Anchorage Assembly: Special Assembly Meeting

Today is June 26th, 2026. This is a special meeting of the Anchorage Assembly. We are noticed from noon to 1:00 PM. We are here in City Hall, Room 155. I will note that because this is a special meeting, we will be running it the same way that we run our regular meetings with a shorter agenda.

So first we'll do a call to order and then I'll turn to the clerk to call roll.

Member Handlin.

Here. Member Martinez. Present. Member Gerker.

Here. Member Silvers.

Here. It's my understanding that Member Presverde is excused. That's correct, he's out of state. Chair Brawley. Here.

Vice Chair Wollend. Happy to be here on a Friday. Member Baldwin-Day. Present. Member Scout.

Present. It's my understanding that Member McCormick is excused. That's correct. Member Park. Member Park is also traveling, but I'm communicating with her.

Hopefully she'll call in. Member Johnson? I'm here. Member Perez Verdia just joined. Member Perez Verdia?

Yes, I'm here. Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you. Next, we will go to the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Voland.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. 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.

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

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

Thank you, Member Scout. We have two items of business today, so I'll just put into the record, but I'll also note that it is the will of the body. We have two options. One is that we can take them up individually, or if there is a motion to both approve 4A and 4B, together, then we would also be discussing them. We could discuss both of them at the same time or take them up sequentially.

They are two different awards to two different contractors, but we've been discussing them together. So just for clarity, however folks want to proceed. Otherwise, if we do them one at a time, then we would first be talking about 4A and then we would be talking about 4B. So I'll read them both into the record and then I'll ask for a motion. 4A is Assembly Memorandum AM421-2026, Recommendation of Award of Contract with Anchorage Community Ice Management to Provide Operation Management services for the Ben Boeke and Dempsey Anderson Ice Arenas.

And then 4B, Assembly Memorandum AM422-2026, a recommendation of award of contract with All In 49 LLC to provide operation management services for the George M. Sullivan, or Sullivan Arena. What is the will of the body? Move to consider items 4A and 4B as a single item. Second. Thank you.

And just for clarity, is that a motion to approve both of those items? Yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Motion to approve both 4A and 4B, moved by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Gerker.

And then because we are obviously not in the room, we will both be doing a voice vote and also just ask folks to get in the queue by visually signaling me or texting. So, Miss Scout, to begin.

I actually would I would like my colleagues to consider moving these separately so that we can have separate discussions. Particularly, my constituents have raised really specific questions about the Sullivan Arena. So I would feel comfortable voting to approve the Bokie and Dempsey Ice Arena contracts now, but I think there is further discussion warranted just on the Sullivan at this time that I'd like to separate out if possible. We can also have that discussion here and now in the frame of both contracts, but wanted to offer that as an alternative as well.

Okay, Mr. Handley, was that a motion to split?

Through the chair, the first and seconder can withdraw that motion, and then you can make a motion to move if they agree.

I think for purposes of conversation, since I think there are going to be some overlapping questions, it might be helpful to discuss them together and then potentially divide the question later, if that is agreeable. I completely understand your rationale for wanting to do that. That sounds good to me. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, so just for clarity, we will— so both items, or both items together or separately, are fair game for discussion. When we get to a vote, we can make that determination. Anyone else in the queue?

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's— if we have questions, let's get them on the table now. Okay.

Yeah, so, um, I emailed Mr. Fawles a series of questions yesterday evening. Really appreciate the quick turnaround. I think we were not able to get those questions and the responses, um, in an informational memo, as we're, you know, this is a special meeting. So I think the big question that my constituents are raising around the Sullivan Arena is around the lifetime of the facility and whether that aligns with the term of the contract.

I think our community has some concerns that the lifetime of the facility may not be the 5 years that is reflected in the term of the contract for the Sullivan Arena. And so wanted to just learn more about the administration's thinking around the length of the contract and how this all plays out, given the state of the Sullivan Arena. Yeah, thank you. And I should have noted for the record as well, we're joined by Mayor LaFrance, Chief Administrator Officer— Chief Administrator Officer Folsey, sorry, Community Manager Becky Wynn Pearson, and members from the Municipal Attorney's Office. So whoever would like to take that question, please proceed.

Through the chair to members, thank you for the question. As we mentioned in the work session we had last Thursday, we are mindful of this question of what is the very long-term interest in the community for the Sullivan Arena. The particular question that had been posed over email was what is the useful life of the facility, and I'm unaware of a study that has generated a useful life for the facility. Facility, but we do know that it's 40 years old. The contract term that we put before you, as described in the memorandum, does have a 5-year term with 5 one-year options, but there are provisions to terminate on 6 months' notice for convenience.

And we have already begun in earnest having a conversation in 2 different forums about what a post-Sullivan future might look like. One is that the Chester Creek Sports Complex master planning effort has kicked off, and for certain, the Sullivan Arena's future will be be a key part of that conversation. The second is, as we mentioned last Thursday, the University of Alaska Anchorage still has unsated desires to have a community ice complex, a CIC, I think is what they're calling it. And we met with the chancellor even earlier this week to start figuring out how to coordinate on that front. We've also had some conversations with the Wolverines about how they play into that conversation.

And so for present purposes, I think it is not lost on us that this is probably not a facility that has 20 more years in its life, and we are thinking ahead to what that looks like. Okay, um, and just a follow-up for clarification. I know that there's a 6-month kind of exit clause in here. Um, what are the financial ramifications of an early exit from the contract by either party? Thank you for the question, Member Scout.

So we are offering in the proposed contract for the Sullivan Arena to pay a capped net operating deficit. We would still do that through the terms of the contract if we exited earlier. I don't believe there are any other springing financial obligations that come with it, but were we to exit the contract, then we would have a building that we would still need to keep from freezing and, you know, from incursions. So we would have the carrying cost of that facility unless and until it were demolished. There is a capital account associated with that which we could use to pay for some of those things, but we would no longer have— unless the municipality were to staff it with parks and recreation type employees, we wouldn't have revenues coming into the building.

Okay. And final question for me, then I'll pass it on. How—. And apologies if this exists in materials elsewhere as I get up to speed here— how much is in that capital account? How much money is in that capital account right now?

Sorry, this is a new one. And we can return to it later. Let me see if I can fish that answer out of my emails or phone a friend. And in the meantime, I will continue to soft shoe dance and we'll see if that answer emerges for me. Thanks.

Okay, yeah, we can come back to that. Next I have in the queue, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you. I'm similar to Ms. Scout.

I had the opportunity to correspond with Mr. Fawzy and some other staff on some questions, but again, wasn't able to get that— we weren't able to get that into an AIM. So I'm going to run through those questions here. So the forbearance on the 5% capital reserve payments until the end of the quarter ending March 2029 in the Bokeh Dempsey contract doesn't appear to include any kind of reporting requirement to illustrate, you know, what is the contractor spending on capital projects as a percentage of gross revenue. And so I'm wondering if there's an openness to adding some sort of clause or something that really shows us how much of those sort of deferred expenses have actually been used for capital improvements, or alternatively, a combination of capital improvements and operating costs. Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, we did have a little bit of a conversation even this morning with ACIMM about that.

We didn't land on a contractual provision, but I'm certain that there's no reason why anyone would be shy about saying what capital what maintenance activities have occurred in the facility. So you're right, the notion of forgiving that capital reserve deposit is in part to make room for a much higher steady investment in ongoing maintenance. We showed you facilities that were— the toilets were out of operations, the bleachers were broken. And I'm looking into the audience and I'll see if there's any head nodding, but I suspect it is the case that there would be no objection to hearing from ACIMM on what actual maintenance activities they're undertaking. Yeah, I think that would be helpful to understand, you know, as a percentage of gross revenue, what does that reinvestment actually look like on an annual basis?

And is that, you know, is that 5% forbearance doing what we hope that it will do? So I, I for one would really appreciate that. I will say in full transparency though, as I think we mentioned in the AM, it's doing two things. That forbearance is partly to make room for ongoing maintenance in the near few years, but it's also to help the facility the new operator as a brand new entity stand itself up and mechanically behind the curtain, there's a loan that they're incurring and that they will need to pay debt service on and pay off over that same time period. So it may not be an exact one-for-one, but I still feel like the lived experience of the facility for users will be steadily improving, even if the net return to the capital reserve in the short period is not quite the same.

Yeah, I think it would be helpful, you know, almost as like a, like a, like a future us problem-solving question to understand what that balance really looks like and how much of that 5% is happening, you know, or is being devoted to capital reinvestment and how much of that is helping with, you know, those operational or the startup costs. In the event that we have a repeat of this, you know, in another or similar facility, it would be nice to know kind of what that— what does it really cost for a new operator to come in and stand up operations in a facility like that. Secondly, I'm curious about the actual basis for the Sullivan annual operating subsidy cap. So $613,500 feels like a very specific number with that 2% escalator. I'm wondering two things.

First, like, how does this number compare to sort of our recent understanding of losses as reported by the Sullivan? And do we believe that that 2% escalator is going to be sufficient to deal with what we know are rising energy costs coming our way for all of us. And I— the genesis of this question is really, I don't want to leave an operator in the lurch if in fact we have the kinds of escalating utility costs that we all are foreseeing at this point. Thank you for the question, through the Chair to Member Baldwin-Day and to the Assembly. The full answer is that that number is something of a product of negotiation.

So there is some back and forth that lands us there. I don't think it's revealing too much to say behind the curtain, there was a yardstick of looking at the current annual utility costs. And so that number very roughly is a portion of the annual carrying utility costs for the building now, where we tried to roughly divide between what is sort of the baseline utilities that the municipality might incur, even if nothing was happening in that building, and the additional utilities that you incur because there's activity in the building. And roughly, the operator was agreeing to take on the portion of the utilities that were caused by the events, and that we were roughly retaining the remainder. I can also say that through the capable assistance of Principal Administrative Officer Taylor Tracy in the Office of Venues, the capital reserve account for the Silver Arena right now has $992,266 in it.

And on a related note, where— what cost center will that subsidy come from for the Sullivan? Through the Office of Venues. So you will recall that at first quarter budget revisions there was an additional increment that was added to the Office of Venues, and that was in part because we knew that we were incurring utility costs at the Sullivan that we did not foresee a near-term path to not be incurring.

And where, where were, where will those funds come from? Like, is there, is this a net zero sort of proposition? Like, where, like, functionally, where do those funds materialize out of, I guess, is what I'm wondering. Functionally, you can think of this in one of two two ways. If you look at it as separately for the Sullivan and separately for the Boki Dempsey, then the Sullivan could be looked at as net zero or even a little bit net positive because it comes out of the Office of Venues, but we already put in utility costs into the Office of Venues.

So there wouldn't need to be any budgetary transfer to accommodate just the Sullivan. As a package, though, there is a real cost to these two items, and that will mechanically come out of the Office of Venues in the short term, but there will need to be some backfill that happens before the end of the year. We flagged that at the work session as well. We'll have to bring a recommendation to the Assembly as to where that actually ultimately comes from.

All right, thank you.

Third question. Apologies. If anybody else has other questions, jump in. I don't want to monopolize this.

Looks like nobody. Okay, I will continue. So going back to the audit findings, and this is really sort of an internal business question, but I think it's germane. Bless you. You know, a lot of those findings were really related to some challenges with contract administration and capacity.

And so I'm curious, what does that capacity look like within the Office of Venues? Do we have the real human capacity to administer these contracts more thoroughly at this point? And it seems to have been kind of like a recurring question in the Audit Committee is, you know, is our contract administration on point sort of across across the board. So I'm wondering, you know, do we have policies and procedures for this? What do we think about the total workload of the person who will be shouldering this?

And is there, is there a desk manual in existence for this type of contract administration? Through the Chair to Member Baldwin-Day, those questions all expose that this is not a very strong aspect of the municipality right now. And so far as I'm aware, for all time, the Office of Indians has been one person. We do not have a very robust contract administration policy and procedure on the books now, but one is moving through the approval process as we speak. I think it is a very fair question to say whether we have sufficiently manned that office, staffed that office, especially in a period where the contracts are being actively renegotiated.

So there's a feast and famine phenomenon that is occurring in venues where in 2 years ago or 6 years ago, the contract administrator is getting required reports, paying utility bills, etc. In the last 2 years, it has been an incredibly busy office where we have been actively renegotiating agreements with the Performing Arts Center, with these 2 facilities, and there's more probably to come shortly behind them. So I think that is a very good question and one that we are also actively interrogating. Okay. I think it would be wonderful to hear an update on how the retooling is going in that vein, not just for purposes of this contract.

I want to be very clear, I'm fully in support of what we're doing here today, but I want to be sure that we also have on the back end, you know, our team ready to engage and ready to be a good partner. So, One additional item that I think that gives me an occasion to mention is that the Chair had mentioned, asked me to mention that at the next Assembly agenda, you're likely to see a proposed ordinance that would change the surcharge mechanism for the Sullivan Arena along the lines that is described in the AM, and that was previewed at the last Thursday meeting. Part of our thinking there is actually to ease the burden of contract administration. Our lived experience in the last year has been that if the contract required a per-ticket surcharge, we didn't have a great way of policing how many of those per-ticket surcharges we were supposed to have received. If we instead move to there is a certain amount of money that is roughly equivalent that has to be deposited into the capital reserve, and we get the financial audit that says how much money was actually raised, we can police that more effectively.

But we are thinking along those lines.

That's helpful, and I'm glad to hear that. Let's see. I was curious about the transition advance that's going to the Voki Dempsey operator, the $450,000, and whether that will be treated as municipal funds, which would be subject to the same accounting audit clawback protections as those ongoing operating costs, and what might happen if there were unspent advance funds in the case of default on that contract. Another very good question. Formally, the funds would be transferred into the operating account of ACIMM.

So they would show up in the annual audits that we are receiving from ACIMM. They wouldn't, in that respect, be municipal funds, but— You're talking about the operating advance for the BOGI and the Dempsey, is that correct? Yeah. Correct, the transition advance, yes. But here, this nonprofit model that we are hoping to step into provides what makes it sort of ultimately feel a bit more like municipal funds in the sense that the money is at risk if all of it is If ASIM model does not work, then that money is spent, it is spent.

But if it works the way we believe it will work and they're able to grow the business and operate sustainably, then two things happen. One, if they are able to build up a cushion in their operating account, after some number of months of cushion, the money starts spilling over directly into the capital reserve. And so then it does become municipal funds, we see it directly. The other is we are looking ahead to what happens if ever we part ways, either with the contract is terminated, ACIMM doesn't want to play this game anymore. And they've all agreed that because it's sort of purpose-built entity to operate the facilities, and because the users who are putting it together care about these facilities, they want the money to stay with the facilities.

And so that operating advance, if it is still in the bank account at the very end of this, gets transferred back to the municipality. So this is sort of like the arrangement that we have analogous to the arrangement that we have with the nonprofit that operates the PAC on our behalf? Kind of similar sort of—. They're definitely analogs. Okay, that's helpful.

Last thing, the, so the insurance requirements for the Sullivan include $3 million, $5 million in professional liability limits, $3 to $5 million versus $1 to $2 for Bokeh Dempsey. I'm just curious what the rationale is for that difference in the insurance requirement. And that too was simply the project product of negotiation and coordination with our risk manager. Cool. So risk management feels good about that.

Great. Okay.

I—. Oh, one final question as a follow-up. Sorry.

Hey. I did my homework.

In terms of early exit or like early contract termination with the Sullivan, would the operating subsidy be prorated in the case of a mid-year termination of that contract?

Yes. The operating— yes. Great. Now for real, that concludes my questions. Thank you very much.

I appreciate it. Okay, thank you. I will note first we were joined on the phone by Mr. McCormick at 12:26. Next I have Mr. Voland in the queue, followed by myself.

Thank you. So I think I heard that the Chester Creek Sports Complex planning effort that is now underway— in fact, I think I saw a meeting as I was headed into the Fairview Rec Center yesterday to check out the free eye exams. I think I saw the meeting in there. Will that—. So is that going to explore potentially ideas around demolition of the Sullivan or total reimagining?

Um, you know, I guess what is the scope, um, of that planning effort and then, um, the timeline? Uh, through the chair to Vice Chair Voland, I think it certainly could. I can give you more specifics as I get closer to it. I know they had their first kickoff meeting this week, which is the meeting you probably saw, and Taylor Tracy did attend. She told me that there were already questions about whether the Sullivan Arena could be replaced with housing.

And I think, I mean, it really is looking at that area and thinking through what happens in the next 10 to 20 years. I don't know what timeline that whole effort is on, but I can take that away and provide you an answer. Okay, thank you. And, and it is our intention, if these items are passed, to invite the future operator of the Sullivan into that conversation. Thank you.

Okay, next I have myself in the queue, just briefly. Member Raleigh, um, I just want to put a few things on the record, um, and then I'll turn to any other questions. Uh, first, thank you for bringing this contract or these contracts for approval before they were finalized. Um, this whole exercise, for those of us who are on the body in 2023, made me remember a lot of, um, just a lot of discussion about these facilities, mostly the one. Um, so anyway, I appreciate that without getting too much into those weeds.

I also want to note just that the operating subsidy, and like the Performing Arts Center that's been brought up, does seem to be more of the paradigm that we are moving into. But I'll also note functionally many of the other facilities that we have for recreation or just, you know, people having fun purposes are either directly managed by Muni staff, so that is— it's not a subsidy, but it is literally paid for by taxpayers. Some—. And then some do probably cover their costs, but that seems to be kind of whittling down to fewer and fewer. So we're also having facilities returned to us, whether whether it's schools, Mountain View Community Center, the Woodland Park building that used to be childcare.

And so those are all buildings that we own. There's a number of other buildings we own like the museum that seem to be working fine. But I think this question is going to keep coming back to us. So I want to put 3 policy questions on the table that we're not answering today. They're way outside the scope of these contracts, but we need to start asking these questions because we will be asked for answers to them collectively.

One is what to do with the Sullivan Arena, and that complex that's been discussed. Another one is how do we deal with the changing economics of operating and capital costs for these facilities? Even if a facility can be operated profitably or at least, you know, break even, as it needs major maintenance, then those things cannot be supported by the operator. That's the story of the PAC and the Sullivan really, and probably most of these facilities. And lastly, what is the new paradigm for muni facilities for recreation?

Are they expected to pay for themselves? Are they expected to be things that we collectively see as a benefit and so they are a community function? Are they things that we privatize and sell off, which could be for-profit, nonprofit? Um, anyway, those are all much bigger questions than what we have the ability to answer, but I want to put them on the record. So next I have, uh, Miss Scout in the queue.

My question was answered previously.

Maybe I'll call it a question.

Anyone else have questions? Are there other people in the queue? There's currently no one else in the queue. And I'll ask really quickly, Member Park is attempting to get on the phone. If I could ask the clerk to follow up with her directly so that I'm not trying to do that while I'm running the meeting.

Making sure that we have folks on. And then I guess the last question we really need to dispatch with is, is do we want to vote on these together? So right now, if we take one vote, we're approving both of them at once, or do we wish to divide the question? And I'll leave that to members.

I, based on the responses to our questions, I feel comfortable with both. Thank you. So there's no one further in the queue. We are currently just making sure two other members can join before voting. So if we can just take one minute while those folks join on the phone, and that would be both Mr. Presverdia.

He had to drop off the call and will be back on, and then making sure that Member Park can also participate.

And I guess while we're doing that, I'll just see if there's any remaining comments from Mayor, Meeting Manager, or any folks on this item.

My additional comment, Chair Brawley, is that this is very likely to be the final official assembly meeting of outgoing Municipal Manager Becky McPherson. I'm wearing flair as a result. However you choose to vote on these items, I hope you do it with enthusiasm.

She asked that I not share that. I'm sharing it anyway because I am a creature of spirit. Happy birthday, Eva. I will note that I am displeased with the birthday present of Becky Wilkerson's departure from the office.

Okay, thank you. So let the record reflect happy birthday, and I hope you like your gift. And also Miss Gardner's displeasure. Yeah, also noted for the record. Okay, um, okay, so let's get back to order.

We do have Mr. Presverdia. We are attempting to get Miss Park, um, so just give us 30 more seconds. I just heard a phone. If you would like to make a comment. Um, thank you, Chair Brawley.

I wanted to thank all the parties who have been involved in these negotiations, um, Mr. Falzy and Ms. Tracy, and then all in 49 and Anchorage Community Ice Management. Thank you for all your work. Thank you for being here today and for, I know, um, the hockey aficionados who are here as well who are not part of that group. And I just want to put on the record, Anchorage is a hockey town and I love hockey.

Thank you for that. I'll also note we are now joined on the phone by both Member Perez Verdia and Member Park. And so I will— if there's no one else in the queue, I will turn to the clerk and ask to call the roll.

Sorry again, and this is just to clarify, voting on both items at once. So yes, voted, approves both. Member Handlin? Yes. Member Martinez?

Yes. Member Gerker? Yes. Member Silvers?

Yes. Member Perez Verdia? Yes. Chair Brawley? Vice Chair Voland?

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day? Yes. Member Scout? Member McCormick.

Yes. Member Park. Yes. Member Johnson. Yes.

Chair, that passes 12 to 0. Thank you. And a vote to 12 to 0. Both AM421/2026 and AM422/2026 have unanimously passed the body. That deals with our business items today.

So we have first, we have audience participation. Participation. If anybody would like to participate, please come forward.

Okay, not seeing anyone in the room and no one signed up to do that, then we will move to assembly comments. So I will start with folks on the phone. So, Ms. Park. No comment, Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Perez Verdia.

I know folks might have had to leave. Mr. Martinez.

No comments, thank you. Miss Silvers?

No comments, thank you. And then we'll turn to in the room. Mr. Johnson? No comment, Chair. Mr. Handeland?

Uh, no comments. Mr. Gerker? No comments, thank you, Chair. Miss Baldwin-Day? Just a lot of gratitude to ACIMM and All In 49.

Welcome, and we're so delighted to have you on board and look forward to being good partners with you. Thanks. Ms. Scout. Ditto, and gratitude to the administration for entertaining our questions, and to, and to my colleagues for attending this meeting and giving us just a little more time to do the deep reading, thinking, and conversing before this.

Mr. Mullin. Go Wolverines.

And no further comments for me. So I will note we are at the end of our agenda and we don't have any other business today, so I entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved. Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you.