Assembly Regular - August 12, 2025 - 2025-08-12 17:00:00

Thank God that you came. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came. Thank God you came. Thank God you came.

Always the good guys coming to save us. Promised a good life. Thank God that you came. Always got Uncle Sam ready to save us. Thank God you came.

Thank God you came. Thank God you came.

The air's so fresh where I'm from. Palm trees ready-made goods, don't front, 'cause you was on your own time coming. Don't stop running, burning the leaves in the backyard summers. Flowers and the breeze keep warming me. Tired of the priests keep warning me.

Seconds from release, it's hard to treat. I'm too scared to to breathe from my beliefs. The land of freedom, the land for me. Too scared to seek, too scared to be my own, you see. But I know I just need some selfish time.

I need my relics that give me truth to what I know. Give me ruthless weight, all these papers, weight.

Face all the sacred spaces, aces, laces, strangers, wasted. Flutter while you fall across the gap, no bridge stood, no man could reach. I pray 3 times at night, hope you hear it. I'm nearing heights I dreamt of, heights I fear. And since nobody else can hear me, let my ears bleed, let my heartstrings rip.

Following The Tide never was assigned to align to the ceiling on the moon my stride low G's low weight low everything cheap these lights these streaks might got too bright can't vision need my lenses blue ball in the sky keep turning on and on and on and on and on and on turn it off again I'm not done yet nope still going strong like an army man right now yeah that's what we do all night long baby let me hear you say hey! Hey! Yeah— oh shit this thing just went crazy for real bro holy fuck dude look at him go he literally flew up into space yo did y'all see how high his ass just fly? Yo wait hold up... Oh damn sonny boy get down here before something happens to ya' boi haha But I know I just need some selfish time.

I need my relics back. Give me true to what I know. Give me ruthless weight. All this paperweights, all these vacant spaces. Aces placing, strangers placing.

The air so fresh where I'm from.

Well, I tried to paint them away, but nothing could keep them at bay. And the time I fight, they come right back. Yeah, seems nothing would stop them or last. Last, last, last.

Ah, you can love that, you can choose it, accept it all. Try to feel it, don't try to control it. You can do it, Alexia! Your fear is bound to fall. Your faith is bound to rise.

Now, now, you can, you can do it, you can do it, can you? Feel it, accept it all. You can do it, you can pull it through. Feel it, accept it all. Your fear is bound to fall.

Your hate is bound to melt. Melt, melt.

Well, I know I ain't a superhero, my eyes on laser beams, and I can't jump over buildings, and I'm afraid of everything, like messing up around my friends, or losing my mom, or going out after dark just to walk my dog.

Well, I keep acting like nobody else has felt the same things in their heart. Well, I'm not a hero, but I better start. Well, I can't breathe underwater, but sometimes I wish I could. I sink into the darkness, I disappear for good. No boots or cape or shining magic powers in my brain.

Just memories and fantasies on which I have to cling. It's all these things that I tell myself while I keep acting like nobody else.

The same things, and they are— I'm not a hero, but I better be.

Beans, and I can't jump over buildings, and I'm afraid of everything.

Grilled peaches with a little bit of char. Scoop of vanilla didn't make it quite far. Before the juice starts dripping on down, it reaches my elbow and kisses the ground. Just like a tuki apple.

Running off day off the camp, I got too much to say. Oh my God, it happened again. Wound up, I thought I lost me again. Why don't you go visit the summertime? 'Cause it miss you.

Don't throw those freckles in the water. Why don't you stop sipping on tea? Go get yourself some love. Why don't you follow that dream?

Grand Peaches, Grand Peaches, how you deserve sweetness and sweetness. So if you have ambitions in your life, is that no perfect moment to reach out and try? Grand Peaches, Grand Peaches, how you deserve sweetness and sweetness. Life is auspicious when you listen. Don't surrender yourself to the message you're receiving.

Heartless. Harmonious. You will never find it, but bitch, you'll listen till you go change your mind. Go do things for fun. I know that it was stolen, but go be a child for once.

I let out a laugh, I let it break off. I licked it right off there, went for another bowl. Life is too short, you're stressed out enough. Let go of those chains that keep you so tight and tough. You know I love you, but what I want so bad is to see you grow, to see you laugh.

Fulfill your desires and prove them all wrong. Even yourself, Mama, make it and hurry along. Why don't you go visit the summertime? 'Cause it miss you. A begging message from your daughter.

Why don't you start sipping on tea? Go get yourself some love. Why don't you follow that dream? Oh!

Braille Beaches, all you deserve. So, so, so if you have ambitions in your life, find a perfect moment to reach out and try. Braille Beaches, Braille Beaches, all you deserve. So, so, so if life is auspicious when you listen, Oh well. I've been cursing at the sky.

Let the rain fall from my eyes. I've lived a thousand lives. You can't have my heart. You can't hold my mind. I won't stay.

I won't change. You can't have my heart. You can't hold my mind. I won't stay.

I won't change. Where's the ground? I keep falling off the edge.

Lost my ground. Now you're heavy on my head.

Yeah. So full of love, so full of pride. While I sift through all my vices, like I'm running out of time. You're scorching my mind, propane to the fire. Ignite my desire.

I can't ignore the flame. You can't have my heart. You can't hold my mind. I won't stay. I won't change.

This is round. I keep falling off the edge. Lost my ground. Now you're heavy. On my head.

Yeah. Where is the ground? Feels like I'm falling.

I lost my crown. Feels like I'm falling.

Yeah, yeah.

A highway memorial, the fill of some space.

And maybe the moon's only pretty 'cause it's far away.

And she only wants me, cuz I'm keeping his place. It's all the same, it's all the same, it's all Maybe I can find meaning if I look hard enough. The reason you're here is a cause of your tears and a check every month. Cut the loss.

It's all the same.

It's all the same. Yeah. It's all the same. It's all the same.

The leaves are turning faster with no sign of slowing down, and the birds fly south. So winter comes with the snow to blanket the town. The midday sky is The skies are clear and blue with a cool breeze in the air. You bundle up all nice and snug with something that's warm to wear. And the midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors to show.

A time to think on memories of the time I used to know. All is quiet with no one round, but your voice is singing loud. So sing away so long can hear, so the lost can all be found. And the midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors to show. A time to think on memories of a time I used to know.

A time to think on memories of a time I used to know.

Through the shade, made for a cool place to watch your subtle ways. What do I really care about? Am I afraid to make a noise?

What if this were forgotten? I hope there was none. What do I really care about? Nothing at all.

Ahooben wassana!

To lay, to just simply wait, to be tough in some other way.

What do I really care about? What do What do I really care about? Am I afraid to make it known?

What if this were a forgotten time? I hope it was not.

What do I really care about? Nothing now. At all. I hope it was not. What do I really care about?

Nothing at all.

Don't let them take your shine. Don't let them steal your mind away. Boom, yo! Said if they owed you money, I won't need a penny from you. Oh, you, you're stronger than you think.

Don't let these wounds sting. Apaumi soon, 'cause you're 4, 5, 6, Sometimes too good. If your roof is dead and your house caves in, then nobody else at fault. Think I did something bad, I did something bad. Never question the handyman.

Say, if they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go run and spend it all. I'm not very lucky. If they owe me something, let's go balance things out.

I'm so very lost on things that ain't going my way. I've been on both roads and the grass is greener over on this side. Let me take you down Broken road after every turn, it scares me like it do. But it's all the rules I always lose. I wake up and begin to choose.

I don't know what to do. Yeah, trees to hang out and nowhere to go. Don't let them take your shine. Don't Don't let them steal your mind away from you. Said if they owed you money, I won't need a penny from you.

Oh, you, you're stronger than you think. Don't let these wounds sting. The bomb is soon. 'Cause if 4, 5, 6 don't die, you'll go.

Good evening, everybody. I now call to order this meeting of the Anchorage Assembly. Tonight is August 12th, 2025. This is our regular meeting. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Member Myers. Here. Member McCormick. Here. Member Martinez.

Present. It's my understanding that Member Baldwin-Day will be late. Yes, excused. Also for Member Johnson, he'll be late. Yes, excused.

Chair Constant. Here. Vice Chair Brawley. Here. Member Voland.

Happy to be here. Member Silvers. Here. It's my understanding that Member Rivera is out. He's excused tonight.

Member Gerker. Here. It's my understanding that Member Presverde is out. He's excused tonight. Chair, you have a quorum.

All right, thank you everybody. Next, we would go to the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Gerker, would you please lead the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ms.

Barley, would you please read the land acknowledgment? Yes, Mr. Chair. A land acknowledgment is a formal statement recognizing the indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy.

It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement toward decolonization and equity. The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. It is with gratefulness and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Next, we have minutes of previous meetings. We do have the minutes. Item 4A of the regular meeting of July 29, 2025. Is there a motion to approve? Second.

Who is the mover? Mr. Myers moves. Seconded by Ms. Raleigh. Is there any discussion on the matter? Seeing and hearing none, I'd like to ask unanimous consent.

Any objection to the motion? Seeing and hearing no objection, the minutes have been adopted. Tonight we are— I'm going to defer the mayor's report until Representative DeMayer has arrived. We are expecting the manager to arrive pretty soon. I'll pivot into the chair's report at this time and just start by saying to the members, you've probably received late in the afternoon and didn't have a chance to read an email from me that expressed the request for members to have maximum flexibility in working through the agenda tonight because there are a number of issues that are happening simultaneously.

We have a few members who are out. We also have a cabinet secretary who is here meeting with the mayor and some members of the assembly at the port. And so the administration is out taking care of that business, important business of the municipality, and they will arrive when they get here, probably closer to, uh, 5:45, and we'll ask to make time for the mayor's report at that time. But also, we have some scheduling concerns with the municipal attorney's office and others that we would ask to be flexible in moving certain items through the night so we can make sure everybody who wants to be here for certain items can be here for certain items, even though they'll be late. And so, um, I just ask members to have some flexibility to get through the the business tonight.

So also, we are anticipating an executive session tonight over dinner when that occurs to have a briefing on the status of the pump storage hydro concept proposal for the Anchorage Hydropower Project. It's a strategy and legal briefing we anticipate coming from the Department of Law when everyone is here over dinner. So dinner may be late. So good evening, everybody. Welcome.

I have 3 quick updates. Last week we had a meeting with potential candidates that we've started to narrow down for Assembly Youth Representatives. We had a meet and greet with 5 remarkable young people who applied to serve as youth members. This is an impressive group who are engaged, thoughtful, and full of ideas about our community. I want to thank Assembly members who were there to attend, welcome these young people to City Hall, and engage with them in the meet and greet.

Uh, the vice chair and I will be selecting a small cohort this week to serve as youth representatives providing them with opportunities to learn more and together share perspectives and contribute meaningfully to our work. Orientation and training will begin later this month, with swearing-in tentatively planned for either August 26th or September 9th. The vice chair and I will have more details at the Rules Committee on Thursday.

So next, I'd like to brief on— oh, Miss—. Miss Farley. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to also say that we had a total of 10 applicants, and so the 5 who moved forward were folks that we selected for an interview, but just wanted to also say thank you so much to the other 5, to the total of 10 who put their names forward.

Thanks. Right, next, uh, the MOA 50 page is now live at muni.org. It's the go-to spot for celebrating the 50th anniversary of Anchorage's unification and creation as a first-class municipality, with history, stories, events, and ways to get involved. I encourage everyone to check it out. And share it with your friends and neighbors.

And finally, the end of summer is nearly here, although the last few days have made one think we could be living in endless summer. As we move into mid-August, we're feeling the close of Alaska's short and beautiful summer. The fair kicks off this Friday, a time for giant vegetables, music, and the last big gathering before the leaves turn. Students in the Anchorage School District will be heading back to school soon, filling crosswalks bike lanes, and bus stops. Once again, let's all remember to do our part to slow down in school zones and keep it safe for our young people trying to get to their schools, and cheer on students and educators, and savor these last long evenings before the days grow short.

And that's generally my report.

I would also note that I'll do our best to move us through our agenda tonight, although as I spoke before, it's going to be an unusual agenda for the kind of moving parts that we're going to have to work through. This is a business meeting. We're here to do the work of the municipality. Please help us create a climate of respect in the chambers. Refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting or clapping, and pacing unless clapping is in order.

Keep signs to 8.5 by 11 or smaller. Please keep the aisles clear except when lined up to testify. Please also do not approach the dais, but if you have materials for the assembly, please hand them to the clerk up here at the front. If rules aren't followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance. Compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting.

There's an actual disruption, I will give a warning, but if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. All right, so with that said, next we'll move on to committee and liaison reports. We'll start with Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.

All right, then, um, Ms. Brawley. Thank you. Uh, just briefly, the next meeting of the assembly's Budget and Finance Committee will be Thursday, August August 21st at 10 to 11 AM in City Hall, Room 155. Uh, we will continue our discussion that we had at the last work session on this topic of the assembly's, uh, FY26, uh, so next year's budget priorities to provide to the administration in advance of the, um, uh, full, full-on kickoff of the budget season. Um, so look for a draft resolution to be brought at that committee and then hopefully introduced for, uh, the meeting of either August 26th September 9th.

Thank you.

And that's all for my report. Thank you. Um, Mr. Folland.

So we're having some slight technical issues. Uh, Member Silvers, I don't think your mic just worked.

Okay, so, um, Mr. Kirker, see if yours will work. Uh, nothing to report, Chair. All right, yours worked. Thank you. Um, and with that, then we're through committee and liaison reports.

If it weren't for this scattywampus scheduling, we'd probably be done with this meeting at 6:30 tonight, but, um, because of it, that's not going to happen. Okay, next is the addendum to the agenda. And the laid on the table items. We just have a couple of supplemental laid on the table items, which is exactly how we like it. Uh, the first supplemental item is 10G3B, information memorandum AIM unnumbered missing labor contract agreement from assembly agenda item 10G3 from the mayor's office.

Then the other supplemental item is item 14G2, information memorandum unnumbered 2025 AO 2023 -137 as amended, a supplemental document to item 14G AR 2025-220 by Assemblymember Johnson.

So with that then, I would go ahead and ask for a motion to incorporate the addendum and the laid on the table items. So moved. Second. So the motion to incorporate is made by Member Brawley and seconded by Member Voland. I'd like to ask unanimous consent.

Is there any objection to the motion? Hearing and seeing no objection, the motion has passed. The addendum and the laid on the table items have been incorporated. So that brings us now to audience participation. Mr. McGee, welcome.

McGee.

The microphone is off. There you go. Thank you. My name is Charles McKee, and I'm the beneficiary of the McKee Trust. And that being said, I'm also responsible for pronouncing my commitment to Jehovah, and I submitted paperwork already to this body titled Pearl of Great Price.

And then I added to that the heartache of the crew members of Eucla 27 of E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System 77-0354, callsign Eucla 27. On 1995, their creation burned because I talked to them and the base commander and the signing off on the flight. It's fully disclosed in the document of 8 pages sitting before you. That being said, I'm also bringing about the recorded statement that Jehovah has good cause to come down on this spoilization that I wrote about starting on page 2. I'm now writing about the spoilization of the temple, the physical temple, and as if it's a municipal right-of-way section.

I for one question the Satanic right-of-way use of this unblushing form of fundraising to help with the administration, the current federal administration codification of laws of the United States of America. Jehovah and/or American, i.e., US, period. This transparency of sexual scandals playing out here and District Court to the Epstein files. Oh, let us not forget Sheen Daddy Combs and his equitable, as he calls it, freakouts in New York City and other trajectories. I would like this body to consider as a conclusion or the conception that on Friday, September 22nd, 1995, The whole statewide intertie was drained of its electricity, causing a microwave stream burst released at the same time as the Euclid 27 was rolling down Runway 5 to do a flyover of the Perla del Gran Precio to map the sunken oil released by the Blue Chip Company.

Thank you, Mr. McKee. Yep, thank you. And read it. Hope so. All right, so that then brings us to the next item on our agenda, which is the consent agenda.

So the consent agenda are generally non-controversial items, items 10A through 10F, which are typically routine or non-controversial items—bid awards, reports, ordinances, and resolutions. For introduction, I use 10G as well. Items on the consent agenda may be approved by the assembly by a single vote on a motion to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, items may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion, separate vote on each of those items. Under the rules of procedural ordinances and some resolutions, we'll have an opportunity for public hearing at a future date.

So next I will go down the dais. I'll start with you, Mr. Gerker. Any items you'd like to pull? No, Chair, thank you. I would note that the one night we have kind of room in our agenda.

There are no 10As, so it's the irony of it. Um, Ms. Silvers?

No items. Thank you. Mr. Boland? No items. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Ms. Brawley? Thank you. Um, I do have a couple items and then some items on behalf of a member who's not here. So first, on behalf of the administration, pulling 10D5 as well as 10D8 And then on behalf of Member Baldwin-Day, I'd like to pull items 10B4, 10D1, and 10E1.

And those are all the items. Thank you. So for you, I have on behalf of the administration items 10D5, 10D8 for Ms. Baldwin-Day, 10B4, 10D1, and 10E1. Yes, that sounds correct.

So, all right, um, Mr. Martinez? No items. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Mr. McCormick? Uh, 10C4, 10D17.

So, Ms. Franke, you pulled 10C4 and 10D17. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Chair. No additional items. All right, so items that have been pulled tonight are 10B4, 10C4, 10D1, 10D5, 10D8, and 10E1.

I would note that, um, the items pulled on behalf of Ms. Baldwin-Day, we're going to ask to take them up later in the night. The items pulled by members who are present right now, we'll go ahead and take on, um, currently. So, um, is there anything else that members would like to pull from the consent agenda? I'm not hearing any, so I would like to ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. So moved.

Second. Moved by Mr. Wallin, seconded by Miss Brawley. Like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the motion to approve? Hearing and seeing no objection, the consent agenda has been approved minus the pulled items.

So if there's no objection, I will skip through the items that were pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day, and we'll start with item 10C1— or excuse me, 10C4.

10C4 is AM 617-2025, recommendation award of a contract, consolidated contract, and Building Engineering LLC, consolidated contracting for Performing Arts Center elevator modernization. Mr. McCormick, this item was pulled by you.

Do I need to move to approve? Yep. Okay, that's the first step. Okay, motion to approve. Thanks.

Second. Moved by Mr. McCormick, seconded by Mr. Myers. Mr. McCormick, I just had a question, um For somebody from the, the PAC, of after we got the presentation regarding the maintenance that needed to be done there, why we chose the elevator instead of the, the roof project or any of the other projects. So I'm going to ask Mr. Fawzy for that. Through the chair to Member McCormick, the elevator has been identified as a priority for the PAC for at least a year, and then it became the top of the pile for the PAC last fall.

And that was because some of the freight elevator mechanical breakdowns either impaired some of the ongoing shows or threatened to impair some of the ongoing shows. So whereas the roof does need attention and there are various other parts of the facility, that one really was a critical go/no-go for ongoing operations. Okay, add a little bit to that as well, if you're okay with that. Um, so at the kind of— it was probably April of 2024, last year, that the previous administration put forward an emergency appropriation to fix the elevators. And so we took care of the appropriation at that point.

And so this item is the contract award to that appropriation that happened in 2024 in the previous administration. Oh, was it December? Okay, it's all the way back in December 2023. So is, is that a Correct your memory, Mr. Fawcett. Yes.

So we're in the end are essentially getting to the point where the construction is for a project that started quite a long time ago. Okay. And does this fix the flooding issue in the elevator shaft? Through the Chair to Member McCormick. No.

The flooding issue, there's some discussion about how serious the flooding issue actually is. But in order— what you heard in the Friday work session was an idea of potentially completely replacing the elevator so that it is not a piston-driven elevator that requires you to drill down into the ground, but rather a hoisted elevator that works on cables. This is a modernization of the current elevator system, but it does not address that piston issue.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else in the queue on this item? I, I will just say, um, for my own part then, that I saw the report that came out from the leadership of the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts, and it raised more questions than provided answers. And I think that there are a number of different opinions in the community about the veracity and totality of the report, and it, I think, requires some really thoughtful investigation on our part for what and how and how to prioritize the items within it. And so I think there's a lot more conversation coming forward. It's not— no one would believe this was a simple fix.

It is— it's going to take some real sorting to figure out the answer to that conundrum. So I just want to add that, but this is unrelated to that. This is old So I ask members to support this item. If no one else, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 8 to 0, AM617-2025 has passed the body. Again, recognizing that the next item on our list is pulled by someone who's not quite here, they'll be here any minute. We're going to go ahead and move on to item 10D5.

Item 10D5 is Assembly Memorandum number 598-2025, Executive Appointment Confirmation Hearing, Ann Marie Billingsley, Chief Human Resources Officer. This item was pulled by you, Miss Farley. Yes, move to approve. Second. Moved by Miss Brawley, second by Mr. Voland.

Anyone wish to speak to this item? Miss Brawley. Yeah, I'll just say, um, we had a good informative work session with Miss Billingsley on Friday the 8th. That was very helpful, and I guess I would defer any other comments to the administration.

Anyone else? So for my part, again, I'll jump in the queue and just to say I look forward to working with you, Miss Billingsley, that there are a lot of big challenges that surround and imbue the human resources process of the municipality, and I appreciate you being willing to step in and tackle some of the big ones. So with that then, if there's nobody else, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 8 to 0, AM598-2025, executive appointment confirmation hearing, Ann Marie Billingsley, is passed the body. We'll now take a moment to to swear her in.

Mr. Chair, a quick scheduling question. Yep. Which I will ask the newly confirmed appointee if her family was planning to be here at 7:30. So if you want, we can hold this part until they get here, this, the actual Oh, sorry, I didn't think you were going to be here, and so I was planning to have it at 7:30, so— but you were here, right?

And so if you want us to wait, we can have your family here. The work is done. Okay, we can do pictures after, Mr. Fauzi. That's the answer.

The theme tonight is maximum flexibility.

I solemnly swear. I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the State of Alaska—. The Constitution of the State of Alaska— And the Charter of the Municipality of Anchorage—.

And the Charter of the Municipality of Anchorage— And that I will faithfully perform the duties— And that I will faithfully perform the duties—. Of Human Resources Director to the best of my ability—. Of Human Resources Director to the best of my ability. All right.

I think we'll have enough time to do it again later.

All right, so again, in keeping with— wait, item 10D8, the administration had requested us to pull and not move, and so we're not going to move 10D8. It will come back in a corrected form. So next we have item 10D.17, Assembly Memorandum— excuse me, Assembly Memorandum AM 616-2025, change order number 11 with CH2M Hill Engineers Inc., CH2M, to provide professional project and construction management services for Municipality of Anchorage, Don Young Port of Alaska, contract 440000035.

So Mr. McCormick, you pulled this item. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. McCormick, second by Ms. Brawley.

Um, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I just like to hear a little more about this if we're spending $63 million.

So who would like to answer or kind of give us a little briefing on the scope?

Welcome. Good evening. John Daley, Port of Alaska PAMP engineering manager. This contract is to support, to provide program management and oversight to the modernization program. It's a 5-year contract extension.

We chose 5 years because that coincides with the completion of Terminal 1, which is now under contract.

The majority of the work in the next 5 years will be— I don't know about the majority, but a large portion of the work will be construction administration for the new terminal. And then there's ongoing project and program management activities.

Okay, that answers my question from, from you guys. I asked a question for the administration if when we originally, or when the assembly, this body originally approved this in 2014, has there been any bids put out again for this?

Uh, Mark Spafford, Deputy Municipal Manager. Um, through the chair, uh, to my knowledge, no, it has been extended since 2000, or for since then. Okay, is there a reason why we haven't put this out? Uh, because of the institutional knowledge that CH and now Jacobs has with the project, we felt that Um, in the interest of timeliness, effectiveness, and cost efficiency, it was best to continue the contract with, um, Jacobs due to their institutional knowledge. Thank you.

Ms. Brawley. Yeah, thanks. Um, I just had one additional question, um, and you alluded to it, but can you just clarify the relationship between, uh, C2HM Hill that's on our item versus Jacobs, which I think we've seen their staff they've been presenting to us for years, right? So kind of just explaining that history briefly. Thanks.

Yeah, through the chair, uh, Member Brawley, to answer that question is CH, uh, was purchased by Jacobs. I'm not quite sure when, but it was several years ago. And so basically it's a continuation of that same team in the same company. It's just under a different name. Thank you.

Anyone else?

So I will just add, Mr. McCormick, to your question, this contract has spanned 4 administrations now. It tends to be, um, the, the view of the administration that efficiency, because of the scale of the project, argues there's really no one else qualified. It could almost be sole source, but it's under the same contract, and so I think there are a lot of people have different opinions on that and be happy to talk about it after, but, um, that is kind of the current condition. Anyone else on this item? And I would note that Ms. Baldwin-Day and Mr. Johnson have joined us just a moment ago, a couple moments.

With that then, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AM 616-2025 has passed the body. So now we'll go ahead and roll back to item 10B4.

10B4 is Resolution AR 2025-236, Resolution of the Anchorage Assembly Regarding the Implementation and Use of Traffic cameras and traffic camera recordings to the municipality. Um, this item was pulled on your behalf, Miss Baldwin-Day.

Uh, thank you, Chair. Actually, my questions on this item have been answered. Okay, so, um, just one moment.

And I am happy to move to approve. Thank you. Second.

All right, so there's a motion to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Ms. Silvers, and I'll go ahead and speak to it if that's okay. Mr. Constant. Thanks.

So For about a year I've been asking the administration for— maybe even more than a year— a policy on the use of footage from all the traffic cameras. So, um, I think about 5 weeks ago we heard, or 3, 4 weeks ago at a Transportation Committee, that the policy is in the legal department and we will see it soon, and we haven't seen it. And so I'm just putting down this resolution With really the key function is a timeline. The timeline is that it is delivered to us by the end of October so that we can meaningfully look at the policy. Now I think that members should recognize we haven't seen the policy.

This guidance as it's drafted is still kind of guidance, not a dictate that it must be this way because we need them to tell us. But I just ask for your support in moving this with the clear understanding that we will see back from the administration the policy on the use of that footage. So that's my reason for putting this on the agenda. Anyone else? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AR 2025-236 has passed the body. That brings us then to item 10D.

10D1 is AM591-2025, Intergovernmental Agreement with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for Project Management, Planning, Design, and Construction of ADOT and PF CFHWY 01292 AMATS, Bernard Road Rehabilitation, Northwood Drive to Minnesota Soda Drive. This item was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Ms. Brawley. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. I, I actually have a question about the scope of design for this particular project. I'm wondering if someone can answer that for me. I'm not sure who we have Hello, I'm Aaron Yoganathan, I'm the Executive Director of AMATS.

Melinda Cole Haas, Director of Project Management and Engineering. All right, thank you both so much for being willing to answer a couple of questions. The first is, I'm curious if the scope of this this project contemplates the, the actual intersection of Spinard Road with Minnesota Drive.

Yes, the design team has identified that intersection for this project. However, I would like to hear from Aaron if it is clearly in the scope. Um, no, it is not called out in the scope. I've feel déjà vu standing up here and telling you that. All right, well, in that case, um, I, I would, um, I would like to, to specifically include, um, and Mr. Yoganathan, I'm going to assume that this means an email to you, um, to ask that the, uh, the intersection itself also be included in the, in the official project scope so that, that can— we can close that little hole.

Is there anything else that you need from me in order to make that so? An email? No, that's good. Thank you. Excellent.

Thank you. That was my only question.

So before you go far, I think— are you sure, Aaron, we don't need an action of this body to change the scope like that? You can just do it? So just like the Dale and Folker project that we had last time I was here, the recommendation would be we would provide this to the Technical Advisory Committee and Policy Committee and ask if they want this to be included in the next TIP amendment for consideration. And so it'd be up to the Policy Committee to make that determination. But there's no reason we can't bring a request from the assembly and say, what do you guys think, Policy Committee, should this change happen or not?

But a request from the assembly requires a certain action of the assembly. And so, um, I think that what I would do is ask the membership, is there any Any objection to that request?

So I am hearing no objection from the body. So now I think it's fair to conclude that the assembly has agreed with that action, okay, or that request. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Brawley. Yeah, thanks. Um, so my comment would just be redundant because I was going to underscore the need to include that intersection And I'll also just add, I know there were some traffic pattern changes regarding the left turn lane if you're going from, uh, Spenard left onto, you know, north onto Minnesota. So I know there's been some confusion in that area, and certainly it remains one of many dangerous intersections. And so very much appreciate if that is included because it is the conduit to the rest of Spenard Road.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else? Hearing and seeing none, then members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AM591-2025 and a recommendation to the Policy Committee have passed the body. Okay, next we have item 10E1. 10E1 is Resolution AR-2025-225, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating a reimbursable grant from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation in the amount of $140,934.15 to the state grant fund 231900 and Anchorage Health Department for case management services for clients of Chugash View and Chugash Manor. This item was pulled by you, Miss Baldwin. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second. So moved by Miss Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Voland. Miss Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, I would love to ask a couple of questions of the health department if they are available, or whomever else the administration would like to speak to this.

Thanks, Director Ash. Oh, I'm sorry, I, um, I, uh, we've heard, um, I have some questions about the, the definition or the, the parameters of case management, um, as it is sort of appropriate to this particular context and how the case management that's provided in this And this will differ from, say, client navigation or something like that. Great question. So through the chair, the purpose of this agreement is to provide service coordination case management to residents at the housing sites owned by AHFC, which is the Chugiach Manor and View. The goal of the program is to enable elderly and/or disabled residents to remain independent, to age in place in their— and in their homes.

So service coordinators, we have one service coordinator at the Anchorage Health Department, and her role is to advocate on behalf of the residents, provide resources to the residents on available community-based services, answer any of those questions. She is to facilitate, or is a facilitator of wellness and other educational programs. She empowers the residents to be independent as as possible, monitors who to follow up with, service— what services are provided to the residents, encourages them to adhere to healthy lifestyle. They are not direct service providers. They are not any type of recreation or activity directors.

They're not duplicators of any existing community services or distribute medical aids, medications, medical advice. Or handle any of the resident funds or manage or act as a leasing agent. So it's really just the service coordination and making sure that they are able— the residents that are living in these units are able to age in place healthy. Thank you, that's helpful. I noticed that we tend to use case management as a catch-all for a lot of different functions, and so it's helpful to understand a little bit more specifically what this looks like in the context of elder care.

So thank you very much. I think that's my only question.

Anyone else? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote. On a vote of 10 to 0, AR 2025-225 has passed the body. Now I would like to ask— that actually concludes our consent agenda portion of the agenda, the manager to provide a report on behalf of the mayor. Ms. Lynn Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening, everyone. As the chair noted, I'm delivering the mayor's report on her behalf tonight. She is unfortunately unable to be with us at the beginning of this meeting because she's wrapping up some visits from dignitaries both to the port and also at the Coast Guard gathering this evening. We have been really excited to host multiple cabinet members at the port this week to highlight the importance to Alaska and our national security and we're really grateful to the members of our delegation who helped to facilitate that, highlighting that critical piece of infrastructure on the national scale.

Um, last week the mayor attended the Anchorage Economic Summit where we learned the results of AEDC's survey shows that business confidence has dropped overall recently, mostly due to tariffs and national economic concerns. Um, and on the mayor's behalf, I wanted to reiterate a few points from her comments at the summit specifically that, yes, it is true that we are facing some big economic challenges from a housing shortage to homelessness and uncertainty at the federal level. But we also have incredible opportunities to grow, to innovate, and to work together on solutions. She noted there that it is our job to help Anchorage stay resilient through any challenge, no matter what is happening with tariffs, interest rates, or federal policy. And the good news is that we are making progress step by step.

A big part of that progress is our work to address the housing shortage, and as we all know, we've set a 10-year goal of building or rehabilitating 10,000 homes. With support from the Assembly, we've cut red tape and added new incentives, and we're already seeing positive results. Tonight on the agenda is an ordinance which will help incentivize the rehabilitation of vacant and abandoned residential properties. This measure would give a 10-year property tax tax break to property owners investing at least 15% of a building's assessed value in improvements. Not only does this policy help rehabilitate empty houses and apartments into safe and livable homes, adding to our viable housing stock, but these rehabilitated properties will add value to the tax base in the long term.

So it's a true win-win for the municipality. There are many other pieces in the works, and we look forward to talking with the Assembly more through committee meetings. So thank you again, Mr. Chair. Thank you to members.

All right, so one second.

So, um, we're waiting for Ms. Gardner to arrive to help discuss the possibility of an executive session. It might be we need to defer that to another night just because we're moving at such a pace. So I think that what What I'm going to do is suggest then we just take our regularly scheduled dinner break right now and come back and get on with the business.

Hello, everybody. Welcome back. Good evening. We're going to go ahead and take up Item 11A. Item 11A is Resolution AR-2025-191, Resolution of the Anchorage Assembly Recognizing an Ongoing Public Health and Safety Crisis Resulting from Systemic Failures in the State of Alaska's Behavioral Health System, Acknowledging Its Disproportionate Impact on Anchorage's Communities and Economy, and Directing the Municipal Attorney to Pursue all legal remedies.

Action was postponed from 6/10/2025 and 7/15/2025. There is no motion pending. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Moved by Mr. Martinez.

Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Ms. Silvers. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. This, uh, colleagues, this resolution is about telling the truth. From my perspective, it's been on this this agenda for some time. I hope folks had a chance to look at it. And from my vantage point, it's about telling about the real state of the state's behavioral health system and what it means for Anchorage.

For better or worse, we are Alaska's hub. Because of our port, because of our military base, and our central role in the economy, we house and support the workforce for the people across the state. And when the state steps back, we step into the gap. But that gap has grown so wide it threatens our fiscal health, public safety, and our quality of life. This resolution says clearly that the state needs to step up to its constitutional obligations and/or that we will look for any remedy that we can have to make sure that we can have our backs covered and hold those accountable.

I hope folks will support this resolution. And, uh, just a little background additionally, uh, the administration asked me to postpone this resolution for action until tonight, and I have heard no additional reasons or negative indications from the administration except that they wanted a better timing. And so here we are today. I hope we can just advance this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Mr. Kerker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, I, I, I don't know that I disagree with a lot of what the member from East Sanford said about the challenges that we face here in this community.

There's a lot of failure happening across the state, from at the state level, at other cities, and other jurisdictions are failing to do a good job. However, I do not know that broadcasting our legal strategy in this way is prudent, and I would say that it would be probably wiser to not pass this resolution and let the municipal attorneys decide when and where to pursue a lawsuit against the state. I do not believe that would be— I don't think broadcasting what we are going to do or not do is wise. Flies. And also, we work with the state on a lot of different issues, and you trap a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

And so I'd say let's try some honey here and leave the actual timeline and legal strategy to the attorneys. And so I would urge colleagues to vote no.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Gerker pretty well captured my sentiments as well. I certainly believe the state could and should do more, but I am wary of taking this sort of adversarial position or directing the Minnesota pool attorney to pursue these actions.

So I won't rehash what he said other than say I think those are valuable comments. Should there be a motion to amend this and take out sections 3 and 4, I think I would support that, and I would probably support I would support the motion without those in here. But if ultimately the vote is on whether or not to accept this as presented, specifically because of my concerns about that section in that direction, I would have to vote no.

Ms. Braly. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, and I appreciate the extra time to review this. In its current form, I can't support this, and just echoing what other members have said, the reasons why. But I think also, I guess for me the question is really, you know, these are issues certainly we've been dealing with for a long time.

We've documented it many times already in our legislative program, on the record, in other places. And then even if these other sections were removed, my understanding is we've— Section 1, we recognize there's a crisis. Section 2, we recognize there's disproportionate impact. Section 5 sounds like really what this administration has been doing since they started and really prior administrations going back at least 3 or 4 that I can think of have been doing. And so the question for me is really what do we gain from this or what is new or different about this other than really documenting things that we are already doing.

But I will say that if there is interest in amending this and moving it forward, then I will— I am not going to do it right now, but I do intend to move Mr. Rivera's Amendment Number 1 to add the, the, um, uh, a whereas clause essentially about the alcohol tax. So I'm not doing that right now, but if the debate continues and it looks like we're going to amend this, then I will come back to that. Thanks. Member Silvers, uh, move Silvers Amendment Number 3. Second.

There is a motion to amend by Member Silvers, second by Mr. Gerker, Ms. Solis. So this amendment removes Section 3 and Section 4. Section 3 is the directive to the municipal attorney, Section 4 is the reporting requirement, and then renumbers them accordingly. And it removes it for really all the reasons that have just been stated.

In the queue on the amendment or on the main motion, Ms. Baldwin-Day? I think the question is germane regardless. Okay, Ms. Baldwin, do it. Yes, I have a question for council actually. Um, the, the title of, of this legislation includes the directive to the municipal attorney.

It— how, how does amending the body without a— I'm trying to think how to ask this question. Is it possible to also amend the title of the resolution, or does that create a fundamentally different resolution since the title itself includes the words 'and directing the municipal attorney to pursue all legal remedies.' Um, thank you for the question. Uh, through the chair to Member, uh, Balduende, um, changing the actual substance of the body does not really require changing the title of the resolution, even though it's included in the resolu— the title. The title is primarily for noticing purposes, um, to allow the public what's going to be debated, what's on the agenda right now. If for consistency's sake the body did want to amend the title to reflect what's within the body of the resolution, uh, it's more than free to do that in its discretion, but it's not going to present any sort of legal defect if the substance of the resolution itself is amended and it does not mirror perfectly what's in the title.

But given what is in the title and the stated intent of this amendment, it might be advisable to also strike that language from the title?

Absolutely. Excellent, thank you.

Are you done with the floor? So I'm curious about order of operations then. So two things could happen. One, you could move to amend the amendment, or two, you could prevail upon the mover and the seconder to amend the motion before an action, which would take less time.

So the question would be to the movers, are you amenable to also adding the title change? Okay, so So that would be the fastest way, is by mutual agreement. And so, Madam Clerk, want to take a stab at that?

Almost, hold on. The clerk has to kind of parse it.

Can, can we put that part up on the screen, Mr. Turner? So there's the motion as amended. So it's to amend 2025-191 with Silver's Amendment 3 and removing and directing the municipal attorney to pursue all legal remedies from the title. Okay, all right, next in the queue on the amendment, Mr. Voland.

Yeah, my comments work. Either way. But, um, so this is interesting. I think by removing all of this language, it kind of takes the main thrust out of the resolution. Um, and so I don't— to me, I think if this amendment passes, I'm undecided about how I'm going to vote on the underlying item.

But I think if this amendment passes, there's not a whole lot of reason that I see in the resolves, maybe in the whereas, for kind of outlining the case, but I think if this amendment passes, I don't know that this resolution really states much. And I'm curious about my colleagues' thoughts on— so if folks remember when we had the work session on the organization of the executive branch, one of the things that we, that we highlighted was that the municipal attorney, they have a really tough job. Because in a sense they answer to the mayor, but in a sense they also work for the assembly. They advise both of us. And, um, you know, as I have, I think, a few times, um, stated from this dais, you know, we are the policy-making body.

We're the legislative branch of the municipality. And I do think that there are, um, times when it is appropriate for us to hold the state accountable. We've talked about that, you know, with this topic, mental health. We've also talked about that with pedestrian deaths and transportation-related issues. Um, and so then I guess my question is, how do we— if not via resolution, how does the assembly as a body take action to direct the municipal attorney collectively, right, without sort of revealing our legal strategy.

And I don't know that this really goes into great depth of an actual legal strategy. So if I might, just real quick, I'm going to take the first stab to answer that question, and the municipal attorney can correct me if I get anything wrong. The assembly can move into executive session of its own accord to provide direct guidance and direction to the attorneys on legal matters. And so that's one of the few actions that the assembly can in fact take behind closed doors, is to direct the attorneys to do certain things. Thank you.

I appreciate that answer. It just also, you know, I think we default to doing our business in public, right? And how then— then a member has to prevail upon the majority of their colleagues to move into executive session. And it just, it provides an extra barrier for us as the policymakers to sort of have this conversation, I guess. Um, and so saying all that, that's, um, I think why I'm of two minds on this amendment.

I think I'm not going to support the amendment, the amendment, and I'm still undecided about the underlying item. But I want my colleagues to be thinking about that, like, okay, if there are times, if there was a real clear thing where we felt collectively like, hey, we got to take some action on this, on an issue, um, the state is adverse to our interest, or another entity is adverse to our interest, I could see there being a time and place for a resolution like this to come forward. So that's all I will say for now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Martinez, on the amendment. Yes, Chair, thank you. On the amendment, I agree with Member Voland with respect to the main thrust of the action. I'd like to see something happen across the bow, but I think it's interesting to point out from my vantage point what fight folks would want to pick. I'm interested in picking a fight with folks who have failed the city of Anchorage because they failed across the state to provide behavioral and mental health responses adequate enough to help people.

We are the hub city, and it has landed square on our doorsteps. We have our own challenges, but we deal with the state's failed mental health and behavior. There's no one here who would argue otherwise. And then the question is, what fight would you want to pick? And on the two points of this amendment, Chair, first, the, uh, in the, uh, the items that are being removed or being expressed to be removed Um, just to note that the, the resolution— and it's a resolution— is calling for a directive for the, for the attorney to provide information to us, and that information can be also provided to us in executive session.

It doesn't have to have revealing information, but it is a public declaration that we're not gonna just sit with our hands underneath our asses. And then secondly, just to additionally amplify what fight folks would want to pick, this body has cosigned onto a joint resolution, multiple ones, with the school board directly saying to the state, what's going on? You're not stepping up to the plate for our children. Where's the money? So we'll pick whatever fights we pick.

And tonight, I just hope that at the end of the day, beyond whatever red herrings of legal strategy is going to be articulated, we have a certain set of tools in our toolbox that this— this particular amendment would gut some of the tools that this resolution calls for to bring bear to. But at the end of the day, picking a fight with the tools we have to defend our best interest is what it's about. And it's an interesting space within the same couple of week period. This fight is being challenged when there are other fights that this body has picked with respect to vulnerable people in our communities. This is a fight that's going to help us uncover more resources possibly, a better strategy, and a better way forward because we are under the gun I hope you will vote against this particular amendment.

But if you do, advance something forward. Pick the fight. The fight has already been picked on us. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Brawley. Thanks. Yes, this is on the amendment. So as I look at this, I guess I'm still wondering kind of if these sections are removed. And I think this point has been made already.

Then what does this do? You know, what— so, and I want to separate the issue from the action on this item, because I think the question is not, is there a problem? And certainly this outlines it. Many other documents before it have outlined it. And again, you know, if these other sections are removed and then what's left is the action is to say shall coordinate, you know, stakeholder coordination, those are things we're already doing.

So I'm just wondering again, especially if these other two pieces are removed and the purpose of this changes significantly, then what are we actually doing? And I do— I hear the point from the sponsor about what fights we pick. I guess I would also suggest that there are— when engaging with the state, there is fighting and then there is advocating, and there are many other adjectives or verbs we could use. And one mechanism that we have that will be coming up soon is the legislative program. And I think that's something where For multiple years, we have documented behavioral health as a major issue and its disproportionate impact on public safety.

And so I would suggest that's another avenue to really continue this same work and bring that to the fore as a priority. And then I would leave that to, to the body and the administration to determine how that ranks in the priorities. Thanks. Mr. McCormick. I'm going to be speaking against the amendment here.

I'm going to agree with Member Voland in that I think that this amended version takes out the teeth and the, the main impact of the resolution as introduced. I'm still torn. I'm listening intently to the other members here on the resolution as introduced. I don't disagree with any of the sentiment or feelings behind this resolution. We see it on our streets.

We see it every day. I talk about it every day.

But I, I'm not sure if now is the time and this is the way to go forward. But as I said, I'm listening intently to the members to decide which way I'm going to vote on the resolution as introduced. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin.

Thank you, Chair. My— I think there are a couple of— there are many ways to pick a fight. And one of them involves walking up and punching someone in the jaw, and another is to take that person around the back of the building and have a very strongly worded conversation. One of them is very public, very blatant, very like pointed, and the other is slightly more diplomatic but potentially no less effective. And I think my, my challenge with this particular resolution is that it, it is a punch to the jaw in broad daylight, and it also broadcasts the tools that we might wish to leverage to hold the state accountable.

And I think that that's a strategic error on our part, uh, to, to make this, make this directive public as opposed to having separate conversations with the municipal attorney regarding this issue. And I'm disinclined to punch anybody in the jaw when ultimately the person or the entity that we are punching in the jaw is the entity from which we are seeking relief. And I'm not sure that that is a strategy that has worked well in the past, and I'm not convinced it's a strategy that will work well in this instance. So I think perhaps, yes, the proposed amendment takes the teeth out. I also think it avoids a major strategic error on our part.

And I would, I would prefer a directive to the municipal attorney to be handled differently and not, not in a resolution.

Next. Thank you, Mr. Kerker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I would just say the same thing.

Look, I'm not opposed to fighting. In fact, hell, I love fighting. I will fight anybody, but you have to fight smart. You have to fight smart to win. And that's not what this— that's not what this resolution is doing.

It's, it's like Member Baldwin-Day said, we're punching the state square in the jaw, broad daylight, and then also going, by the way, can you help us with this thing? Why would they do that? They said, go to hell. Why should we help you if you're going to hit us in the jaw? If you're going to— if you're going to publicly get them out here and say, hey, we're going to sue you instead of working collaboratively to find solutions, why would they do that?

That we can still sue them without this resolution if that is the course that we decide to go. We do not need this resolution to pursue this remedy. So if you want to fight, let's fight. But let's fight to win and not virtue signal.

Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Personally, I'm a lover, not a fighter. But, you know, this discussion has given me more thoughts. You know, I don't want to speak for the sponsor, but in light of what we heard from the member from West Anchorage, I think mentioned, you know, there's been several years or multiple years, I think is what you said, in terms of advocacy.

And so as I read this, I think that the motivation is, well, we tried it for multiple years. We tried to have the outback behind the outhouse conversation. And we're not getting the relief.

So, you know, I can kind of see where this is coming from. And, you know, specific to the amendment and the discussion here about, you know, when to do these things publicly and when not, if this passes, if the final version passes even as amended, I believe, Madam Clerk, it'll still have the sort of legislative drafting. So our hand is tipped regardless of whether we amend this, because they can see the language that was struck through. And, you know, it'll communicate maybe that not the entire assembly was on board, right? But the language will still be visible even though it's, it's stricken through.

So something to consider. And then finally, I just want to go back to, like, the process, because I can't just go have a private meeting with the municipal attorney and say, hey, I, Daniel Voland, one of the representatives of North Anchorage, want to sue the state on this topic. Um, so like, what I guess in my limited experience on this body, I've just never seen an executive session happen, um, spontaneously or, or from a member who's not leadership. Say, I want it— like, what if you didn't have an item? You know, can I just— we're at a meeting and I'm just say, hey guys, I actually have a topic I want to discuss with you all and the municipal attorney, and I want to go into executive session.

And then I as an individual member have to lay the foundation. I mean, I, I just— if this doesn't pass, I guess what I'm, what I'm encouraging and asking my, my colleagues to carefully consider is then in the future, if a member brings something forward and they feel strongly about, um, considering legal remediation on an issue, then please be open to going into executive session when it's not called by leadership or when it's not called by the administration. Because I think that there's other topics that are bubbling up beneath the surface right now. And so I guess that's my request, that if, if we don't pass this, um, let's, let's be open to, to executive session called by any member when appropriate. Thank you.

I just jump on there quickly and add that any member can— what I would recommend, work with either council or the municipal attorney's office to lay the foundation. So you wouldn't have to sit here and do it on your own and try to convince everyone. You would have the benefit of the office of municipal attorney or assembly council to do that work. And so, um, it sounds like a stretch. Mostly it's a stretch for lack of practice.

We don't do it very often. But ultimately, the tool you would have as a member to make that argument would be through council. So just know that it wouldn't be you sitting here alone. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair.

Continue to be on the amendment because this is the thrust of things.

I just want to be clear for the members in the public because virtual signaling is also shorthanding the conversation. There is no part of this particular item that calls for a lawsuit. So when it says we will sue the state of Alaska, it just doesn't say it. In fact, it says the directive to the municipal attorney is to investigate and pursue all legal avenues including but not limited to et cetera, and et cetera, and et cetera. So it doesn't call for anything specifically except to investigate and then give us a report back with those legal theories.

So I just wanted to be real clear when it— the term virtual virtue signaling was utilized, but it was built on an argumentation that was not necessarily actually in the language of the resolution itself. So I just wanted to be real clear of that, Chair. I have, as a person who— and I'll own up to it— has both talked to a person in the back of the alley and has smacked them in the nose in the front of the street as well, know that sometimes you have to have the concern of both to be able to move the first one. And so our tools are very public. The municipal attorney is a public position.

Their tools in the toolbox are not hidden. We already know it. So there's no secretive process, but I do have a memory. It was also articulated that folks have not necessarily seen this strategy work, but I sit here as a member of this body knowing that And I'm going to say it. Body cam implementation happened much faster because there was an outside concern of a legal threat, a lawsuit for implementation, because the voters demanded this, and it was a drag of a feat moment.

At least it was our— that was the debate. And the lawsuit never happened, and implementation rolled out faster than even the chief thought it could happen. So occasionally there are times when the public declaration of a unified front saying we're just not going to take it anymore is important. And so I don't know that necessarily from my vantage point that I would definitely vote and encourage my members to support not the amendment, but moving something forward. I want to lastly just resonate on Mr. Voland's last point.

If you all are thinking that this is the first time this popped out, just track the legislative history of when this initial discussion started coming to this body. It parallels a discussion about criminalizing additional spaces in Anchorage. So what fight do we want to pick? I don't mind whatever tools and however people want to say the tools should be more visible or less visible, but I do know that that if we are going to say there are vulnerable people in our community and, and we're going to have an action on this body to criminalize more spaces where those vulnerable people may be, and we know we're at the short end of the stick to the state's failed response, well, this is part of a reaction to that whole ecosystem that is coming forward. So it's not just an overnight mysterious shot off the, off the cliff.

This is something that has been thought about. But necessarily, it helps from my vantage point shape the public conversation for the public. So when we see what's happening in the streets, to Mr. McCormick's point, we have a better understanding that there are things we're doing, but we cannot do all the things because we are at the short end of a much bigger and greater challenge that I hope this can help the public uncover. So that would be my hope and closing comments on this particular part of the amendment, Chair. Thank you.

So I have myself in the queue and I'll just briefly say on the theme of your hand is tipped, our hand is tipped. This conversation is already in the state. They all know the effects of it are already being felt.

Take that for what you want, but have no doubt that it doesn't matter what language is on a final version, if it passes, strikethrough line, whatever. They already have that information. So that part is done. All right. If there's no one else in the queue, then members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

The amendment fails on a 5-5 vote. We're back on the main motion.

Anyone wish to speak further on it? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote. Oh, Miss Solvers.

I'd like to move a floor amendment.

Do I have a second? Okay, and so listening to the debate, I think that—. Just read the part. Okay, so what it would do is remove the words 'and pursue.' So it would say the municipal attorney is directed to investigate all legal avenues instead of directed to investigate and pursue. And I think what that does is it— second.

So there's a motion to amend by— Thank you. —Ms. Silveres, and a second by Mr. Volland. Ms. Silveres. And I think what that does is makes it more clear that we are investigating it and not actually, like, pursuing a lawsuit as a result of this.

And so, you know, then they come back with the findings, and then we can go from there. You have the line and page and section?

Page 2, line 40. Thanks.

And then I think I will move to also amend the title as a part of this and take out "pursue" and add in, uh, investigate.

So the seconder agrees to that. You got to speak into your mic though. Um, second agrees. Thank you. Did folks get kicked out of the queue?

Is your system working? I got kicked out. Okay, can you try to log back in? No, there's a bunch of people.

This is the part Mr. Martinez was warning about.

Okay, we're going analog for a few minutes.

The clerk is verifying with the movers.

Uh, as much fun as it would be to proceed, we're going to take a quick break while the system does crazy things. Ghost in the machine.

Can the members come back forward? All we can do is try. We're going to try.

Yeah, no, that's right. I don't even remember who had the floor.

Were you talking?

Yarrow had the floor. Where is Miss Silvers? It's time to go.

We're coming back to order. Miss Silvers, you have the floor.

Pursue, I think, was where we broke.

Yeah, okay, so just to recap, um, the changes, uh, in the title where it says directing the municipal, municipal attorney to pursue all legal remedies, it changes the word pursue to investigate. So it says directing the municipal attorney to investigate all legal remedies, and then down on line 40, page 2, where it says the municipal attorney is directed to investigate and pursue all legal avenues against the state. It removes the words "and pursue," and so it's the municipal attorney is directed to investigate all legal avenues against the state. And I'm suggesting this change because I think it's important to investigate before we actually and then come back with those findings before we actually pursue action. And as we are talking about executive session, you know, after investigation, during the reporting, it might be advantageous to actually do that in an executive session.

Thanks. So [Speaker:MICHAEL_WRIGHT] there is a motion to amend before us. Any further discussion on the motion? Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Silvers.

On a vote of 8 to 2, the amendment has passed. We're now back on the main motion as amended. Any further discussion? Mr. Gerker. Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair. I just have a—. Maybe a point of information from the sponsor. Sorry, I'm eating a Starburst. He said previously that this resolution is not called for the municipality to sue the state, but maybe he could explain what pursue all legal remedies actually looks like.

I just would clarify now that that term has been removed from the resolution, so speaking in the abstract is fine, but just— Fair enough. No, you're fine. We're good. Are you fine? Is that okay?

Yeah, that language is gone, so All right, and I'm not an attorney, so all, all legal remedies means things that are more than just one thing, right? So all legal remedies, it could be different types of stuff that we hope— hopefully we can find pathways forward to addressing the crisis. All right, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I'd make a motion to go into executive session to discuss, uh, the matters of behavioral health and any regards to directing municipal attorneys on the matter that by law and charter are required to be discussed in confidential, such as giving direction to attorneys. So there's a motion to recess into executive session.

I'm gonna second for the purposes of discussion. There's a second by Mr. Vaughn. So Mr. McCormick has moved, Mr. Vaughn has seconded. You want to speak further to the motion? No.

Anyone else? Ms. Brawley.

Yeah, thank you. I guess, um, I am wondering— I'll just put it out there— that the timeliness of this, um, I know we can go into executive session. I also know it's helpful if we can have, um, I guess a prepared by attorneys, or at least some kind of, um, substance to start from. So is the— is the mover's intent to discuss this resolution in particular, or to go into executive session to discuss the, um, the topic generally? It would be this topic generally, and I don't think that there's a time crunch on it.

Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Uh, understanding that there's likely an executive session coming to us for a separate matter, it might be wise to combine those two executive sessions for sake of expediency. Potentially at our next meeting, um, and also to give council a little more time to prepare, which I imagine they would likely appreciate, so that they're not necessarily on the spot to provide legal context that they haven't had at least a couple of weeks to research. As a courtesy to council, I think that would be generous. So I will not be supporting executive session. I just want to briefly speak to— there was discussion about entering an executive session tonight, but because of how chaotic things were getting to tonight, I think the decision was made to postpone that process to another day.

So, um, the other matter is not germane, and your point is well made. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to support the motion, um, because I have, you know, sort of I think I'm trying to hold two truths. Number one is that I want as much of our business that is able to be done in public to be public, and I certainly don't ever want to see executive session abused. And I think we've talked a lot about that as a body over the last few years, you know, um, being, being careful about the purpose of executive session. But in this instance, you know, I think I've heard from my colleagues that this is the sort of discussion that that perhaps should be had in executive session. And I also just, I feel like this sort of highlights the inertia against going into executive session when it's not requested by assembly leadership.

And so for, for that reason, I'm willing to go through this exercise. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you. I just want to clarify, I'm not saying that I don't believe that this item merits executive session. I'm, I I'm simply saying that if, if the mover's intent is to discuss this issue generally and not this resolution in particular, and there's no particular— in, in that case, there's no urgency to enter executive session and go through that entire process this evening. If we are already going to be in executive session in— at our next meeting on a separate item, this conversation could be rolled into that executive session. And we could proceed with business this evening.

I am just going to take a moment, Mr. Conston, to rebut the assertion that there is an inertia. Any member at any time can do what Mr. McCormick just did. There are 100, 100 rules that are allowed and open and available to any member at any given time. At any given time. They have a right to do that.

And just because a motion has not been made doesn't mean it can't be made. And I think it's, um, kind of a, an affront to the leadership that an assertion is being made of that nature, because there is not gatekeeping happening here. So I just have to put that on the record. Mr. Martinez. Thanks, Chair.

So I just want to be clear. It was asserted that by the mover of the executive session, Mr. McCormick, that the conversation broadly would be discussed but not necessarily the specificity of this resolution. That doesn't make sense to me in terms of stopping the procedure of this resolution advancing forward because you can have both. So I think having people's attention focused on different strategies, different levers that the municipality has both publicly and privately are kind of what the point of this resolution's gist is in the first place. And so I hope that there's follow-up, and, and it could be in any form, executive session or otherwise.

But I don't necessarily see, and it's been articulated, that there's any germane reason that the executive session should interfere with the advance of this resolution, because that's not the call for the executive session in the first place, not the, the substantive reason. So I just would recommend to my colleagues we advance this, vote on it up or down, and continue to move for the rest of the night. Thank you.

Anyone else on the motion? Seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 4 to 6, the motion to adjourn to executive session has failed. We're back on the main motion as amended. Any further discussion?

Hearing and seeing none, oh, Miss Baldwin-Day.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I would, um, I would like to move Rivera Amendment Number 1, please. Second. There's a motion to amend by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Ms. Brawley. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. I'm, I'm in support of, of the addition of the whereas language that discusses the, the MOA's decision and the voters' decision to tax themselves to provide for this issue. I think that's important context that deserves to be in this resolution. And I urge my colleagues' support.

Further discussion on the motion to amend? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 9 to 1, the amendment has passed.

Back on the main motion as amended. Any further discussion? Yes, Mr. Vond. So I think what I want to do is postpone until our next meeting, um, so that we have an opportunity to discuss this at the rolled-in executive session.

A second. Was that a motion?

Postpone until the next meeting. Motion to postpone to the meeting of August 26th, moved by Mr. Vuong and seconded by Mr. McCormick. Any discussion on the motion? Um, Ms. Baldwin, I'm sorry, keep the floor.

Thanks. Um, so yeah, I, I I like, um, Miss Baldwin-Day's idea about, um, you know, taking up multiple topics if we're going to have an executive session, if that's the plan for the next meeting, if a majority of members vote to go into executive session. I don't want it— and now I'm feeling like it shouldn't be a given, uh, that whoever calls or asks for an executive session, that it should be approved. And my goal is not to cause an affront to anyone, but I think that this merits a little bit more, uh, fulsome conversation, especially given all the discussion that we've had on this tonight. So it makes sense to me that if we were going to do that, we would do that, and then we could take action.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, um, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair.

I would be really curious to hear council's thoughts on this particular motion. Is that an appropriate thing to ask? The motion being to postpone to the next meeting? And ostensibly the executive session that will potentially occur. I don't think that's part of the motion.

Got it. I think that, um, for the purposes of planning, I would offer that it's maybe a better strategy to move this to that meeting, and then between now and then find a time to have a special meeting to do an executive session at City Hall where we can just be more focused and not take up the time of our business meeting for this process. And so I think that the motion to— you can speak to council for sure on the motion to postpone, but I would ask that people keep separate in their minds the two, so that if we do decide to have and get the request and get it moving, we will schedule a time when we'll just do that instead of this.

In that case, I withdraw my question. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.

Um, whatever. Uh, but essentially, I just wanted to flag that, um, my hope for the body is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. And so I just wanted to bring the parallel. This is not the introductory night. This is not the second night that we've had this action item before us.

This is the second time it's been postponed since the introduction. So I just wanted to be real clear about that. While that's all happening, the second time of postponed introduction, this body has advanced a whole lot of other areas around mental health response.

But not taking this up seems to be a mistake. Seems to be out of sequence. At the very least, a misunderstanding of the ability to do all of these things at the same time. And so I would encourage us to not delay any further. Okay, I'm going to withdraw my motion, Mr.

Chair. Thanks. But, uh, but I, but I also encourage folks to vote with their conscience. And, uh, and I guess there's a new point because Mr. Vollmann has withdrew his.

All right, so the motion to postpone has been rescinded by the mover, as is allowed under the code. So we're back on the main motion as amended. Any further discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 4 to 6, the motion has not passed. Now on to item 13A.

13A is AO-2025-73. On this, a public hearing item: an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, Rules of Procedure, for Assembly to clarify the procedures for the chair granting appearance requests and to make a motion to postpone indefinitely. Non-debatable when it closes the public hearing on an agenda item. Uh, one of the sponsors is not here tonight, and as a request has been made to postpone this item to the next meeting so that he can be here to participate on the discussions. So I'd like to ask for a motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 26th.

So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Myers, second by Miss Brawley.

Mm, Volano, sorry. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, that item has been continued. The public hearing has been continued to the meeting of August 26th. We've been joined by the mayor just in time. Item 13B, AO 2025-84, an ordinance, the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.60, Tax Incentives for Housing, and enacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.80, Tax Incentives for Housing Rehabilitation. There's also an S version, an ordinance, the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.60, Tax Incentives for Housing, and enacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.80, Tax Incentives for Housing Rehabilitation.

The public hearing for this item is open. Again, anyone wish to be heard on this item, please come forward. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

The mic is off. There you go. Yeah, good evening. Jason Norris, South Anchorage. Just support this.

Appreciate your support on it too. I know that this is further amending some things that have been worked on. I do wish we had taken a little bit of opportunity here to pilot allowing some extra units in zones that wouldn't currently support that as long as they stayed within the building envelope allowed. But I do understand the need for expediency, and this is a good tool, and I do hope you move forward with it. I'd also encourage you to round out our package of incentives, if you will, uh, with Transit Supporter Developments currently before Planning and Zoning.

Should it come before the body, I hope that you would support it to really maximize the incentives that you're putting in place here. Thank you.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Welcome. Hi, my name is Will Walker from Spanard.

I support this ordinance. I think it's a great next step, uh, continuing the work of the assembly and the administration to encourage more housing, uh, including with this utilization of the, like, infrastructure and housing stock that we currently have but that's not really being able to be used to house people. Hopefully it'll encourage more people to use the vacant abandoned property list and kind of redevelop some of the properties that are not currently being utilized for, for housing. I hope we can kind of continue this and not just have a rehabilitation for those that are on vacant abandoned, but continue to expand to other properties that might need a little— that aren't quite so decrepit at this point, but could use the incentives as well. So thank you for your work, and I hope you all support it.

Thank you. All right, thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve the S. Second. Motion to approve the S version by Miss Spraulley, seconded by Miss Baldwin-Day. Want to speak to it?

Yeah, thank you. Um, just briefly, and then I did have a couple, um, questions for the administration question at a later time. This S version is really a roll-up of multiple amendments that were brought to the Community and Economic Development Committee, and they do generally two things. One is to clarify in the language what types of properties or what properties would or would not qualify, because I think that's really important to be clear, not just whether they're on the vacant and abandoned list, but just making sure that our language is clear there. And then the other thing is really encouraging folks to consider maximizing their current zoning.

So for example, if they have a single-family home on an R-1 lot, they could build a duplex. And so it incentivizes re— having this temporary abatement for both units, not just the original one maybe that's being, being rehabilitated, but really again encouraging folks to build out as much as possible. And then I've got a couple other amendments, but I'll I'll see if there's other folks in the queue who would like to speak.

I guess since I still have the floor, I see that, uh, that there are no others in the queue, uh, right now, so I'm gonna move, uh, Brawley Amendment Number 1.

Motion to amend by Miss Brawley. Is there a second? Second by Miss Baldonday. Miss Brawley. Yeah, so this one, as you can read, it allows a 6-month timeframe.

Essentially, right now, if you put a property on the vacant and abandoned list, it is not allowed to be for sale. But I imagine that practically speaking, many of the owners of these properties are not necessarily the ones who are going to rehabilitate. So we want these properties to potentially sell to someone who will use them, as long as they aren't speculative— speculatively selling, and they make an effort to utilize that tax incentive within a period of time. So that's really what this does. The 6-month period says that, that you have that period of time to pursue that application even if the property changes hands, so that there's a time-limited incentive to do that.

Thanks.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So question to the administration, perhaps Mr. Collado or whoever else wants to tackle this. We have a series of amendments.

I think in spirit I support all of them, but I would I would just be curious to know if there's anything in any of these amendments that gives you or the administration pause or concern about if it will affect the implementation or the underlying intent of, of the ordinance, the S version. Uh, yeah, yes, through the chair to Member Johnson, we did have a chance to review all of these amendments, and there's, there's one amendment that we did have some challenges with, which was which I did speak to Member Silvers about, that might have some unintentional effects on eligibility for the exemption. It's intended to be protections from being short-term rental, and I can speak to that more. Okay, I'll ask that when we're on that amendment then, but that is the only one where you would have specific comments. Yeah, through the chair, correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so any further discussion on the amendment?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, the amendment has passed. We're now back to the main motion as amended. Approved. Next amendment, Ms. Brawley. Sure, I'll just get this one out of the way.

I'm going to move Brawley Amendment 4.

Second. Motion to amend by Ms. Brawley, second by Mr. Johnson. Ms. Brawley. Yeah, thanks. And I will say, if anyone has— I worked with the assessor's office and Mr. Clowda and others on this, so if folks have questions, I will I will immediately defer to them.

But this essentially says that the exemption is allowed for residential buildings and accessory structures. That could include an ADU. And it does not relate to land value. And then it really just provides a method for calculating what is or isn't in that exemption. Thanks.

Anyone else on the amendment?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, the amendment has passed. Mr. Johnson. I move Johnson Amendment Number 3. Second.

Motion to amend by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Miss Brawley. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. Um, so the impetus for this amendment was a concern that I raised when we had I had this presentation at the CDC meeting that is possible, or at least I was concerned it may be a possibility, that certain individuals may look to essentially take advantage of this program, right? Where somebody could have a perfectly serviceable property, perhaps even a nice property, choose to vacate it for 6 months and meet the other strictly necessary requirements to list it or to add it to the vacant and abandoned registry.

And then once it is on that list to essentially do their home remodel that they've been contemplating for some time and, and again meet the strict language of the, the ordinance as it was presented and thereby exempt their property from the requirements to pay property taxes, which I don't think is the spirit of this. So the thought was, is there anything we can do to help mitigate that risk? And so I worked with the administration to draft this proposed amendment simply to state that there's a desire or a necessity for this to be used in the intended purpose and not to be exploited by individuals looking for a manner to simply renovate their house and thereby enjoy the benefits of a tax exemption.

I have myself in the queue. Mr. Constant. Thank you. So I completely agree with the spirit of this.

My question is more tactical to probably the assessor. What would it look like to find someone has in fact done it in a way that is outside of the law because they did something? What would it look like? How is that going to work? Yeah, so this is Jack Adams, municipal assessor.

I think for right now, I don't know exactly what it would look like. As far as everything, but I think at the end of the day, it's probably one of those things where when a duck looks like a duck, it's probably a duck, right? And so there's maybe a couple of things that you could probably look at. You know, first is maybe look at the current state of the property. Is it in really good condition?

And look at what they're trying to also have in their application. Does the application have, for example, a really nice renovation in it, right? So that would be probably a first, you know, yellow flag, so to speak. You could probably also look at the history of the property. You can look at the history of the pictures of it.

I would also imagine that you'd look at the history of the exemption, and you'd probably— we would also be working with code enforcement on this. I don't foresee this being a high, you know, use of a section of code that we'd want to enforce, but when the— if there is a chance where this were to happen, I think this could be helpful for us to use as a little bit of a leverage.

Re-ask that question slightly different to the municipal attorney's office. So how, how, how would you manage this kind of a deal, like due process-wise? Um, like, what does it look like to find this is a fact?

Sorry for the off-left-field question, but could you repeat the question please? Yeah, I'm just— I agree with the spirit of this section completely, and I wonder how it is enforceable. What does it look like? So I asked the tax assessor, he said probably some code enforcement, look at the records, look at the photographs, look at the improvements proposed. I don't know if we look at proposed improvements on applications for this, but what does it look like to try to adjudicate this?

I think it would be difficult.

So from the attorney's perspective, and I see Mr. Bowman there, is there any language that we might add to this to make it more enforceable? It just seems— it seems hard the way it's written. So, may we have a moment for a legal conference? Yeah, thanks, Mr.

Bowman. You might get over there. Yeah.

I think there are other people in the queue, and so if it's on the amendment, why don't we let folks speak to that. Um, I'm going to hold for you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Martinez.

Yes, Chair, this question was raised at CEDC, and I'm surprised to see the amendment come forward, primarily because there was a description from, uh, I'm not sure it was Code Enforcement, but maybe Mr. Cloutier or someone else can give us description of what does it mean to be on the vacant and abandoned property list. Because the, the premise of the, of the amendment is that it's an easy switch, and if you have a nice house, you could just turn on a switch, say my house is on a vacant and abandoned property list, and qualify for a tax exemption. This amendment helps to clarify that that's not the case. But it's not the case that vacant and abandoned property is just an easy switch to turn on. There are regulatory things that that means, and I would just love to hear a little bit deeper about what does that mean, if you can.

Anyone from the administration? I see Mr. Clowder here. I know it was mentioned at CEDC, but if you can give us a little more fulsome understanding of is it an easy switch or does it come with requirements and obligations to become a vacant and a registered vacant and abandoned property? Yes, uh, through the chair, um, Nolan Clowder with the mayor's office. Uh, the— there are obligations and responsibilities with being on the vacant and abandoned list.

They have to, you know, they have to first of all either self-report or the property is identified by code enforcement, doesn't— probably through nuisance calls. They have to secure the property, which often means that they board it up, right? Like, that's why you see vacant and abandoned property properties being boarded. You have to also pay a fee, which escalates, you know, the first year is a certain amount, it goes up after that subsequently. So there are some obligations there that are required.

[Speaker:MR. BROWN] And it hadn't been reported, and maybe I just missed it and you heard it in some other conversation, had it ever been reported that folks who are on the vacant and abandoned property list now have a history of turning them on and off from the vacant and abandoned property list? Is that— has that ever been a tool that people used to just, for some reason, use it as a tool to sit on a property? Uh, you know, through the chair to Member Martinez, I really can't speak to that specifically. I think, uh, our code abatement folks would be more familiar with that. I can't speak to the history of how common it is for people to go on and off the list though.

And it would—. Thank you. And additionally, it was— chair, it was discussed and described at CEDC, and as Mr. Clowder just mentioned, the two ways on the vacant and abandoned property list, which comes with obligations like boarding up your home because it's a vacant home and so securing it to municipal code standards, that the two ways on our list are self-reporting. An owner says, "My property is on the vacant and abandoned property list," and then we would check it to see if it in fact was— they were living up to the standards of that self-reporting process. Did they do securing and all that other stuff?

Or the other way is code enforcement drives around, see these dilapidated properties, and it's like, that's supposed to be on our list, and goes through their process. Seems like those are the two ways onto the list. Seems like it's gonna be a long time before wonderful houses, homes that are looking for a reno are gonna find a loophole to the V&A list as it is today. And so it just seems that there's a good process. I don't know that this makes it even better, but I just want to just let folks know in the public, with or without this particular amendment, there is a process.

It's not just a, a slap-hazard, happy-go-lucky thing. It's actually a step-by-step process that's regulated and enforced by our code enforcement, the V&A list. Yes, through the chair, that's, that's right. And I think that, that when you're designing policy like this, I think that But it's really important to keep in mind that you can't design something that's completely foolproof, right? I mean, we try to, we try to create reasonable guardrails from blatant abuses, I think.

But, but, you know, this is a program that we're trying to put out there that has a certain public value to it. And it is, you know, possible that it could be gamed in some way. And we try to anticipate that and prevent it, but it could still happen. Thank you. And Chair, I didn't— I'm supportive of the amendment because it what I'm describing, the, the language of the amendment doesn't necessarily change from, in my mind, anything about it.

It just is a little more redundant, if anything. But I want the public to be clear, this is just not about an easy switch. There is an actual process, and code enforcement regulates and manages the V&A process for us. Thank you. Miss Somers on the amendment.

Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. I guess I'll just clarify this. This is not the hill I'm going to die on, right? Whether the amendment passes or not, I support the underlying ordinance.

Um, I will say that yes, we don't have examples of people, you know, trying to game the system, but we haven't really provided an incentive for people to do so either. And there are some hoops you would have to jump through in order to meet the letter of the law to get on the vacant abandoned list, but this is potentially providing a significant incentive for somebody to contemplate jumping through those So if I own a multimillion-dollar property and if I can figure out slapping plywood on it for 6 months while I go to Hawaii will allow me to exempt myself from paying a significant portion of property taxes, like, I might consider doing that, right? So would anybody ever try to do that? I'm just not sure. If somebody did, would it leave a very, very bad taste in my mouth?

Yes. I don't think this amendment really creates significant burdens to the underlying ordinance. You know, we had talked about other ways to achieve this goal. Such as, well, maybe a property would have to be inspected before we added it to the V&A list. And I didn't want to add obstacles to make it harder for the people we want to take advantage of this program to do so.

And I didn't want to add cost to it. So we tried to find something fairly narrowly tailored to really, again, not impose undue burdens, but hopefully give us some recourse if somebody does in fact try and abuse it. And I get that this is— perhaps not a likely scenario, but I think the consequences of adopting this amendment are minimal. But either way, it's, it's a good ordinance. I'll support it.

Thanks. Mr. Martinez. Yeah, Chair, and, and I support what Member Johnson just said, and I wanted to just go a little further and say to the administration upon implementation, there's a difference between a dark home, is what Member Johnson just described, shut that house down as a vacation home fly away for a few months and, and seal it up. There's a difference between a dark home and a vacant and abandoned property. And so as long as the administration is— continues to help the public understand the clarity, and if this particular ordinance and this particular amendment does that as well, but I want to be real clear, if you're sitting in a multi-million dollar home and it's— and you want to dark home it, that is not a vacant and abandoned property.

But if you want us to tag your property as dilapidated, we'll have a conversation with you because that's going to change the whole scape of your economic trajectory. So don't try to game the system on the one hand, and I appreciate the administration's advancing and looking out for the loopholes, but advancing something that I think is going to be meaningful in our community. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. So I put myself in the queue one more time.

Mr. Constant, I am not speaking against this thing, but as a point of reference, this body passed a shelter licensing program and we knew that program was really effective and clear. And when 3 years later, 4 years later, it was implemented, we were told there's no way that we can enforce this, it's not real. And so just a prompt for me in my work on this body is to always ask ask, how does this actually get enforced? What does it look like?

And clearly all the attorneys over there left the room to try to sort out what— wait a minute, what is this thing? And so clearly there's a question there. And so, um, again, I am 100% supportive of this approach. So we can either wait for the attorneys, move on to another amendment— there are several in the packet— or take the vote. And I'm not going to vote against it, but the reality is is we don't know if we have an enforceable piece of code here until we hear back from the folks charged with enforcing it.

So that's kind of my take. Mr. Myers, move this to the next meeting.

The vote for this to the next meeting.

Second. There's a motion to postpone this item to the next meeting, moved by Mr. Myers. Who's second? Mr. McCormick. Um, I think the mayor might want to be in the queue.

I see those eyes. I'm sorry to put you on the spot.

You're in the queue, Madam Mayor. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just would ask the body to consider voting on this ordinance tonight. We have some concerns about delaying it, and I'm not sure if, uh, Nolan or Graham, if, if it'd be helpful to speak to those concerns. I believe they were addressed in the CEDC meeting, but, um, perhaps you could come back to this item.

Okay, Mr. Chair, I'll withdraw my motion and move the question. Call the question.

Motion to call the question on the amendment. I don't think it's necessary. I think that everyone has said their piece, really. Um, are we waiting for attorneys to give us an answer then, or direction? We don't need to.

Again, then let's just move forward. And yeah, I think it's fine. I think everybody knows where this is going to fall. So yeah, go ahead. Members may proceed to vote.

We'll just get the advice later. Pass the law and then figure out how it works.

On a vote of 8 to 2, the amendment has passed. Miss Brawley— oh, Miss Silver is actually in the queue.

Yeah, so I'm not going to move my amendment, but I would like to hear from the administration Administration, how they will ensure and enforce the provisions that are already in this code, that properties do not receive the tax incentive if they turn their units into short-term rentals at any point in time while they are receiving the incentive.

Through the chair to Member Silvers, the code would require that the property be offered, if it is rented, that it is offered for 30-day periods of time, which precludes it being used as a short-term rental. The way that that's monitored, they have to report each year on the exemption, and they would have to certify that they are using it, you know, that they're renting it for those terms. And if they were not, then that would be grounds for cancellation. And I think the assessor could probably speak a little bit more to this as well, if you'd like kind of more firm, more clarity about it.

Short-term rental, how we know, how we monitor whether they're short-term rentals or anything.

Okay, I can't probably speak to that. I think at the end of the day, how you would know if it's short-term rentals.

Yeah, so I'm not sure who asked the question. Silvers, yeah, through the chair to Silvers. Jack Adams here again, Municipal Assessor. I think just kind of really off the cusp, a couple of things to, to look for. One is there is the annual reporting, and so I think that could be a very useful, helpful tool for us.

I think another thing is our staff do, for general exemption review, we do look for listings of properties that are being rented, Airbnb and so forth. One of the primary reasons is the residential exemption, the senior disabled Veterans, so we are trying to monitor that as well. I think maybe it could pop up there. And then there's also the third part too that the assessor, if there is any questions, we can ask additional information to get clarification. So I think kind of those three prongs might be helpful to your question.

Thank you. Go far. I have myself in the queue. Mr. Constantine. 2 Parts.

Mr. Gadamas, maybe you know, maybe someone else knows, what part of the code is it that specifically restricts the use of abatements or incentives like this for short-term rentals? Where is it in the code?

Off the— yeah, to consent, off the cusp. I don't know where it is right now, but maybe Ben Bowman can speak to it. Thanks.

To the chair, you're asking what part of the code says we cannot use this type of abatement for short-term rental? Yeah, it was asserted, I believe, if I heard correctly, that there are other parts of the code that make it clear you can't use these incentivized properties for short-term rentals. And then it was asserted that in an annual reporting process we could in fact find it, therefore there must be someplace in the code that says it. So in the proposed code, okay, we have prohibited— okay, so this is just a redundant kind of— yeah, the assembly— it is within the power of the assembly to apply these exemptions to properties used for short-term rental. That is not what has been proposed.

Instead, we have proposed this AO with a prohibition against these properties being used for short-term. Okay, so it's just in the main. So second part of the question It was asserted that we're now doing kind of reviews to figure out if properties that are getting the, um, the primary home exemption or the senior exemption are being used as short-term rentals. We passed a code that said that the short-term rental agencies have to report which properties are being used, and I know that they have just ignored it. Is that a true kind of analysis of the current condition?

There has been pushback from the hosting platforms about what they feel is appropriate and necessary reporting for— to meet their tax obligations. So currently we still do not have a property-by-property listing of who's paying property taxes to us, or the, the hotel bed tax, right? Yes, that is correct. So they're still living in a loophole where they're telling us trust them, and our best effort is to have some staff in a beleaguered department that doesn't have enough staff to go scanning the internet to try to figure out who's renting. Short-term rentals.

Is that kind of the takeaway?

The administration is working with the, um, with the hosting platforms to try and find a, uh, try and find a manner to get the information the assembly is seeking, um, but we've not reached a conclusion to that yet. So, okay, some form of additional law might be necessary, or more taxation for people who are unwilling to participate in the public process, I think, is probably in order. Thank you. On the amendment, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

I was also curious about sort of the categorization of platforms like Furnished Finder that are often used for periods of longer than 30 days but are not necessarily platforms that lend themselves or that would be considered a longer-term rental or a stable rental as far as adding to our available supply of rental properties for folks who live here. And I'm curious what, what bucket those fall into in terms of, in terms of this type of tax incentive.

So a hosting platform that is offering— through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, uh, Assistant Municipal Attorney Ben Bowman. A hosting platform that is offering rental for longer than 30 days does not fall under our code for the bed tax. And similarly, we've modeled the definition of short-term rental in the 1260 and 1280 provisions to match the bed tax provisions and codes. So if there were a hosting platform that was renting for a period of, say, 2 months, 60 days, 90 days, that would not violate the requirements of these exemptions as written and proposed.

Thank you. All right, Miss Brawley. Thanks. Um, yeah, on that topic, um, I remember in a, in a prior ordinance really thinking about, um, how could we, for example, require 12-month leases knowing that, that if you don't have a house, uh, or if you don't have a place to live for 12 months out of the year, you know, and only 6, that's a challenge. But I remember, I'm just going to share from multiple property owners describing the reality that, that often people do desire to sign less than year leases.

They may be transient, you know, traveling nurses or others. And so anyway, so I would just urge caution, I guess, in thinking about— and I support the language that's already in ordinance that, that talks about the 30 days, knowing that there's kind of a wide spectrum of housing situations, um, and, and just having gone down that road before, uh, trying to really pursue that year-round housing, it does get quickly more complicated. So, um, so at this point I support what's already in the ordinance. Thanks. I just want to clarify, we aren't on an amendment.

I misstated previously, we're on the main motion as amended. Mr. Martinez. Yes, thank you, Chair. Um, just quickly, I just wanted to flag for Mr. Bowman and for municipal attorneys.

Essentially, if— so if an outfitter is using some degree of arbitrage leverage and to sublet, we can skirt around this as well.

Essentially, I can sublet from an owner for a year, or at least from an owner for a year, and then sublet to my short terms and I would be protected by the original lease? I just wanted—. I heard that and I just— if it's not necessarily germane now, but I wanted to flag that if we're talking about short terms and gaming the system tonight, a couple of things, maybe want to just flag that element as well. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.

If you have any thoughts about that, but if not, you could just take it offline and we could follow up on that. Thank you. All right, um, anyone else?

Fingers might get burned if they touch the monitor. Okay, are we at the end of the line? Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote. The motion is to approve.

So on a vote of 10 to 0, AO-2025-84S has passed. 84S as amended has passed the body on a vote of 10 to 0. So next we are on to AO item 14, AO-2025-59, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.90, access to Public Records and AMC Section 3.30.016 to update the public records request and response procedures. Public hearing is now open. Miss Brawley.

Move to continue the public hearing and postpone to the meeting of September 9th. Second. Second motion to continue by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Martinez. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO 2025-59 has been continued to the meeting of September 9th. Next we have item 14B, AO 2025-83, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the Anchorage Municipal Code Section 11.10.050 to increase the maximum amount allowed to be charged for processing credit and debit card transactions for taxicab services. The public hearing is now open. Miss Brawley. Move to continue the public hearing and postpone this item to the meeting of September 9th as well, and I can speak to it.

There's a motion to continue. Is there a second? Second. Moved by Miss Brawley, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Miss Brawley.

Yeah, thank you. Um, two reasons for postponement. One, uh, one of the sponsors is not here tonight. Second is that we would like more time to continue to work through this item. Thanks.

Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to The motion is to postpone or continue the public hearing.

Member Martinez.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO 2025-83 is passed the body.

Next, we have Item 14C. 14C is AO-2025-85, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly repealing and replacing Anchorage Municipal Code Section 10.50.037 regarding the Bar Safety Hour program to eliminate the application review and issuance processes, discontinue the clerk's annual reports to assembly, and adding a bar safety hour registration requirement. The public hearing is now open. Miss Ms. Brawley. Thank you.

Move to, to continue the public hearing and postpone this item to August 26th meeting.

So there's a motion to continue made by Ms. Brawley, seconded by Mr. Myers. Any further discussion? Ms. Brawley? Yeah, um, on this one, um, there is intent to bring forward an S version. We did not get it ready for tonight, but I expect to see that on the next meeting.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote. The motion is to continue the public hearing.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO 2025-85 will be back before us on 8/26. Next we have item 14D. Item 14D is Resolution AR 2025-218, resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage reappropriating an amount not to exceed $5,600,000 of bond proceeds from the sale of the 2024 Port Revenue Bond Series A for the payment of bond issuance cost for the port from the Port of Alaska Capital Improvement Fund 570800 to the 2024 Port of Alaska Operating Fund 570000. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard in this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. Would— the body to approve? Second. Moved by Miss Sprawley, seconded by Miss Baldonadet.

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

On a vote of 10 to 0, AR 2025-218 has passed the body. Next we have Item 14E. Item 14E is AO 2025-87, an ordinance amending the Anchorage Municipal Code of Regulations 21.20 to modify existing fees, eliminate fees, and include new fees for entitlements within Title 21 but not accounted for within the current Audit fee schedule. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. Would swell the body— move to approve. Second. Moved by Miss Brawley, seconded by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Any discussion?

Miss Brawley. Thanks. Yeah, I do have, uh, one amendment. So move Brawley Amendment 1.

Motion to amend by Miss Brawley. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Miss Baldwin-Day. Miss Brawley.

Yeah, thank you. I'm trying to find my paper, but essentially this is a wording change. This is not one of the fees that was proposed to be changed in the ordinance, although I do support those changes. Um, it refers to— the current code refers to an unfavorable recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe I think it's really important when dealing with land use policy to not be arbitrary and capricious, and I can't say that we are— have been doing that as a practice, but I think saying unfavorable is unclear.

And so the language changes to denial to be clear that there is a fee because there is staff time involved with bringing something that was recommended for denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the assembly. So it just really makes clear that situation. Unfavorable could mean, for example, saying recommendation to approve a rezone, but to rezone to a different zone than what person had wanted. So I think there's just a lot of room for squishiness in there, and we don't want squishy in our code. So, so just recommending that language change.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, the amendment has passed. We're back on the main motion as amended. Any further discussion? Hearing, seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Voland.

On a vote of 10-0, AO-2025-87 as amended has passed the body. Next we have Item 14F, which is AO-2025-89, an ordinance authorizing a 3-year lease at less than fair market value with 2 1-year options to extend between the Municipality of Anchorage lessor and Anchorage Community Development Authority lessee for the continued operation of a parking lot at 2025 E Street in downtown Anchorage. PID 002-104-34. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Miss Brawley, seconded by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Anyone wish to speak to this item? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO 2025-89 has passed the body. So there's been a request made that we consider changing the order just to take up 14H real quick. The intent of the movers is to postpone indefinitely this item so we could take care of it really quick before we dive into that, if there's no objection. I'm seeing, hearing no objection, so we'll quickly take up item 14H, which is Resolution R2025-221, Resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage Appropriating Operating Project Committed General Funds 19000 Fund Balance in the Amount of $1,300,000 as Transfer and Appropriating Said Transfer to the area-wide general fund 101000 Anchorage Health Department for homeless shelter and support. There's also an S version.

Public hearing is now open. Miss Brawley. Move to postpone indefinitely. Motion to postpone by Miss Brawley, second by Miss Balbonday. I'll just briefly speak to it if there's some— yeah, Mr.

Constant. Thank you. Um, after lots of conversation between the administration and the S version. The intent is to take this $1.3 million and make sure it is funding housing services that will support, uh, bringing back vacant and abandoned properties. But both vehicles here don't do that very well, so the request is postponed indefinitely and come back with a version that meets the intent of the original appropriation.

So with that, members may proceed to vote. Motion is to postpone indefinitely.

We got bugs in the machine again.

On a vote of 10 to 0, the motion to postpone indefinitely has passed the body. Okay, so that brings us back to item 14G, which is Resolution AR 2025- 220, resolution of the municipality of Anchorage appropriating not to exceed $2,500,000 of Heritage Land Bank Fund 221000 fund balance as a transfer to HLB Operating Fund 221000 and appropriating said transfer to the HLB Capital Improvement Projects Fund 421800 for Holton Hills Offsite Improvements, all within the Real Estate Department. The public hearing on this item is now open.

Are you going to speak on your own behalf? All right, welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, my name is Mike Edgington from Girdwood. Um, I want to speak to, uh, this item here. First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Martinez earlier for defining the difference between dark homes and vacant homes. I'm going to be talking more about dark homes tonight, which is homes which are not actively occupied but are owned and maintained etc. So as I think many of you probably traumatically remember, there was a lot of opposition to Halton Hills from the Girdwood community.

There were a number of reasons for that. I think I personally saw 3 things. One of them is the finances and the risk around it, which we may hear more about later. The second one is it's a, quote, housing project, but it guarantees zero houses. It It's a land development only, necessary step but not, I would say, an adequate step.

And the third thing is it relies entirely on the market to provide the housing solutions. Every other gateway resort community I'm aware of that's seriously tried to address housing does not rely on the market. It puts incentives in to actually have occupied housing at the end. And when we had the last— about a year ago when we had public hearing, the last public hearing on Halton Hills I mentioned it would be— I'd come back and give some numbers about what the market's actually doing. So that's what I'm here for tonight.

So we've had quite a lot of housing, uh, new housing built in Girdwood over the last 4 years. So I looked at the data for 2021 to 2024. This is a new housing, uh, new housing constructed, um, residential housing. There was, um, about 73 housing units created, which as per capita is, uh, pretty high, much, much higher than the rest of the muni, about 10-20 times higher than the rest of the municipality of Anchorage. 25 For condos, 48 housing units, single-family home, which includes a number with ADUs.

Out of those 73, 16 are occupied, so nearly 80% are dark homes. If you look just at the condos, those 25 condos, 1 is occupied. 96% Are dark homes. That's the reality of what happens happens in Girdwood. That's the reality of what, even if houses are being built, will happen in Halton Hills.

Um, so when you look at the, the money that's being invested in this, the costs, the risks, and especially if we ever consider a project like this in the future, I would just urge this body to think about what you're actually going to be achieving in terms of housing, in terms of housing occupation, in terms of what it actually means to community not what it means to somebody living elsewhere in the state, out of the state, out of the country, who wants a second, third, fourth vacation home, um, you know, in Girdwood. What it actually means to people who live, work, and contribute to the community of Girdwood. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all? Chair, may I ask a question? Oh, Miss, uh, my— Miss Baldwin-Day has a question. Question for you.

Thank you, Mr. Edgington. I was, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to repeat the, the years that this data covers. Yeah, that's sure. That's, um, it's new housing from 2021 through 2024. So this is in a 3-year period?

Sorry, so this isn't in just in a 3-year period? Uh, 4 years. There were only 3, 3 built in 2021. I think the, you know, COVID still had an impact. All right.

And the other thing I should add is, um, out of those 73 units, at least half of them are active in the short-term rental market. Half? Yeah, just over half. I only, only stopped counting at half. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Edgington.

Anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will body.

Move to approve. Second. A motion to approve by Miss Silver, seconded by Miss Brawley.

So, um, does the administration want to speak to this ordinance?

Oh, Mr. Johnson, go ahead. Mr. Plata, since you invited the administration to speak, I think I would defer to them to go first and then Just makes sense to have them kind of the mover. Um, well, sure, I'd be happy to speak to the ordinance. Were you hoping for just sort of a description or a sense of why we were bringing it forward?

Yeah, in the gist of this item is that it reappropriates $2.5 million from within the Heritage Land Bank Fund to pay for the off-site improvements which are currently being constructed. Those improvements were authorized under the disposal and the development agreement that you all approved in 2023. Um, so that's primarily what these funds are being used for, is the offsite improvements. Um, the total cost of the offsite improvements is closer to $2 million, but the $2.5 million covers contingency, landscaping, some other minor costs.

That's fair enough. I'm sure there will be more questions. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. And, and I have a, a few questions which perhaps Mr. Downey would like to tackle, or we also have Real Estate Director Briggs here.

So I'll let you decide who wants to take these as they come up. My first question is, outside of this appropriation we're contemplating here tonight, what money has been spent already on the Holton Hills project? I believe there have been some pre-development costs.

Tiffany Briggs, Real Estate Director. Through the chair to Mr. Johnson, um, yes, we have spent about $208,000 between 2021 and, um, I think April or May of this year. Okay, so $208,000, which we could add to the $2.5 million that we're contemplating this evening? Correct.

Okay, thank you. Next question I have is the development agreement also stipulates that the owner, in this case the muni, must cover the cost of Crow Creek Road improvements. Improvements. Can anyone speak to a rough estimate of what those improvements might cost or what the process for determining whether or not they're required looks like? Or, or really, what is our best understanding today of what potential future liability exists there?

Yeah, I think there's a couple variables there that make it uncertain. There's the uncertainty of whether the requirements will be required. I think to the degree they are required, The intent initially was to look for a variance, so then whether that variance is successful or not will matter. Crow Creek Road, as you know, is currently not maintained. It's primarily maintained by the state to a limited degree, and it does not have LURSA.

It's not part of GBAS, is my understanding. So it is not currently maintained. So there's lots of ongoing questions about the future of Crow Creek Road that would also create some uncertainty here. Year. And then in addition, we know road construction is pretty expensive.

This is a couple miles of road construction, so hard to guess about what that would be, but several million dollars at least. I would— I think the most recent estimate I heard was something like $3.5 million per mile, but if someone in the room has a better estimate than that, I wouldn't hold me to that number for this project. Okay, so, so thank you. Just to kind of dig into that a little bit, we're building additional houses in the development that will use Crow Creek Road as a secondary egress route. Now, we believe that that would require an upgrade to the road.

You're saying we could ask for a variance, right? But it is sort of implied that without a variance, we would be obligated to upgrade those 2 miles of Crow Creek Road. And I know there are other concerns and other issues about other parts of Crow Creek Road, but just keeping it specific to, to this piece of it? I think that would be— that is not yet determined, so that would be a determination that the traffic engineer would be made— that would make after the second phase of the project, once the secondary access to Crow Creek is established. So I guess really at this point we don't know, but there does exist the potential that proceeding with this project, we will be required to make upgrades to that road.

Road, which 2 miles and $3.5 million per mile would be potentially $7 million that we may have to spend to make upgrades to Crow Creek Road to support this development. Yeah, and I would again caveat that, again, those numbers are very fuzzy, so could change over time, could even be inaccurate estimates for today. So, but maybe a rough magnitude, right? We don't know, we don't know, but I think it's still relevant to highlight the fact that it is a potential liability and potentially a very large one. Uh, let me ask you, um, last question here.

Do we have updated projections for the revenues and costs of the Holton Hill development? The only thing we have in the original ordinance is a pro forma from the RFP in 2022. Do we have anything newer? Through the chair, if it's all right, I might defer to Connie Yoshimura to answer that question.

Thank you. Through the chair, my name is Connie Yoshimura. I am the owner of CY Investments, and I would like to share with you, um, that we were asked to— I was asked to provide an estimated pro forma for the first phase of Holton Hills Onsite, by Tiffany Briggs, the MOA real estate director. She assured me at that particular time that it was just for her, and I prepared this pro forma on July 28th in accordance with her wishes. And I am here today, if I may take the time, to read you certain portions of the pro forma, and if you would like, I am willing to share that with you as well.

But let me begin. This letter is in response to your request for an updated pro forma for the first phase of Holton Hills. As you are aware, CY Investments signed the development agreement with Heritage Land Bank on April 29, 2022. The agreement included the conveyance of land for Phase 1 and Phase Phase 2 of Holton Hills. While our initial schedule anticipated design in 2022 and commencement in 2023, significant public opposition and delays from the Girdwood community resulted in the Anchorage Assembly postponing the conveyance to May 7, 2024, which was nearly 2 years after the projected conveyance and the projected pro forma.

This delay has had critical financial implications. I'm sorry, I'm sorry to Ms. Yoshamur, I think my question was a little bit more narrow. I think if somebody would like to have that statement read into the record, I, I think one of my colleagues could perhaps ask that. But I'm specifically was asking about revenue and cost projections for the project, and I understand—. Well, I would like to explain— I would like to be able to explain to you how we came about the revenue costs and profitability.

I think that's important to understand. It's more than just a number. It's all the information that's behind the numbers that I think is important to understand. So if I may, I would like to proceed. I, I guess I, I will ask, you know, perhaps with the indulgence of my colleagues, to, to give you some more time to talk.

But I do have more questions and comments I want to make, and so I don't want to belabor everyone's time on the body because it's not the specific question that I'm asking. But if we want to go go through that exercise now, um, then, then I think we could take maybe another day or two. The reason that I'm here tonight is because there is a signed contract with GMC Construction for approximately $2.1 million. They are currently— maybe not at this hour, but as of this day and tomorrow— putting in sewer pipe. They are waiting for a project number from Heritage Land Bank, at which point in time they will give us, uh, give Heritage Land Bank their first draw request.

If that draw request is not met, this is a serious problem for Heritage Land Bank and the assembly as well. So I would request that we take as much time as we need to, to thoroughly explore what this situation is. So may I proceed? I'll just ask, I think, you to hold. Mr. Johnson had a specific question and has the floor, so why don't we go ahead and let him go through his questions, and then another member may consider bringing back to hear your letter.

I think that'll serve us all better if we just kind of follow that path. Yeah, I, I think that might make more sense, and I certainly, if one of my colleagues wants to ask for that information, um That's fine, but I, I will go back to my original question is, do we have updated projections for the revenues and costs? Yes, with several contingencies. Okay, and can we share those?

First of all, they are projections.

The net income before tax is $2,595,202. Can you break that down into something like what we see in the pro forma for, um provided here for Phase 1. I mean, can you share? And if the answer is you can't share that, then, then I understand there may be reasons. But you're saying $2.5 million net income before taxes, but we're not actually breaking that down into the revenue from lot sales, the on-site development costs, and the post-development costs?

Um, we have a total revenue from lot sales of $11,737,000.

$1,350,000. We have financing costs of $911,463. We have development construction costs of $7,372,801 for total construction costs of $8,284,264.

We have post-development costs including marketing fees, property taxes, overhead, and administrative and management fees of $857,884.

Giving us a net income, as I said, $2,595,202. These costs pro forma are subject to the following notes, uh, which is insulation requirements confirmed by future soils testing. F2 or worse soils will require a variance request to delete insulation. Projected savings with curb and paved pathway removed is approximately $160,000. Drainage mitigation assumes a sub-drain substation installed along the northwest boundary of the road to provide drainage relief for the upgraded lots.

This cost will be further defined once a drainage analysis is complete. Anticipated that bedrock will need to be ripped or hammered out instead of blasting. Does not account for looping system. Further investigation is needed and likely higher costs expected. Wetlands cost could be mitigated if HLB is able to place other wetlands within conservation easements.

AWW grant money could be used to pay for water and sewer assessments. Water and sewer assessments alone in this project going directly to AWW is $463,310.

Extend upper cul-de-sac as a private road to strip paved standards. Sewer main and services would be extended as well. HHI offsites utilizes State of Alaska prevailing wage scale, Davis Bacon. Phase 1 will be privately funded and thus not require Davis Bacon wages. This opinion of cost is subject to changes due to plat changes, geotechnical investigations, and agency review comments.

This opinion of cost is based on anticipated 2026 construction costs and does not include costs for land, buildings, or pads, architectural features, landscaping, beyond stabilization, taxes, or financing costs, or monies for the performance and/or warranty guarantees to the Municipality of Anchorage. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So I think that answers my questions for now. My other colleagues may have some questions, and I think I'll start my testimony on this by just making something— making sure my colleagues understand something about the way this deal is structured, this, this public-private partnership.

Revenue will come in from the lot sales, right? As development moves forward, there is revenue from those sales. The costs for the developer then get paid back to the developer. The money that is left after the developer recovers their costs and recovers some additional fees—marketing, administrative, management, etc.—what's left gets divided between the municipality and the developer. However, our costs, if you choose to make them relevant to this conversation, our costs are not deducted anywhere in there until that final split of the profits, right?

So when I say there's $2.5 million on the table tonight, $208,000 that's already gone out the door, and a potential for millions more to cover our cost, the public's cost, to support this project, on top of the fact that we've already given away public land. When we say that Phase 1 will have net profits or net revenue after taxes of $2.95 million, half of that would go to the muni. That's about $1.5 million in revenue. So you can weigh that against the investment that we're talking about making in this, right? That $1.5 million that will go to the developer, that is in fact profit for the developer.

They've already covered their costs, but we have not. Their profits are revenue minus costs. Our profits then have costs deducted from them, and then we contemplate whatever is left over. Now, there are additional phases in Holton Hills, phases 2 and 3, but we don't really have any estimates for what they are, right? We don't have a pro forma.

In fact, the only thing we have that's newer than what we have from 2022 is just the statement that was read into the record here. So I, I will say that I don't think this is an easy problem for us to tackle. But I would just think it is important for us to frame it in terms of both the real and potential significant public investment it will take to move this project forward, and also just be realistic about what we may see in return on that investment in terms of the dollars that will come back to the muni. And I will say for my part, I don't think this is the way we should be playing with public money, because that's what we're doing here. The risks are real, the costs are real, and the upside, the benefits, is entirely hypothetical at this point.

So I will pause there.

Mr. Constant, thank you. Um, I'll just start by saying it has been previously alleged that I have a business relationship with Ms. Yoshimura. I was a real estate licensee under her brokerage, but that relationship severed 2 years ago. So we have no current relationship in any financial, personal way in that manner.

So that's first. Second, Mr. Downey, why are we here?

I'm happy to repeat myself. We are paying $2.5 million for the offsite improvement. But previously there was some funding to cover these costs, right, when we did the initial process, right? Oh, you mean the federal money, right? Yeah, so there was in the, uh, whereas, as you'll notice in the ordinance that authorized the disposal, contemplation that AWU would pursue, uh, federal congressionally directed spending through Senator Murkowski's office.

That effort was successful. We obtained $2.5 million thanks to Senator Murkowski. Unfortunately, uh, that funding would come with considerable strings if used on this project. It could only be used on the sewer and water portions. That's all I need right there, is that, that there was initially funding that was intended to be used in this amount, interestingly, but there were— finally, once the money came, it came with strings.

So the terms effectively changed in the process. But LARC or HARC, Girdwood now gets $5 million of investment. They're doubling the investment of what goes into Girdwood because that initial $2.5 million appropriation that came with the congressionally designated spending— thank you, Senator Murkowski— will in fact go to make improvements to the general sewer and water system of Girdwood. Is that correct?

I should have stayed standing. Yes, that's correct. Right. So here we are giving a developer acting in good faith the public beating for a condition that she couldn't control, the fact that money that was intended in the initial plan is being shifted because of restrictions from the federal government to another pool. But here we are providing even more funding to Gerdwood.

Municipality is very generous to Gerdwood. Now, I would offer that we should contemplate when we're looking at approving or not this item, the fact that the municipality, through this body's direction, has been making substantial investment in securing housing for the future. The process of securing housing for the future involves complicated investment. It's not playing with money per se. It's actually targeting investment.

It's, it's tacking when the current condition changes so that you're in the place where the investment will land and make the difference in getting the project on the ground. Now, we are not going to solve today the issues that Garwood has rightly complained about short-term rentals, dark houses, and all of the scenarios that come with that. That's just not going to be solved here. We do have ideas that we're working on in that, but what we do have here is an agreement signed in good faith by a party, a developer. We have the municipality who has made its commitments, whether we like them or not, in part or in whole.

We made these commitments, and so the answer is is do we follow through with our commitments, or do we signal to every developer in this town that our money does not come with good faith, or our obligations and commitments do not come with good faith and fair dealing? And so we have a duty, in my opinion, to live up to our agreements that have been signed and approved by this body.

That, I think, is the overarching element of this conversation that we have a responsibility to steward forward to the future. If we want to see 10,000 homes built and we don't want to be the builder of 10,000 homes, then we must be a good partner in the development of those homes by living up to our agreements. So the good news is Girdwood gets twice the investment out of this deal because the federal terms changed and we have to make this deal work. In my opinion, I urge your support on this item. Ms. Baldwinde.

I agree that we want 10,000 homes in 10 years. I think what we really want is 10,000 occupied homes in 10 years, and I understand that provisions exist inside of this agreement, which was inked by an assembly that I was not a part of, and I am willing to do as the chair said and hold up our end of the bargain. However, I want to put on the record that I am, I am deeply skeptical of how this is going to play out in the future, and I hope that I am wrong.

I, I am bothered by, and I hope we are all troubled by, the data that was shared earlier tonight about the proportion of occupied versus unoccupied new construction in Girdwood.

And I hope that I am wrong, that that is not a trend that will continue with this development, but I'm really, really concerned about building homes that people will not be living in, and I just, I just want that to be a level set. Um, I am absolutely— I intend to vote yes on this appropriation because I think we made an agreement and we ought to live up to that agreement, but I am concerned about the impact long term.

Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have another question for Ms. Yoshimura if to come back up to the podium, and I really want to know if you have anything additional you would like to say or read from your statement that you didn't get to. Um, and like Mr.

Constant, I probably should make a disclosure. In a past life, many, many years ago, I used to work for Ms. Yoshimura. Had nothing to do with the subdivision though, so there is no conflict of interest, at least there for me. But I would just like to ask her if she has anything further she wants to say to address that, and then what happens if we do not pass this tonight.

I have to tell you that I, I didn't know what a dark house was when I won the RFP, and I was shocked to find out. I am a residential subdivision. I believe in mixed density. I believe in single-family homes. I also believe in ADUs, and this This project geographically and topography lends itself very well to ADUs and duplexes because on one side you have uphill houses.

In my experience, lots for uphill houses, and my experience is if you put that garage into that hill, then you have a lot of room in the back of that garage, and if you can have a window dig out for an area for a window, you could have a very nice 1-bedroom, 1-bath apartment. And that is one of the goals that I foresee happening. On the downhill side, we have lots that will support ranches, and you could actually have a triplex as a ranch because the first floor could be 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, a modest kitchen because everybody eats out, out a lot. And upstairs you could have 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. You could condominiumize those 2.

You could also condominiumize the bottom lower level because of the slope. You can have a walkout lower level actually that meets all of the code requirements. So when we looked at all of Phases 1, 2, and 3, it's 60— it's 60 acres we have approximately 187 units, which is just approximately 3 units per acre, which is a modest amount. And so we actually can increase that. But one of the reasons that I believe my RFP was awarded and not the other competitive RFP was I am a residential land developer.

Residential land developers don't build lots and spend millions of dollars if you can't sell these lots to builders and buyers. So the idea that we're going to have a subdivision that nobody buys in this shortage of housing that we have is, uh, not relevant at all. So, um, I think that's a fallacy. We will have a homeowners association, and we do have requirements from the AO that does require that we have, uh, long-term rentals if there are going to be long-term rentals. We have an HOA so that we're able to manage that.

So the questions that were here earlier about how do you control, uh, what, uh, a lease, a year's lease, and then the sublease Well, in a, in a well-managed HOA, that sublease would have to be reported to the property manager. And that's how you conduct that. In addition to that, if you want to have long-term financing through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, every 3 years you have to do an audit, a verified audit of how many properties that are in the community that you're managing are rentals. So unfortunately, that doesn't happen a lot, but that it will happen, I can guarantee you, in our HOA, because we will manage that, and it's our responsibility too. It's not my desire to build dark $2 million homes.

Yes, we do have 7 of those lots, and you know why? Because that helps our pro forma, because those lots will sell for $400,000 each, which allows me then to build lots that are 50 feet wide or 60 feet wide that allow duplexes and fourplexes. We also have two areas that are designed for multi-family units, which would be stacks, which right now you— we have a building designed for 8 units with a stall garage. And so we have a variety of product. It is not subsidized product.

It is private market development with private money and private risk associated with it. But I am well aware that what Girdwood needs is homes for, for teachers, for engineers. The calls that I get for Girdwood Lots, and I do not have a reservation form yet. The development agreement says that I cannot take reservations until I have approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. But the calls I get are from people who want to live in Girdwood.

They want to live in Girdwood. They are— they have children that are in the ski program that this project is named after. Holton Hills, Howard Holton. And you know, I will just tell you this, this is what I say about Girdwood. Um, I say it's 40 minutes to Girdwood and it's 45 minutes to Wasilla.

Which community would you rather live in? And the answer is pretty obvious. Everyone— most, not everyone, but most people would rather live in Girdwood. There is a certain demographic there that wants to be part of that community, and they have children.

Thank you. Are you done, Mr. Myers? All right, thank you. Ms. Solis.

Yeah, so I appreciate hearing about the HOA, um, and the requirements there, uh, for long-term rentals Is there anything in the agreement or anything in the code currently that would prevent short-term rentals or dark homes?

I don't know who can answer this, the administration, or—. I would have to, and I did not bring the AO with me. I do— there is a limitation, I do believe, on short-term rentals. Yes, in the AO. And I don't know if anyone has it that can pull that up right now.

I remember there was several lots that were set aside for workforce housing. So I'm wondering if the prohibition on short-term rentals would be the entire subdivision or if we're talking about the lots that were set aside also. Thanks. So in the development agreement There is a requirement, Section 1A, that 50% of the multi-family properties cannot be rented for short-term rentals, and that'll be enforced through the HOA. But I think there is potentially a distinction between dark homes and short-term rentals.

A home could be dark because it doesn't have short-term rentals in it, because someone just owns it and doesn't live there. You don't have to have short-term rentals to have a dark home.

Thank you, Mr. Walton. Thank you, Mr. Downey kind of teed me up perfectly. Um, I think it's very important to do— to distinguish a dark home versus a short-term rental. A short-term rental, 30 days or less, I think that is a whole conversation that needs to be had. We've kind of cracked it a little bit with previous items on this body, Um, and there are projects in the works, um, on short-term rentals, but a dark home, I, I just don't know how you would say we are requiring none of these to be a dark home.

You have to— a, a person to buy a home, occupy, or build a home, occupy it, um, a certain amount of time. And I mean, imagine if there was a developer who wanted to build an apartment complex in Midtown. But we said, you can't build this unless you can guarantee a certain level of vacancy, uh, you know, at any given time. Like, you can't— you cannot guarantee or enforce somebody to occupy their property, uh, for a, a fixed amount of time per year. Um, I, I just think that would be a really interesting property rights thing to get into.

But I also want to comment on— yes, well, actually, staying on that note for a second, I just, I want to put it out there, I just, I don't find the dark home argument compelling because what I'm hearing is we don't want any more housing built in Girdwood unless somehow it's going to be occupied year-round, and I just don't know how we would effectuate that policy. I don't think we can. Um, but as far as like the public investment— roads, infrastructure, utilities, off-site improvements— that stuff is expensive no matter where we build it. Um, frankly, I would love to see $2.5 million of utility upgrades at Third and Ingra that property in my district and put some housing there. Let's do it.

So I, I, you know, I think we are getting the value. I think maybe, you know, maybe some folks had this idea that this was going to be like a big moneymaker for, for the municipality, but I think we also need to look at the value of housing in Anchorage where, you know, wherever it is, whether it's Girdwood, whether it's East Anchorage, whether it's Downtown, Midtown, West Anchorage, I won't leave out Eagle River. And we need to look at also the value of the roads and the utilities and the offset improvements, the infrastructure. I mean, I think really what we need to be thinking about in the long term is how do we fund more of all of that? And how does the municipality help pave the way for more housing development?

And I am committed to exploring that question. How can we fund— you know, I think it's interesting, we, we have a municipal housing fund that the assembly put $500,000 in. How do we grow that over time? That's my question. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Uh, Ms. Brawley, then Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thanks. Just briefly, I really appreciate the, the bigger policy discussion about housing.

Um, I'll reiterate what others have said, which is is, um, this is the deal we're in. It probably could be approved, but this is not the place or the mechanism that we can do that at this point. And then I would say also, I do think we really should look again at, uh, short-term rentals as a policy and what we do, but I think I would caution doing too much of that looking at one development, because I think when we've done that on a case-by-case basis in this community We ended up with special limitations, which had huge unintended consequences. So I know that's not what we're pursuing here, but I think it really illustrates that we— if we want to make a policy, we need to look consistent across different property owners. I understand the value certainly of having a development agreement and working out that deal specific to this development.

So I think that is a good strategy, but as I said, we're further down the line than then we would be able to make changes there. And I think, again, we should be looking as a broad policy at short-term rentals, especially in places like Girdwood where they're so prevalent. And also appreciate the distinction between a dark home and a short-term rental. But I think the bottom line is if you have enough money, you can afford to live in Girdwood. The question is how do you get people who want to live in Girdwood— or I should say, if you can afford a property, you can own property in Girdwood.

The question is how you get folks to live in Girdwood. Thanks. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. First a question, then some comments.

So it was mentioned in, in the AO that there was some congressionally delegated spending and perhaps a thought or a hope or an expectation that that might be used to offset the cost of the offsite improvements here in Holton Hills. But as I understand it, when we're talking about federal money, anytime we're talking about new construction, as the offsite improvements are, requires a NEPA review, is that correct?

Yes, there are different levels of NEPA review. So new construction is generally going to require an EA or a higher level of assessment, whereas improving existing infrastructure, which is how we propose to use the funds, can often qualify for a categorical exclusion, which is a much lower level of review. Right, but when we're talking about new construction for the off-site improvements to connect Holton Hills to existing utilities, I mean, it doesn't sound like there was any plausible scenarios, I understand it, where we would expect that we could have used the CDS for that.

Uh, if I could answer a slightly different question, which is, should we have anticipated that the CDS would have come with NEPA requirements? And I think the answer is probably yes, we should have anticipated that. Yeah, so I, I think while is sort of— it seems to be implied in the original AO that that might help defray the cost of the off-site improvements. That was not really a realistic expectation. And look, it's great that we're upgrading Girdwood's existing infrastructure, right?

I mean, I think that's— I'm happy we have the congressionally delegated spending, but the $2.5 million we're spending here technically is an investment in Girdwood, right? But it's not much of a gift if it's not a gift that anybody wants for or asks in the community. Um, you know, $2.5 million, sure, it could do a lot of good at Third and Ingraham. If there was an opportunity to spend this $2.5 million to upgrade the infrastructure at Third and Ingraham as opposed to Holton Hills, I would fully support that, right? I have not heard from my community that is elected to represent me and ask or desire for us to make this investment.

Instead, it is something that is being done to the community very much so against their— the wishes that have been widely expressed. So I don't know if we need to relitigate the whole conversation that surrounded the approval of the Holton Hills project, but I would just push back against this assertion that this is a major investment into Girdwood and Girdwood should be grateful for that investment, because I don't think that's quite fair.

Um, I want to point out too that, look, we all want and hope that these won't be dark homes, but as Mr. Edgington pointed out, that is what the market is building in Girdwood. That is what the people who have the money to build are choosing to do with that land, and we are making the land available for builders to purchase and build what they believe will sell on it. There's no additional conditions or strings out of there on it. Other than the prohibition on short-term rentals for some of it, right? But if people want to buy these lots to build expensive homes, that is what they will do, and that is what I think we should expect they will do based on what has been taking place in Girdwood so far.

I mean, I think the last few years have shown with this very high rate of development in Girdwood that there is essentially an unlimited appetite for luxury second homes in Girdwood. I, I don't I don't think that we are going to satiate that demand anytime soon. So I think if there's hopes that there will be some sort of trickle-down benefit to the community, I think that seems unlikely. I'll say I do think Girdwood needs investment in housing. I think sometimes the government has to step in when the public sector isn't building something that needs to be built, right?

But that isn't what we're talking about here. This is, this is luxury housing. Let's be very clear. I mean, when we see the average home in Girdwood selling for $900,000 or something like that, I think you should have every expectation that the average home in Holton Hills will be selling for something like $900,000.

So how do we get the housing that community needs, right, for the people who live and work in Girdwood? This is clearly not within their affordable realm, and I think that will take an investment, and I hope we will make that investment somewhere down the road as this body, because I don't see how else Unless it happens, the market is just simply not doing it. It's a problem we see in the bowl here in Anchorage, right? Like, not going to deny it, but the disparity in Girdwood is so much more severe than what we see even here. The difference between what somebody makes living in Girdwood and the cost of the housing there, um, I don't know if anybody has the math, but I would venture to guess that that differential is probably double what it is here in the bowl, where it's already a problem.

All right, so I would say, yeah, projects need public investment, but I don't think this is that sort of project. I want to point out too that the, the ordinance does contemplate that we may take possession of 2 lots. However, as I've been— as I've asked this question, and I believe the answer I've gotten is, if we wish to take possession of those 2 lots, we will pay the assessed value for those lots. If anyone wants to get up and then tell me I'm wrong I'll look around, but I think we're in the room this morning. And so we would pay the assessed value, right?

So we are not just paying the cost to put those lots in biddable condition, we are paying what the market would pay for those, right? So when you say we can acquire 2 lots that we could then use for some sort of public purpose or, or to provide to a nonprofit for affordable housing, it's really functionally no different than if we just went on to Zillow today, found 2 biddable lots, and paid what people are asking for it. We're paying market price for those lots. So there's not any sort of discount or benefit there. I would suggest that, in fact, that stipulation in the AO is essentially meaningless.

And if we just wanted to get the best— you know, get 2 lots for the best value we could, we could take 2 empty lots, pay the development costs to get them buildable, and it would still be less than what we would be contemplating if we choose to buy these lots at market price in Holton Hills. So I would not I would not bank too much value on that condition in the ordinance. I will say to my colleagues, this is, you know, this is not an easy question to answer, though, right? I'll say I don't think anyone can convince me this is a good deal, but we have made a commitment, and to not follow through on that commitment carries some costs and some risks.

I think these are questions that we should have more thoroughly contemplated before we approve this ordinance, but here we are today.

So I'll say for my part, I don't see the sort of transparency in this project that I would expect when we're spending public money and making a public investment. This carries with it a large and open-ended commitment to invest a great deal, potentially, of public money on top of the public land that has already been committed to make it happen. I guess I will say that if— I do hope if this body sees value in investing in luxury housing in Girdwood, that it will be just as interested in investing in housing for people who actually live and work in Girdwood. All right, because the folks in Holton Hills are going to need folks to plow their roads or serve their meals at restaurants or operate the ski lifts or provide for public safety or education. All right, they'll need those folks, but I will tell you, it is not going to be their neighbors in the Houlton Hills.

All right, I have myself in the queue. Mr. Constant, uh, Miss Yoshimura, can you come up So it was asserted that this is a luxury housing development. Can you turn the microphone on?

There you go. Thank you. The way you alleviate, uh, any new subdivision from becoming total luxury in today's world is you have what's called mixed density. Mixed density starts with the size of the lot. The cost of the lot is determined by its width.

So a 50-foot wide lot or a 40-foot wide lot is going to take a smaller home than a lot that is a half acre, for example. So that's how you create the mixed density. I'm not going to say that it's not market-driven because I'm not subsidized, I'm not a nonprofit corporation, but I do have a commitment to myself and to this community to create a mixed density environment where there are a variety of options for living arrangements. Whether those are smaller single-family homes, whether they're townhouse style or row housing or stacked condominiums. That is my vision for this subdivision, and that is what we have worked to create as far as the plat is concerned.

And we have an HOA that will be in place that will be able to control the short-term rental, and that we will comply with the AO. So we have something that is not recognized in other subdivisions or in entire of Girdwood. Girdwood basically has— I guess it has zoning, but it doesn't look like it has zoning, really, quite frankly. Another question. So there was a kind of picture painted that the muni could pick 2 lots and develop them and then do that cheaper than this whole thing.

Is it possible to pick 2 lots in the middle of a field and have a spot development happen like that? Well, normally if you're going to do— let's take the multifamily. We have 2— we have designed 2 multifamily lots that will take 8 units or perhaps 12, depending upon the design. And normally you put multifamily— for those of you that are familiar with planning, you put multifamily on corners because the people that live there want greater accessibility to transportation or whatever. So we have 2 multifamily lots.

Next to the 2 multifamily lots we have, we have also put a smaller lot, a 45-foot-wide lot and a 50-foot-wide lot. So if they wanted to have expansion, they would be capable of doing that as well, and that would fulfill the commitment. But it's not my responsibility. It's my responsibility to create opportunity, not only for the two lots in— that is going to be purchased ultimately by Heritage Land Bank, but I am not a vertical builder. I am only a residential land developer.

But having been in the business for 40 years, I can tell you what will sell and what sort of multifamily is possible to do. Right. But really, it's not feasible for a developer to just come in the middle of land and just insert a development kind of divorced from a development, right? You can't just plug in 2 lots in the middle of a land and call it done because you would then bear all of the costs of the road, all of the cost of the park, all of the cost of everything. If you don't subdivide subdivide those costs, it's not feasible, right?

Right. We are providing those costs, right? Yes. Okay, so next, a piece of advice. So I have mentioned to you a number of times, um, I know of a development in California where they were able to secure, in your kind of conversation about reservations, a right of first refusal for the local community.

And now I know you've done some investigation on that, and there have been some constitutional the villages that have been identified. But I do have the developer who developed that property and his planner, I guess, who was able to thread the needle to achieve the ability for the folks who lived in that zip code to be the first ones who had an opportunity to buy that land for development for their homes. And so I think that the only answer to the conversation about dark homes— there's only one answer. We can't regulate how a person uses their home, but we can regulate how people are able to buy, have the first bite at the apple, how they can get in. Once they're in, it's just nearly impossible to set a law or policy that says what you do within the walls of your home.

I don't think those laws exist, and I don't think they're constitutional. So I do have a phone number for you of someone who can help thread that needle a little bit. I would be happy to give that to my attorney. Who says that that is illegal and I cannot do it. But again, I have literally been into the buildings where it has been done.

And so I know it's different state, different constitution. Maybe that's the fundamental question. But ultimately, I would hope that you can figure out a way to ensure that the people of Girdwood do have a very clear opportunity to get in the door, because I think that's the biggest concern we're hearing. Obviously, your 7 or 10 lots, they're the large lots that are going to be the ones that help anchor the development by bringing in substantial revenue aren't going to be the ones. But there are dozens of other lots within the context that can meet that.

And before you even get to the multi-unit developments that hopefully someone like Cook Inlet or other parties can come in and develop. The only thing that we could do, and we've had internal discussions on it, is designate some lots specifically as duplex lots. Lots, and a duplex lot, if, uh, it's a townhouse-style duplex or an owner-occupied duplex, uh, would lower the initial cost of a property. Anyhow, um, such a challenge, Gerdwood. Thank you, Ms. Shimura.

Ms. Baldwin-Day, am I done? For me, I wouldn't go far. I, I'm, I'm finding that I have a lot of questions that are not necessarily pursuant to this action specifically, but that do deal with this development, heritage land bank disposals generally and specifically, particularly some sections of the AO that— AO 2023-137 that was attached tonight as a late on the table item as part of an AIM. I have a lot of questions, clarifying questions about how all of this is going to unfold, and I don't believe it's necessarily appropriate for me to ask all of those questions. Questions tonight.

So if it is possible for us to have some kind of a work session or some way that we, you know, those of us who are newer members on the body to get up to speed on, on this particular issue, I would personally really appreciate that. And I'd appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of, of Heritage Land Bank, perhaps the Real Estate Department also, and Ms. Yoshimura as well if she's willing to come. So I just wanted to put that out there that I I have a lot of questions, uh, but I also am reluctant to belabor the point tonight when, when they're not immediately germane to AR 2025-220. Um, thank you. Ms. Solvers.

Yeah, I have a few more questions. Um, so when that $2.5 million, uh, when it was found out that it had strings and had to be spent for sewer systems or whatever. Why did replacing that money— why did the full burden of that fall onto the municipality?

Well, I think if I could, uh, answer directly, it has always been the municipality's responsibility under the development agreement to build the offsite improvements. Improvements. I think it was also always understood that the congressional directed spending would only be used for the water/sewer improvements. There are existing water lines— there are existing water lines, so this was going to pay for sewer improvements. The bulk of this item, as you'll see, is actually for the road.

I think the road is almost all of the off-site improvement costs. The sewer is only about $400-something thousand, um, so that was always going to need to be paid by the municipality.

So the $2.5 million, um, that's being spent for sewer systems, uh, is $400,000 of that then going to this?

Um, to—. No, the $2.5 million in congressionally directed spending will be spent on existing infrastructure in Girdwood to improve service for Girdwood residents in this whole area. And Mr. Persinger can give you more details about that. But if you look on page 2 of this AM, you'll see the breakdown of the offsite improvement costs is $1.5 million for the street design, $436,000 for sewer line extension, and $23,000 or $24,000 for drainage improvements. So the congressionally directed spending only could have been used for the sewer improvements, which is that middle line.

So can we use that $400,000 for sewer improvements here and lower this $2.5 million extra that we're paying? If, if we did that, then we could delay the project, uh, until the NEPA analysis was completed, and the associated road and drainage improvements would also then get captured in the NEPA analysis. Analysis and would become sort of federal roads. So it would be a significant delay to the project because we'd have to do the NEPA analysis before we spent the funding.

And is the $2.5 million in congressional directed spending, is that required to be spent in Gerdwood?

I'll let our AWU director answer that one.

Thank you. Through the chair, David Persinger, uh, AW General Manager. So the intent of that $2.5 million is to upgrade the sewer system downstream of this development. So that includes the school and all the— I guess it's called the New Gardwood Townsite— pretty much from just below the school all the way down to Alyeska Highway. We have capacity constrictions within that area that that once Holton Hills is fully built out, we won't have capacity in that section of sewer main between the school and Alyeska Highway.

Okay. So it sounds like the answer is probably no, but you think it is most useful spent to expand capacity below. The grant application is specific for Girdwood, so that funding is specific for that section of sewer main downstream of the development. Okay. Thank you.

And then I have another question. So 50% of multifamily homes are not to be short-term rentals. And I've heard that we have 2 multifamily home lots. So really, what are we talking about here? According to the contract, how many units are not going to be short-term rental?

Is it going to be like 8 units?

Connie may be able to answer that question, but I'd be somewhat hesitant to guess about the mix, especially since Phase 2 and 3 are so unknown, and since I think we have heard a mandate from this body to do as much multifamily as we could. To bring the cost down and make it more affordable. So I can think, you know, to speculate slightly, I think we'd hope there would be more multifamily, but it's a reasonable observation. I don't know. Connie, do you have a—.

Well, I would, I would really like to encourage development of duplex townhomes and row housing. I think it can be very attractive and the road design really supports that type of development. So I don't see development. I don't— I know you're talking about changing height restrictions to 72 feet or whatever. That's not the concept that we have.

I'm not anticipating anything in multifamily that's more than 3 stories of residential, probably similar to the Foxwood condos, if you're familiar with those. Those are very— they're 800 square feet. They have 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, and they have a stall garage. There are 2 projects there, uh, in Girdwood now that have something very similar, and they're very successful, and they are the entry level. Okay, and if I could just jump in, I misquoted the section earlier, so, uh, thankfully the previous assembly did not make that mistake.

Section, uh, 1A says CY Investments LLC will restrict restrict the use of single-family and 50% of the multi-family properties built in Holden Hills to prohibit short-term rentals. Okay, thank you. That's better. Yes.

Is that it, Miss Summers? I guess I still have concerns that we're putting so much money into this, and then, um, the Heritage Land Bank is going to have to buy back those two lots thoughts that concerns me? No?

Okay.

We've been joined by someone on the phone.

Maybe not. Mr. Walland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, this is such an interesting conversation, and We are sort of getting into, like, I think, sort of, uh, you know, relitigating the merits of Holton Hills.

It's interesting. I think we did so, so much public process on Holton Hills. We had multiple work sessions, and I know that there are members who were not part of that decision-making process because you've joined us more recently, But there is a large public record that you can go back and look at that I think may be helpful. At one point, the assembly, we all drove down to Girdwood to have a work session there. We had, you know, many public hearings, and I'll just say when I contrast not to get too far afield here, but when I contrast that amount of public process with what we just had in terms of putting a new homeless shelter in my district, when we talk about, you know, when a member from South Anchorage says Girdwood didn't ever want this, well, at least we had a public process and we made the decision that we did.

Um, you know, ask Fairview or East Downtown. Down, if they want another homeless shelter, and we had a work session, an hour-long work session the day before we had to make that decision. Fairview never got a briefing, downtown never got a briefing, Mountain View Community Council never got a briefing. But we made that decision. So in terms of who wants what, I mean the central question I think we have to ask when we get into this conversation about dark homes and the fear of dark homes is should people who don't already live in or own property in Girdwood have the future opportunity to do so or not?

Because I remember in the, in the public hearing, I believe it was one of, if not the first person from Girdwood to testify against Houlton Hills, said that she owned 5 rental properties. We also heard testimony from a gentleman who suggested that we shouldn't allow any new short-term rentals just grandfather the existing ones in. More recently, we considered the update to the Girdwood Plan, and many of those same people who said we need more workforce housing desperately testified in support of keeping more open space when a developer in Girdwood wants to build more workforce housing in that area. And so what I'm hearing a lot is, for those who already own property or own dark homes in Girdwood, it's, I got mine, now I'm going to pull the ladder up behind me.

So I just, I, I, again, I want to, I want to encourage colleagues who are newer, go back and revisit the public process, revisit the, the specifics of of the, the final substitute version which was approved, realizing that when, when Miss Yoshimura talks about mixed density, what she is proposing to build there is more dense than what the underlying Girdwood zoning allowed. So the fact that there's this mix of 8-plexes, 4-plexes, single-family homes, that there's going to be the HOA covenant that says you know, we're going to limit short-term rentals. I think that this is a better pattern of development in Girdwood than we have seen. Um, and so with that, and with that, you know, that comprehensive amount of public process that we went through, I agree with my colleagues who have stated that we need to be good business partners and we need to see this thing through. And so I encourage us to, um, to support this item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kirker. Mr. Chair, I call the question.

So it's not necessary. We have 1 minute left in this debate. If you don't have something to debate, I'll pivot to Mr. Martinez with 1 minute.

Mr. Martinez will take the floor, Chair, and with 1, uh, less than a minute left, essentially say, um, we're making the road while walking. We're learning from every project. This project actually came across multiple assemblies, and so it started before my time. We voted on it during my time, and I hope we can learn from it. I'm interested in targeting working families.

I'm interested in formulas that use AMI and potentially help us land the plane a little, a little solid in terms of making sure our public dollars go to the public needs that we want to see our investments, uh, instigate. Thank you, Chair. Time for this debate has expired. A member may make a motion to extend the debate if they want.

Seeing and hearing none, the debate is concluded. Members may proceed to vote.

So, um, Mr. McCormick. Yeah, okay, so on a vote of 9 to 1, AR 2025-220 has passed the body. Next we have two items left, quasi-judicial items. Um, they're the last two items on the agenda. Item 15A, Resolution AR 2025-229 Resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly regarding the renewal of Municipal Marijuana Cultivation License M30782 for Wobbly Moose LLC, DBA Wobbly Moose, stating the Assembly's conditional protest to the renewal of State of Alaska Marijuana License Number 30782 for the same establishment.

Public hearing is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Mr. Myers has moved, Ms. Brawley has seconded. Is there any discussion on the matter? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AM AR 2025-229 has passed the body.

Next, we have final item on the agenda is, uh, 15B AR 2025-230, Resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating the assembly's conditional protest to renewal of State of Alaska marijuana cultivation license number 12125 and manufacturing license 12471 for Alaska Wild Coyote, DBA Alaska Marijuana Gardens, and AMG Concentrates. Public hearing On this item is now open. Anyone who should be heard on this item, welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Evangelina Gonzalez. And for what I know, everything got resolved with Planning and Zoning. We're just waiting for Elaine to submit the document. Okay. And about the wobbly, also everything got submitted on that one.

I spoke with uh, oh my God, Mandy today, and the documents were submitted to her and everything should be resolved. Also, it was just a misunderstanding about the document that was not submitted. All right, thank you. Any further discussion, or anyone else wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Move by Miss Spraulley, second by Mr. Mullin. Any discussion?

Seeing hearing— oh, Miss Braly, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Um, just very briefly, um, for the public's benefit, um, sometimes we take up what's called conditional protests, and it means that there are certain things that have not been checked off. It is not the same as a substantive protest, um, and the idea being that when those things are taken care of, uh, that protest is lifted versus a protest in regard to an operation or some other issues that that's been raised. So the conditional protest is not the same as a regular protest.

Thank you.

And just to double on that, is this motion, if approved, delegates to the clerk the ability to just sign the paperwork? So, okay, anyone else seeing, hearing, none? Members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AR 2025-230 has passed the body. It brings us to audience participation. Anyone wish to be heard, please come forward.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

I'm William Baxter, and, uh, I go, uh, we— I bring— we— my family brings people up from the Lower 48, and they don't see a moose. But you go out to Kincaid Park and you see moose. And I ride my bicycle out there most this last couple weeks, and I've seen moose about every time. But the moose are getting skinny. They look like they're not getting feed.

When I go hunting up the Yukon River, up the Kwai Kuk, there's wolves everywhere. And I don't know if there's any bear around, but I think the wolves are getting— I mean, the moose are getting skinny, and I think they're getting They're not getting enough feed. Either we make moose habitats or we go in there and shoot some of them, you know. And, uh, I mean, I, I think there— it's a— but I see, uh, tourists back there looking for moose, and I don't like to see them shot, but I think there's something need to be done to them. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

Hi, Mike Edgington-Girdwood. I will wait until the time—. Please state your name, part of town you're from, you'll have 3 minutes. Thank you. Mike Edgington-Girdwood.

Um, I really enjoyed the, uh, discussion earlier about, uh, perhaps looking forward even beyond Halton Hills to the other needs of the community I represent. Um, I was— I'd like the opportunity just to respond to a couple of things that were said. During the— most of the conversation with the developer, that either Mr. Voland, for example, picked up a couple of comments in some of the public hearings. It's very easy to pick, pick comments that, you know, reflect one very narrow perspective and try and cast the whole community that way. I would, I would point back to a couple of years ago when we had a lot of people in this audience from Anchor Anchorage, most of them, a lot of them from Anchorage Bowl actually, wearing very offensive regalia, wearing yellow stars, etc.

I don't think that represents the whole of Anchorage. I think that represents a very narrow and ignorant perspective. It's easy for people elsewhere just to say that represents you. I hear uninformed, ignorant, and pretty offensive comments even from people sitting on this dais today, speaking for a community they don't represent, speaking for community, they really don't have any interest in sort of helping. I don't think that represents— again, I think that represents a very narrow and perhaps pointed and perhaps even unrepresentative for that particular person.

It doesn't represent everyone in the assembly. I would say that the general discussion of what the future should should look like, including aspects of how you deal with dark homes. This is not an unsolved problem. This problem has been addressed in many, many other communities, other resort and gateway communities across the US and Canada and Europe. There are solutions.

A lot of the things that I heard here are impossible— are not impossible. I can point to dozens of examples where these problems have been solved. Solved mostly, it's around covenant and deed restrictions. In fact, even the Alaska Municipal Handbook for land use talks about how to do disposals with deed restrictions for primary residency. So this is again a problem that's addressed regularly within this state and across many other states.

I'm happy to have a discussion and help people sort of learn about these solutions as well. Hopefully in the next few months we might even have a proposal coming forward which addresses these kinds of problems. We're trying to learn from— I say we, the community in general, definitely the Board of Supervisors— trying to learn from the many mistakes made through the Halton Hills process and trying to forge a better path forward. Thank you. All right, thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard?

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Roger Branson, I just wanted to follow up on the conversation today around mental health and the discussion we had, how much I really appreciate the conversation, but you know how much watched so many of the folks who are on the streets who were telling, you can't camp here, you can't do this other stuff, have long chronic mental health needs. And that the failure of the state and the city, which has been a political failing, it's gone back 30 years that I've been involved with advocacy, um, it's just the most vulnerable among us have been the pawns that end up falling in the political battles. And so we have to get everybody on the same page at the same time if we're really going to address homelessness, if we're really going to address the long-term needs of individuals who, quite frankly, needlessly suffer. And so the conversation today took us a long way and get into there, and I beg you not to let that falter or go foul. Keep that conversation alive.

People's lives depend on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? All right, we'll go ahead and move on to member comments. Oh.

Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez de San Cruz, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. So, uh, this might turn into a bit of a word salad. I'm going on under 2 hours of sleep, and you know, it happens. Uh, so last year I watched, uh, Mr. Vohle and Ms. Sawtelle argue the finer merits of essentially electric-assisted scooters and bicycles. And then Chief Case was called up about, you know, whether or not he had a Zoomer division and he could staff it.

And then, you know, 10 miles an hour additional in the speed limit— I think Mr. Johnson mentioned force times mass equals kinetic energy. And that, that was the one comment I was like, he's got a point. And, uh, you got to the end of an hour and I thought, uh, if this continues, I'm gonna need electric assist to my brain in the form of shock therapy to continue going. So anyways, all that said, I don't know if anybody needs to phone a friend, but, you know, we've kind of reached that point. My concern is this: you have a humanitarian crisis going on out there right now with hundreds, if not close to 1,600 people by coalition numbers.

And last meeting, I watched people haggle over 50 beds for people And nobody's discussing, uh, the plan over here by the mayor, uh, and the fact that it does not address all those people outside. I literally had people this week, you know, a number of them come up to me asking for blankets because it is getting colder. And meanwhile, the police are continually destabilizing people right now, pushing people again and again and again, and they're stripping them essentially of whatever assets they have. Parks and Rec is picking it up, and then, uh, people are concerned, uh, that they're not going to have time to bed in for winter, and, uh, it's going to end up in people either getting serious injury or death. And that is the reality of the situation.

If this were treated, uh, like, you know, emergency prepares— excuse me, emergency preparedness and disaster relief, uh, it would be an F, uh, because is you get in there, you address the issue, and you move fast. And, uh, winter is coming and it is getting cold. And with all these people outside, they need support, they need places to go, they need food, they need shelter, they need water. And 10,000 homes in 10 years, you know, it's great. 10 Years down the line, when somebody checks out, gets their pension, it's somebody else's problem.

But you have human lives right now outside, and I I've not seen anything so far from anybody on how you intend to support these people and make sure that they live for another year. So I would ask again, please, please, please, uh, try to get a plan and move on it quick, because I watched this thing happen last year, and I literally spent close to, you know, 20 grand in the past 2 years to help people. Uh, yeah, not seeing anything from you guys. Anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all?

All right, now we'll move on to member comments. Mr. Kirker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do just want to say very quickly, there is a family in Eagle River right now that is mourning the loss of a loved one, um, and a burned home.

So just keep, uh, keep that family in your thoughts and prayers, and also thank the fire department for their heroic efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Miss Solis. No comments, thank you.

Mr. Voland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I just want to state for the record that I am interested in helping Girdwood, even though we don't agree, um, myself and some of their, uh, some of the folks who live there on the future of housing. Um, but I am committed to supporting Girdwood on many things, and I appreciate debate on the various topics that we had here tonight, the lively discussion with my colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Bradley. Thanks, no additional comments. Mr.

Johnson. No comments, thank you. Thank you. Miss Baldande. No comments, Chair, thank you.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted one quick comment. Tonight, uh, we may have not passed a resolution with respect to directing the municipal attorney to look at all legal remedies with respect to the state's failure of its state— of its failed mental and behavioral health response and how it has landed on the shores of Anchorage. But in my closing statement, the state has failed us, and I don't need a resolution to say that as clear as day.

And I want everyone in Anchorage to recognize that when you see someone in the street having a mental health breakdown, the first reaction shouldn't be to criminalize them. But if we're going to have that as a reaction of policy, then I just encourage us to make sure that we hold accountable the state and we don't let them off the hook. It doesn't need a resolution tonight, but administration, please help the public understand we're doing the best we can in, in the face of a gap from the state. And that's where we need some direct pressure. And I hope that tonight's comments and tonight's focus continues to put that pressure on the state, and we do get the support we need to be able to address the crisis in our streets.

Thank you, Chair. Amen. Mr. McCormick? No comments. Mr. Myers?

No additional comments. Thanks, Chair. Thanks. Um, I'll— a few comments. Today, um, the administration met with the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of HUD Turner, Secretary of Transportation Duffy.

A lot of work went on today to represent the municipality in the federal kind of purview, and I want to thank everybody in the administration who has bent and flexed and worked overtime to be prepared for the show that it was today. I would say the highlight of the visit I did briefly attend at the port was seeing the public art on that beautiful building and also seeing the beluga whales that were by the hundreds in the inlet today, which was a very wonderful way to show our port to a federal delegation, including both senators who were there, Murkowski and Sullivan. And obviously everybody is paying attention about Friday. It was announced, at least on CNN today, that Jay Bear is the location of the festivities that are coming. I put a call on all of my friends and all of the community to keep your wits about you when this global event takes place in our town.

And I understand everyone has the right and should feel the right to express themselves in the ways that they feel proper, as long as it's lawful and safe.

And with that said, I just think that that once again Anchorage finds itself boxing in a class well above its weight. Thank you to the administration for your work. With that then, I would say thank you everybody for this robust conversation that took about 2 hours longer than I thought it would. And we do this one vote at a time. Thank you everybody.

With that, we'll be adjourned. [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] of nothing. Empty plane. A highway memorial. The fill of some space.

And maybe the moon It's only pretty cuz it's far away.

She only wants me cuz I'm keeping his place. It's all the same.

It's all the same. It's all the same.