher level of caretaking, and then just warm status. There's a big like flashing caveat to that from our facilities manager that's like, hey, sometimes an empty building is actually more expensive because there's no one there to catch things.

I think we had a sewer issue in one of our bathrooms today. We caught it relatively soon. Don't know, it's probably not fixed, but you know, those are the kind of things that, that we wouldn't necessarily catch, right, if we weren't here. Those scenarios include leaving the public restroom open because of the demand for public restroom, as you all heard about in the Public Works and Facilities Committee. I do, you know, I think there's this— I have this curiosity, at least being your city manager and wanting to get maximum, maximum value, especially when I'm proposing expensive projects that, that staff need, like a renovation of the Burns Building.

And I've been struggling with kind of how, like, how to get that, you know, what is the market value of this, right? We can hire an appraiser that's just going to give us another guesstimate, an educated guesstimate. And I think you really set that with your minimum bid. So there is a scenario where you could say, like, how much would it be worth to me as an assembly to not put a bunch of conditions on this sale? And, and and not really play a hand in what the future use is because the cash money is just worth it.

And you, so you could play with that minimum bid number through that lens. If we don't get any offers, then you know that maybe it's worth spending more time curating a proposal, or maybe it's worth entering into a negotiated sale. So I just wanted to, I don't want to complicate things, but when I was thinking through, like how difficult the decision is for you not knowing what you could get for this building. That was the way that I thought about approaching it. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Manager.

Questions from the assembly? Miss Wall.

Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, there's some information here about, um, SHI's offer to give the city first refusal on the second floor for a lease. You know, you've got some cost estimates here about, you know, how big you think the building is going to be and, you know, what market rate would be for that. Do you get any in your conversations with SHI? Like, is there room to negotiate that?

Like, if they're rebuilding the building, a smaller space, or Not market rate as part of our sale. Like, what are these numbers, I guess, coming from them, or are they just your best guess of if what they would do? Yeah, I would say it's a combination. So I had a very preliminary conversation and, you know, talked about being charged market rate. I did some, I did some quick math on that.

So this is very much not It's just a rough order of magnitude number, and I didn't have a lot of negotiation about what other scenarios could look like.

Other questions from the assembly, or motions, or things? Madam Mayor, question. I have a question. Um, could we put it out for sealed competitive bid, and if we don't get anything, uh, chat with SHI, or would it be better to chat with SHI first? Well, certainly that is a policy call that is up to you, but yes, you could put it out for sealed competitive bid at the $2.5 million, or you could pick a higher number because you might say, listen, if we're going to get $2.5 million for it, we might as well enter into a negotiation with SHI.

You, or I mean, $1 million is nothing to sneeze at, but that could be some, and so you could want to raise that floor. But if you don't get any responses, then it opens it up significantly for the manager to work directly with interested parties.

I'll follow up there. If we did a sealed competitive bid and got responses, Can we not select any of those responses and still— and then change course and go negotiate with SHI at a later point?

So from what I understand, you could choose to not award the bid, and then you would just basically start over.

This is a tricky one, you know, because not everything can be quantified. And, you know, so I weigh the value of having a known entity being in this space.

Yeah, so I see the quandary, you know, do we open it up for a bid and go with the highest bidder? See what it is, and then scale back to an entity that's going to provide year-round benefit and additional benefit to the community as far as sharing of resources with their schools and cultural. So anyway, I'm— yeah, this is a tough one. I appreciate that, and I'm actually— I was going to— you gave us a good segue to maybe see if anyone has any comments on possible ways forward that may help us as we move with a motion. Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, just a loose thought, do we bring something to the full assembly as far as the possibility of entering into direct negotiation with SHI on the disposal of the property, but in order to give the public the opportunity to weigh in on it. And, you know, that way we can have a more well-rounded decision on how to move forward because it seems like, you know, amongst us here at the body. You know, there seems to be some degree of support amongst a few members, but we really should get the, um, that public say-so first and then go from there.

Mr. Brooks, can I ask you just a question on what you meant? Are you— were you—. Was the possible option you mentioned like forwarding a motion of support to negotiate with SHI, and then as that goes to the Assembly, there'd be public comment at like the full Assembly before we take action. Yes, and essentially, you know, depending on what our discussions are at that time and the type of public testimony that we receive at that meeting and before the meeting can help us refine the decision. Okay, thank you.

That helped.

Miss Wall, and then I see Madam Mayor. Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, just a question for clarification based on Mr. Brooks' comment. I mean, do we— don't we have— would we have to— um, I believe we'd have to, uh, take action on a motion to support a negotiation. At the full assembly.

Is that correct?

Yes, that has to be authorized. You, you did hear— you did forward it to public for the ordinance in your packet, which is not a negotiated sale, to public hearing on April 6th, and no one testified.

And just so I— just so I clarify, I actually don't know how important it is. Is that like a resolution or something that comes before the assembly It's an ordinance. It's an ordinance. Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, we could send two ordinances to the assembly, one for a negotiated bid and one for, uh, uh, negotiated sale with SHI, and one for, um, authorization of sale too.

We could also do two different ordinances, correct? It has, it has been done before.

Miss Wall. Thank you, Chair Smith. Since you're asking for comments, I'll just, um, speak to my interest here. Um, you know, I, I— the last time we talked about this, I expressed my— I think I was the only one interested in getting an appraisal appraisal as a first step, because I think it's hard to weigh the actual value and the community value if you don't know what the value is. So I'd be interested in that small amount of money to get an appraisal.

That being said, I had no support for that at the time, so my second preferred option would be to begin conversations with that SHI. I do I don't, you know, I think when weighing maximum value versus year-round, we're not going to be able to get both. I think people maybe have a pie-in-the-sky idea that someone's going to come out of the woodwork and give us both. Um, and, and so I think it's a, it's a choice. We have a proposal in front of us from someone we know can deliver, um, year-round use at a value that is close to what we think market value to be, um, and an option to, you know, also explore potential, um, solutions, uh, for, um, for City Museum as well.

So I'm interested in starting that conversation. Um, thank you. Thank you, Miss Wall.

Madame Mayor, um, so if we went with Miss Wall's suggestion Um, I've already talked to Mr. Kager about this, that we would not have to put any money into building it. And, uh, could we also look at negotiating a set price for the City Museum for a certain amount of years to let the City Museum get its feet underneath it? Is that something we can do?

Uh, so to answer your first question about Not, no, I think your first question was future contributions to construction. That could certainly be intent language that's included in the ordinance clause. Who knows what a future assembly would do? As far as negotiating that, there's no reason— I don't— I can see that we couldn't negotiate some type of like right of first refusal for percent of market value, you know, if it was amenable. Of course.

Um, I don't know, I look to, um, the Deputy City Attorney if you have any— okay, so, uh, so I, I—. Sounds, um, eminently, uh, doable, though that could, I'm sure, be changed by a future assembly. Thank you for that point. Thank you.

I can hop in with comments, I guess.

I, I'm equally torn and I'm trying to figure out the significant value that SHA provides in terms of year-round activity, support to our youth, arts and culture in the and, you know, the many other benefits that they provide our community. Um, we did also go through the budget process, and I think our fund balance ended at about $2.5 million, which is not good. Um, so I'm trying— part of me is kind of wondering, like, at what point am I like, this value if it were to be bid on by any, anyone or any type of business who will do anything, at what point is that dollar— is at what point does that value reach, you know, the value that, um, or exceed, I guess, the value that I believe SSI— SHI's financial contribution as well as, you know, community benefit? What is that number? I do not think it's $2.5 million.

I think it's probably significantly higher. So I would, you know, depending on what other people think, I may offer to move the minimum bid to a higher amount. And if we don't get that amount, I'd say, okay, I could go forward. I could go forward with negotiations with SHI. I know I'm kind of like, I probably could have thought of like a grid and some tables and looking at property tax and this type of stuff and actually maybe got to a better number.

But I, I didn't do that.

Well, the appraisal would only tell you the point in time, but it's like if a private company— pardon me, Miss Wall— if a private organization owned it and they're paying full property tax, that is something. Anyway, there's just those different type of factors that are, you know, happening. Mr. Senninger.

Um, so Like many others, I'm kind of torn here. It's, you know, I've seen the proposal from SHI and, you know, the community value that it has and the value of it, as you're just trying to speak to, um, Deputy Mayor Smith. You know, what is that value of that proposal? What's the value to the community? Because, you know, you can almost kind of think of the difference between what we get in sales price and the $1.5 million that SHI has offered us, whether that's $1 million, or maybe somebody bids $10 million, but the difference is effectively kind of like we're spending money on a grant to SHI.

And in a sense, you know, they're not getting that cash or anything, but that difference, that's a cost to the public. And kind of to comments that Ms. Wall made about the appraisal, the reason I didn't vote for the appraisal is I was in the mindset of we're going to put this out to a bid. That's effectively the market telling us what it's worth. Um, so I think I would lean towards supporting something like you just suggested, Deputy Mayor Smith, where maybe we as a body figure out, okay, what's that dollar amount that this is worth it? And if it came in higher than that, it would be more to the public good to just sell.

Versus, you know, the negotiated bid, see if that comes through with an offer that looks like something that would be good for the community.

Yeah. And I, on the other side, you know, of course that puts, you know, the Sea Alaska project and proposal in a little more uncertainty for an amount of time. But it does, I think, best serve the public and our ability to justify just how much money we're leaving on the table in order to, you know, place our hand kind of on the development of downtown and what it looks like. So I think I'd like in some way or form to see what actually the value of this lot is before we go to a negotiated bid. And I think the best way is by putting it out to bid.

Miss Hall. And I guess I will still champion the community benefit. You know, we— there's a recent example in the New York Times of Barcelona saying not one more tourist. And, and I, you know, that's shooting ourselves in the foot. You know, we are a tour destination, and SHI would be utilizing this for, you know, the tourism industry.

But I think by putting it out to the highest bid, we have the risk of, you know, a big company with really deep pockets swooping in and snatching it up. And then where would we be? You know, it'd be a little hard to go back. And I think, you know, the balancing of the community's concerns about overtourism and, you know, monetizing this property, um, you know, for the biggest buck, for which would likely be someone with really deep pockets. I guess I still lean towards the, the known entity of keeping this a community-minded entity or, or endeavor that we're aiming towards.

So that's kind of where I stand on this. But thank you for that. Like the idea of lots of money too.

Um, yes, Madam Mayor, if you have comments. Um, so I'm probably of similar mind of, uh, you, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Steininger, although I support SHI, but It would be interesting to see if we set it— I'm just throwing it out there— at $5 million, if we would have any takers. I understand where you're coming by, Ms. Hall, of community, um, spirit, but it might be another, uh, NCL project that gets a lot of money to us when we need it. So, um, I support SHI, but again, they don't pay property tax, so we're going to get $1.5 million and that will be it.

Thank you. Very good. I'll suggest we take a 10-minute break really quick, if that's all right. I could use a bathroom break and take a moment to think. Let's come back at 7:13.

And I'll bring the Committee of Whole back to order. Um, we've had some questions, discussion, comments on possible ways forward for the disposal of, um, this building. Um, unless any other further comments, maybe we should try some motions. Madam Mayor, I mean, good luck. Well, um, Just looking at, uh, counting votes in my head, we can't talk to everybody.

I don't know if either thing will pass tonight, so I am thinking about what Mr. Burke says and have the public weigh in. So my intent is to move two ordinances to the full assembly, one with an authorization of a sale, sealed competitive bid, and one for a negotiated sale, and we'll see what the public says. So that would be my motion if I made a motion.

Miss Adkisson, you seem to love this. Um, okay, Mr. Smith, I'll make a motion. I move, uh, ordinance, uh, serial number 2026-15, uh, to the full assembly.

Um, I would like to, um, also do an amendment, and on Section B sale, I would move the $2.5 million up to $5 million.

Uh, objections to the, I guess, the amendment? Miss Wall. Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, I mean, I, I, I think I understand the rationale for raising the cap to 5, but I don't agree with it. I feel like if we want to better understand what is out there for options, leaving it at 2.5 gives us more options.

Um, I don't think the way that the public is going to respond is the more money we get, the less likely they're going to care about year-round use. I think it's actually the opposite, that if we keep pushing that number higher and higher, we're going to get projects even less likely to have community support. And so if we are moving the direction of a sealed competitive bid, I would keep the ceiling— the floor low so that we can see, are there projects that are mixing community use and value? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wall.

I'm going to ask a question. And that's if we kept the number low and someone comes in saying, oh, I'm going to do it, and we're doing a sealed competitive bid and they offer the minimum 2.5 and say, oh, we're going to year-round. I mean, the sealed competitive bid, we're required to choose the— we're required to sell to the highest bidder, are we not? You are correct. If you want to put conditions on the sale, like we will value more year-round use, then it would be a request for proposals, with conditions.

Now you can just say, that's it, we're not going to award any bids because we don't find any of these responses adequate.

I think there's some real— well, it's legal to like, let's say you get a proposal back for, you know, $10 million, but it's something that you really wouldn't support. And then a 7 and a 2 or something, and then you just want to go back out so you can enter into a negotiated sale with someone else. I don't know that that's necessarily not legal. That we discussed that this morning, but it sure erodes kind of our credibility for if we were to just fish and not award that bid. You don't have to award that bid, but I guess I just would caution using this as a fishing expedition without parameters that you're willing to stick to, whether that's including the year-round use and the other thing, the other things that you value in a request for proposals or a dollar amount.

Madam Manager, this brings up a question. Have you or other city staff received— I mean, I don't know how much you can share. Have you received interest or interest from other businesses, community groups, or whatever about buying City Hall? I have not.

Mr. Chair, I'll withdraw my amendment and just move that, uh, ordinance forward. Although be advised, I am going to move the other one too.

Okay, so the amendment to increase the amount from $2.5 $5 million to 5 has been withdrawn, though I liked that amendment. You can make another amendment.

Trying to judge faces and be like, is it worth our time? I'm messing with my moving forward with something that's useful. Uh, thank you. Madam Mayor has the gavel. I would move that the minimum accepted bid amount in the— in Ordinance 2026-15 is moved to $5 million.

That's just the amendment I did that I withdrew. I know, but I liked your amendment, but I said I want to do it, and I'd ask— I'd ask for unanimous consent. Any objections to the amendment? There are objections. So they like you more than me.

Do either of you want to speak to your objection? Ms. Hall? Yeah, I, um, I object. Um, I agree with, um, but Assemblymember Wall's rationale that, you know, the 2.5 will still get us, you know, it's sealed bid, and, and, um, you know, so that will get us to a higher amount if it's out there.

Mr. Smith, you want to speak to your motion? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I guess I just want to say the reason I'm saying increase it is if we don't get people that— if nobody supports a bid for $5 million, that means, okay, they're sure there was maybe— I don't know if the number's too high. I can move down, but I'm just starting with the thing. If no one submits at $5 million, we say, okay, there's not interest to do this at $5 million.

And therefore you can then make a calculation to say, okay, Sealaska's offered $1.5 million. That's like, and the value they provide in the year-round things, that works out for me in, in, in the math or in the, in the decision-making. Does that make— so I'm, I'm kind of using that as a threshold. Like if we don't get any bids at $5 million, then I'm happy to, you know, move it to to see Alaska, I suppose. But if we get bids over $5 million, then we can decide if we want to award any bid or not.

Based on the objection, we have an amendment and we have an objection. Madam Clerk, will you call roll?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Deputy Mayor Smith's Amendment Number 2. To change the minimum accepted bid amount to $5 million from $2.5 million. Deputy Mayor Smith? Yes.

Ms. Hall? No. Mr. Steininger? Yes. Ms. Adkisson?

Yes. Mr. Kelly? No. Mr. Brooks? No.

Ms. Wall? No, Madam Mayor. Yes, Deputy Mayor Smith. I would like to go again, but I already went. Oh, apologies.

Motion fails, 4 yeas and 4 nays.

Thank you, Miss Hendricks. Okay, we're back to the main motion. Is there objection to the main motion? Objection, Miss Wall. Just for the record, I won't object, assuming that also no one will object to the mayor's next motion.

Friends, just making sure we've got friends in the audience. Okay, I remove my objection. Thank you, Miss Wall. Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

I think I would be interested in seeing some sort of stipulation, or some of the other criteria that we, we talked about earlier. I'd like to see that included in a bid for $2.5 million.

So I don't think I have the language ready with me right now, so I think I'll go ahead and withdraw my objection. But I think when this comes before the Assembly, if we end up going this direction, I think at that point I'll be prepared with some language to, to add some conditions to the minimum bid of $2.5 million. $5 Million. Uh, with that, I withdraw my objection. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Any further objections to the motion? Seeing none, that motion is moved forward. Madam Mayor, thank you. I would also move, uh, Ordinance Serial Number 2026-15B, Cal version. I don't know what to call it.

Um, and on Section 2, um, Um, uh, the manager is authorized to advertise to, uh, is authorized to enter into negotiations, um, with Sealaska Heritage Institute for a sale price of $1.5 million.

Does anything else need to be in there, Madam Attorney? It might be best just to direct us to introduce that ordinance because it is a different template ordinance for negotiated sale. If Okay, yep. Madam Mayor, do you want to restate? Yes, um, I move that we have staff draft and introduce an ordinance, um, authorizing the manager dispose of 155 Heritage Way through negotiated sale agreement with Sealaska Heritage Institute for $1.5 million.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. We've heard the amendment. Questions or objections on the amendment? I'm going to object for the purpose of the question. The other, the other motion, or the other ordinance, when it goes back to the assembly, it will be ready for— it'll be a public hearing.

Is that right?

You are correct. I, so I would recommend holding, um, the, uh, making sure they're on the same schedule so they're in the public. It would this one would be introduced on the 27th and heard on the— whatever our August meeting date is. Sure. That's all part of my motion.

Sounds good. It sounds like the mayor's motion introduces an ordinance to enter into negotiated sale with SHI, um, for $1.5 million, and then it also times the two ordinances so they're for public hearing at the same time. Is everyone clear on the motion? Is there any objection to the motion? Seeing none, that motion is adopted.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. All right, that moves us to our last item.

Proposed changes to the assembly rules of procedure. We see the memo in the 3 different attachments with different language that are— do different things and were, you know, proposed by different people or groups. Um, Madam Manager, did you want to do a little intro here, or—. Yes, thank you. I just want to make sure you, uh, understand kind of procedurally what we're asking from you.

So the first, um, item on in this memo is a proposal that came out of HRC HC championed by Assemblymember Brooks to require public testimony at all committee meetings. You actually have a version of the ordinance that was passed out of HRC, not— and not included in the packet as a red folder item. So, um, sorry, we did not catch that, but that the version before you came out of HRC is in, uh, in your red folder item. That is a separate ordinance, so you can act on that ordinance independently. You also have— oh, I'm sorry, it's a resolution because it's Assembly Rules of Procedure, which you adopt by resolution.

Um, you also have an amendment to Assembly Rules and Procedure that you can act on separately that changes, um, that allows you to basically, uh, strategically fill vacancies when you have vacancies on boards. So you ran into a scenario with the Airport Board recently where there wasn't a good procedure for when you had a vacancy and couldn't find someone to fill that. So this allows you to either pull from the pool of applicants within the last 6 months or appoint a former board member until that vacancy, you know, until you guys have your annual review for board. So it's just a way to care for making sure that, that, that service is maintained. So that again can be acted on separately.

And then the third item that can be acted on separately is also— there's a very slightly amended version in your, um, red folder item that is just, um, amended to reflect the revision in our start times. And that has a whole host of, uh, housekeeping changes that if you have questions on, you can ask the city clerk.

Thank you, Madam Manager, for that. So yes, there's 3 different attachments that have different pieces of ordinance, different piece of changes to code. A question: if we move— if we act on them all separately, which is kind of my plan on how to do it, um, it would then— anything that moves forward as amended, it would all wrap into a full or just a single ordinance before the assembly. Is that right? Okay, seeing head nods from the team.

All right, let's start with Attachment A. Um, Mr. Brooks, did you want to— yeah, give us intent, any, any words or, um, things you want to say about Attachment A, and then we can move into questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, as we've discussed previously, this is, uh, to allow for, uh, more public testimony at committee meetings. I feel like the community would really benefit and has a strong desire to be able to give public testimony at meetings like Finance and even Committee of the Whole. I know the reasoning why we don't currently do it, but my thoughts have always kind of been that, you know, when we're conceptualizing ideas and coming up with things. The community could very well have an idea that is, you know, far better than something that we come up with that we can work off of and kind of go from there. And just with the recent environment between the previous last couple of elections, you know, there's a lot of strong feelings throughout the community and This is definitely a good faith effort to, you know, show a kind of an extended olive branch for having stronger communication and transparency and that direct link with the constituents.

So that's the, that's the intent of this rule change, and I'm happy to answer any questions if there are. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Any questions or comments from the assembly to Mr. Brooks?

I was thinking maybe we could, we could ask and do some questions first, and then we could decide what way we want to go from there.

Further, any questions? Miss Hall? Yes, thank you. I have a question for Mr. Brooks. Have you received email from constituents or outreach from constituents asking for this change?

Thank you for the question, Assemblymember Hall.

Um, it's not, uh, an exorbitant amount of outreach that I've gotten, uh, as far as people specifically requesting it, but it's more so a tone of discussion when, um, you know, I see other community members trying to, uh, notify other people of different events and meetings that are coming up when it's, you know, these meetings that we have for Committee of Whole and Finance, when people are getting them on other people's radar, it's like, go show up, get informed, but, you know, you're not going to be able to speak there. And a lot of people respond to that in the sense of just like, oh, why can't we do that there when, you know, it's available at the regular assembly meeting? And You know, just making the broad option available and still allowing for the discretion of chairs or the body in, in votes to not allow it if we have a really burdened agenda and things like that.

I had a question for Miss Adkisson and Mr. Saniger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Brooks, just kind of thinking over, and I definitely appreciate we want to hear from the community and especially, like you mentioned, get ideas and that sort of thing. I guess my question is sort of what's the difference in having someone have 2 minutes and come and speaking to the committee versus on a break in the committee talking to people in the audience or after the committee talking to people in the audience?

I know that's something we all do very frequently, and so I guess if someone shows up at Finance and wants to talk to the Assembly, how is it different to get their 2 minutes where they— we can't talk back and forth on testimony versus discussions after the committee.

Thank you for the question, Assemblymember Atkinson. Uh, it's a great point, and this is, you know, definitely has a benefit in the sense that not only for the immediate attendees but for remote engagement as well. You know, having these conversations on the record that get put into minutes and then having the Zoom videos that people can then go for reference if they were— had to miss a meeting or anything like that. It just, it creates a better record to be referenced not only by us, by— but by other community members who are choosing to get engaged at later dates, possibly even.

Mr. Steininger, thank you, and thank you for bringing this topic to the committee and to the assembly to discuss. I think it's a good discussion to have. Um, my— one of my questions is kind of logistical. We have a lot of 1-hour meetings, whether they're lunch hour or the hour before this meeting, you know, very functionally, very time limited. And sometimes they'll have 4 or 5 items on the agenda.

Looking at your amendment, you said that the public comment time in committee meetings would be 10 minutes unless extended. So say like this agenda, we have 5 items on the agenda that are agenda items which would be— we'd be required to provide time for public comment. Would that be 10 minutes per item or 10-minute split, so then you only really functionally have 2 minutes for each item? I just— I'm trying to think through logistically. We might have a lunch meeting that's got 4 items on the agenda.

Quickly, you could overwhelm the entire committee meeting with public comment and not have any time for actual work to be done. How did you think through that process?

Thank you for the question, Assemblymember Steininger. Uh, it, you know, I think that language intention was to do at least 10 minutes of availability, um, for public testimony, um, not per item. Uh, and that's why I also had put in that, uh, chair discretion or body vote discretion for saying otherwise, specifically for some of those times where it's really heavy agendas. But like some of the meetings that we had today where we're getting done in, you know, 20 minutes, we could afford a little extra time for if anyone was there. But, you know, a lot of this too is that not every committee meeting, and those committee meetings have very robust or interesting agendas.

And, you know, the physical participation by the public, we see it fluctuate, but it's pretty small on the physical presence. And, you know, either we won't notice an immediate or very noticeable impact to how the operations currently are, or it will, you know, excite people and get them to, you know, come out and be more engaged. And that could lead to benefits in all sorts of other aspects of our municipal dealings, maybe even finding people to fill chairs on those subcommittees too.

Um, so this is kind of a logistical question too. So if you provide 10 minutes, does that mean the first 5 people get to speak and then the rest of them can't speak, or how is that going to work?

Thank you for the question, Madam Mayor. Uh, it was like I said, the intent was to be a at a minimum of 10 minutes, you know, depending on what the topic is and what the schedule of the committee meeting is as well. Having to, you know, extend that time or shorten that time as where that become appropriate. Definitely don't, you know, want to limit a bunch of people that wanted to show up and speak if that is the scenario. But for some of those meetings, I totally understand that they're only an hour or so, you know, then maybe trying to help direct them into, you know, another opportunity to where they can get those, those feelings and concerns out to us in that same kind of capacity, but just might not be that specific meeting, but just so it's more so that the public can just have the assumption that we're always available and they can always come talk to us, not necessarily that we want to, you know, get as many people as possible in that physical talking capacity, but just giving that expectation, I think, is a good courtesy to the community.

I had Ms. Ms. Wall, and then we will get to Ms. Adkisson. You've already asked a question. Thank you, Chair Smith. I just wanted to provide some clarity for the body that the HRC was the body that added the 10-minute restriction on this committee meeting. And so, you know, we had a similar discussion and all of us agreed that that was a better version of this amendment.

So I just wanted to And that may change, but just so— Mr. Brooks did a good job speaking to our intent there, but just wanted to clarify that that wasn't his initial amendment that came through the committee.

Thank you, Ms. Wall. Um, I will ask one.

Um, she's already asked a question. She can wait.

Last forever. I'm making an amendment to the rules of procedure, by the way.

Miss Atkinson, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my question was actually, Mr. Brooks, on something you mentioned, uh, in response to, I think, uh, Madam Mayor's question, was talking about having, you know, expectation that when people come to committee meetings meetings and any meeting by the Assembly, they can have their opportunity for public testimony. Are you— I noticed the language does say that public testimony can be not allowed by the chair with notice.

Are you at all concerned about people taking time off of their job or out of their day to come here on a day where, let's say, the agenda was so packed the chair said we can't have public testimony, and then someone has, with the expectation they'll be allowed to be heard, come and not been able to testify? And isn't that worse than coming with the expectation to not be able to testify and then allowing to testify? I'm just kind of worried about that switch up there. Thank you, Assemblymember Eckerson, and that's a, that's a really great point to bring up. And I guess the, the only, the only thing I can say to that is that it'll, it's going to be a circumstance that happens regardless.

It's actually one that already currently happens. There's been times where we've taken something off of the agenda or changed, uh, uh, changed the item to be moved to a different meeting, and we've seen people, you know, kind of storm out in displeasure because they were expecting here to come talk on it. So it's something that we already see happen, and that's just kind of, you know, something that we'll have to refine as we get those cases coming in. But it's definitely, you know, We don't want to give anyone that, that impression, but I feel like having more of these opportunities available can make it to where they might be able to find more openings in their schedules to come out. And it's not as much of a hindrance because they don't have to be like, okay, I have this one opportunity, have to carve out that time because it's the only time and then come and it's not available.

Or as opposed to be like, okay, I have these 3 different opportunities to go in there and possibly talk about the, the same type of thing. So, um, yes and no.

And but I have Mr. Steininger, Mr. Kelly, and then maybe I can go after that.

So this might be made more a question for the HRC Committee, or maybe even Clerk Hendricks. I'm not sure about— I guess I'll address it to you, Mr. Brooks, first. Have you looked into what other municipalities around the state do, how they handle public comment? You know, have you seen if other municipalities allow a lot more public comment in their work sessions than we do? Or is this something that, you know, kind of doesn't have a comparator to other municipalities?

Like, would we be allowing a lot more public comment, or do we currently allow less than others? Kind of not sure really who would be best served to answer that. That might be a bit of a research question. But yeah, thank you, Assemblymember Steiner. I didn't base it off of looking at any other communities.

You know, I, I guess going back and referencing after the conceptualization of it, I'm sure there might be, but the focus was, you know, focused on the Juneau Municipality and, you know, just through our rules, seeing ways for refinement for, you know, the needs of our community and everything, and didn't necessarily base that on anyone else's operations.

I have Mr. Kelly next. Thank you. Uh, this is perhaps a little bit of a follow-up to Miss Atkinson's question. Uh, she had raised a concern that people would come with the expectation that they would be able to testify and that they wouldn't be able to testify if the chair cancelled it. But I think a part of that provision is that the, the chair cancels it with notice, right?

So, so wouldn't the notice kind of allow— kind of set the expectation for the public that they will or they will not be able to testify at a given meeting?

Thank you for the question, Assemblymember Kelly. And you know, Um, even it's almost like I, I can give the same, same answer to that. It's like we do notices, but they don't always make it out, you know, in the way that we would like or hope to see. So it's— there are issues that we already experience, and I know that we're all working on ways to refine that and make it a more robust robust process, but I don't feel like it's going to create a greater issue in those respects.

I'm just going to chime in for just one comment on that last bit, and that I have to— I believe we're very good at getting the notices out I mean, do we— how often do we— I guess my— I guess I probably— a bigger issue I would see would just be people not seeing them. I'm sure there are times it has not happened where we haven't gotten noticed, but I do feel like the clerk—. And thank you for that. No, we—. We—.

The information is readily available and very accessible, but to your point, whether or not people have read it or looked at it. Um, okay, I'll hop in for one. Uh, first off, Mr. Brooks, appreciate bringing things forward, and that's why we have anyway new members, new ideas. Um, you know, just because we've done something a certain way doesn't mean we should. That being said, maybe we do the other way for a reason.

Um, I guess I had a question on— in some of my experience with public testimony and, and it— and asking for comments from the public, I have actually seen it where it is frustrating for the public to comment because there may not be actually a clear decision or anything forward for them to comment. So they may— I'm kind of wondering about like tonight with like Sealaska Heritage, like if we had decided, oh, we'll just go with— anyway, I'm just trying to think about those situations where it may not be clear in the packet we're going to go in a certain way and someone, you know, spends a bunch of time talking about a direction, or talking about a much direction that the Assembly or someone had really no intention of going. Just anyway, do you have concerns, I guess, on that? It might be sometimes it's just like their timing at the beginning of every process is not the right time for the public to spend time to learn about the issue and provide public comment.

Thank you very much for the question, Deputy Mayor Smith, and, uh, totally, totally understand that. That's super valid. I, I look at it more in the optimistic view that if we have that involvement through all steps of the process, it's getting refined along each step of the way., and therefore we can get a more solid idea in those earlier stages. So by the time that we go to finalize it at the full Assembly, we, uh, have had already that really robust, um, public participation aspect of it. They've helped us, uh, refine and, um, hone the idea.

And then when we, uh, go to make final decisions on it, you know, You know, it— the way I see it is that it will just help streamline the process for us instead of us batting ideas back and forth between a couple committees and then sending it to full assembly and, you know, doing the multi-month process. Sometimes we might be able to refine those ideas a lot quicker and it'll, you know, it'll be a benefit on the logistical side of it for all of us. Yes. Thank you for that.

If, if people still have questions, we can— I guess I would say if there's no more questions, again, my intent, I think, just for ease of just keeping things in order, is to take action on the 3 different attachments as 3 different pieces. So if there are no more questions, now could be a time for a motion on Attachment A.

Thank you, Assembly. Uh, yes, I, uh, move, um, Resolution XXXX BHRC 2 to the full assembly and ask for unanimous consent. And I'll just do a point of clarification or something. I think it— oh, because it's actually— it's, it's me, cow. Sorry, just because of that one.

And yeah, attachment A, so V cow, I believe. Yeah. All right, I move Resolution XXX XV COW to the full assembly, and that's unanimous. Okay, thank you. I just, just declared.

Okay, um, we've heard the motion. Objection to the motion, Madam— I see objection. Who'd like to speak to it? Madam Mayor? Sure.

Um, thank you, Mr. Brooks, for bringing this forward. Um, I just don't think it's the right thing to do at this time. Um, I'm concerned we don't have Um, well, I'd like to hear that we want more public testimony. I don't think at our committee levels that it is the appropriate place to put them. We've had a lot of public testimony at our regular assemblies, and I can see where these would take over our committees, and which is our work sessions.

And to answer the question by Mr. Steininger, I talked to 7 mayors. First of all, uh, General meets more than almost everybody else in whole state, um, and most people don't have a committee of the whole, and their finances are considered work sessions, and they don't take public testimony except for one limits it to 10 minutes, and I can't remember which one it is at this point. So I think there's other ways to get public testimony, and I also agree with what Mr. Smith said— when an idea is being formed, that's not the best place to take public testimony. So And I'm really concerned about that hour meeting at the lunch hour meetings, that 10 minutes could be a lot. It wasn't today, but it could be a lot.

Um, and we could, you know, we've had 2 hours of public testimony in some of our recent meetings, and I just don't see how we're going to get some work done if we allow it at our committee meetings.

Um, Miss Adkisson, then Miss Wall. I'm just noting if you're wanting to actually speak. Okay, thank you. Uh, I will also object. The mayor spoke to a lot of my concerns, but, you know, I think at the end of the day, there's, um, a lot of ways to be, uh, for people to submit their testimony and for people to reach out to us.

We certainly can be more proactive, which is why we've done some stuff like have a communications department that is— have active outreach so we can get that info and that, um, opinion from our constituents. I think that's very important. But we're also not, uh, doing our jobs right if we're listening to constituents so much that we're unproductive. At the end of the day, we have— we were here to do work, and I think it's very important to get public input on that work. But if we can't do that work, we're not serving the people would be giving us input.

So I have Ms. Wall next. Thank you, Chair Smith. I'll speak in support of the amendment, um, or the— this version, attachment A. Um, I, you know, it is a trade-off, and I, um, definitely, um, Mr. Brooks does a good job, um, speaking to, um, why we're considering and, um, um, Ms. Eckerson and the mayor, you know, um, speak to the, you know, where there will likely be challenges. I, I definitely don't think it's appropriate to, um, extend the amount of work that this body does. I think to get people to run for these seats, we, we need, you know, it's, it's already considerable, but I, but I'm willing to to get less stuff done to, to help the public feel more engaged.

I think there are lots of other options besides this, um, if this isn't the one that feels right for people. I did talk to the school board to get a sense of, you know, how, you know, what— they have two readings, so they've got, instead of a really— instead of a committee of the whole meeting, they do have work sessions, but primarily a lot of their work on their legislation happens to regular meetings. They have a first reading and a second reading, so the public gets 2 chances to weigh in and to listen in public session, and they allow public testimony at their committee meetings, and rarely people show up. So I'm a fan of experimenting and trying things. Um, I feel like what we're doing right now, um, is probably the best, but, way of balancing that.

But I think that it's worth it to try different things and at least see what the public has to say about about this. So I'll support the amendment. Miss Hall.

Oh, this is a tough one. Um, you know, I reached out to former mayor, to, um, former city clerk, and to, um, two former assembly members. And then the, the one and only email I received on the topic was from another former Assembly member, and, and it is problematic having, you know, the public testimony on the night that we are making the decision. However, members can reach out to us in so many different ways, you know, email, meet us individually, or, you know, like we say, during the breaks in the meeting. Um, but having said that, I, I, I do think it's worth a try.

I appreciate what Assemblymember Wall said, you know, if, if we limit it to 10 minutes only and agenda topics only. And is that— I guess that should have been a question, but, um, and, and, you know, If people don't show up, fine. If they do, you know, cap it at 10 minutes so we can get our work done. And so I will go ahead and support this with some trepidation and looking at it as an experiment because we do work so hard and, and people have plenty of opportunity to reach out to us and provide their input.

Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. I think Miss Wall ended up capturing a lot of the comments that I would like to— that I would have said. I think I've seen in quite a few spaces, you know, sometimes people will say it outright when they're delivering public testimony. Sometimes you'll see people comment to you in person, or you'll see it on social media. People, they show up at the assembly meetings and they testify, and sometimes, like, we've already put like a lot of thought and a lot a lot of work and months of time and thought and work and effort into something, and then people have this expectation that, well, the Assembly is still amenable to being able to change direction, but there might be very good reasons along the way why we've chosen not to.

I think this approach gets people a little more engaged earlier in the process, um, and I think, uh, it might help them feel a little heard. It could also help steer the conversation in ways that the public will, will have more, more support for. So I think in echoing Ms. Wall and Ms. Hall, I think that, that this is, this is worth a try. And if this doesn't end up being the will of the body, I think that we should also, you know, find some other other ways to, to try and get this input from the public before we're, before we're making a final decision, much in the same way that we did with our budget process this year.

Mr. Senninger.

So everybody said kind of mostly what, what I plan to say here, but I guess what I'll say is that Well, I'm not going to support this moving forward today. I do think the intent is good, and I think that we have some tools that we can use. I think about what we did earlier in this meeting with our approach to disposal of City Hall. We got to the issue, we talked around the table, we realized we need input from the public more than what we've been able to get in the process so far, and so we changed our strategy. Strategy moving forward of how we put it forward in order to try to attract more public testimony, to try and attract more input before we make a final decision.

I've seen us do that on a couple other issues. I think we should lean into that instinct maybe more often. Maybe we should have occasionally chairs thinking about maybe this topic that's on the agenda we might want to notice public comment for this topic at this Committee of the Whole meeting or this Lands meeting or what have you and use that ability that we currently have in our Rules of Procedure maybe a little more frequently in times that we know there might be some input out there. But making it the default, I worry, would get in the way. I've been in a lot of 1-hour meetings at pushed an hour and 5, an hour and 10, an hour and 20, um, that are— that's not very productive.

And that's not with public comment, that's just with us having our own questions and in-depth conversations with staff. And I don't see how we would fit public comment into some of those meetings without curtailing the amount of things on the agenda, not getting to transfers or or, you know, other issues that come up on, on some of these hour-long meeting agendas. And so I fear that we would have too frequently chairs saying, I can't allow public comment on this meeting because we have 8 things to go over in 60 minutes, and I know we're gonna probably start a little bit late and somebody's gonna, you know, take up time with all questions and not be able to actually get to the work that we need to get done. And then you'll have people who won't notice, oh, this didn't say public comment. They always have public comment, but this one didn't.

And I think we'll create a false expectation that we can't live up to. I think it would be better if we started to be a little more open to maybe occasionally adding it to some of our committees when we know that there's going to be public comment in an item. Them. Um, that, that's just my viewpoint. I think the default shouldn't be to turn it on, but the default should be that we should be a little more open to it.

Uh, Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. Just one quick thing in closing, and that's that there's a lot of people in the community that have Um, lost trust, trust and faith in the city. And if we want the community to have faith in us and trust us, we have to show that we have faith in them and trust them as well too. And I think that this would be an excellent way to do that.

Miss Wall. Thank you, Chair Smith. I'm just wondering if, um, you know, it— not wanting to take up this time to do all the brainstorming for if this doesn't move forward, how we can continue to address it. But I wanted to add one point because Mr. Steiner had such some good ideas in there. The other thing that we used to do here that I don't see a lot anymore is sending something back after we go to public hearing, back to committee for more work.

I think we've created a process where we feel like we have to make amendments on the fly. Everyone's waiting for us to make a decision, and that might be another way, um, if we don't make this change, or even if we do, to, to continue to make sure our decisions are looping back with the public.

Madam Mayor, which is what we did tonight, sending two ordinances to public hearing.

Um, I will go. I think everyone else has spoken.

Um, just a few notes. I guess I, I do— I appreciate the intent of this amendment of this ordinance. I have concerns about the logistical feasibility of it happening. Of it working. I think people brought up a good number of reasons.

I want to say we don't just have one committee that meets for an hour in a compressed time frame. We, I believe, have three. HRC meets just before a regular Assembly meeting. Lands meets just before the CAO, and then we have the, you know, PWFC over lunch.

I guess I'm— I would be open to this if there is a way to like test it out, but I don't know if I'm ready to just say yes, let's make a full-on change. I guess I'd want to know if we test it out, and I also would really want some more information on like, do other places do this because it makes sense, or is there a reason other places don't do it this way? I want to say, you know, I have seen in my time many last-minute pivots at an assembly meeting from public comment. It is not great. Excuse me.

Yes, does other municipalities in Alaska— this is not common practice, and I do not know of another municipality in Alaska, and I— nor did I meet anyone at my clerk's conference when I went last month. Very good, thank you. Um, anyway, I, I have seen these last-minute pivots. I, you know, one thing I am kind of curious about is why we don't allow comment on, you know, items for introduction, like, is there a— is that something we should maybe do so people can comment on it the first time? Anyway, I'm not sure why that's a prohibition or whatever, but I guess there is definitely room for improvement, and I appreciate the efforts to try to do that.

I'm just— I just have concerns that this one would be like— it would— people might feel like they can speak out more. I guess I just want to also say the number of places people can do it. They can do it at assembly meetings, they can email, they can call, they send letters, and then the clerks like scan those letters and email them out. They can put them in our mailbox. I get texts.

I have a cell phone that's listed on the, you know, on the website. People call me, people text me. Members hold office hours.

Anyway, I hope people feel like like if they have something to tell us, they can do it. I know sometimes it feels like we don't listen, and I'm sorry for that. But we're, you know, we don't— it's not like a straw poll that we're doing in an assembly meeting and say, oh, 15 people said they wanted this and only 3 did that, we have to go that way. We're doing what we're doing for the best of the community. It's important to hear the public, the comment of it.

But anyway, I guess I just have concerns on that this may be detrimental to our ability to, in a timely fashion, execute the work that the city needs to do, which I would say people already consider painfully slow. So I— and not— and some— there's good reason for that too. I'm not saying it's not a— it's not, you know, that's not a knock on staff or other people. Like, I think adding more time, it's like, um, anyway, I, I have concerns that that would make us even less efficient and effective. Uh, so for those reasons, I will be opposing the amendment.

Mr. Brooks, what if I amended it just to be applied to finance and Cal meetings?

You're welcome to try an amendment. I'm unsure how people would feel.

I'll let it go as is. Very good. We have a motion and there is objection. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll? Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith.

For Assemblymember Brooks. Motion to forward Attachment A, serial number XXXX, version Cal. Mr. Brooks? Yes.

Miss Adkisson? No. Mr. Steingart? No. Miss Hall?

Yes. Mr. Kelly? Yes. Miss Wall?

Yes, Madam Mayor. No, Deputy Mayor Smith. No. Motion fails with 4 yeas and 4 nays.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. That moves us through Attachment A. Moving on to Attachment B, um, did anyone need Did anyone have discussion? We've— there's a, you know, a brief write-up. There's the language in our packet of the draft ordinance or draft code language.

Did anyone have questions? Would anyone like to hear from city staff on the topic?

I'm not seeing any questions or desire to hear more. Maybe we can try a motion, and if there are, people can object for the purpose of a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Attachment B.

We've heard the motion, and seeing no objection, that motion passes. That moves us to Attachment C. Um, again, there's the language in the packet. There are—. Very good. Um, you know, a kind of a high-level rundown of some of the different changes.

Is, um, I think maybe sparing Madam Clerk the pain of going through all of it, maybe we'll just ask if people have specific questions on the draft language change to code. And I do see a few. Madam Mayor, go ahead, then Mr. Kelly, then Miss Wall.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. My question is on page 8 of the amendment, line 325. 3.22 And 3.23. It shall be general practice to establish committees with an odd number of members. And we have Public Works, Human Resources, and Lands that all have 4 members.

Yes, that would be so that we would not have quorum So we won't have as many split votes.

Can I—. Go ahead, Emily. You're not asking us to put more people on those committees, right?

It would be up to the assembly if you'd like to do that, but for any ad hocs, any special committees, yes. Okay, thank you. Just making sure.

Um, Mr. Kelly, thank you. On page, page 15, uh, line 574, I noticed we're striking out, uh, systemic racism review committee. I was just trying to find out the intent there. What we have listed here is the assembly and empowered boards, and we don't have any other of our advisory committees here, so it really really felt out of place having it on here.

Thank you, Miss Wall. Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, Madam Clerk, I'm going to put you on the spot here with a question I should have asked you beforehand, so if you don't, um, have the answer, I can follow up with you. But because it's on my brain, um, we had some conversation at a previous meeting sometime in the last 6 months about a related Rules and procedure question. I was curious about whether, um, there is a precedent for who can choose to introduce an ordinance.

Some people had said that that was something that, um, the assembly had changed maybe before I was here, that it used to be that a single member couldn't and then a single member could, and there was some back and forth. Do you, um, Get any resolution with Attorney Wright on the— under our current code, who can introduce legislation through the chair? It's in the charter. It's an ordinance may be presented for consideration only by a member or committee of the assembly or by the manager at any regular or special meeting, and that's consistent with your rules as well.

Oh, I, I just had one random question. I don't know what page. Um, now my app just closed. Uh, I guess we did note in there that the Committee of the Whole and Finance are work sessions. Is there a reason we didn't say that for Uh, Peter FC and lead plans housing.

L head. Thanks.

Those are also work sessions.

So it's just an area where we have not been consistent. It's already addressed here, and I can find it for you. Those are the are already. That's all right. I, I should have read it through more closely.

Thank you.

Um, further questions? Seeing none, a motion, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move attachment C.

Any objections? Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. Um, I was looking at page 11, lines 412 and 413.

I guess I was kind of looking for a couple different, maybe some minor, minor changes to this language. I would think I would like it to be a little, a little more permissive so that way we're not strictly forbidden from answering questions. I think it's very rare that we ever do, but I think sometimes it does happen, and I don't want there to be an instance where an Assemblymember is breaking the rules by doing so. And then this also seems to imply— and I realize this probably isn't the intent— but these is the, the preceding sentence does allow for a member of the public to ask a question of the chair. It then says that no assembly member can respond.

The chair, whether they're the mayor or anybody else, is a member of the assembly. And so I think we could— I think I would be in favor of language that would instead, instead of saying I am going to move an amendment instead of "may not respond," that we should say "should not otherwise respond." This would allow the chair to respond if there is a question of procedure, and I think this would also create the expectation without explicitly forbidding that the assembly member— the assembly is probably This isn't an appropriate place to answer a question. Mr. Kelly, would you read out what you— what the new language— I'm on with— I'm with you on page 11, lines 412, 413. Would you read what your proposed language would be? Thank you.

My amended language— so I'm basically changing may not respond to should not otherwise respond. So the amended language would read, Assembly members should not respond to questions or should— I'm sorry, should not otherwise respond to questions asked by the public during public testimony.

Okay, should— just curious about what the meaning of should not otherwise means. Uh, there's objections, I guess. Oh, Madam Mayor, go ahead. Objections for the purpose of a question, and that's what I was going to ask Madam Attorney. What's the difference between those two languages?

Is there a difference?

Through the chair, they, they have the same effect.

So just go, go ahead, or did you— go ahead, Mr. Kelly., and that's on the language. We're staying on the language. Okay. Um, so just to, just to follow up, um, so I would read this language to say, to understand that they could not respond with this, but wouldn't the word should be more permissive? Through the chair, the, the word should is more permissive.

However, when it says assembly member may not respond, that's saying may. Assembly member shall not respond would be the, the—. You cannot respond. So it's— may is permissive, should is also permissive. Thank you.

In that case, I'll withdraw my amendment.

Thank you. That amendment has withdrawn. Further objections to the motion? Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

There is a section that I think this, this could perhaps use its own attachment later, but I did want to flag this while we, while we have this here. I, I was looking, um, on, on page 8 when we're talking about how committees are decided, and there was a circumstance last year where I was on the Joint facilities committee with the school board and I had a conflict and I was replaced by another assembly member. It doesn't seem— while I feel that everything was on the up and up, it does not seem that there is a process that's specifically spelled out to handle that. And I think that is something that I would like us to see language to deal with. So I don't know if it is the will of the body that we maybe come back and revisit this.

That way this is a more formalized and democratic process, since committee assignments are something that we typically vote on, and then we're changing out somebody for a committee because they have a conflict, but we're not voting on that, we're just doing it. So I was just suggesting that I guess I wanted to see if there's will of this committee to maybe formalize that process, create rules, and kind of a clear expectation of how that would work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Um, I'd maybe just kick it over to the attorney, or Madam Mayor, did you have a comment? But I would take—. I remember that, and I'm pretty sure that we brought it up to the full assembly and said, does anybody have a problem with this change. So I try to get the word of the assembly on all of those.

I guess, Madam Attorney, if there is replacement of an assembly member by the mayor on a committee, that action is subject to objection, or I guess you would call it ratification, by the full assembly, and Yes, that is correct.

Thank you. And I guess just a question, is that called out in our rules of procedure, or is it because it would be called out in Robert's Rule? Anyway, yeah, is it called out here? And if not, any thoughts on why? Yeah.

Um, is it? Oh, Deputy Mayor, uh, I don't think it is called out in the assembly rules. Um, it may be in Robert's Rules. Um, I've definitely—. I mean, I think we've read it somewhere, but so it's probably in Robert's Rules and not called out here.

Clark is reading very, very fast over here trying to see if it's Maybe I can kick it to Ms. Wall and, and yeah, while Ms. the clerk searches. But yep, thank you, Chair Smith. I like where your questioning is going. I, I definitely think it makes sense to be clear on that process wherever it is.

I, I think I—. If—. And I am supportive if it's the mayor gets to appoint that without assembly approval. I'm supportive of that. I think that's actually how we did it.

Um, but if others would like a democratic process, um, then we can figure out that too. But, but I'm a rule-following person that I, I did get guidance on it, and— but if it's not clear to everyone, then might as well make it clear. Thank you for that, Miss Wall. I guess my only comment on this is there's a lot of things we can object to. We just maybe don't, but you can.

Not going down at 11. You can object. I mean, changing the hours, object. Like, you can have a lot of fun. Go ahead, Madam Mayor.

Um, so this is, uh, page 5 of 16. Um, nominations for standing committee appointments and for the position of chair at the very bottom of the page of each shall be made by the mayor and shall be subject to ratification by the assembly. So The assembly always gets to vote on it. That was— sorry, Madam Mayor, said bottom of page 5. Page 5.

Michelle, you guys always get a vote. Yeah, yeah, usually we just don't. I mean, usually we just don't object, but we could. Um, but I—. Miss— Mr. Kelly, maybe if you're— I mean, it's an interesting thought of like, should that be clarified in the Rules of Procedure in terms of a replacement or something?

Though I don't— I mean, I'm sure it happens anyway. Maybe— do you mind chasing that down and working with the attorney and clerks to see if that's something that actually needs to be done? Yeah, absolutely. I was just hoping to see— I didn't want to spend staff's time working on this if it wasn't of interest to the committee. If it is, then yes, I would absolutely be interested in chasing that down.

Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. Again, I'm, I'm not really— I don't read fast enough or think fast enough to be like, is— does this cover that already? So it may already, but if you want to— yeah, if you want to look into it when it comes back to the assembly, if you feel like it needs to make a change. With that, I'll withdraw my objection.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

I guess I'll object probably just for the purpose of an attendant. Well, you know what, I'll just say I'm probably going to look into a possibility of like, why don't we allow people to comment on the introduction of an ordinance or something? And again, there, there's maybe— was there— probably was a good reason. Maybe there still is anyway, but I can work on that on my off time. Madam Mayor, we do allow that if they want to comment on the consent agenda, which is the ordinances for introduction.

We take public comment on the non- agenda topics. Doesn't happen very often, but we do take it. I don't like—. I don't know if I love the wording of it in the agenda. It seems like you're— oh, you're not allowed to do it.

Nonetheless, um, maybe I can anyway look at homework assignments. All right, was there any other objection to the motion to introduce or to move forward Amendment C? Seeing none, that motion is adopted. Accepted. That brings us through our agenda topics to staff reports.

Madam—. Did we amend it? I don't think—. Did anyone offer— I don't think there was an amendment.

Yeah, no, I mean the main motion that Nano originally made before Attachment A.

What was that? That failed for form. We—.

He moved the resolution with Attachment A, but we said no to Attachment A. We went to Attachment B and then Attachment C. So we still need to move the whole resolution. That would be clean. Okay, so now we have an ordinance with to a resolution— excuse me— with the language of Attachment B and Attachment C included.

Is there objection to moving to introducing that resolution? Seeing none, that— yes, I moved it over to Madam Mayor. It was the mayor's motion. I'll move it. Okay, I move resolution repealing and establishing the assembly rules of procedure, because I've lost the number at this point, with amendment of attachment B and attachment C to the full assembly.

And seeing no objection to that motion, it is adopted. That brings us to staff reports. Madam— Madam Manager. No staff reports. Thank you.

Our next meeting date is next week, July 20th, 2020— July 20th, and it's at 5:30 PM.

It's at 5:30 PM and it's in Clinkenheida Chambers at the Andrew Hope Building, 3rd floor, with a special focus on Glacial Outburst Flooding, correct? Thank you. Yes, Deputy Mayor Smith, it is. That is all glop, and we will have Army Corps of Engineers presenting at that meeting. Very good.

Thank you, Madam Manager. Um, seeing nothing else before the committee, the whole, we are adjourned at 8:25.