Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - August 4, 2026@Yo-xencOeJ0 - 2026-08-04 17:00:00

Hey everyone, we will get started in 2 minutes.

All right, I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is our regular meeting. Tonight is, uh, Tuesday, August 4th, 2026. Um, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Member Handlin. Present. Member Martinez. Present. Member Gerker.

Here. Member Silvers. Here. Member Presverdia. Here.

Chair Brawley. Here. Vice Chair Voland. Happy to be here. Member Baldwin-Day.

Present. Member Scout. Present. Member McCormick. Here.

Member Park. Present. Member Johnson. Here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Johnson, will you please lead us in the Pledge? Yes, Chair.

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.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Vice Chair, would you please read the land acknowledgement? Yes, Madam Chair. A land acknowledgement 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 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. Thank you.

Uh, next we have our minutes of previous meetings. We have one set of minutes, uh, from the regular meeting of July 7th, 2026. Looking for a move to approve those. Move to approve the minutes from July 7th, 2026. Second.

Motion by, uh, Mr. Boland to approve the minutes. Second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any, uh, changes to the minutes?

Any objection to adoption? Hearing and seeing none, the meeting minutes from July 7th have been adopted. Next, we'll turn to Madam Mayor for your report. Please go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, everyone.

Before we get into tonight's agenda, I want to take a moment to acknowledge a few heavy losses and notable events in our community over the past week or so. First, we were all deeply saddened to learn of the tragic passing of former Assemblymember Karen Branga. In a collision on the Sterling Highway. Karen was a dedicated public servant, educator, and an advocate who cared deeply about our community, our parks, and our trails, and our people. Our hearts go out to her family, friends, and everyone who had the privilege of working alongside her.

We also mourn the passing of longtime Anchorage Daily News photographer Bob Hallinan. For decades, Bob captured the spirit the stories, and the everyday moments of Anchorage through his lens. His work left an indelible mark on our local history. Also, I want to address the incident at the Mountain View Library early Saturday morning where two vehicles struck and damaged the building. We are so fortunate that no one was inside the library at the time.

Sincere thanks to our municipal teams who responded immediately in the middle of the night to secure the building and assess the damage. The building remains closed while we assess and repair damage. However, the mobile library will be there starting Thursday. On a brighter note, this past weekend was full of wonderful community gatherings. On Friday, I was glad to join the Hugs Back to School Giveaway at Begich Middle School, and on Saturday, the Anchorage Cops for Community clothesline project at Clark Middle School Thank you to the Anchorage Police Department, the school district, and our amazing community partners for organizing these important clothing and supply drives for our families.

It was also an honor to travel out to the Native village of Eklutna on Saturday for their powwow and potlatch. What a wonderful day of connection, culture, and celebration, and I'm grateful for their hospitality. Thank you, Claire Ross of Legislative Youth Services for organizing Muni volunteers at the event as well. Turning to tonight's business, on the agenda is a resolution recognizing the Native Village of Eklutna Rural Youth Services interns for their incredible work and contributions to the community. And I want to thank members Park and Silvers for bringing forward this resolution.

On tonight's agenda is our resolution supporting recapitalization efforts in Alaska and at JBear. Our military partners are vital to Anchorage, and we know this recapitalization effort represents billions in federal investment, and that means jobs and opportunities for local workers. As JBear grows, I also want to stress the critical need for us to expand our local housing stock to support these service members and their families. So next, I want to address the Safer Seward Highway project, which I voted to reinclude in the AMATS long-range funding plan, also known as the MTP, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The MTP is a living document.

Like many of you, and like members of my own team, I have had my share of harrowing experiences driving the Seward Highway. For 6 years in the assembly, I represented District 6, which includes this stretch. There is no doubt in my mind that safety improvements are urgently needed on that road, but my vote is not an endorsement of the current design. Rather, my vote allows the state to continue to work on this project so they can incorporate community feedback and update the design. And this is far from a final decision.

My support is conditional, and the project can be removed from the MTP at any time. As my administration said in a recent public letter to the DOT Commissioner, it's imperative that the state listen to the community. We need the state to amend the project scope so that it's focused on meaningful, targeted safety improvements, and that it's affordable, including for the long term. The Seward Highway is one of many safety priorities in the municipality that needs attention. As you know, the most dangerous roads in Anchorage are owned and maintained by the state.

We need the state to contribute more to safety improvements in Anchorage. And so far, the state is coming to the table. In the last year, they've committed more resources to critical safety projects in Anchorage. For example, later this week, Chugach Electric is scheduled to begin undergrounding utilities on Gamble through a state DOT project. This will be a big step to improve the sidewalks and facilitate more traffic calming improvements in Fairview, fulfilling a long-standing request from the community.

Finally, while this isn't an agenda item tonight, I'm excited to share that we've been working with DOT to direct $260 million of additional federal funds for the Fifth and Sixth Avenue reconstruction projects. This major investment will fully reconstruct Fifth and Sixth Avenues, making them into safe and welcoming main streets. This project will allow the roads to be transferred to the municipality for local ownership, and it will help revitalize downtown Anchorage in a big way. Beyond replacing aging transportation and utility infrastructure beneath the street, This project will majorly improve safety and accessibility. It'll support new downtown housing and economic growth and create a flexible public space that aligns directly with our downtown revitalization goals.

Strong partnerships are essential to getting big things done in Anchorage, and this project is a prime example of what we can achieve when state and local leaders pull in the same direction. Thank you, Chair. I look forward to working with all of you on tonight's business.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, next I will give the chair's report, a few things to address. So first, good evening everyone, welcome to our regular business meeting. First, I'll say, I'll echo what the mayor said about the Eklutna Powwow, the native village of Eklutna, this weekend. Several of us attended, uh, part of a busy summer of celebrations and community events.

Um, I'll share a little more detail. The event happens every other summer, so the last one was 2024. This year's theme was Restoring Our River 97 Years Later. The event featured, uh, dance and drum groups, a memorial tent, craft booths, and educational activities. The tribe also recognized the Rasmussen Foundation and former Assembly Chair Christopher Constant, each for their contributions and partnerships, uh, with Eklutna over the years.

Assembly members and staff have continued our tradition of volunteering, so again, shout out to Claire and Legislative Services for organizing that. Uh, we organized, um, some volunteering at the event, directing traffic, helping the team prepare the potlatch for hundreds of attendees. So it's always fun, uh, to be working alongside our neighbors. Uh, next I'll, uh, share that the state primary election, um, is underway. Early voting in the state primary has begun as of yesterday, on Monday.

The actual election day is 2 weeks from today, August August 18th, on Tuesday. I encourage everyone to use your voice, get out and vote, and specifically for assembly members, staff, and the public who attend our meetings, um, a reminder that Tuesday the 18th is also our next regular meeting. So I strongly encourage folks to make a plan to vote before you walk into the chambers, uh, before our next meeting, whether that's early absentee, all kinds of options, or earlier in that day. Uh, I'll note that the ballots include primary elections for US Senator and Representative, Governor and State Representatives, as well as one ballot measure. You can learn more about all of that at the State Division of Elections website, elections— excuse me, elections.alaska.gov.

If you do wish to vote early, starting yesterday, you can stop by City Hall, Eagle River Town Center, or the Midtown Mall Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM from now until Monday, August 17th. The Midtown Mall is also open on weekends and on Election Day, which is again Tuesday, August 18th. By this Saturday, the 8th, you can request an absentee ballot. You'll get one in the mail. And you can do that by filling out an online form and they will match your DMV records on file.

And you don't need a reason for that absentee, you can do it for any reason. Polling locations are open on Election Day from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. You can look up your precinct's polling location online. Again, elections.alaska.gov. And as a one reminder that we get every year, this is a state election, so this is not the business of our local election team at the clerk's office.

Office. They are so good at their jobs that people often get confused and go to them for advice during state elections. So again, if you have questions or want to find out more, go to the State Division of Elections website or go to their office, which is at 2020— 2525 Gamble Street. So Election Center is not the place to go for the state election. Speaking of state matters, later this week we will be hearing a recap about our 2026 regular legislative session as it relates to Anchorage at our upcoming legislative committee this Thursday, August 6th.

And I will also note the adjournment of the regular session of the Alaska Legislature earlier this summer. Last week our team did a kind of sum-up of how we did and what the big issues and, and kind of wins there were. There's a snapshot of how Anchorage's priorities fared this past year, which you can find in our deep dive section on the Civic Anchor website, so muni.org/civic. Civic anchor, C-I-V-I-C-A-N-C-O-R, or H-O-R, sorry. Many thanks to Mayor LaFrance's policy director Nolan Clowder for his ongoing legislative advocacy, as well as the whole team at the muni doing that work, and also for providing the information that, that is the basis of that deep dive.

So take a look if you want to get more details. So while not every priority has advanced, of course, that's, uh, you know, we don't get 100% win rate at the legislature. The 2026 session produced meaningful progress on several issues important to Anchorage including investment at the port, municipal funding, housing, and education funding. We laid a strong foundation for next year's priorities, which we will begin developing this fall as we look ahead to a new governor, a new legislature, and continuing work on our priorities. Next, I'll say, and again echoing, thank you to the mayor for highlighting the passing of recent— a recent passing of former assembly colleague and East Anchorage member Karen Brongo.

It's been heartwarming to see the outpouring of support for her family and the community remembering her great legacy. So last year we support— or we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the municipality. Part of that was a reunion of former and current assembly members, mayors, and school board members. It was apparent at that event that in many ways the assembly is a family. The unique experience of this position binds us together regardless of our political affiliation and date of service.

And so I think we all lost a peer for sure. So, so for the assembly community and members and staff who served with her personally, it does feel like a very personal loss. So, and I know that's true for other folks in the muni and the community. I will also note that there's more going to be more formal recognition of Karen's legacy in the works. We're working on that for the future.

But for now, just reiterating condolences to Karen's family. She'll be greatly missed. And I'll note we are working, hoping to work with the family. So if it takes a little bit of time, we want to make sure that, that they can be here and that it's the way that they would like it to be. So next, I'll give a brief update on— uh, oops, sorry, next page— um, brief update on another branch matter.

So last week I met with our internal audit team to discuss the findings and kind of conclusion of their work on the assembly travel, special review. Um, that has been a topic I know of members and public interest. So I'll just note we are not taking up that item specifically tonight, uh, but we will be discussing those findings next week at the Rules Committee. That's Thursday, uh, August 13th, and, uh, it will be in context of a broader look at our, uh, Assembly internal policies on member spending accounts. So not just travel but other pieces as well.

And then we'll be discussing some proposed changes to our internal policies at that time. One brief housekeeping item in terms of procedural for tonight. The chair's intent is to take up the agenda in order, including taking up item 12A after the consent agenda items and before dinner. So just noting that up front. And of course, any member can move to change the order of the day.

But I know that there's interest in dealing with that item expeditiously, so we will do that. So with all of that, I'll do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible. So some— the usual announcements. This is a business meeting. We're here to do the work of the municipality.

Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers. Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing. Please keep any signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Please keep the aisles clear except when lined up to testify. Please don't approach the dais directly, but if you have something you'd like to share with members, you can hand it to the clerk at the lower dais for distribution.

Please stop speaking if a point of order is called, either members of the public or members of the assembly, so I may rule on the point of order so the record is clear. If rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance. If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there is an actual disruption, I will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens again, then the person will be asked to leave.

And then I'll just give our, our brief reminders for public testimony, although we aren't quite there yet. So when you do testify, please come forward to state your name, the community council, or area of the municipality in which you live. Please stay on topic. Direct comments to me, the chair, or other people on the dais. I will interrupt you if you're off topic.

We need to make sure that our public hearings are on the items that are before us. You have 3 minutes. Community council representatives will have 5 minutes if you're speaking on behalf of the council. And just general reminder, public testimony is the public's time to speak, so assembly members don't typically answer questions during this period, but they may address those topics or seek more information during the debate. So that concludes the chair report.

So next we have committee and liaison reports, and I will start this evening with Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Assembly Legislative Committee will be on Thursday, August 6th, 11 AM to 12 PM at City Hall, Room 155. And topics on the agenda include a review from our lobbyist of actions taken up by the state legislature during the special sessions, as well as a briefing on recently adopted federal legislation on housing. That's all I have tonight, Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Park. Nothing to report, thank you. Mr. McCormick. Nothing to report, thank you.

Ms. Scout. Nothing to report, thanks. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair.

The Municipal Audit Committee met Wednesday, July 22nd. We were going over the internal audit that was conducted on our purchasing card and policies and procedures and compliance. We did hear some about updates to those policies and procedures and forthcoming training that's going to be offered. We also discussed potentially a reevaluation of PCard purchasing limits, changes to gratuity limits for payments. We talked about some objective criteria potentially for removal of PCard privileges when those are abused, and also potential clawback of funds from employees who make improper purchases using purchasing cards..

We also discussed the potential of earlier identification of problematic transactions, like split transactions, by the bank that actually does the issuance of our purchasing cards. There's an item on the agenda tonight that is also an internal audit that is related to the PCard audit. It is controls on our non-purchase order payments. Now, that was actually requested by the controller and the purchasing officer. So it's important to note that our internal audits aren't always requested by the assembly.

Frequently, members of the administration will also request audit audits of individual departments or policies and procedures. That will come to the Audit Committee at some point in the second quarter of 2027, giving some time for some of the recommendations in that audit to be implemented and for us to do a check-in on how that's going. I think that's all of my report tonight, Chair. Thank you very much. Okay, next, Mr. Voland.

No committee report from me. Thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Perez-Fredia.

Thank you, Chair. I have two quick updates. One is that the next meeting of the Public Health and Safety Committee will be on August 6th at 3 PM. This is a different date than we would normally have it on, and then, and at that meeting, we're going to have an update from the Emergency Operations Center talking about a new emergency operations plan. APD will discuss the impact team, The Health Department will be talking about measles, and we'll have a presentation by South Central Foundation on their crisis stabilization center.

So it should be a really informative meeting. I encourage you to attend. The second is the next meeting of the Housing and Homeless Committee will be on August 19th. The agenda for that will be out soon. Thank you.

Next, Ms. Silvers. Nothing to report. Thank you. Mr. Gerker. Nothing to report.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Martinez. Nothing to report. Mr. Handlin. Nothing to report.

Okay, that concludes our committee and liaison reports. Next, we'll move to the addendum to the agenda. Before we address that, we will address the late on the table items tonight. There are several. They are— let me check one more time— they are all supplemental items, so I will just read them into the record.

The first one is Information Memorandum Unnumbered AIM, Answers to Assembly Questions. The next one is Supplemental to Item 12A, Information Memorandum AIM Unnumbered 2026. Uh, one second.

Okay, so this is the Information Memorandum Supplemental, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly submitting an accusation document to the municipal clerk to initiate removal proceedings in accordance with Anchorage Code Section 2.70.030 and directing the municipal attorney to retain outside counsel to conduct further investigation and represent the interest of the municipality throughout the adjudication of these allegations. Um, again, supplemental memo there. Um, next one are, uh, two supplemental items to Item 15D. That is, uh, first, an information memorandum unnumbered to AR-2026-225, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly approving a Marijuana license and special land use permit for Baltazar Holdings, LLC, DBA Sensimia, a marijuana retail sales establishment with license number M35490, located at 1431 Muldoon Road in the B-3 SL District within Lot 2A, Baltazar Subdivision, generally located east of Muldoon Road, south of East 14th, west of Carolyn Circle, and north of East 16th. And then the second item is another unnumbered AIM to the same item.

Chanchanew Muldoon Park Phase 1 development improvements from Muldoon Town Square Park Master Plan.

Okay, thank you. So that concludes the, uh, laid on the table items at this time.

Okay, sorry, mixed up on my procedure. Uh, so next we, uh, just need a motion to, uh, incorporate the addendum into the agenda, including the laid on the table items I just read. So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Boland, uh, to incorporate the addendum and laid on the table items into the agenda.

Second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Any objections? Any other discussion?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the addendum has been incorporated into the agenda, including those supplemental laid on the table items. So next we will move on, and we'll come back to the agenda for the consent agenda. Next we'll move on to appearance requests. We have one appearance request this evening. I will ask Mr. Christopher Constant to come forward.

Welcome back, sir. Please state your name. You'll have 3 minutes and you have the microphone all set. Good evening, everybody. Friends or the opposition, others.

Christopher Constant, resident, North Anchorage. I'm standing to oppose item 12A on your agenda, the removal resolutions, all of them. I don't come here to defend Member Martinez. He can do that. I come before you to assail this accusation, which is a bare political document and nothing more.

I want to start with a quote from a farmer, John Proctor, Arthur Miller's The Crucible. I'll tell you what's stalking Salem. Vengeance is stalking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law. Do you know that play?

It's a bit of allegory about McCarthyism in America, when zealous partisans played loose with the facts and ruined lives, whose lies became evidence that dragged others into their scheme where personal and professional grievances dressed up as principle in drag and zeal replaced reason and truth. Sound familiar? I've provided for you a detailed memorandum and exhibits to underscore my comments. First, the campaign finance allegations that were listed as fraud and perjury can't even be used under AMC 2.30.070. And you knew that.

It's a lie. The official travel was all approved in writing. I signed them myself. The allegations are false and do not support removal. Why was Member Martinez even going on this trip?

These trips? What was the public purpose? In AR 2021-167S, the Assembly funded a study to rebuild Anchorage's creative economy after the pandemic. And in 2025, the Assembly adopted AR 2025-157, authored by Member Martinez, to implement strategies from the study and to fix our broken night economy.

Now, the claim— the accusations suggested that Mr. Martinez, leaving off Consorch LLC, two business interests, committed fraud and perjury. But Mr. Handlin's candidate, Treg Taylor, in Complaint 25-28, POFD, has done exactly the same thing, and his attorneys say it's nominal, and Mr. Martinez corrected it before you called it fraud and perjury. Wasn't concealment, it was corrected on honest error. The only thing in the complaint is the Facebook posting about his business interests. You know where you could have fixed that?

The Rules Committee and say, hey, I'm uncomfortable with this. But instead you allege a capital offense and removal is in order. It's nonsense.

I stand before you in opposition to all of these items. I understand that there may be some amendments to make it less egregious. I think some of your reputations will be scarred from this action that you have done because your accusations are lies. And I would note that the videos that have been circulating with Live in La Vida Loca and videos of BIPOC people dancing underscore there are members of this community who see it for what it is beyond hypocrisy. It's— it has a name.

Thank you.

There's one member in the queue, Mr. Handeland. Thank you. Thank you. I've got a couple questions. So you signed off on the travel authorization to attend the conference for extreme tourism, correct?

Actually, no. That's one of your lies. If you actually look at the record, you will see that the travel was authorized for meeting with the Nightmare. There was a conference conference on there that was— that was— is in the emails called Extreme Tourism. Yes.

And you signed off on that, correct? The— yes or no question. The travel— it's a yes or no question. Madam Chair, I'm going to call a point of order. If the members are going to ask questions, I'd like to hear the answers, not have crosstalk.

Thank you. The travel authorization was for meeting with the Nightmare. The conference was secondary, and travel was approved after the conference was shut down because of the meeting. Okay, so on the expense report that came across your desk, seen more than $4,000 in travel for New York, uh, travel for a virtual conference, uh, that did not mention anywhere in this, uh, expense report extreme or tourism. Instead, it featured presentations on olive pumice biscuits, pupil diameter changes in badminton players, and sleep habits Habits Among Sweetest Children.

You reviewed this expense report and approved it, correct? Yes. Okay, just curious on that, because when you look at the actual record here of you reviewing and approving it, from the time in which it— you received it to when you viewed it was 29 seconds. From when you viewed it to signed it, it was 9 seconds. And so are you saying that that is an appropriate amount of time to review this expense report and give it a thorough examination.

Can you imagine if all the job was to look at the computer and check the boxes? Much of the work that you do occurs in conversation between members. When you have an item that's coming up before you, you want to present it, the presentation happens verbally, and then you follow through checking the boxes. So yes, it's quite easy to open and click the box. Okay.

And so you saw that with the, the presentation with those that were provided, and you thought that that was a good use of municipal funds to fund that conference? No, no, it wasn't to fund the conference. It was—. We paid for the conference with the Nightmare. It was to fund the visit with the Nightmare.

And that's the misrepresentation that you have done in the complaint that you have alleged. And ultimately, the bottom line is is I maybe made an error here. Some people have said I'm coming here to cover my own tail. It's the opposite. I'm coming here to own responsibility.

I signed the documents, they were approved, and the discussions were had. Much like the argument you made on the 10 days of travel, all of that was accounted for and approved in writing. So you can take this up with all of your peers. I'm really not here to debate you. I'm here to actually point at you and say shame on you for producing a document that is filled with lies and hypocrisy.

The things that you're doing yourself, you're accusing him of. One final question. So it says on here for registration fees, $220.50. That was for this conference. So you're saying that there was— that, that, that's incorrect?

That was not part of any of the authorization? What I'm talking about, the authorization that was approved was for the meeting with the Nightmare. That's That's right, it says it right there. Errors do happen, and an error is not a cause for removal. You would make a capital offense out of a thing that you have tolerated for a candidate you stand for, so the hypocrisy doesn't stand.

Thank you. I'm trying to keep order here. Um, do you have any further questions, Mr. Handeland? No. Next, I have Mr. Gerker in the queue.

Mr. Constant, good to see you, sir. How are you doing? I'm fine. Just a quick question.

So, I mean, you kind of said this already, but your own decision and approvals as chair would necessarily be some of the things that would be looked at by an investigation into municipal travel policies. Is that right?

If I were in the shoes of someone asking for an investigation, what I would direct them to is your accusation and look to the truth of that. But if this body made the mistake of opening the can of this code section, yes, that investigator could look at anything. Okay, so you're not really offering testimony here as an independent reviewer. You're defending travel approvals that you personally signed. Is that, is that fair?

That's part of it. Okay. Yeah, I am definitely here to attest to the fact that I signed the authorizations and they were done eyes wide open. So essentially you were asking us to conclude that there is nothing to investigate because you personally approved it? No, no, I'm not asking you to do anything.

I've read your accusation, and I have no faith in your judgment. Your reputation is sullied because of it. We'll see. Thank you. Yep.

And last, I have Mr. Boland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, you know, this is an interesting one, and, and I appreciate former Chair Constant for, uh, coming tonight and providing us some information. I will also— I'll just let you know and the public know that that memo that you provided has been attached as supplementary to the item that we'll be taking up tonight, so folks who want to read it can do so. I also, I guess, want to remind our colleagues that when we have someone come to testify, whether it's an appearing— appearance request or a public hearing item, typically the, the opportunity is to ask clarifying questions, not engage in a debate back and and forth. So just kind of going forward, creating that expectation, I think is important.

And then I, I think I will ask a clarifying question to Mr. Constantine. I believe what I heard you say is the New York conference, that the travel approval was not for a conference, it was for a meeting. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.— in writing explicitly in advance. Thank you. No further members in the queue. Thanks, Madam Chair. I would offer that I am creating an actual disturbance that must be removed.

Please feel free to remove yourself, sir.

Okay, that concludes our appearance requests. Next, we will move on to the consent agenda. So I will remind members in the public, consent agenda items are numbered 10A through 10G, typically routine non-controversial items such as bid awards, new business information and reports, as well as ordinances and resolutions for introduction. Items on the consent agenda may be approved by the assembly on a single vote or a single motion to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, items may be, may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion and separate vote on those items.

And of course, anything that is being introduced tonight has a public hearing set for a, uh, for a future meeting if it's in the 10G section.

So then I will move down the dais and see what members would like to pull from the consent agenda, and I will start tonight with Mr. Handeland. Madam— I'm sorry, what's your information? Um, is this an appropriate time? I'd like to move to change the order of the day.

Um, you can do that at any time. So, okay, second motion by Miss Scout to change the order of the day, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. If you want to speak to that. Thank you. I'd like to, um, make a motion to take up the 12 items before the consent agenda today.

Okay, so this is a motion, um, to change the order to take up item 12A before, uh, remaining items of the consent agenda. And, uh, can I just clarify, so before we even start pulling items, you're saying we should take to take this up now.

Yes. Okay, any further discussion on that?

Miss Brawley.

Thank you. Um, so I guess I will suggest, um, we do have one recognition resolution, and I know there's folks here from Native Village Bakloutna to do that. So I think, um, I personally, I am open to taking this up earlier in the meeting. I would also suggest that it may be proper for us to do that first and then let those folks go, uh, because I think that's the only item with kind of external parties at the moment.

Can I respond to that, or I have a queue, so I need to move through that. Um, so, uh, Ms. Silver, just go next.

I was just going to say the same thing. We have a resolution, a recognition resolution, so I don't— I wouldn't support having them wait.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Presverdia. Thank you, Chair. I didn't hear a reason for why we wanted to change the order of the day, and I think it needs to be a pretty substantial reason, as people have seen this agenda and our expectation is that we follow the agenda. So if the mover could give us an explanation as to why this, this change, why that they're recommending this change.

Thanks. Thanks. Yeah, so I'll turn to Ms. Scout. I know you're next in the queue, but just to note, um, that way Mr. Presverdia has the floor if you would like to respond.

But go ahead, Ms. Scout. Thank you. Um, to get to the first piece, I'd love to amend the motion to take up item 12A after item 10A1.

Recognition resolution. So, point of order, Madam Chair. I think what you just said was to have, um, that Member Perez-Verdia has the floor. Okay, he has a question addressed to Ms. Scout, but then Ms.

Scout can make the amendment potentially. I'm happy to answer the question first and then discuss the amendment. Um, I feel strongly that we need to take this item up before we move on to other business tonight. At our last meeting, um, we've had, we've had this item and this topic on the agenda. This is our third meeting now discussing this.

Um, I don't feel that it's appropriate to push this until the end. I'd like to have the discussion, make a decision adapt how the meeting is run if necessary and move on.

What's your point of information, Ms. Silvers?

Okay, near the end. The last two meetings it was at the end. Um, our last meeting we ran— we— the discussion ran until midnight and we weren't able to continue that discussion. To me, it feels appropriate to finish a discussion that we left off mid-conversation first before getting to the rest of our new business tonight. Thank you.

Thanks. And I'll just briefly interject, um, uh, uh, Ms. Silvers, your mic was not on. You don't need to restate it, so I'll just say that she, she noted that the item is not at the end of the agenda. There is the 13s and 14s 15s after it. So just so the record was clear in case the recording didn't pick that up.

Um, thank you. And then back to Mr. Brenchford. Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I appreciate the sense of urgency to get through the item based on the past meetings.

We have a number of items on the agenda tonight that I'm anxious to get through, um, so I, I'm, I'm not inclined to just support the motion to, to, to rearrange our schedule. I think we need to keep it where it is. It's, it's relatively soon after the consent agenda. So I think it's reasonable to keep the agenda the way it is. So I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this, and let's continue with the agenda as it's been presented to the public.

So I will also note, this is just a procedural consideration for members. So the question of when we want to take this up is a valid question, because right now where we are is we have not taken up the consent agenda, we have not pulled individual items, and so none of those individual items are actually agenda items. Items that we can move around. And so I think— I guess what I would suggest in consultation with the clerk is we take up the consent agenda, meaning what we pull, and then passing the rest of it. And then that makes it procedurally easier to move individual items around.

And then we could take up the question, because it sounds like there's disagreement, but we could take up the question of whether to change the order further. But I think either if if there's not enough interest in doing it now, then, then we can't move it after any item on the consent agenda at this point, if that makes sense. So, so essentially, regardless of what we do, we need to pull the items out of the consent agenda that we want to, and then we can reorder them.

Uh, Mr. Vohlandt, I don't know if you spoke on this item. I think it goes back to— I have not. Okay. But I'm actually here.

Okay, well then I'll go to Ms. Gavin. Yeah, I consider that a friendly change and will withdraw my motion, and we can take it up after we pull our consent items. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so what I would suggest for members then is, um, we come back to this question. Certainly folks can, can make a motion, uh, and so at this time we would pull items from the consent agenda as needed And then when we see that list, then we can pause and, and take up the question of changing the order.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, so, um, uh, so let's go through— we'll go down the dais, items that we will be pulling from the consent agenda, and I will start tonight with Mr. Handeland.

Nothing to pull. Mr. Martinez? No items. Mr. Gerker? No items, Chair.

Miss Silvers? No items. Mr. Perez-Rodilla? No items, Chair. Mr. Boland?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to pull 10B3, 10B4, and 10C4. Okay, I have 10 Bravo 3 and 4, and 10— I don't remember what the call sign is for C, so 10C4. By Mr. Voland. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. 10 Delta 11, 10 Foxtrot 6.

Okay, I have 10 D 11 and 10 F 6 by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Next, Ms. Scout. I'd like to pull 10 E 2, 10 E 4, and 10 E 6.

Okay, I have 10, echo 2, 4, and 6 from Ms. Scout. Next, Mr. McCormick. No additional items, thank you. Next, Ms. Park.

10A1. Okay, 10A1 by Ms. Park. And next, Mr. Johnson. No items, Chair. Okay, so I'll read back the list briefly.

So we have 10A1 pulled by Ms. Park, 10B, 3, and 4 pulled by Mr. Boland, 10C, 4 by Mr. Boland, 10D, 11 by Ms. Baldwin-Day, 10E, 2, 4, and 6 from Ms. Scout, 10F, 6 from Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any further items?

Okay, not seeing any, then I would seek a motion to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Move to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Second. Motion by Mr. Bolland to approve the consent agenda minus those pulled items. Second by— I heard two, so I'll say Mr. Gerker.— any objection to— sorry, any objection to the approval of the consent agenda minus those items?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the items on the consent agenda minus those poll items have been unanimously approved by consent.

So before we move on to the next item, I will ask if anybody would like to make a new motion. I'd like to move to change the order of the day to take up item 12A before the 10Bs— after 10A, or sorry, after 10A1.

Okay, there's a motion to, uh, to change the order to take up 12A after, uh, 10A1. Is there a second? Sorry, by Miss Scout. Is there a second? Second.

Second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Um, and I see Miss Silver's I guess I'll ask, uh, Ms. Scout, do you want to speak to that further? Yes, um, as I said earlier, I think, um, we cut off discussion of this at the end of our last meeting, and in the meeting prior also saved this for the end. I think, um, I'd, I'd like to prioritize this conversation today, and if there are any impacts to the membership on the body, um, based on what's approved, that would need to be adjusted and then move on with our agenda.

But to me, it feels like a priority to conclude this conversation.

Next, Ms. Silvers. Um, I oppose, uh, this motion, um, and I will say I was the only one that opposed the motion to change the order of the day last time. To move it at the end of the meeting. And so it was moved to the end of the meeting and is still being discussed today due to the choices of this body. However, I do believe that the public looks at an agenda and they have an expectation of when things are going to be based on the agenda that they looked at.

And so there are people that maybe wanted to come for this that aren't here yet because they saw where it was on the agenda. We are having this discussion scheduled before our dinner break as it is, and so I don't think we are going to run over at the end of the day. But I do think that without a really compelling reason, that we really need to stop changing the order of the day and do things in the order that people's expectations are in. Thank you.

Okay, Ms. Baldwin-Day, next. Yeah, thank you. I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation here, and some of this is moot because we've just dispatched with the consent agenda, which is a significant volume of our work. But I want to point out that if we are contemplating something as serious as a removal proceeding and we are encouraging, or in fact, like, putting that after some of the business that we have to work on, which does in fact include financial decisions, appropriations, things like that, we are sending a mixed message to the public. And candidly, I regret that we moved this item to the end of last meeting's agenda.

I think that, that is a vote that I regret taking. I would have liked to have seen us take this up earlier in the meeting. So I think And for that reason, I find it appropriate to take this item up and dispatch with it before we continue on with our consent agenda. I understand my colleagues may feel differently, but, but this is an item of significant import to the community. There is no public hearing on this, and so, you know, folks who might be arriving later, they also have the ability to tune in and to, to be present here with us online.

So I'm— I feel like there are a slew of reasons why we need to dispatch with this. This and lay it to rest and then carry on with our business. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. The motion is to change the order of the day to take up 12A after 10A1. Point of information. Yes, Mr. Martinez. Is this a vote that I can cast?

That is a great question. Uh, let's pause for a minute. So before we start voting, and I will turn to— let me go consult with the attorneys.

It will be on break for just a second.

Okay, I believe the attorneys have an answer for us. Please proceed.

After some quick discussion, uh, we think, uh, it would be proper for Member Martinez to vote on changing the order of the day. Thank you. Yeah, and I'll note this is a procedural motion, uh, we are not discussing the substance of these items. So, um, okay, so all members may proceed to vote. Thank you.

Okay, on a vote of 5 to 7, uh, that motion fails. Uh, so that means we will be taking up the agenda, the consent agenda, in the current order.

Um, okay, so next we have, uh, 10A1. Let me find my paperwork.

10A1, this is AR 2026-220, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing the 2026 interns of the Native Village of Eklutna Rural Youth Services Program. This item was pulled by Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair.

The Native Village of Eklutna— I'm sorry, first— oh, it's okay. First we will go through the— yeah, thank you. Second. Okay, motion by Ms. Park to approve, second by Ms. Silvers. Any further discussion?

Any objection to adoption of this resolution?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, this resolution is approved. And I will turn back to— I believe we have Ms. Park reading, Ms. Silvers to present, and I'll ask anybody here to receive this resolution to please come forward to the podium as well. So go ahead, Ms. Parker.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing the 2026 interns of the Native Village of Eklutna Rural Youth Services Program. Whereas the Native Village of Eklutna, in collaboration with Cook Inlet Tribal Council, has pioneered and maintained yearly 4 enriching youth programs supporting Alaska Native and Native American youth, providing its participants with life skills training and leadership training. And whereas within this initiative, Rural Youth Services Program has, over the course of summer 2026, witnessed 4 of its interns exemplify what it means to both represent their community and give back to their community. And whereas these youth have honored and actively expanded the cultural history of the Native village of Eklutna by making thoughtful improvements to the local clinic and food bank, the Russian Orthodox graveyard, and the Eklutna playground. And whereas the interns have shown great respect to their elders by actively developing an elders freezer meal program, including fishing for salmon and preparing moose and porcupine for meals for the elders throughout the year, as well as delivering the meals to the elders' homes.

And whereas they have researched the history of Eklutna and the cultural impact of the boarding school once in operation on that site, and as they have demonstrated their knowledge of the community by preparing cultural tourism, tourism speeches for welcoming and educating guests to the village, and whereas the Rural Youth Services interns are preparing for leadership on a planned Eklutna Youth Council that will relay to the Eklutna Tribal Council concerns central to the youth in the village, and because we look forward to these engaged, empathetic, and civic-minded young people becoming future leaders of Eklutna, now therefore the Anchorage Assembly recognizes the Native Village of Eklutna Rural Youth Services Interns of 2026, passed and approved by Anchorage Assembly this 4th day of August.

Thank you. And I'll note, um, you're not required to, but, um, we'd love to hear, uh, your names and if you'd like to say any, um, words about the program or anything to share. And I'll note that, um, the microphone is off, so please please press the green button on the bottom if anybody up there would like to speak.

Hello, my name is Haley Adams. This internship has been like a really big honor, and we are extremely honored to be recognized by the Municipality of Anchorage. And yeah, thank you. I'll allow everyone else to say hi.

Yali dog greetings. My name is Alexi Crookham. Hello, I'm Dinana Athabascan, and I am a YOS intern. This internship has been really nice because I get to connect with my community and village and just be a part of the community a lot more than I ever expected, and it has made me realize that I want to do more with my culture.

Hello, my name is Keethan.

I'm an ROIS intern like all these others here.

I'm really grateful to work for my community and my own elders because I really do love my culture.

Hi, I'm Amanda Adams. I'm the youth group coordinator out at Native Village of Eklutna, also tribal council secretary. I help run this program with them throughout the years and And we are just grateful and thankful for the opportunities that they are able to partake in. Like this last— over the weekend we had our biannual powwow and we had over 1,000 people, a lot of people from the community, and it was just awesome. I'm sure you'll see a lot of posts and stuff, videos, photos and everything, but we just really appreciate your partnership and your support in all that we're trying to do and get out and to the community and just the education of our cultures.

And we appreciate you and thank you so much for the recognition. It really warms my heart. Thanks.

Yeah, thank you for being here.— and I know that there's two folks in the queue, so sorry about that. And before you walk away, I think there's a couple folks who wanted to say something as well. Ms. Baldwin-Day. I just wanted to ask to be added as a co-sponsor of the resolution, and also want to say thank you for the work that you are doing to steward your culture. It is so necessary and so important, so thank you.

Yes, if we can direct Ms. Baldwin-Day to be added as a sponsor, and then would anyone else like to be added? Mr. Boland, Scout? I think— is anybody objection? Okay, then we will add all members. Thank you.

Thank you again for being here.

Okay, next item on the consent agenda, 10B3, that is AR 2026-01. 6224, A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly supporting Department of the Air Force recapitalization efforts in Alaska and encouraging increased housing and infrastructure to support military families. This item was pulled by Mr. Voland. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Voland to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Mr. Voland. Yes, uh, thank you. So this one struck me as a bit odd.

I think that the topic is very important. I think the intent is really good. But one of the things I noticed as I was reading this, the, the sole sponsor, as I understand it, is Mayor LaFrance. And I'm not sure if there were any assembly members who were involved in the drafting of this, but there's no assembly co-sponsors. And looking at the resolves, 5 of the 6 resolves essentially express a policy on behalf of the Anchorage Assembly.

And I think it can, you know, someone could read this almost as the executive directing the policy of the legislative branch, and I'm not sure that is the most collaborative approach.

But I think I have a couple amendments that could make this more of a shared commitment. Amendment. So I will move Voland Amendment Number 1.

If I could get a second. Second. Motion by Mr. Voland to move Voland Amendment 1, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Go ahead, Mr. Voland. So what Amendment Number 1 does is it goes through the language and in the various resolves, and instead of focusing on the Anchorage Assembly it swaps that language with municipality of Anchorage, expressing that this is policy guidance that is a commitment, commitment of both the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Okay, I don't see any further members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on that amendment.

On a vote of 12 to 0, that Amendment Number 1 passes. Um, Mr. Vollen, you still have the floor. Thank you. I would now move Vollen Amendment Number 2. Second.

Motion to move Voland Amendment 2 by Mr. Voland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this amendment does is it expands on the resolved, the fourth one, the fourth resolved that has to do with housing policy guidance. And what it does is it references assembly adopted policy guidance And so it inserts, along with policies that encourage private residential development, public-private partnerships, enhanced use leases where appropriate, and other innovative approaches that expand housing opportunities for military families and civilian residents alike, it also adds to that policy— to those policies that are called out— policies that allow for creation of missing middle housing. And the innovative approaches, that they would be consistent with the Assembly's Housing Action Plan, which is previously adopted Assembly policy guidance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, I don't see other— I see one member in the queue, Ms. Baldwin-Day, and then Mr. Presidio. Yeah, thank you. I would like to offer an amendment to this amendment. Amendment.

I would like to insert the language following policies that encourage private residential development, a phrase that says leverage municipally owned land for multifamily housing construction.

Second. Okay. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to amend the amendment to add the phrase in And the clerk is typing it up, so we'll confirm the language shortly. That was seconded by Ms. Scout.

One second while we get that on the board.

Okay, just to double-check from the mover, the motion, is that accurate on the screen? Correct. Okay. Okay, uh, so, uh, Mr. Presverdia, do you want to speak to the amendment to the amendment? Sure.

I, I understand, um, Mr. Vohland's initial intent and potentially Ms. Baldwin-Day's intent is to make this more collaborative. I'm, I'm curious if the administration has a reaction or comment to these, um, these amendments in terms of their intent for this item. I'll turn to Madam Mayor. Through the chair to Member Perez Verdia, no reaction. This is something that we brought forward we believe is important and for the assembly's consideration.

So the— if I could just do a follow-up, the, the, the changed language stays within the intent that you, you had hoped for? It doesn't change it? Absolutely. The bottom line is to support the recapitalization of JBear and our military and family personnel who are here and will be here. And so of course we welcome the feedback and collaboration of the assembly.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay, Mr. Vohland on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. To save us a little bit of time, I'm wondering if I could just— if my second agrees— fold that into the amendment here so we don't have to take two separate votes.

Is that okay? The clerk is saying that's in order. Okay, I'd like to do that if my second agrees.

I kind of believe— yes, I was like, why are you looking at me? Great, so we can all just— we can take that up as just the one amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so just for procedural clarity then, um, the motion to amend the amendment is essentially withdrawn, um, and the original amender is, is supportive of and including that same language in. So we're on the underlying amendment number 2.

I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this amendment as amended.

On a vote of 12 to 0, amendment number 2 passes. We are back on the underlying motion, and I see Ms. Baldwin-Day in the queue. Yes, thank you, Chair. I think there might be a scrivener's error on page 3, line 5, where it says further resolved that— I believe now it reads the municipality of Anchorage recognized the importance of continued supporting investments. I think that is intended to be in present tense unless I'm very much mistaken.

I will defer to the mayor's team as to whether that is the case.

Through the chair, thank you to Member Baldwin-Day for identifying a scrivener's error.

Okay, yes, we will direct that as a Scrivener's error. Page 3, line 5 will be changed to recognizes, present tense. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on AR 2026-224 as amended.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-224 passes unanimously. Next, we'll move on to 10— excuse me, 10B4, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly urging the Alaska Congressional Delegation to identify and secure federal funding for an emergency boat access point on Turnagain Arm and urging federal, state, and local agencies to resolve the land ownership and right-of-way barriers to to facilitate site selection and feasibility studies and begin its construction. This item was pulled by Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think I am supportive of this item, and I appreciate Mr. McCormick—. First, first, we need to—. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, I move to approve. Second.

Move to approve by Mr. Voland, second by Mr. McCormick. Thank you. Yeah, I was saying that I think I'm supportive of this item. I appreciate Mr. McCormick bringing it forward. Um, I pulled it for a couple reasons.

Number one, I, I want to hear Mr. McCormick, um, maybe speak to it a little bit and why he's bringing it forward and maybe detail some of the background. But before that, I also wanted to extend an opportunity to Representative Holland, who's here, to maybe speak to his understanding of the background or suggestions that he might have pertaining to this resolution.

Okay, it sounds like requests for information from two different folks. So first we'll turn to the sponsor, Mr. McCormick, and then to Mr. Holland. Well, actually, Madam Chair, I, I think I would like to give the opportunity to, to the representative who's here with us tonight first, if that's okay. And I just assumed that member McCormick if he wants to get in the queue, could also speak to this a little bit. Okay, understood.

So, and I saw Mr. McCormick give a thumbs up. So yeah, Mr. Holland, please come forward. I should say Representative Holland.

And then I'll, I'll give our usual reminder, the microphone is off, so please turn the green button on.

And, uh, yeah, Mr. Holland, I, I think your questions were self-explanatory, but if you want to add anything else. Nothing more from me, and happy to, uh, cede the floor after, um, Mr. Holland. Representative Holland gives his statements. Thanks. Go ahead, sir.

Great, thank you. Good evening. I'm Kai Holland representing House District 9, and I just appreciate a moment of time. You know, we looked at this issue of emergency access into the Turnagain Arm at least as early as 2019 with one of the Safer Sewer Highway— or before it was even called that— Sewer Highway Upgrade Project. So there is a current set of plans around being able to bring an emergency boat access ramp at Windy Point.

And there's quite a bit of work that was done through Rabbit Creek Community Council looking at that issue at that time, recognizing the important need for being able to get access into Turnagain Arm for rescue operations. So the history of this is long. This current need that was developed in this recent incident where we were not able to get satisfactory access quickly to be able to save someone has brought renewed attention to this urgent need on this. So I would support this resolution and this work. I would like to extend the scope of the notification of this, though, to recognize that perhaps the Alaska Railroad should be included in the notification, because if you were to use an access point prior to the railroad crossing the highway, you would also need to include the railroad in the discussion about the land rights and land access in there.

I also include outreach to the Turnagain Arm Community Council, which has an issue in this area and how it's developed, as well as the Whittier City that provides a lot of emergency response to different incidences that have occurred in this area. The final comment is just to recognize that we have a number of issues along Turnagain Arm in terms of safety that have gotten caught up in this large Safer Sewer Highway project. Which is a separate discussion, but I just want to observe that this, along with turn pockets and other opportunities, have not gotten the adequate attention that I think has been needed because we've taken on this mammoth project that's gotten in the way of looking at necessary short-term projects that would provide significant safety improvement to the highway. So I support this resolution with some of those suggestions and appreciate a moment of your time.

Okay, Mr. Vaughn, any further comment? Okay, next I have Mr. McCormick in the queue. Yeah, just to briefly touch on, um, this has been a long-standing issue. In 2018, when the boat ramp was removed due to highway projects, it was not replaced. Since then, we've lost multiple lives out in Turnagain Arm, and with a world-class bore tide that is gaining greater and greater recognition, and tourism and people recreating in the area, it really is critical that we, um, get this replaced and, and restore rescue access, uh, to the Turnagain Arm.

Because right now there is no viable, uh, boat access there. And not to be grotesque, but reading, um, and hearing the stories of the recent rescue that was unable, um, to be successful in that area is is truly tragic and heartbreaking, hearing how long the patient or the person was out in the water, the attempts that were made, aircraft was unable to respond, and just a heartfelt thanks to the Girdwood Fire Department who responded with their boat to No Ramp and through sheer determination carried their boats down over the sharp wet rocks to the, to the waterside and attempting to do everything humanly possible. It, it's a heartbreaking story. Thanks to the Gridwood Fire Department for all their amazing, uh, heroic work there. But this gridlock of multiple agencies having jurisdiction over this area really needs to, to come to a resolve so we can maintain appropriate rescue response there.

So I urge my colleagues' support. Thank you.

Okay, next, Mr. Mullen, you've already spoken. I have myself in the queue very briefly. Ms. Brawley.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll just note, I think this is a, an issue that I just learned about, obviously through this item, but I appreciate bringing it. And I'll just note for members, this is also not instead of this resolution necessarily, but this is also a great item to advocate to include in our legislative program as we move into that work. As certainly, you know, we— it identifies both broad needs from the muni as a whole as well as more kind of targeted things like this that look different in every district. But so I would encourage folks to also consider how we can incorporate this regardless of what happens with this item into, um, into that ledge program that will be starting in the fall.

Next, I have Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of the representative's comments tonight, I'm wondering if the sponsor would entertain an amendment to Section 3 that, in addition to the entities listed, would also include the Alaska Railroad. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you.

Oh, and you have it. Okay. Perfect. So in both, I think, right? Okay.

So in that case, what I will do then is to amend Section 3 after line 45, page 3, line 45, after United States Forest Service, comma, we would insert the Alaska Railroad, comma, and then also in Section 5 Page 4, line 15, after Arctic District, insert the Alaska Railroad, comma.

Okay, there's a motion to add reference to the Alaska Railroad in both Sections 3 and 5, moved by Mr. Bohland. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. McCormick. And, uh, we'll give the clerk a chance to get that up there.

And one second, the clerk is correcting the first one to read United States Forest Service.

Okay. Any discussion on this amendment? Not seeing anyone in the queue, I guess I'll ask, is there any objection to adoption of this amendment?

Seeing and hearing none, this amendment is adopted. So we're back on the main, uh, main resolution as amended. Any further discussion?

Okay, not seeing anyone in the queue, then members may proceed to vote on AR 2026-230 as amended.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-230 passes the body unanimously. Uh, ne— the next item, uh, that was pulled on our list is 10C4. Uh, we've been asked by the administration to, uh, just not move that item. Uh, it will come back in future, so there's no motion there. Uh, so then we'll move on to our next item 10D11.

That is Assembly Memorandum AM524-2026, cooperative purchase from Thundercat Technology LLC, also known as Thundercat, through Omnia Partners, Omnia contract R250609, for the purchase and installation of a real-time crime center, RTCC, audiovisual AV system. This item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve, seconded by Mr. Bolland. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. I wonder if I might ask a few questions of Chief Case.

Okay, yeah, the chief is coming forward. I will also note that there were other items pulled, so I would suggest the chief don't go too far for future items too. Thank you. Um, okay, Ms. Baldwin-Day, go ahead. Thank you, and thank you, Chief, for being willing to answer some questions.

So there's, um, there's been some, a lot of chatter recently on social media about flock cameras and community surveillance. I'm wondering if you can share how this cooperative purchase for Real Time Crime Center AV tech relates to some of those posts, particularly a social media post that was made by a member of this body in the last couple of days. Uh, through the chair, Member Baldwin-Day, uh, the FLOCK system, first of all, is completely different from the system that we have. And, um, unfortunately, uh, some of the information that's been put out about, uh, the capabilities of the system that the Anchorage Police Department has, uh, is inaccurate, uh, from, from many different levels. Not just what we currently have the capabilities to do, but also some of the limitations that we have here within the municipality in terms of being able to collect data through our infrastructure system.

And, you know, on top of that, all of the ways in which we're using our Real Time Crime Center have not only been explained, you know, with the body through policies, but as we add additional pieces to the Real Time Crime Center, and have technologies that come online, we make sure that we clear that information, uh, and present that to the body so that kind of each step of the way, even though we've already discussed the Real Time Crime Center, all of its components, uh, that as we start to turn pieces of this on, the body's well aware of how we're using that particular technology, uh, particularly as it relates to, uh, privacy, uh, as it relates to the use of artificial intelligence within the Real Time Crime Center. As it relates to any sort of recognition. So obviously facial recognition, uh, is not allowed within the municipality, but object recognition is a different kind of, uh, related to. And so, so the— some of those types of technologies come with the equipment that we have. And prior to using any of those sorts of, um, pieces of technology, we'll come to the body, generally in the form of the Public Health and Safety Committee,, so that the body is aware of what we're doing as one mechanism of informing the public, as well as giving you the opportunity, uh, to, to weigh in on some of those things.

Thank you. So just to maybe put a slightly finer point on this, so when you say object recognition, we're talking about license plate readers, is that correct? So there's a couple different ways that object recognition can, can be in play. Uh, license plate readers, Uh, are— so again, let me separate kind of what we do here versus what is done in a lot of different jurisdictions. Our license plate readers are activated through our dash cameras, and the data that they collect is license plates and locations where those license plates are read.

And they compare those license plates to stolen vehicle lists and then anything else that we put in the system that we want a license plate to hit off of. So the cameras that we use, different from, cameras that you see posted or mounted, uh, that are in fixed locations. Those cameras generally around the country, uh, can have object recognition looking for certain objects or clothing descriptions. Our license plate readers are just merely connected to license plates, so there's no object recognition within our license plate reader system. Now, um, with our Drones for First Responders, uh, if an operator actually identifies a vehicle, let's say, that is a vehicle that matches the description in a crime.

The operator can tell the drone to lock onto that object. So the drone technically is using object recognition to lock onto that object and then now follow that car so that the operator of the drone doesn't have to manually try to fly that drone. That's one way that object recognition, uh, potentially will be used as we get drones as first responders online. We aren't there yet. We will come back and talk about that when we get closer., and then there is some capability, uh, to use object recognition in cameras that we ingest into the Real Time Crime Center through what's, what's, uh, um, the title is FUSIS Cores.

The challenge with doing that in our city is that that does require an AI component, and when you use the AI component within FUSIS, you significantly reduce the number of feeds you can take. And then transmitting that data through our system is unknown if it's even possible. We haven't even tested it. It's, it's kind of further down the road, and if that is something that we are going to turn on some, someplace down the road, that's going to be a little more lengthy discussion, but I don't really think it's possible right now. Thank you, that's helpful.

So, so do, do we have the capacity to surveil the public in the manner that was represented by the social media post? No, I, I, I don't know where that social media post actually came from. That's not a, it's not a video that is owned by the municipality or the Anchorage Police Department. That video is— I have no idea where the video came from. Okay, so is it fair to say that the technology that was represented as active in the municipality by that social media post is in fact a misrepresentation of APD's current tech capacity?

It's factually incorrect. Yes, a misrepresentation. Yes, that's accurate. Um, and so the Real Time Crime Center AV equipment is intended to allow us to offer the option to members of the public who have cameras at a business or at their home to selectively allow APD to access that footage within very specific parameters that are set by the owner of that camera. Is that correct?

That's correct. Okay. Um, is there any technology currently at work in the municipality that allows us to, say, lock on to a human being who is wearing a certain outfit or carrying a certain object? No. Okay, thank you.

I think I have no further questions. Next, I have Mr. McCormick. Yeah, I'd start by saying I have never voted to, to withhold funds from the police. I've been very supportive of, of the police department, but I think I'm going to have to change my tune a little bit on this one as my constituents are raising privacy concerns and I'm tending to agree with them. And I appreciate Chief Case's email to all the members today saying the capabilities and clarifying those.

Um, but I, I can't get past spending more money on this right now on your policies. I appreciate the policies, I trust you with the policies, but those policies could be changed on an absolute whim, and maybe not by you, maybe not by the next police chief, third police chief from now, who's to say, um, all the guardrails that you just stated, our policy. And when my constituents ask, what are we collecting, who can see it, how long do we keep it, Anchorage Code can't answer any of those questions. We have no legislative guardrails. This is an entirely bundling power under the executive branch without any check or balance.

And that's what needs to happen before we continue to put more money into this. Okay, you can't track somebody today. Today, tomorrow, you could buy some software that does. This doesn't change policy. We are here to provide the check and balance as the legislative branch.

We can't allow continued consolidation of power under the executive.

If we're trying to earn people's trust, we need to, to show them that we're willing to put in the guardrails and we're willing to sit here and talk about the ideas Because otherwise this money keeps going and going. And before you know it, we look back and we have a system that we don't recognize and that we don't want. Because first of all, the Anchorage voters in 1997 voted that we didn't want red light cameras. That was the voters. That wasn't this body.

The voters said they don't want that. Our Alaska State Constitution, the right to privacy shall not be infringed. It's like one sentence. And the courts have upheld that we have a stronger right to privacy under our state constitution than even the, the Constitution of the United States. We need to uphold that.

We need to start doing our jobs here and protecting the privacy of our residents. So for that reason, this will be the first time that I vote to not fund the police department. But I, I think we can get there. Crime is a large problem here in Anchorage. I look forward to continue working to solve that, just not in this manner at this time.

Next, Miss Scout. Thank you. Um, I have a few questions for Chief Case on this as well. First is, will these videos be used to dispatch officers, or is this just review? Like, the, the AV equipment, will it be used to send anyone out into the field?

Uh, through the chair, Member Scout, no, the videos won't be used to— to— well, you're going to have to be specific on which video specifically you're talking about. There's license plate readers, there's, uh, cameras that, let's say, a business allows us access to through a FUSIS core. Yeah. Uh, which one are you talking about?

Both, I think. Any, any of the, um material being collected by this AV system? Yes, ma'am. The dispatch center is going to be monitoring any of this information. Okay.

The Real Time Crime Center is going to be— is a separate entity from dispatch. And so what they're going to use is once a call comes into dispatch center, then they're going to utilize these resources to help officers to respond to the call. So they're going to be the one that launches, let's say, a drone as first responder to hopefully get to the call before an officer, or they will be the ones that takes the information on alert from a license plate reader and look at the information that's coming in to ensure the officers have the information on that alert. Okay, thank you. I actually, I had an interesting experience a couple of weekends ago.

I was biking past the hobby shop, um, on Spinard, and there was a fellow sleeping outside the building who had tripped the security alarm, and there were 4 officers who responded to the scene. He got very agitated and broke the window after the officers responded. And so in a situation like that, that made me very curious about who gets dispatched by these security cameras. I think we have an amazing program with the fire department, the mobile crisis team, and that would be something I think would have been more appropriate in that scenario to try to connect somebody who's, he was simply sleeping, but then was experiencing a crisis with services before arresting him, which I did, you know, observe him being arrested. And I want to be clear that I didn't interfere.

This is something I just happened to witness on a weekend bike ride. But this does, this gets to my concern and my line of questioning is I want to make sure that if we have access to these cameras and they are being used to dispatch first responders, that the correct first responders are appearing on the scene. And again, you know, I'm not a dispatcher personally. Maybe if somebody had called it in versus a security camera, the same response would have happened. But I do have some real concerns about who is showing up and what kind of training they receive to to de-escalate an escalated situation.

My second question is whether the materials collected through this AV system will be shared with other agencies, particularly federal agencies.

Through the chair, members of the scout— the— there is information that can be shared to outside agencies. That process to get that information has to be approved, so even so, our operators within the Real Time Crime Center don't get those requests and immediately send that off to that federal agent— agency. We have some pretty, uh, specific standards on how we're going to share information. Generally, I would say that we are probably the most protective of our information of any other police department in the country, um, and there's a host of reasons for that, uh, but when we do share information with an outside agency, that's part of the annual audit report that we will, uh, share with the body, and that will be made public. So You will be able to see exactly how many times we share information with outside agencies.

And basically the standard that we use is it has to be an actual criminal investigation. So, we have had one recently where there was somebody with an outstanding felony federal criminal warrant that one of the federal agencies says, "Hey, we need a little bit of help with." That is, I think, a legitimate crime we all want to, we are all concerned about.. And so we provided them with some information that we had access to through some of the systems that we currently have. Okay. Thank you.

Final question, and I'm not sure actually if this is for Chief Case or for the administration. Are records produced or like kept by this system included in the records retention policy before us today? Does that make sense? Generally, I think the answer to that question is yes. Okay, so they are retained and available for at least us to—.

Yes, I mean, I think it ultimately will depend on the type of record that you're referring to, and there will be a schedule in the Municipal Records Retention Schedule that is published with the document that I think we should be able to decode. I think the Chief had some additional color he'd like to add.

Uh, you assume— so additionally, there's a 14-day retention. So if it's not maintained as a criminal part of an investigation, we have a destruction period after 14 days. So if anyone puts in a record request on day 15 to try to get access to a piece of that information, it's, it's gone. Like, there's nothing we can do to recover it. And if it's after the 14 days and we've retained that information to a— that's attached to a criminal case,— it follows the same process where if it's an active investigation, it can't be— you know, there's a whole host of exceptions to when and how we can release that.

Okay. Thank you very much for answering my questions. No more questions. Just one final comment that I think I'll be agreeing with Member McCormick on this one. We need to increase trust before we increase the power of this surveillance system.

So, you know, it's not personal. I hope to work with you on increasing that trust., but I think I'll be a no vote tonight.

Thank you. I have, um, a question, uh, Chief Case. So, um, if this item was postponed to a future meeting, say the meeting of the 18th, what would be the impact of that? Is this a must-pass timely— obviously I'm sure your intent is that to see it passed, but what does that look like? You are correct, Madam Chair.

I would love it to be passed tonight, but I think part of this entire process We've been, you know, very clear that if we're not comfortable moving forward, we have extra questions, we need extra explanations, like, that's what this process is about. We realize that this technology package that was passed by the body in September is a, is a very significant move for the municipality. It's our response to crime. We think it's going to have a significant impact, but we are not going to outrun our coverage on this, and that's the commitment that we made. So So yes, I would love it to be voted on tonight so we can move forward and start building this out.

But if we need to take a little extra time, I wouldn't put it on the must-pass list. OK, thank you. I'll make one brief comment. There was a statement that there's nothing in code that is protections. I think, I think there's plenty of things that protect the public in code.

But specifically, I want to point out something that happened before I was on the body. I think Mr. Bullock and Mr. Perez Verdia were the only ones here at that point. And that was the passage of a ban on facial recognition technology from use of the municipality. I haven't seen anyone say that in public, and I think we need to remind folks that that exists. And a big credit to, um, I know it was, uh, current member Voland, uh, former member Rivera, but also former, uh, interim member, uh, Joey Sweet.

That was really what his big priority. So I just want to say that that was a very prescient move on his part, but I want to remind folks that has existed since April 2021. 2023, And it is part of, uh, part of what we have to think about with this technology. The last thing I'll say is I will just offer some kind of procedural advice for members. I know we have a long queue.

I think an option is that we work through that queue tonight, we take a vote. Another option is that a person moves to postpone this to, uh, to the meeting of the 18th. And then I will also offer that there's this and several other items related to this, maybe not the Real-Time Crime Center but related to investments in APD. And so another option is that we hold a work session on this and other topics on Friday the 7th. We have time, and so I just want to offer that as people move through.

I am not telling you to do that, but that is an option that we have. Thanks. I'll yield the floor. Next we have Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, since we do have, I think, about 300 people in the queue, um, and I see that, uh, the chair of Public Safety is a few members down lower than me. I'm gonna actually go ahead and make that motion that we postpone this to the meeting of October 18th, um, so that way it can get to— thank you. I'll just check, did you mean August and not October? Yes. Yeah, okay.

Yes, sorry, Chief, not August. Second. October means the 8th month, but that's the Roman calendar, so yes. Yes. Okay, so motion by Mr. Gerker to postpone this item to the meeting of August August 18th.

Is there a second? Second. Second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. I think Member Perez-Verdia might have also seconded. Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, he did. Okay, sorry. Well, we will correct the record. Mr. Perez-Verdia was the second. And then I guess I'll run through the queue to see if there's any comments on postponement.

Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. I think postponement is a good idea, but also my question to Chief Case is is we have recently seen the Lieutenant Governor give our voter registration— Sorry, there's a point of order from Mr. Gerker. Yeah, is this regarding the postponement or is this on the main motion? It's regarding the motion.

Okay, yeah, right now because we're in the postponement motion. Okay, yeah, I'll save it. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I would suggest sometimes I know we blur the lines on, you know, procedural with postponement versus substance, but for this one I think if members' intent is to take up up the substance later, then I'll just run through and see if there's comments on postponement. Mr. Handeland?

Yeah, my main thing was on the main motion there, but I think I can kind of tailor it towards this. Is my question was, are there any members that are, I guess, are working on legislation and stuff in regards to this currently? Just kind of curious on that.

Thanks. Yeah, I would say, um, uh, I guess Chief Case, you are free to answer that question if you are aware. Otherwise, I think generally it is legislative prerogative whether people want to say what they are working on or not. So members can certainly offer that. I am working on a piece of legislation.

And yeah, I was going to move to postpone just to give legal time for the review.

Thank you. Okay. I will keep running through the queue briefly. Mr. Bresrudia. Yeah.

Just to encourage my colleagues to move to postpone. There is a lot of components here that have discussed over a long period of time. And so it's really— it's, it's, um, it's an opportunity, I think, for us to sort of reground ourselves in what is the Real Time, um, Center and, and, um, and how this was related to that. And so I think it's a good idea to have a work session and/or, um, a committee meeting, however we want to structure it. But I think it's a good opportunity for us to, to really understand what this is and how it's related to the other things that we've already put in place.

Thanks. Thanks, Mr. McCormick. Now Next. Oh, out of the queue. Okay, then, uh, yeah, I'll just note, um, I hear— we'll see how the vote plays, obviously.

Um, uh, certainly I am happy to schedule a work session, and I will also consult with Public Safety, uh, Committee folks just to make sure, uh, if a special meeting is more in order. Either way, we will find an opportunity if this motion passes to postpone this item and find an opportunity to discuss it, uh, in a public meeting before that. So I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. The motion is to postpone this item to the meeting of August 18th.

And sorry, I think we're— now it looks like the vote is up for everybody.

Yeah, so the clerk has advised we are, um, yet again having tech issues, so the clerk is going to run through and do a quick verbal vote.

Member Handlin? Yes. Member Martinez? Yes. Member Gerker?

Yes. Member Silvers? Yes. Member Presverdia? Yes.

Chair Brawley? Yes. Vice Chair Boland? Yes. Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Scout? Yes. Member McCormick? Yes.

Member Park? Yes. Member Johnson? Yes.

Uh, the— like I said, we're having some screen issues, so I will— oh, there it goes. Uh, so on a motion of 12 to 0, this item, uh, passes— I'm sorry, the postponement of this item to the meeting of August 18th passes unanimously. And as was stated, we will work on scheduling either a work session or special committee meeting. And I will also note that there is a Public Health and Safety Committee meeting this Thursday, but I know those are always full agendas, and so we will find another opportunity to make sufficient time to discuss this. So next we'll move on to item 10E2.

That is Resolution AR-2026-216, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly appropriating $475,963 as a transfer to other funds from the 2026 Maintenance and Operations Department operating budget, area-wide general fund 101000 to the area-wide general capital improvement project CIP fund 401800, all within the maintenance and operations department for major municipal Facility Upgrades and Repairs. This item was pulled by Ms. Scout. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Ms. Scout to approve this item, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Ms. Scout. Thank you.

Um, I simply— I pulled this item. I asked this as part of my package of questions before today's meeting and wanted to get just some further clarification. On the exact plans for the facilities that will, um, receive maintenance upgrades and repairs with this funding. So it's to the administration. Yeah, I'll turn to the meeting manager.

Go ahead, Mr. Fawzy. Yeah, through the chair to Member Scout. So this item is moving some maintenance and operation general tax budget into a capital account, and mechanically that is really enabling the department to do some capital repairs. Not all of those capital repairs have yet been identified, but what we know is the lived experiences— things break as we get further into the year, and we'll need some money in this account to deal with them. As we mentioned in the answer that we provided in the answer to Assemblymember's questions, we do have some earmarked projects that we expect that this money will go towards, and that includes roof repair at the Fairview Rec Center, a potential boiler repair at the Dempsey Ice Arena, and then some building control issues.

If there's further questions, I'd have to invite folks from Public Works or Maintenance Operations for help. Thank you. I guess my one remaining question is how this number was arrived at. It's very specific.

That one I may enlist the assistance of Public Works Director Ken Kulhace. Thank you.

Okay, I don't— oh, Mr. Colhays, go ahead. Through the chair to Member Scout, Kent Colhays, Public Works Director. So I don't have all the history on that, but that number has been in the capital improvement plan for a number of years. And I don't know the history— I don't know the history of the number, but many, many years ago, more than 10 years ago, when we realized that this— that the state grants that we used to enjoy were not forthcoming in the manner they had been in the past. You can look back in the, in the capital improvement plan and see that every year, certainly in the past few years, there's an appropriation to capital from the area-wide operating fund.

And the, I believe, attached to the assembly item is the page from that budget item, but from the budget document that generally talks about what Mr. Falzy referenced, and that is that that because of the funds that we no longer receive from the state, we appropriate funds to capital. So that number was established several years ago, and from what I've seen recently, it hasn't been adjusted for inflation. But that's where that number came from, and we can get more information if you need more specifics. Okay, thank you. No further questions, just wanted to get some additional information.

Okay, thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item, AR 2026.

6-2-16. Madam Chair, my, um, display is still for the previous item. Okay, um, yeah, if you can do a voice vote, Mr. Gerker, and we'll sort this out. Member Gerker? Yes.

Okay, yeah, and I'll note, I think, um, we'll, we'll try to proceed as we can, and then if we need to take a break for tech issues, uh, or reset.

Um, anyway, well, we'll, we'll see what we need to do. Uh, on a vote of 12 to 0, item AR 2026-216 passes the body unanimously. Next, we're on to item 10E4, resolution AR 2026-227, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating $419,000 of other fines and forfeiture seizures revenue from federal and state seizures and forfeitures to the federal and state fine and forfeiture fund 257 for use by the Anchorage Police Department for allowable special operations related to crime operation or investigations. This item was pulled by Miss Scout. I'd like to move to postpone this item to the meeting of August 18th.

Second. Okay, motion by Miss Scout to postpone this item to the meeting of August 18th, second by Mr. McCormick. Would you would like to speak to it further. Yes, um, in today's agenda as a whole, we're being presented with $3,298,707.10 of requests for funding for the Anchorage Police Department. This is a large sum of money, um, and these are big allocations we're being requested to approve.

Similar to the previous item that we postponed, I'd really just like to dig into details here particular to this item. I want to learn more about the definition of special operations. What exactly does that mean, um, in our community and for the crime investigations that are referenced? So I'd like to, um, discuss this in tandem with 10D11, um, between now and the meeting of the 18th.

Next, I have Mr. McCormick.

Nothing further, thank you. Okay, and Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. Uh, just quick question for the chief.

As with the previous item, would postponement of this cause any, um, second-order effects that we might not be contemplating? Through Chairmember Johnson, this item is directly linked to 10D11. Uh, this money is going to be used for the items for 10D11. And just to be clear, the items that we're talking about for 10D11 is not new technology. This is computers, desks, uh, you know, that sort of equipment.

The technology package is already a part of this, so this is to simply to set up office space, if you will. Using these forfeiture funds. Yeah, thank you. I, I'll just begin. I'm not sure I quite share my colleague's concerns about what APD is doing, especially with funding to buy desks and things of that nature.

However, if postponement until August 18th so we can have a work session and perhaps have a deeper conversation is not going to significantly impact operations or, or somehow put the funds in jeopardy, I guess that's sort of the the core question I'm asking you right now. Through the Chair, Member Johnson, I mean, it's going to delay building. I mean, essentially this is a contract through a third-party vendor to build this or upfit this room that is going to be used as a real-time crime center. So it's going to delay it by a couple of weeks. Okay, thank you.

I'll yield the floor. Okay, I'm going to go to Mr. Fawzy next. It looks like you might be in Response to something. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to clarify on the, the way these items all add up.

Just to clarify, this would— item would be accepting $419,000 to offset the cost of spending the $600,000 to the item that you previously delayed. The third item is totally unconnected to these two and is again just a receipt authority allowing us to accept funds, so it doesn't quite add to a $3 million cost. Thanks. And just for clarity, can you state what the third item is that you just referenced? Uh, through the chair— the— or to the chair, the member previously referred to another item which has also been pulled from the consent agenda, which I think we're going to come to next.

Okay, thank you. Uh, next I have Mr. Presverdia. My question has been asked and answered. Thank you. Great.

Uh, Mr. Voland. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just will support the motion to postpone. It seems You know, if members have questions on the prior item pertaining to the Real Time Crime Center and how that's going to be utilized, then we would also wrap into that conversation this item and hold off on setting up the Real Time Crime Center until those questions are answered and those details explored. So I'll be a yes vote to postpone.

Thank you. Thanks. And just for procedural clarity, if this this postponement passes, of course they would be on the same meeting, and it is, um, would be the intent to, to notice them together so they can be discussed in whatever venue that happens. Uh, Ms. Silvers.

Chief Case, can I ask you a question, please?

What are the public safety ramifications of postponement of these items, and you know, like, for how long?

Through the Chair, uh, Member Silver. So the Real Time Crime Center, so we're clear, is functional right now. Um, expanding the Real Time Crime Center to add some of the elements that we're currently paying for, the technologies, are really tied into the expansion of, of this, uh, these two particular items. So for instance, drones as first responders, that's part of the build out of the of, of using this money and building out the real, real-time crime center. We can't really pull it into where we have it, have the operations kind of confined to a very small space.

So the expansion of the technology that we're currently paying for, some of it we can't use it because we just don't have the infrastructure set up to utilize some of that technology. So when you talk about what's the impact, it's just delaying the use of technology that was designed to respond to violent crime and to provide safer response for officers when they respond to some of these violent offenses.

Thank you. Okay, and I'll just note for members, if you saw this, the system was rebooting. Next, Mr. Johnson in the queue. Yeah, thanks. Just very brief.

I was willing to support postponing the previous items that we can dig into maybe some deeper questions, but this to me looks like one it's accepting funding that we should be accepting. And second, from what I've heard from the chief, sounds like it is more or less to provide very, for the most part at least, basic and non-controversial tools to, to support the work of our police department. And so I personally so see no need for postponement. I'd rather just take the action tonight to move forward with these projects so that our department may be well equipped and well prepared to, to do their job. And for previous item, I think there's a contrast there that I think was willing to provide us a little more time to contemplate, contemplate.

But this seems pretty straightforward to me, so I will be opposed to postponement. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. The motion is to postpone this item, AR 26-227, to the meeting of August 18th. And I will also note, if we don't We don't see the vote buttons show, then we will do another voice vote.

Okay. One sec. The clerk is conferring with IT.

Member Handlin? No. Member Martinez? Yes. Member Gerker?

No. Member Silvers? No. Member Presverdia? No.

Chair Brawley? Yes. Vice Chair Voland? Yes. Yes.

Member Baldwin-Day? No. Member Scout? Yes. Member McCormick?

Yes. Member Park? No. Member Johnson? No.

That fails 5 to 7. Okay, on a vote of 5 to 7, um, the motion to postpone has failed. So we are now on the underlying item. Uh, so sorry, and our queue is not not working properly at the moment. I will just visually scan my peers to see if there's anybody who would like to speak.

Point of information, Chair. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Jones. We do have the, the motion before us now is a motion to approve, correct? That's been moved and seconded. Thank you.

Yeah, and I'll just note for folks who can see the screens, um, you can see that there's a vote basically pending, uh, on something we just voted on, so disregard that. And I think probably fastest is to do another voice vote. So I don't see anybody. Oh, Mr. Martinez, go ahead. Question to the chief.

Thank you, chief. Can you just give us a sense of the limitations of these funds? Are they only, uh, able to be available to APD, or funds in this category are able to be used for other categories? Like, what are the limitations of these particular types of funds? Thank you.

Through the Chair, Member Martinez. So these funds— I'll back up just a couple steps so that we're kind of on the same, because we get these questions every time we have these forfeiture funds. So the federal forfeiture funds, the, the way that the police department gets access to these is we have task force officers that are assigned to a couple of our federal agencies, primarily FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshal Services. Are the primary, and when they work federal criminal cases where there's asset forfeitures, the agencies that are assisting the federal agencies, like for example the FBI, when the case is completely resolved, the FBI gets forfeiture funds or property or equipment, and some of that, some of that money comes back to the supporting agencies.

That money can be used, and I'll probably refer to some of my help over to my right, But generally that money can't be used to supplant, we can't pay for current operations, so it's very specific things that it can be used for. In this particular case, the reason why it can be used for this is Real Time Crime Center doesn't exist. We haven't stood up the new technology, we haven't bought anything for the Real Time Crime Center, and of course the purpose of the Real Time Crime Center is responding to criminal activity to help us make cases and prosecute cases and collect evidence, have safer response for officers and the public. And so that falls under the funding structure, structure for using asset forfeitures. Technically, uh, what the Anchorage Police Department historically has used these funds for is for equipment.

So things that we put inside vehicles, or, you know, in this case, computers and that type of technology. There's been times in the past, although it's been a little bit, several years, where we have used this to buy helmets, ballistic helmets, let's say, for our tactical teams, things like that that's not supported with the budget. We can use the forfeiture funds for that, and this money doesn't go outside the police department for to fund other things. So it's new money as well. It's not— it's coming from an outside source, so it's new money to us.

For things that, uh, we use to do our job. Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate that. Okay, and, um, so the clerk has reminded me, um, that we, uh, actually do need a motion to approve this item, um, so, so we can get back to—. Move to approve.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Grover to approve this item, second by Ms. Silvers. Um, and it looks like our system is slowly catching up to us. Any further members in the queue that I missed? Ms. Park.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say this morning I attended a federal court hearing on an individual who was dispensing improper narcotics to this, this city and most of Alaska. And in the course of her prosecution, uh, forfeited a significant piece of property. I think it's only fitting that that kind of property returned to the city to try to mitigate some of the damage that's been done, and I'll be supporting this.

Okay, any other discussion? Okay, not seeing any, members may proceed to vote. The— I hope— looks like it came up. The motion is to approve AR 2026-227.

On a vote of 10 to 2, um, that item passes the body. So next we are on to 10E6, that is AR 2026-229, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating a restricted contribution when tendered for $400,000 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Anchorage Police Department, all to the miscellaneous operating grants fund 2610— sorry— for maintenance at the Ted Smith Range and Jewel Lake Training Center. This item was pulled by Ms. Scout. Like to move to postpone to the meeting of August 18th.

Motion to postpone to the meeting of August 18th. Is there a second?

Second for purposes of discussion. Okay, there's a motion by Ms. Scout to postpone to the meeting of August 18th, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Ms. Scout.

Thank you. My rationale for postponing this item is similar to, um, the past two conversations we've had about postponement. Particular to this item, I'd like to learn more about the rest of the revenue that comes into this training center. I think this is also a great opportunity to learn more about how APD trains their officers, so I'd love to learn about that in a committee meeting or work session with this item included. Um, yeah, thanks.

Okay, I'll also note, um, I forgot to say this a few minutes ago, it sounds like anyone who's on the phone, if you don't mind muting the line, it's hard to hear. There's a lot of background noise and we can't control that on our end. So just a cleanup reminder there.

Oops. Next, I have Mr. Johnson. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. I certainly think for members who are curious that it would be well and good to have conversations to learn more about how APD uses these facilities.

But I will say, I think these facilities serve a pretty vital role, and I don't see why we cannot not also have a conversation about how they're used in this for the sake of learning more while still approving this funding tonight, recognizing that these are pretty essential components of APD's operations and that I certainly would not want to see us lose this capacity, and I don't see any reason why we can't have these conversations later. And I think unless it's a legitimate concern about APD's use and operation of things like a training range, then I would say that I would just prefer that that we take care of this tonight. Thank you. Okay, next, Ms. Scout in the cube.

Thank you. Yeah, I think given some of the officer-involved fatalities that have happened, particularly this summer, and with one officer in particular, I'm— and with the forthcoming report on 21st century policing, I I want to have more information about this training center, who's using it. I have particular concerns about the Department of Homeland Security using this training center as well, and what the collaboration with APD looks like. So I'll be, you know, voting in favor of my own motion here, and if it fails, do not have the confidence to vote to approve this allocation tonight. Thank you.

Next, I have myself in the queue, just briefly. Miss Brawley. Thank you. Um, so I, um, I'm, uh, I guess agnostic on, on where the postponement goes, so I won't speak to that. But just to note, um, uh, what I'm hearing certainly is a lot of interest in, um, uh, kind of APD operations or different aspects.

So, uh, so what I will say is regardless of where what happens happens with this one, um, I will confer with the chief and the clerk and our Public Safety chair folks or committee chairs, um, to discuss, uh, kind of where these conversations could land, whether we have a work session on what that one specific item that we've already taken up, uh, whether these are topics at future committee meetings. You know, we'll kind of work out whatever that looks like. So I just want to say the commitment, regardless of what happens with these items, is, um, there's clearly interest, and so we will find places places to discuss those regardless of how this goes. Next, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think Member Scout prompted a couple questions for me, so if I could ask Chief Case to come back up.

Is the Department of Homeland Security using this facility? Through the chair, Member Voland, the Department of Homeland Security has used this range 4 times this year, 5 times last last year. It's a regional training facility, just to give you a little context, that was not— it was built with outside funds with the idea that local, state, and federal agencies would have the opportunity to use this training center because of the way the funds were allocated to build this range. So in, in that agreement was the fact that we could charge maintenance fees if we wanted for people to use it to try to recoup some of the costs that we incur as an agency and, and as a municipality to maintain this range particularly. Has Immigration and Customs Enforcement used this facility for training?

Uh, the only thing on a record shows that Homeland Security— within Homeland Security, which agencies fall under that umbrella, I can't give you that exact information. We just have that it's Department of Homeland Security. Okay, that is interesting, and I think that does at least in my mind, um, merit some further discussion whether or not this goes forward or not tonight. Uh, thank you, Chief Case. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. The motion is to postpone this item, AR 2026-229, to the meeting of August 18th. Members may proceed to vote on the screen.

On a vote of 3 to 9, uh, the motion to postpone fails. And I will not repeat the mistake last time that I made, which is to first I need to ask for a motion. Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion, um, by Mr. Handlin to approve, second by Mr. Gerker.

Um, any further discussion on this item?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, AR 2026-229 passes the body. Um, so that— then we have one more consent agenda item, that is 10F 6. Let me turn briefly to that. That is Information Memorandum AIM-123-2026, Community Feedback Regarding the Inclusion of the Safe Seward Highway, SSH, Within the Approved Project List for the 2052 AMATS Transportation Plan, MTP, for the Anchorage Bowl and Eagle River. This item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. Move to accept. Second. Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to accept, second by Mr. Bowen. Mr. Baldwin— or sorry, Miss Baldwin-Day Thank you, Chair.

Um, so I, um, I wanted to call my colleagues' attention to this item as it dovetails with some of the remarks that we heard from the mayor today in her report at the beginning of the meeting. So Member Voland and I, as the two assembly representatives on the AMATS Policy Committee, put this together really as a mechanism for illustrating the enduring public opposition to the Safer Seward Highway project. And I, I particularly would like for my colleagues to take a look at Attachment 6. Um, it is from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It's their meeting minutes from September 8th, 2025.

So this is 10 months ago now. On page 5 out of the 10 in that particular document— and the reason I'd like my colleagues to pay attention to this is because is, uh, in this document, the Planning and Zoning Commission functionally says to the Seaford-Seward Highway project team, please take this back and do more homework, make some changes. And this is in the context of a site plan review for this particular transportation project. And the reason that this is germane is because, um, Member Voland and I do not share the mayor's optimism with respect to the Department of Transportation's willingness to change the scope and the scale of this project. And I— we have it from September, material that states public opposition and in fact Commission opposition to the project as it is currently designed.

And functionally, nothing about that has changed in the 10 months since. And so we remain unconvinced that DOT intends to make any adjustments whatsoever to the 4-lane divided highway design that they have put forward. Uh, which is why we also opposed the reinclusion of this project in our Metropolitan Transportation Plan. I hope that members of the public will pay close attention to the next steps that are taken by the Alaska Department of Transportation. They have publicly committed to further engagement with the public.

That meeting is to be determined, and so is the format. It is yet unclear whether the public will actually have a chance to to speak at that event and whether or not any of the testimony that is received as a part of that event will actually be taken into account to change the scope and the scale of this project, which I would like to remind you is $1.5 billion for a 20-mile stretch of highway that will take somewhere between 15 and 20 years to complete.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that this section of highway does not merit transportation— or safety improvement.

No one is suggesting that that stretch of the highway between milepost 98 and 118 is safe. However, it is the contention of myself and Member Walland that this particular stretch of highway could be improved— the, the safety could be improved with far less invasive and more cost-effective measures that do not in fact spend at minimum $1.5 billion in taxpayer So this is a compendium of attachments, letters from various community organizations, the Planning and Zoning Commission, members of the public, the Historic Preservation Commission, and others, so that we can keep a running record of how the public has responded to this project and hopefully put pressure on our colleagues at the Alaska Department of Transportation to reconsider the project design.. And I, I hope that if they do not do so, that we will move expediently with the support of the mayor to remove this project from the, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan once again, and that it will stay there unless and until DOT reconsiders their design. Thank you. That's all I have to say, Chair.

Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, well, I think Member Baldwin-Day I would just ditto all of that. I think she captured a lot of this well. I share certainly her concerns about the meeting.

We received a letter, the policy committee members did, about a safer Seward Highway design public meeting, that letter being from Commissioner Anderson and sort of outlining this meeting that they're going to have. And I will say it The way that I read the letter, it seems that the intent of DOT is sort of to explain their current proposal, not to really seriously consider other alternatives. And I think in light of the public input that we've had, which has been extensive, that is unfortunate. Also, in the AMATS meeting where this was added back, to our Long Range Transportation Plan, we heard very clearly from the project team that they hadn't even finished going through their comments from the public. They have extensive comments, but they haven't had time to process them.

The Policy Committee, including myself, Member Baldwin-Day, the mayor, haven't had an opportunity to review that comment and response table. That's— that is a normal, part of a design process. And for that reason, I think it was incredibly premature to vote to put this back on the MTP, from which it had already been removed in response to public input. Um, I tried first to postpone this to a later meeting of the Policy Committee, so that DOT would have the opportunity to go through those comments and to actually treat the public process seriously and to listen to what people are saying— members of the community, our own boards and commissions. And so I find it very frustrating.

Um, you know, I think it's unfortunate that the mayor voted the way that she did, and I hope that we can really make progress on this And additionally, I think it's very important when it comes to saving lives in Anchorage that we are prioritizing the most dangerous roads in Anchorage. And many of those state-owned dangerous roads are within the urban core of Anchorage. They're in my district, North Anchorage. They are in Midtown. They're in East Anchorage.

Um, and so we have limited funds AMAPS operates within a fiscally constrained environment, and we really need to do the most good, have the maximum impact that we can, uh, with fiscal constraint. And that means prioritizing those more dangerous roads. And so I would really like to see us as, as a municipality be negotiating from a place of strength when it comes to elevating those projects that we know are the highest crash corridors. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, I have Mayor LaFrance in the queue.

Thank you so much, Chair Brawley, and thank you all for this conversation. I just want to stress, as I did in my opening remarks, that, um, work on this highway, safety work, is super important, and I don't want to accept no progress. I have expectations for DOT, and if they don't meet those expectations, as I mentioned earlier, this project can be removed from the MTP, which is a living document. DOT has said they are open to changing the scope and purpose, and I think we need to give it a try. It's just too important not to.

And I want to also note that it needs to be in the MTP to continue to have more conversation and discussion. And, um, I agree there are many dangerous roads in the municipality, but the thing about this funding is if this project doesn't go through, it doesn't mean that the funding that would have, made these upgrades would necessarily go to other projects in Anchorage. And so that's why it's all the more important that we continue to develop our partnership with DOT and we keep trying. And again, you know, if we don't get to where we need to get, um, there is the opportunity to remove this. But I think it's worth a shot, and, um, I enter this continue to work in, in good faith with all.

So thank you for this conversation.

Okay, I don't have anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. Motion is to accept.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, um, this, uh, item AIM 123-2026 was accepted into the record. Uh, so that concludes our consent agenda items. Um, so as noted, um, I know we're getting a little bit later, but I think, uh, there's certainly interest from members to take this up. So, um, we will move to item 12A. Um, I will read the title and then I will remind— I have a few things before we, we proceed after that.

Um, actually, before I do that, I will note, um, procedurally, so prior, uh, at prior meetings, Mr. Martinez, you were determined to have a conflict. And so again, you are welcome to stay in the audience. And so I'll ask you to step down from the dais at this time. And then I will also note, um, that we were in the middle of discussion about this. I'll come back to that after I read, but I will also reiterate, um, the commitment or the procedure that we adopted last time, which is that Mr. Martinez, as the subject of this resolution, is not participating as a member but has the opportunity to speak at the beginning and the end.

He did opt to use that opportunity at the beginning. And then I will also note that the opportunity he would have at the end, if he chooses to exercise that, would be after debate before we take a vote. So I will also note just ahead of time, if there are— I know call the question may occur. So just to be clear, that ends member debate. And so the intent would be to provide an opportunity to speak after that point before a vote is taken.

So I just want to be clear up front, regardless of what happens as we move forward. So then next, I will read the item and remind us where we are in the debate at the moment. AR 2026-192, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly submitting an accusation document to the municipal clerk to initiate removal proceedings in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code Section 2.70.01. 3030, And directing the municipal attorney to retain outside counsel to conduct further investigation and represent the interests of the municipality throughout the adjudication of these allegations. I will note there are, uh, 3 S versions, um, noted with changes to their titles that are documented in our agenda.

Um, currently we are— have a motion on the floor to approve the S version, um, so that is where we are starting. And then I will also note, uh, and that was moved by Member Silver, seconded by Vice Chair Buland at our last meeting. I will also note, just to be clear, that— and I have consulted with the chair— we do track debate and when people speak and how often they speak, and that is within a session or within a meeting. And so basically the queue has reset. That does mean everybody has two opportunities to speak if they choose to exercise it, depending on where the rest of this goes.

But just to note that we are starting over and that the clerk does track that that. So if I pause, I am making sure that we are keeping order. And again, the practice is generally to let folks— everyone speak if they're first in the queue before we turn back to someone to speak for a second time. So I just want to say all that.

Just to be clear for the record, we are on the S2 version, substitute version 2.

And yeah, so, and then I see we have folks lining up in the queue, so I think I said all of the pre-things that I need to say. So next looks like Ms. Silvers is in the queue.

Go ahead, Ms. Silvers.

Okay. First I want to say I'm not here to defend Member Martinez, But I do believe that we have a duty to ensure that a complete and accurate record is presented to the public. On June 30th and July 1st, Member Handeland received a full set of documents regarding the New York and Puerto Rico trips. I have also received these documents.

And I would like to share more fully what they say and what has been omitted in the public and policy statements statements regarding this matter.

First of all, the reason for the New York trip is listed as follows: As chair of the Community and Economic Development Committee for the Anchorage Assembly, I have been invited to meet with the founding nightlife mayor of New York City, a key figure in shaping the city's vibrant nightlife Economy. This meeting is especially pertinent to my ongoing work enhancing Anchorage's nightlife economy as we explore strategies for reinvigorating our local tourism sector.

And yet policy statements only briefly mention this, and public statements leave it out entirely. In fact, just a few hours ago, the new member from Eagle River posted the following on his official Facebook page: Somehow a virtual conference turned into a taxpayer-funded trip to New York.

Virtual conference costing more than $4,000.

The member has posted I don't know how many times, but they have all spoken about a conference that was not even the listed reason for the trip.

In fact, the conference was only mentioned in an email as an additional item that Member Martinez would attend while there.

A subsequent email from the organization sponsoring the conference says, we are writing to acknowledge your late registration for the International Conference on Extreme Tourism Activities on 26th through 27th, December 2024. Now, I don't know why there was a weird agenda on the record. Maybe Member Martinez was scammed. Maybe he downloaded the wrong record or wrong agenda. I don't know.

He would need to answer that question. The record is clear, however, that the recorded reason for the trip was a meeting with the Nightmare and that he at least intended to attend this other conference during the trip.

The next item that has been continuously called into question is the 3 extra days of per diem. There is also a full accounting in the records received by Member Handeland for the extra days of per diem. On arriving, it was a 2-day flight.

On leaving, it was a 20-hour flight, and the email states, "Leaving on 11/11 or 11/12 gets me home at the same time.

Leaving on 11/12 would avoid a 7-hour overnight layover.

It also states that the extra day is for post-conference related meetings. And so that's the 3 days there explained. However, in crafting the accusation documents, in crafting the public policy documents, and in crafting the, the social media statements. None of this has been disclosed.

And so a narrative has been formed that is very disappointing on the basis of an incomplete and misrepresented record that I believe has damaged the credibility of the accuser. I believe that if a member in writing policy, particularly a policy that carries as much weight as the removal of an elected official, were to cherry-pick, misrepresent, or be untruthful about the record which they were in possession of, that this would also constitute a serious breach of public trust, as well as the trust of the people on this I have some amendments that I would like to move.

And I wonder if those could be passed out now.

And I wonder if the chair would entertain a 5-minute break to allow members the opportunity to read them.

Yes, Ms. Silvers, I believe that would be in order, and I will also note for members that that I— we will also double-check on the tech if we have that opportunity. So I believe the amendments are being passed out right now. Uh, we will take a 5-minute break and be back, uh, see what time it is, come back at 7:28.

Okay, everyone, I'm going to call the meeting back to order. So I will ask everybody in the audience to please either sit down and/or continue your conversations outside. We do need to continue with our meeting.

I will ask anybody who would like to continue a conversation to please take it outside so that we can start our meeting. And we will be— after this, we will be taking our dinner break, but we need to get through this item first.

Okay, and then I'll note that, yeah, the two— I believe, um, Ms. Silvers has two amendments that have now been distributed, um, to the body. We have paper copies before us. There would be copies for the public, um, down there. So, Ms. Silvers, you have the floor.

Thank you. Um, so I would like to move Amendment Number 1. Second. Motion by Ms. Silvers to move Silvers Amendment Number 1, seconded by Mr. Bollins. Ms. Silvers.

So I'm concerned that we are considering and debating a process and an investigation that may have no basis, and the precedent that this sets. Our accusations and allegations against a member without having the full and complete truth and record behind them reason enough to go forward with an investigation. I think that's a scary precedent to set. So what this First Amendment does is it says that we need to set a basis before moving forward.

It basically puts everything into two parts. And so you have preliminary, let's set a basis, and then afterwards In other words, if there is sufficient determinations to justify a full investigation, it can continue.

Thank you. Okay, I know we have folks in the queue, so I will go through each and just please indicate if this is on the amendment and if you want to stay in for the main motion. Mr. Handeland. Main motion. Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I will speak to the amendment. You know, I think this is really important, and I appreciate Ms. Silvers for bringing it forward. Um, I will confess, I think, um, you know, at our prior, prior, um, meeting where discussion— we were time limited, we can't do any business after midnight, so we ran out of time for the discussion, but I pretty strongly indicated support for the original S2 version prior to this amendment, because what I wanted— I wanted a platform for us to be all operating from the same set of facts, and I don't think we've had that opportunity. We've seen social media accusations, we've seen an accusation document, part of which we heard from an appearance request tonight, um, and I feel strongly to be true, has to do with private activity and it isn't even within the scope of what code addresses.

But I think we need to take a step back. I think we need to have the, uh, the municipal attorney first review the accusation document before we even move forward into an investigation to see is there any there.

There. I am, you know, I'm pretty concerned. I feel like I got got a little bit because the narrative that has been put out there about this New York trip specifically, when we look at the actual record and why the travel was approved by the former chair, it has to do with the meeting, not the, um, this conference that has been talked about on social media. So I would really like the opportunity for the municipal attorney just to do a preliminary review and report back to us before we launch into this investigation that's going to be pretty intensive in terms of time and resources. You know, I'm also concerned, so I have a couple questions for the attorneys.

Okay, sufficient, complete, and accurate information, because I guess what I'm concerned about now is These accusations have been bandied about on social media. Now we've had multiple versions of this document that calls for investigation and potential proceedings of a removal. This— the underlying motion of this before this amendment is not tied to removal code, but I'm concerned that our action accusations, if we were to act as a body on information that is not correct and that is misleading, could that constitute a breach of public trust? So it's kind of two parts. Number one, and I think it's an argument for this amendment because it's an argument for making sure we all have the same set of facts.

Number one, can accusations comments on social media about a colleague that are false or misleading constitute a breach of public trust potentially? And number 2, could the assembly acting as a body on false information in a way that would penalize a member of this body, could that also constitute a breach of public trust? So I'll ask the meeting attorneys, whoever would like to respond to those two questions.

And they may need a minute.

Through the chair to Member Voland, we've been conferring over here and I think some folks are going to do some additional thinking, but our preliminary answers are as follows. We don't think there's any legal problem with proceeding with an investigation if this body directs it on the basis of what's been publicly sta— said and publicly stated. That wouldn't violate anyone's rights. Two, you asked whether elected officials such as all of yourselves, whether any public statements you make, if they're false or misleading in any way, is that a breach of the public trust subject to the removal code? I believe that was your question, and we're debating that right now.

I think our preliminary answer is no for a lot of important reasons. I think that Assembly members have wide latitude in how they communicate with the public, and using the removal procedures to launch investigations into each other about how you're conducting those public communications could lead down some, some difficult paths that might in the end bump up against some freedom freedom of speech questions. And also, it's not clear to us that the removal code intended to take into account those sorts of public-facing communications on social media and seems more likely to be focused on official actions on the Assembly. That said, you know, it's a question asked in, in real time, and we're 3 people sort of thinking it over. I'm not sure we could give you a definitive answer off the cuff.

Okay, thank you. So for the lack of definitive answer, I'm going to really urge caution. You know, I think if I'm an assembly member, I'm an elected official, and I have a document that says one thing but I make an accusation that asserts another, that's a problem. That is lying to the public. So I, I just say that is my perspective.

I do appreciate the, the, um, the answer from the attorneys though. One more question, then I will cede the floor. Question for the municipal attorney, something of this nature, a review and report on the accusation document as described in this amendment. Do you have any idea, ballpark, of the capacity and the resources of the— of your office to conduct that versus a full investigation?

I do. I think just as a preliminary matter, I want to flag for everyone's attention that in any investigation, an investigator is going to have inherent discretion to determine as to any given line of inquiry how far to push, how many resources to devote, and when to decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze on this question, let's redevote our resources to another issue inside of the same investigation, right? That's just part of what any investigator always does. And as part of that inquiry, you ask yourself, you know, am I getting good information from this particular source versus another source? And you would weigh that in the balance of how much time you have left on your deadline, and your other office resources to decide where to put your investigative efforts.

Now I think that Amendment 1 here is meant to recognize that discretion. And if that's all it's doing, I don't think it sort of adds or detracts extracts from what's already inherently in the discretion of an investigator. I don't personally read this as first doing a report on the accusation document, and then coming back to the body. Maybe I'm misreading the amendment writer's intent, but I take it as saying to the investigator, you know, go and investigate, and if you don't think that there's enough there there, you can just stop, but if you think there's enough there there, you can keep going with the investigation. Again, I think that discretion inherent in any investigation.

So I think, if I could, sorry to cut you off, but I think I read it differently because the text here says conduct a preliminary review, and so I think that the word preliminary is important, and then toward the end of the underlined section it says if a full investigation is justified, it shall continue. So the way that I read this is that there's a review on the front end, to help assess some facts and then help the body decide, or, um, basically there at some point there has to be a pivot that determines whether that full investigation is justified. Um, with respect, Member Vohland, I don't see a decision for the body to make here at all. I see a decision for the Municipal Attorney's Office to make. But again, I would defer to the member offering the amendments, legislative intent, and then I might have further thoughts depending on what the intent here really is.

Sure. No, yeah, I think I misspoke. It's, it's reported to the assembly, and then if the full investigation is justified, it shall continue, and the municipal attorney and/or investigator shall. But my, I guess my original question is the sort of the capacity, the scope, the time and resources of what's being requested here, a preliminary review versus that full investigation if justified? I see.

We have the capacity to do either. Obviously, preliminary review requires fewer resources, but yes, we have the internal capacity to conduct a full investigation inside the Municipal Attorney's Office. Okay, could you— do you— let me maybe ask it a different way. Do you think that there would be a difference comparatively between the time and resources time and resources spent on a preliminary review, and the time and resources spent on a full investigation? Or do you— are you unable to see them as distinct?

I guess if what the body really wants is a full preliminary review about everything, and then a decision point about whether to go forward with any given strand of the investigation, I guess I could see that being more burdensome than just setting an investigator off to go investigate the full system. Of that investigator's ability and making discretionary calls about when to invest more resources on any given threat in the investigation. So to that extent, I think this amendment might complicate matters by having an additional layer of internal process.

Well, that is food for thought, because this amendment is giving, you know, the municipal attorney, I guess, um, control over this process. And I, I think I, I will just say I am wondering if there would be interest in the mover of this amendment for, um, adding a step here where the assembly could potentially respond or consider this preliminary review and then decide subsequently whether we feel that there are enough facts in the allegations that could determine whether or not that full investigation is justified.

Because I think I'm hearing, and I know that this is sort of a performance law and it's on the fly, and my sympathies are I'm certainly with Mr. Bussa for that, but yeah, I'm wondering if there— if the decision point maybe needs to rest with the assembly at some point. I would consider that a friendly amendment. Okay. I may let others— I know there's a queue here, but I may work on this a little bit. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, so, so just to be clear, there's this— members can amend the amendment. I'm not hearing specific language, so we'll come back to that. It sounds like—. Okay, yeah, so we'll come back to that. Um, uh, next, Mr. McCormick for the amendment.

Yeah, I had a question for the attorneys. Uh, looking over this, it seems like the, uh, original we have in front of us is following the, the code, uh, of the, the process of the investigation. Is this going off script, like out of code, and trying to conduct a different type investigation than the one that's currently written in code?

Through the chair to Member McCormick, um, the code provision on removal doesn't actually address the investigation step at all. Sort of silent as to it. Now, in that silence, it's appropriate appropriate for the body to request such an investigation to help you decide whether to vote on an accusation document or not. And that's what the underlying S2 allows for. And I guess I'm hearing that Member Silvers would like to— and Member Vohland with the friendly amendment are proposing to have a sort of preliminary check halfway through the investigation or after a preliminary step for this body body to, I suppose, hear from the investigators and decide whether to continue the investigation.

I was asked whether that would be more burdensome or less burdensome on our office. That would certainly be more burdensome on our office.

Okay. I'm still figuring out where I'm at on this, as we just found it. Interested to hear other members' thoughts on it. Where I would advise caution is in having a different perspective than someone saying that that is misclassifying or misinformation and a lie that is up to the, the standard of being recalled. I would say have some courage, get out behind the dais and engage people where they're at.

Talk with people, share an idea. People are going to disagree with you, sure, but that is not mischaracterization, misinformation, lies worthy of recall. That is disgraceful. Trying to, trying to limit someone's freedom of speech is absolutely disgraceful. And it's one of the most absurd things I've heard on this dais.

And I've heard a lot of absurd things.

Next, Mr. Presverdia on the amendment.

So I think like many of us, I'm trying to catch up a bit.

My understanding about this amendment is, is indeed trying to seperate this into verifying that the complaint itself is factual and that we are not launching an investigation based on information that's not correct. And so that seems pretty prudent to me, that— and I don't even understand if we need Assembly action in order to verify the facts of this, if that's something that can be asked by the chair. But I am also concerned that this accusation, which has been— I mean, I am not on social media to the extent I think of some of my colleagues, but the campaign that was launched around this was nothing short of fantastic. It was just videos and all kinds of things. And so to understand what the facts are in this and whether this is a justifiable accusation or not seems to be pretty prudent.

So I think if that's the intention behind this amendment, that I'm in support of that. I would, I would just encourage— I think one of my colleagues is working on a potential amendment. I would encourage that that's clearly what this first step is, a verification of the information that has been alleged. And then coming back to the assembly to, to then decide whether to launch an investigation or not. So I would be in support of that.

Thank you.

Next, Ms. Park on the amendment. Thank you, Chair. Another question for legal. In the event an allegation is knowingly false or made with inaccurate incomplete, or false assertions, does that rise to the level of slander or libel on the part of the accuser?

I'll note the attorneys are conferring.

Another fun question live, um, and I'm not gonna be able to give you a definitive answer. I guess I would say is that So that's the kind of thing you'd want to study closely. There's, of course, legislative immunity available to all of you for all of your statements in legislative debate. Questions would arise about what's true on social media or not. I would just take— to take us a couple steps back here, I think what we're talking about are allegations, not necessarily presentations of facts.

So if you look at the ARs and the attachments to them and the things they cross-reference, they discuss factual allegations. I don't think they're directly presenting something as a case proven. I think that's the point of the proposed investigation. Thank you.

Okay, uh, the few members who have not spoken yet, so next, Mr. Gerker on the amendment. Madam Chair, I put— texted you to put myself back in the queue, and I think I was next. Oh, okay, sorry, let me look. One second.

One second, I just need to check.

Okay, then, um, sorry, we're just checking to make sure the order here. So, okay, next, Mr. Handeland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, since this is on the topic of accurate information Um, it's, it's very perplexing that we're going down this road of like, as if I wrote these accusation documents in my basement all by myself. We have a team of lawyers that have been looking over these documents and assisting with writing everything.

And so some idea of, oh hey, we're trying to slip something by, we're telling lawyers here, oh hey, take that out that's not accurate. Um, I mean, it's, it's, I mean, it's completely ridiculous here. And as far as this travel where we're now trying to spin it around, I mean, we've got the documents here. And the idea that, oh hey, this was a travel request that, oh, this, this conference on extreme tourism was somehow ancillary— it is right here in the email requesting Additionally, I would like to attend the International Conference on Extreme Tourism Activities on December 27th, providing insights to the latest trends in extreme tourism, destination tourism, and how creative economies can be leveraged for economic development. That is what the request was.

And the chair acting as, oh no, this was a request— there was, there were some other stuff in there, and Yes, we do not have documents for that, which is why we are calling for an investigation. I can't sit here and make accusations about with, uh, the founding nightlife mayor if he, uh, if Mr. Martinez ever met with him because there were no records of that, which is why we're calling for an investigation to get those records. I'm not going to be commenting on that on social media because I don't have any proof of that. But here is what the proof is. He said that on December 27th he was attending this conference.

We have verified proof that that conference did not occur on the 27th. He was in New York for that conference in a hotel room. Who knows what was happening? And then he submitted a record sitting there saying that he— how great this conference was. He put that on the official record.

This is not some kind of cover-up where I'm sitting here trying to get someone. This is a brand new member who discovered something that happened before he was even on the body, and I'm blowing the whistle on it. And now there's this whole allegation that, oh, hey, I'm somehow trying to fabricate all of this evidence. This is the record that was actually submitted. You look through the conference, the actual things that were provided on this, and we have $220 that was paid for by the municipality for that, a night in New York for that, and this was the justification.

And then the chair acting at—. The former chair acting as if, well, no, I had nothing to know about this. Here is his full response to the email requesting it. I know this is short turnaround team. Can we get this book for George?

I want to go to this conference. Wow. That is it. There was no mention of, oh hey, anything about the founding nightlife mayor. I want to go to this conference.

And I will emphasize the wow. Because looking at that report—. There's been a point of order called by Ms. Silverstein.

Can you ask the person in the audience to turn off the flashlight, please?

Sorry, I don't know if there's a flashlight. Uh, please, uh, turn it off if, if, uh, it's shining up here. Thank you. Please go ahead, Mr. Handlin. And then we have the former chair come up and sit here and say, hey, all this was approved, I knew all about this.

We have the records indicating how quickly he was looked at this Anyone who would have reviewed this would have said, you know what, this is a red flag. I read this and this was a red flag. So you know what, I wanted to point it out. And we have to put pressure out there to get the investigation. And so my constituents are wondering what I'm doing, and that's how I choose to interact with them on social media.

And I encourage other members to do as well. But this idea that somehow we're trying to fabricate something or do anything read the records. But this has all been done through attorneys who have looked at this and say this doesn't look good. This is not something that we're just willy-nilly pushing here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, we have a few folks in the queue. The only one who has not spoken yet to this amendment is Miss Baldwin-Day, so I'm going to go to her and then move back. Madam Chair, I haven't spoken to it. I'm ahead of Ms. Baldwin-Day in the queue. Uh, one sec, let me check out the— okay, yeah, thank you, Mr. Gerker.

We corrected that, so I'll go to Mr. Gerker, then Ms. Baldwin-Day, then work back through the queue. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's a lot I could say. I'm kind of a little perplexed at how this conversation is going so far. I would echo much of what my colleague from Eagle River has said.

This is kind of a little ridiculous the way this, this is, this is going. That being said, on this amendment, I have full faith and confidence in the work done by Mr. Handeland because he is a good, righteous man, that I don't mind if this needs to take a little bit more time, and if the attorneys want to take a little bit more time time to do a preliminary investigation because I have full faith and confidence that, that, that in what Mr. Handlin has put out there and what he has said about these issues, there's smoke, folks. There's a lot of smoke. This deserves a thorough investigation. That is what Donald has said.

That is what I have said. That is what I believe I've heard other members of this body have said. This deserves a thorough investigation. I don't think we need this amendment, but I'm not going to, you know, I guess I'm not going to fight too hard on it because I see, I can see the tea leaves here. But this actually I think will ultimately at the end support what Mr. Handeland is pushing here and calling for, which is accountability, which is oversight, which is transparency in government.

That's something we should all care about. So I will absolutely stand by Mr. Handeland. This is a ridiculous turn of events. With these amendments. This specific one I can stomach, but we'll have some conversation on the next one for sure.

Okay, uh, queue has partly cleared up, so I'll go back to Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, I guess I want to say a couple things and then I will provide an amendment to the amendment. First of all, it was asserted that this has all been done through attorneys, so I want to ask Assembly Counsel and I want to ask the Municipal Attorney's Office.

Did you, did you participate in drafting the accusation document, and do your offices corroborate that information?

So the attorneys are discussing, um, In the meantime, I do want to ask a clarifying question of Mr. Mullen, because I've heard— so multiple people have said the phrase accusation document. Can you be clear exactly which document you're talking about? And I mention that because the code provision that has been invoked previously, an accusation document is basically the end product. And so I just want to be clear when we're saying accusation document, because that doesn't exist because that action has not been taken. So please clarify what document you're talking about, just generally, it doesn't have to be the number.

Let me find it.

So just, I guess, for the record, this, as we have it here Um, this attachment is titled "Accusation Document," and it's from, um, members Gerker and Handeland, and it is, it's provided as an attachment to AR 2026-192.

Um, yeah. Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Vallone, I will attempt to clarify. Um, yeah, the— under AMC 2730, or sorry, 27030, um, initiate the proceedings for removal from office are only initiated by the delivery of an accusation document to the municipal clerk, at which point the municipal clerk— or it can be delivered to the Ethics Committee, but at this point it was delivered to the municipal clerk with direction for it to be brought before the assembly. That's where we are at this point.

An accusation document was delivered by two members to the municipal clerk, who has then forwarded it to the assembly for you to decide whether or not to submit it back to the clerk to formally begin the process. Now, to answer your original question, I did draft the original, uh, accusation document. There's— gosh, there's been a lot of documents submitted since I went on leave, so I don't know if there's been any subsequent accusation documents submitted, but the original accusation document was submitted by me based off of evidence that was provided to me. To answer your question as to whether or not I conducted an independent investigation or attempted to corroborate any of the evidence, no, I did not.

Okay. And, okay, so you helped draft the document, but haven't done an assessment. I mean, it's a little bit concerning because there's a statement of facts that's provided. So those facts that are represented here are those as you received them from members Gerker and Handlin, or are those with any level of vetting from Assembly Council? The statement of facts were written to be a dry statement based off of a document that I could cite to.

That's— there's— I'd have to go back and reread, but the intent within the statement of facts is to basically list out the items that at that point, based off the information available, was not in dispute. Could there be additional evidence or information out there that I was not privy to might alter that statement of facts potentially, but it's, it's not my role to conduct an investigation as I understand it. Okay, so, okay, I think that helps. Um, and then I, I guess I'll allow the Municipal Attorney's Office, um, have the, the information that's presented in that accusation document that was received by the Municipal Clerk on July 1st stamped received. Um, has there been an assessment from the, from your office that this is correct as presented here in this document?

The first time we saw that document, I believe, was when it hit the agenda. So we didn't play a role in drafting it or reviewing it, which I think is appropriate. You also asked, I guess, if we have conducted any preliminary review of all of the records and whether we think there, you know, there's more questions to be had there. And I'm authorized to say I confer with the municipal attorney, and she's authorized me to say that we have done a preliminary review of a number of the documents. There are a lot of documents at this point publicly available, and the municipal attorney's office does have further questions, and I'm not going to get into specifics.

Does have further— Chair, point of information, I, I didn't catch all that. Can you say that again, please? Yeah, please restate. Um, sure, happy to. Short version.

Sure. I think a question, um, from the vice chair directed to the attorneys, including the municipal attorney's office, was, has anyone done a preliminary look at any of the records that are publicly available regarding the official travel at issue here? Is— and the answer is yes, to a certain extent. And I've confirmed with the municipal attorney, and she has authorized me to say that we have done a preliminary review of a number of the documents that are publicly available, and we do have further questions. But I, I would not feel comfortable getting into for further details.

Okay, um, and, and I apologize, Mr. Gates is also in the queue. I want to see if he's attempting to respond to your question.

Uh, yes, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I think it's important to recognize here that what we're asking about is, uh, related to the attorney-client relationship that we have. And, um, sometimes with legislative counsel, we have that with the body We also have that relationship with individual members. When we recognize that members are going to be adverse to each other, we set up a screening so that the attorneys are separated and our work is separated from each other.

And that's what we did early on in this specific instance and this specific matter. And I think it's important to recognize the attorney-client relationship is still privileged between this attorney and the member of MSST team and this attorney and the member assisting them as the attorney's office and their attorneys and who they're assisting. And so when you're asking questions about specifically what we did to advise and assist drafting and so forth, that we're asking about the privileged information between attorney-client. But I think that what we've responded to is very fair. The role of the attorney so far in these stages that we've seen drafting these accusations and resolutions have been very preliminary and based on what has been presented to us.

As far as, I guess, external investigation and throw, I think what's on your mind is going out and finding records and doing interviews and so forth. That's not part of that role that we do and what we've done so far.

Thank you, Mr. Gates. So I think that's very helpful. Um, okay, so with that, I'm going to move to amend the amendment And what I will do— and apologies, this is a floor amendment— but after any recommendations for further action, so that's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, line 7, I'm going to strike the remainder of the paragraph and insert in its place The assembly shall then decide via resolution if a full investigation is justified.

Okay, there's been a motion to amend the amendment. We'll give the clerk a minute to get that up on the board, and in the meantime, I'll ask if there's a second. Second. Second by Ms. Silvers. So let's make sure, is the language up there correct?

Then decide via resolution if a full investigation is justified. And if I could just speak quickly to this. Okay, yeah, we have a motion, a second. Please speak to your amendment, Mr. Bullock. Thanks.

So yeah, I think what we've heard from the attorneys is, you know, at least from our attorneys, that they put together this accusation document with the information that they were presented by the assembly members who, you know, who they worked with and who wanted to bring this forward. They did not conduct their own independent investigation of these facts. So I don't— I still don't feel confident that we can receive these as facts. I think this is an accusation and, and there is more to be explored. And I guess just, just one point, you know, for me what really hinges on is that, that travel request being for a meeting, not for a conference.

I think that is material. I think that's important. And I will just say there is a precedent of assembly travel funds being used for meetings. Meetings. In fact, a former member of this body used assembly funds to travel to meet with the Housing and Urban Development Department to advocate for Anchorage, for housing issues in Anchorage, and for our funding formula to be changed for homelessness.

And so there should not be this expectation in the community, in the public, assembly travel can only be used for conferences. No, it can be used for other things as well. Assembly members have traveled to go see a tiny home homelessness resource and to learn what that could look like in Anchorage. And, you know, now we have the Willow Commons, for instance. So I just want to state that for the record as well.

So with that, hope folks can support this amendment to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, and I will just very briefly clarify, I misspoke in terms of the accusation document, so thank you for the clarification and where we were in the process. So there is a document called accusation document. Second, I will note we have about less than 20 minutes left in debate, so we don't need to extend, but just to note the timing there.

Next in the queue, Miss Silver's on the amendment to the amendment.

Okay, so stay in the queue. Mr. McCormick, amendment to amendment. Yeah, just clarification on this amendment to the amendment. Does this mean then that a preliminary review of the factual basis will go forward, and if the preliminary review by the investigators find that there is sufficient evidence to move forward, this body will then still get to reconsider at that point. The recommendation could be to go forward with the investigation.

Why do we— if the recommendation is to go forward, why would we not just allow it to go forward? Is there— would you then envision a, a potential of there being a recommendation to move forward and then this body not moving forward? Yeah, potentially, yes.

I, I don't think if the investigators find that there's enough information to move forward, that there would be more information that somehow would compel me to disagree with the investigators who went through all of the information. So for that reason, I'll be a no.

Okay, Mr. Handlin, amendment to the amendment. Yes, on the amendment to the amendment, uh, I mean, I know, let's, let's start this investigation. I feel like we've kicked the can down the road a whole bunch we wanted to do a work session, that was fine, so we could get members fully acquainted on all of the procedures, and then we hit the time limit at the last meeting. I think that we should get this investigation rolling. And as far as Member Vohland's point about, oh, hey, we're sitting there saying that certain travel is authorized, other travel is not, or any kind of characterization of that, Like, no, nobody is saying that, oh hey, you can't go and do a meeting.

No one's saying that. What I am saying is it raises a lot of concern when you're going to a conference on olive pumice in biscuits. And these are the kind of things that were in that document. And when we have a member who is essentially putting forward into the assembly record of here is the conference on extreme tourism that I put out there. And we have this, like, we, we can look at these documents and we can all, as 11 rational members up here, look at this and say, hey, this is what the conference said it was supposed to be for.

This is what the conference— what the member is saying happened at the conference and how, how great it was. They, they don't align. Fine. Let's get some— I, I have a significant amount of questions on that, and I think we should investigate. And so I will be a no vote on that.

Mr. Persuadia, amendment to the amendment. Yeah, I, I really want to encourage my colleagues to proceed with caution here. We are entering new territory, and it's really important that we do it right. And so there, it appears that there are members that have already concluded that wrongdoing has happened, and I want to make sure that we have the facts first. I want to make sure that we understand whether there is a justification to actually do an investigation.

It's worth our time to slow down and do this right and ensure that we're setting a precedent that is healthy and not unhealthy. So I would really encourage my colleagues to approve this amendment and allow us to get some facts on the table first before we proceed with with an investigation.

Ms. Baldwin-Day, on the amendment to the amendment. Yes. I have a question, an additional question for the Department of Law. Does anything about this— I'm going to call it bifurcation of the process that's outlined in code— constitute or call into question the due process rights of Member Martinez?

No.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. McCormick, amendment to the amendment again. Yeah, I would just press back slightly on what, uh, Member Perez-Verdía said. Said, in— I have no thoughts whether, you know, he did misuse funds or not. I would caution that there's members here saying he didn't do anything wrong because we're trying to amend the amendment to say that even if the independent investigators find enough to say to move forward, that we would somehow, with less information than they had, uh, not move forward. Let's— I want this out of our hands.

Let's get this to independent investigators. I don't want to do any more digging. I think Member, uh, Hanlon for doing the preliminary search there and finding some red flags. Let's get this out of our hands. Let's get this to investigators to go over, and I am totally happy to abide by whatever outcome they, uh, they recommend.

Ms. Brawley. Thank you. I'm speaking to the amendment to the amendment, but also my purpose really is to remind members we are about 40 minutes, over 40 minutes into a debate on something that we've already probably taken a couple hours on in our meetings. I am asking people, please, just can we come to a decision of some kind? Can we stop doing these additional amendments?

I understand what we're trying to do. It seems like we're all really feeling around trying to find our way to a result of some kind, which in this this case is finding facts. I do support looking for facts first because the, the absence of those is why we're here, really. It's hard to make a decision when it's this messy, and I understand that, and we're all stuck in this right now. So I'm asking whether this is the vehicle to do it or not.

We still have another— other amendments. Members have a right to bring those, and I think we should discuss them. I'm not speaking to the merits of those. I'm just saying that that is part of our process. But I'm asking because we are— we do have other things on our agenda, and I'm just asking, please, can we get out of this loop?

We all have to stop amending this if we want to get out of the loop. So I'm— that's all I'm asking for. Please, let's move through the rest of our process. We can take up these amendments, but as we continue to, to go down every rabbit hole of every amendment, it takes longer. So I'm asking folks to be mindful of the time.

Please get us out of this so that we can come to some kind of decision on this at some point. Thank you.

There's no one else in the queue on the amendment to the amendment. Members may proceed to vote on that.

On a vote of 6 to 5, the amendment to the amendment has failed. We're back on Amendment Number 1. Any further discussion?

Okay, seeing no one in the queue, members may proceed to vote. This is on Amendment Number 1— sorry, Silver's Amendment Number 1.

On a vote of 11 to 0, that amendment passes. So now we are back on the item as amended. I would like to move Silver's Amendment Number 2. Second. Motion by Ms. Silvers to move Silver's Amendment Number 2, second by Mr. Boland.

Ms. Silvers. First off, I would like to clarify the record. I'm not sure I'm not sure who the member was referring to earlier, but to clarify the record, I do not believe that any member should be removed for stuff they have posted on social media. I have mentioned public trust, and when I say public trust, I am not actually meaning the legal definition of public trust to the degree of removal. What I am saying is I believe that the The public wants to trust their representatives and that what their representatives say is true.

So I'll clarify that for the record. I also want to state that I really resent having a member choose for me, decide for me which facts and which are not worthy to be put before us in an effort to put pressure on— I'm sorry, I resent that. I, I resent that very highly.

We are in a situation now that I believe requires full transparency I believe the public deserves to know if travel policy was compliant or not. I also believe that the public deserves to know if the social media and the official statements that have been made over the past month fully and honestly reflect what the records show.

I also believe that Member Martinez deserves the opportunity to have the record cleared with an independent look and the truth of the allegations made about the travel.

I am moving this amendment not, not in some attempt to say that we should remove another member from the assembly. I am moving this amendment in an attempt to provide full facts, full transparency to the public about the allegations that have been made and the truth behind them.

I ask that you please support this amendment. Thank you.

Next, I have Mr. McCormick.

Hard to come up with some thoughts on this, um, after just receiving it, having this jumped on us. Um, it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, um, calling for an investigation into a member that's raising red flags about data that he's provided You really— whistleblower laws are in effect for a reason across the country, across most of the world. It seems like we don't, we don't like somebody blowing the whistle, so we're going to come after them now. And to say somebody's controlling what information you have access to— this is all publicly available information. That's how Member Handling got it.

You could have looked at it. You're on the body before him. You can introduce your own information. Information, just like you have. You've entered other information into this, so I don't know what you mean.

Point of order.

What's your point of order, Ms. Baldwin? I believe the member needs to direct his comments to the chair, not another member. Okay, fair enough. To the chair, the member that said that they didn't get to control the information that was inputted here has submitted documents towards this. So I don't know the basis of the statements that were said that someone else is controlling the information that they're able to see or receive.

Everyone, including the public, has this information readily available to them.

I don't even understand the basis for this. This was jumped on us. It's absolutely ridiculous. There's no way I'll be in support of this.

Madam Chair, I move to extend debate by 15 minutes. Thank you. There's a motion to extend debate, which will otherwise end at 8:26, by Mr. Volland. Is there a second? Second.

And second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Is there any objection?

Okay, not seeing here. Anywhere extended by 15 minutes, whatever that is up to. Um, and I believe Mr. Cormack, are you done or did you have more to Um, yeah, I'm done with this. Okay, next person in the queue is Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, look, I'm going to echo a lot of what Member McCormick said. Madam Chair, this is garbage. This is an absolute horseshit amendment, and honestly, it's despicable. You have somebody who came onto this body saw obvious red flags and is trying to call attention to it, is trying to say, hey, there is a potential misuse of public funds here, this concerns me. As a member of an elected body, he said, this concerns me, and this should concern every single— everybody else on this body.

This is public record. Everything that, that Mr. Handeland has submitted, everything we've submitted, has all been public public record.

And then you have this amendment trying to turn this around on Mr. Handelit and subject him to an investigation for saying, hey, this is concerning. What about the chilling effect this is going to have on other whistleblowers here in the city? What about that? What about people watching this and saying, if they can get away with doing this to an assembly member, maybe I shouldn't call out wrongdoing in my workplace. What about that?

This is, this is such a disgusting turn of events. If you can't tell, I will be a no on this amendment. This is, this is one of the worst things I've seen on this body. And like Member McCormick, I've seen a lot of really terrible things here so far. I am, I am a no on this.

This is, this is shameful. The public deserves better than this.

Come on, man.

Next, Mr. Johnson. And I know, uh, I'll ask members in the audience, um, I know this is a very emotional, charged topic, um, please refrain from making comments. Um, if you would like to have conversation, you can do so outside. Uh, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you.

I, I have two thoughts on this. First, I'm not sure I see the, the benefit or necessity of this amendment. I mean, in terms of if there is an investigation, if the underlying, resolution is adopted to investigate the circumstances surrounding the allegations. I mean, they'll be based on the facts and the records as they are, right? Not so much the source, but just sort of what the investigator determines is appropriate to consider.

And I think that is the core question, um, that we were trying to get at. And then this, for one, seems to kind of muddy the water in that respect, in that it seems to suggest I guess the source of the facts is more important than what the facts themselves are. And whether a member accurately stated them or not, I'm not sure is necessarily germane. I have confidence the investigator will consider carefully whether or not any accusations are backed by facts. I also, in reading this, you know, I'm not sure I'm quite as incensed as my colleagues, but I do have some concerns here about where this could be interpreted very broadly.

Body as I look, says whether or not, just to pick out some pieces of it, whether or not Member Hanlon omitted some facts in social media statements. I mean, that's incredibly broad. I mean, to simply say that omitting information when we make a statement in social media is somehow cause for concern, I think would be a frightening precedent to set for this body. I mean, I go further down to where we see We should preserve and consider drafts of public statements. I, I, as I read this here and the breadth of it, I, I struggle with the fact that one, it doesn't seem germane to really the underlying question we're contemplating here, and two, starts in my mind to bump up against some potential First Amendment rights in a way that I think are not really part of the core argument we're trying to consider here.

And also, I think— if read broadly, could create jeopardy for many members of this body. So I have some serious misgivings about this amendment as it's written. Okay, next I have Mr. Boland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think this gets back to us all being on the same wavelength, you know, evaluating the same set of facts.

So I guess in response to Member Johnson's comments, so this is basically, this amendment does two things.

It tries to get at the facts. We want to know whether the— what is listed as a statement of facts in the accusation document, whether those things are even true, or are we missing context? Is there documentation that a preliminary evaluation, preliminary review of that document could say, hey, actually, you know what, here's the email where the travel request was made. That refutes what was put forward in the accusation document. Okay, so that's number one.

Number two, the second thing that it does is it calls on Member Handlin to preserve his records.

So I guess I have a question for Mr. Johnson, because you're a sponsor of the S-1 version. The S-1 version calls on Member Martinez to preserve any and all documentation, including but not limited to correspondence, communications, receipt itineraries, conference agendas, meeting notes, photographs.

So I guess my questions are two. Number one, do you sign on to the accusation document as a sponsor of the S-1 version? Do you assert that all of the things that are listed in the accusation document are true?

I would not fully assert that, and that I have not sufficiently investigated it myself, but I think the— there's sufficient credibility there that I would suggest that an investigation is an appropriate course of action at this time. Time to determine the factuality of the statements that I moved forward. I have not been able to fully interrogate each and every piece of it fully. I would prefer to leave that work to the, uh, an objective investigator. Okay.

And then, you know, it's been talked about we should have accountability and transparency in government. I think we heard Mr. Gerker say that earlier tonight.

I guess, Mr. Johnson, could you speak to your concerns about Mr. Handeland having to preserve his records while your ordinance calls for Member Martinez to preserve his?

I think— I mean, for one, I will point out the fact that this is new information to me, and I have not been given the opportunity to consider it in the way that I have been able to consider some of the, um, documentation that's presented regarding the allegations directed towards Member Martinez. I think having had the opportunity to spend more time looking at the allegations made against Member Martinez, and again, to not presuppose the outcome there, uh, but to say that I think there is sufficient basis that an investigation is warranted, but I have not seen I would say sufficient evidence presented to lead me to the same conclusion that that is a necessary step to take at this time in regards to Member Handlin's conduct. I think if there is a reason to consider taking that step, I mean, I'd be willing to contemplate it more carefully, but I don't think that I'm in a position here tonight with a document that I was just handed recently to say that I think there's sufficient evidence presented to lead me to that conclusion. I'll also point out point out the fact that I think, as I say in my earlier statement, I think this— and again, I would have to take time to go and do a line-by-line comparison, but I think this is a fair bit broader. And again, I wish I had more time to look at this, but broader than what was being requested even of Member Martinez's records that we thought were relevant to the investigation.

And even As I pointed out before, simply to say that we think it is material that Member Halland may have omitted certain information in social media communications, I mean, I think that is something that could be considered a fault in almost any statement in that we choose which information to amplify or not. I think that is sort of part of the discretionary message of any communication we choose to put forward. And I, I would think that before I would consider supporting this, I would want to have time to more carefully consider consider again whether or not there are First Amendment implications to, uh, the assembly taking this position as suggested by the amendment here.

Okay, Madam Chair, finally, I will just state, you know, when it comes to impugning the reputation of a colleague publicly, whether that's in an accusation document or on social media, I think this body deserves to know whether facts have been misrepresented. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, Miss Scout.

Thank you. Um, I think we're getting into a really weird rabbit hole here. We're calling for an investigation on one member and then essentially an investigation on the call for an investigation of another member. To me, this feels like this amendment could be a separate proposal to investigate the legitimacy of these claims. But I think we're really expanding in a way that is not efficient.

Policy-wise, implementation-wise, and frankly in terms of how we manage our meeting time and ability to do the real work of the public beyond, of course, accountability and transparency. But we have got a lot of other work to do this evening. So I support the broad intent of this amendment. I don't think it makes sense packaged as an amendment. I think it should be separate.

So I'll be voting no with that logic, and I hope we can get to the question soon, but I don't want to override Member McCormick here. Madam Chair, point of order. What is your point of order, Mr. Handel? Um, technically this does concern me. Is this something that I have to recuse myself on?

And as the lawyers are working over there, I have, I guess, an additional question because couldn't someone sit and, I guess, include a large number of assembly members in any kind of accusation document or something in the future to essentially exclude a large member, a large number of members from that?

Good questions. I will turn to the attorneys. I will note, and they can cite the more specifics, but there are provisions in code that out of exigency— I think that's the right word— that there are situations where people can be compelled to vote. So I think that if there's a tactic to take everybody off the table, there's a way in our rules to not allow that. So beyond that, I will turn to the attorneys.

Madam Chair, and I would respectfully ask the entire body to not put that out out into the universe, just like— sorry. Duty to vote. But if you can please respond to the question about Mr. Handel, I think that is a valid question on this amendment. With regard to the making the accusation document impugning the integrity of every member, majority or supermajority of the members, yeah, but you basically already covered the point that we were going to say the code accounts for that with the rule of necessity. It's the same reason you get to vote to certify an election in which you are a candidate.

Like, if there's no way for the body to vote, the body has to vote because that power is vested in the body. Thank you. And I— but I think more specifically, to restate Mr. Handlin's question, um, because this mentions his name in particular, does he have a substantial personal influence— interest such that it's a conflict that he can't vote on this amendment? Yeah, we would say yes. Okay, uh, well, in that case then, I would— on— and just to be clear, only on this amendment as it is written.

Is that right? Okay, I'm seeing a nod. So, um, yes, so Mr. Handeland, you are, um, do have a substantial interest in this. So just for the purpose of this amendment, maybe step away from the dais. Yeah, I guess I got one more question that I guess— am I afforded the opportunity to make a statement before and after as well?

I will turn to the attorneys. Yes.

Okay, uh, well, we cannot turn back time, so then I would say that I would offer you the opportunity to speak at the end if you would like, um, of the discussion on this amendment. But I see you walking away, so I'll ask, do you intend to make a statement? Looks like yes.

Okay, so one second. I'm going to recognize you as a member of the public, Mr. Handlin, just to note that you are not acting as—. I'm sorry. I'm in the queue. And I was going to make a point of order that I don't find this amendment germane to the title in that the title is submitting accusation document to the clerk.

And the accusation document is a separately attached document that does not include Member Handeland. So I find that that's not germane to the topic, not appropriately disclosed to the public. Thank you. So I will note— let me work through these. In terms of the title, the title is the original item.

It is not any of the S versions. And so the title up here does not match the thing that is actually being amended. So just to note, the original title, and again, because we have gone through so many versions of this, the title— this title is not the S2 title. So just to be clear, what is amended is the S2. Second to the point, I'm going to ask the attorneys again because— The proper way to have done this is, is we would have found that Mr. Hanlon had a conflict ahead of time, and so what I'm attempting to do is provide him an opportunity.

So let me ask really quick, because this is not the end opportunity. So Mr. Hanlon, is your intent right now, is your intent to make a statement as close to the beginning as possible or to make a statement at the end as well? Uh, I'll do both. Okay. I mean, I guess I don't want to preclude you from speaking.

I just wanted to, if you didn't want to make it and we were able to get a resolution now. But if you would like to speak— you guys want to, I guess, vote on that. That's, that's okay. I will. I also note we are— sorry to interrupt, um, it's 8:38, we have till 8:41, so, um, in order to provide him that opportunity and to keep taking up these amendments, we need to extend this debate.

Motion to extend debate by 20 minutes. Second. Can I withdraw this amendment if the second agrees? That is also in order if the— if the— yeah, yeah, I believe it does. The second doesn't need to agree, it's just the primary mover would need to do it.

Okay, I'd like to withdraw this amendment. Okay, Member Silver says withdraw the amendment and therefore the conflict does not exist, and so Mr. Handlin will return to the dais as a member. I'll give him just a second and then we will continue through the queue. And so, Mr. McCormick, um, why— actually, I will ask you, you were in the queue on the amendment. Do you intend to speak?

Because now if that amendment has been withdrawn, we're on the original motion. I'll withdraw my queue. Okay.

Okay, uh, so now again, just to be clear, we are— we have extended debate again. Um, we are, uh, back on the main motion as amended. Um, wait one second.

Okay, thank you. We're in amendment section. Um, so we are again back on the main motion as amended. Miss Scout, you are in the queue. Thank you.

Next. Um, I have some questions for you, Madam Chair. You in your— oh, sorry, are you— sorry, also I realized before we— I'm sorry, before we proceed, I realized we made the motion to extend, we didn't complete that process. So I believe, um, so if you— Mr. McCormick, if you intend to make your motion again, uh, motion to extend debate by 20 minutes.

Yeah, and then it was seconded, I think, by Mr. Gerker, is that right? Okay, so sorry, the step that I skipped is, is there any objection to, uh, extension? Okay, sorry. So back, Ms. Scout, please proceed.

All good. Um, you mentioned in your tear report an audit on travel of all assembly members forthcoming. Can you tell us more about the scope of that and when we should expect to receive it?

Uh, yeah, I can clarify. So, um, because I want to also note, um, that— so I'm going to give you an answer to that. I will also say That is a separate item from this particular item, but the information is, um, that a several weeks ago I asked internal audit to do a special review, which is not considered a full audit. It was an expedited review for basically a department head. That's the equivalent, um, to look at the approval process and the policies in place and whether those policies for approval were followed for assembly member travel.

So, uh, it was between January 2025 and April 2026. It looked at members, all members who were serving in that time period. It did not include members who were just elected after April 28th. And the scope of that was really, again, where our processes followed. So it does not do any kind of evaluation of the quality of the event, the results of the event.

It really is looking at that. And so my intent, as I said, was to take that discussion up at the Rules Committee meeting to provide that to members.. But again, I will assert that that is a separate question. The information in it may be relevant to this discussion, but that particular discussion is about our approval policies. And so, um, okay, so yeah, so that's why I've not brought it into this discussion at this time.

Thank you. Um, it certainly helps my decision-making here. I have a follow-up question to that, which is, what would it take to do that kind of analysis of all member travel dating back further, perhaps looking to early 2023, as is the time frame referenced in this ordinance or resolution? Yeah, I can add a, I guess, preliminary answer, and then I would look to others to answer that question. But, uh, what I was told is, is considerably longer, only because it would just be that many more instances to go through.

Okay. So I mean, the records, the records are there. It would be a question of how long it would take. Okay, thank you.

I'll share for the record that I'm having challenges, um, or like, yeah, concerns related to every version of this resolution. Um, I believe that we took appropriate action at our last meeting delivering a censure to Member Martinez. I know that the voters have the opportunity to recall him if they wish beginning later this month. Um, we also have the ability to do analysis and review of all member travel.

Focusing on just one member one member who, based on the facts presented to me, was following internal policy about traveling feels very concerning, particularly when that one member is the only person of color on this body.

And so— Thank you. Point of order. Point of order. Madam President. I want to please ask the audience to keep it down.

—Madam Chair, point of order. —What is your point of order, Mr. Krumme? —Speaking to motive.

—No, I'm not. I'm explaining my decision-making process. So I will ask all members, please confine your comments to not the motive of the person, but the fact. Okay. Yes, I'm genuinely not speaking to the motive of anybody else other than myself.

And the logic that I'm using in deciding how I'll vote on this S2 version and any other version of this policy. Um, if what we believe— if what Member Martinez did in terms of his travel was unethical, then we absolutely can and should update our internal policies I don't believe that this is the appropriate solution at this time. I'll be voting no for that reason on every version of this policy. Thank you.

Next, Miss Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I am going to endeavor to do what you asked us to do about half an hour ago and get this moving. So I think we may have lost sight of the big picture here, and I want to remind us what it is that we're actually discussing.

So every member on this dais has $24,000 earmarked for expenditures related to the discharge of our duties as local legislators. These are called individual spending accounts, or ISAs.

We have broad latitude in how we apply these funds, and we have to apply to use them. They are not given to us in cash.

There are parameters about what we can and cannot pay for. They are subject to the approval of the chair, and this includes individual travel arrangements. I'm not talking about the conferences and the things where we have formal delegates to a different body. I'm talking about discretionary individual travel related to our work as legislators.

I want to remind the public and remind everyone on this dais that those are the funds we are talking about. Those are the funds that Member Martinez chose to use in a fashion that he saw fit. It, which is the purview of every single person sitting on this dais. For the record, I frequently disagree with how other members use their ISAs, but that's none of my business.

I also want to remind my colleagues that you can disagree with another member's choices with respect to the use of their ISA or with respect to our policies and procedures about member travel or even with the approval decisions of the previous chair without invoking removal of that member.

I will say that none of what we are actually factually talking about here tonight rises to a threshold that I would consider egregious enough to warrant removing actively deciding as a body. That we would remove a sitting member.

And I want to remind us that the path that we are on right now, this investigatory path, ultimately means a functional override of the will of the voting public, which is, I believe, absolutely fundamental to our democracy. And I am really unwilling to tread down that road when what this boils down to is a set of facts that are publicly available and verifiable. Member Martinez engaged in discretionary travel with funds that were allocated for that purpose. He followed the proper procedures when it came to getting that travel approved. His travel plans were vetted.

There is back and forth documented communication about every bit of his travel. They were—. There was discussion and then there was approval.

Separately, also in this accusation document before us, he made a clerical error on an APOC filing with respect to a sole proprietorship that earns no profit. He corrected that error of his own volition, but the accusation document before us— that is submitted lists perjury, violation of the ethics code, falsification of records, and substantial breach of statutory duty as grounds for this removal process. That is not the same as a disagreement over the necessity of travel, the results of that member travel, or the process by which that travel was approved. These are two different questions. And yet we have conflated them.

If members don't like the travel policy, then change that. If members don't like the internal approvals process, change that. If members want more reporting and more particulars about the, the necessity of travel and the outcome of that travel and how it serves the municipal interest, great, require that. But let's dispense with this endless debate. I'm unwilling to continue dignifying this with conversation.

We have the work of governance to attend to yet tonight, and it is almost 9 PM.

We're now on an S2 version of this ord— of this resolution, and we still haven't come to any sort of meaningful consensus. Again, reading the tea leaves. And so I'm going to ask us to do the thing that we've already basically agreed on and direct the Department of Law to do the work of factual verification and then deliver to us a document that can inform whatever next steps we choose to take as a body. And in that spirit, I move to amend this resolution to strike everything following page 2 of the resolution.— our page 1— page 2, line 2, to direct the Municipal Attorney's Office to strike the entirety of the rest of the page up until the amended section 3, or amended number 3 rather, and then strike section 2 and 3 entirely.

Second. Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to strike page 2, basically lines 8 through 44, retaining the amendment and then striking Section 2 and Section 3. Second by Miss Park. Any further discussion on that? Yes, for the public's benefit, I'd like to be sure that everyone understands what the resolution now reads.

So in Section 1, it will— oh, and also to direct the renumbering as necessary to the clerk. Um, Section 1: To direct the municipal attorney's office to conduct a preliminary review of the factual basis for the allegations giving rise to this investigation, including whether the allegations are supported by sufficient, complete, and accurate information to warrant further investigation. If the municipal attorney determines that the allegations are materially incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise insufficient to justify a full investigation, that shall be promptly reported to the assembly together with any recommendations for further action. If a full investigation is justified, it shall continue, and the municipal attorney and/or investigator shall submit a report or a request for additional time of the investigation to the assembly via information memorandum within 60 days of the effective date of this resolution. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage and approval by the assembly.

Okay, and I see, um, that the clerk has put that up there. Um, next in the queue, um, on this amendment, Mr. Handeland.

Sorry, I was on the motion and I'm still trying to figure out the amendment here.

Okay, I can also come back too. You can come back.

Okay, Mr. Johnson, on the amendment. Yes, and I think I'm just trying to make sure I'm following this correctly. This is an amendment to— I mean, let me back up. We're considering the S2 version. That is the version that is on the floor, correct?

We're considering the S2 version, and essentially what I have done, since we have chosen to now bifurcate this question and to say we would do a preliminary fact fact-finding mission in advance of any investigatory process, as I have struck all reference to the investigatory process itself, and now we are essentially considering a resolution that asks the Department of Law to do the work of fact-finding on our behalf and submit us a report.

Okay, thanks for that clarification. I think I'm still reading through this, but thank you.

Okay, next, Mr. Gerker, on the amendment. Yes, Madam Chair. Actually, my question, I guess, is for our attorneys. Get ready for some more legal advice on the fly. Um, is there anything in eliminating any of the sections that's being proposed eliminating, um, that would limit your ability to actually do an investigation?

Is there anything taken from you and your ability to do this?

Looks like the— I will note the attorneys are conferring. Go ahead, Mr. Bussell. I just want to ask a clarifying question. Sections 2 and 3 still exist even with this amendment, is that correct? No, no, they're gone.

Gotcha. Yeah, so we would be limited. We wouldn't have subpoena power, um, we wouldn't have the preserved records. Um, I suppose we would just be going on then whatever is currently within the municipality's possession regarding the official travel to do this preliminary investigation. Investigation.

And I would also note that then what we're supposed to be investigating is, quote, the allegations, without a specific reference to what that is referring to. The original S2 version said the allegations described in the attachments to AIM 96-2026. There's also another AIM out there with additional allegations. And I suppose we would probably implement this by taking the allegations in both of these AIMs to be the object of the investigation, but just flagging that the allegations, quote unquote, is now what we would be investigating without specificity. So essentially, what you're being asked to do is, hey, go do this thorough investigation, but by the way, you don't have any— you don't have any actual power to do it.

Yeah, I take it based on the passage of Amendment— Silver's Amendment 1, this would be a preliminary review of the factual basis of the allegations based on the existing records, but without access to what's struck in Sections 2 and 3. That's the preservation of further records and subpoena power. Okay. So it— Point of order, actually, Madam Chair. What is your point of order, Mr. Wall?

Yeah, my point of order, the legislative intent— I certainly hear the municipal attorney's concerns, but I'm wondering if the mover of the amendment might be better suited to speak to the legislative intent.

I feel like we're kind of operating on a line there. Is that a point of order? Is that just a comment?

It's a point of order in terms of, I think, verging on speaking to motive, the motive being the legislative intent.

Respectfully, Madam Chair, I'm—. Yeah, I'm not— I'm going to find that that's not in order.

Yeah, back to you, Mr. Yeah, I would just say, look, if, if the goal here is to— and I agree, by the way, I want to be done with this. I am so tired of this whole thing. So if the goal is to do an investigation and get the investigation done, get it out of our hands, you don't have to worry— we don't have to worry about us being involved in this anymore, then I don't think taking tools away from the attorneys and their— and the investigators and their ability to actually investigate is, is the correct answer. I, I appreciate where Member Baldwin-Day is coming from.

I just don't think the actual result is, is actually what, uh, is, matches the stated intent. So I will be a no on this amendment, uh, because let's, let's give them all the tools they need to be able to do this well. We don't need them to be coming back and saying, well, we asked, but, you know, we couldn't get any information and we didn't have any subpoena power, so, you know, whatever.— that's not going to build public confidence. They've got to have all the tools necessary to do a thorough investigation where there's not going to be any lingering questions or doubts about the report and what they come back with. I will be a no on this amendment.

Thank you. Thank you. I will note we have 3 minutes left in this debate. Next we have Mr. Presverdia on this amendment. I just want to get clarification again from the municipal attorney that, that the— this is a— this changed amendment is now a verification of the allegation, not an investigation into the case itself.

Is that correct?

Well, I'm— they're going to be the ones who implement this. So I'm— whether it's the, the mover or the, the, the body that's going to actually conduct this, I want to make sure that that's clear of the wording as it stands now. Is it clear that this is a, a verification of the allegation and then a determination whether, based on your review of that, an investigation is necessary or not? Can I move to extend before they answer?

Motion by Miss Silvers, that would be in order. I mean, motion by Miss Silvers to extend the debate by 10 minutes, second by Mr. Vohland. Any objection? Okay, thank you. So we are extended by to 9:11, and I'll turn back to the attorney.

I'm asking the attorney because the attorney is the one that's going to actually do this. So, so through the chair to Member Perez-Verdia, um, in our view, verification of an allegation is an investigation. So I actually don't see a distinction that you— that I take you to be drawing in your question. I think we'll be conducting a preliminary investigation into the allegations regarding official travel. We would be doing that without, however, the tools available in Sections 2 and 3, including the request that Mr.— Member Martinez fully cooperate and sit for interviews and provide any records.

I see. And then just one other question. Based on the new language, does it require you to come back to the body before conducting a full investigation, or is it something that if, if based on what you've, you've determined it's necessary, then you would do that? Well, I take the language that was passed in Silver's Amendment 1 not to require coming back before the assembly for a check-in. I think that amendment failed.

And so this would actually give the Municipal Attorney's Office the discretion to decide whether and when to proceed with the full investigation based on the results of the preliminary investigation. But again, in making that decision, it would be without any of the tools provided in Sections 2 and 3, including the preservation of records, the request to co— for Member Martinez to cooperate with interviews and provide records, or any subpoena power to get information from representatives of airlines, hotels, conference organizers, etc. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Next, I have Mr. Handerland on the amendment. Still on the main motion. Ms. Silvers on the amendment. Yeah.

I guess my question is for the attorneys as well.

Should we have a basis for conducting what could be a fairly invasive investigation using the public record outside of those additional tools that you're asking for? So should we have a basis first, like these are the— these are the reasons why we are conducting this investigation, because I think that is what's not really clear to the assembly right now. At least it's not really clear to me. Why are we conducting this investigation? What is the basis for that?

Because a lot of the stuff that has been presented to us, I don't trust it, quite frankly. A lot of it has omitted information. It has pushed forward a narrative in an attempt to put pressure for this investigation.

Um, and so my question is, do we need to have a basis for this before we ask for, for you to use those tools? That's my first question. And my second question is, if we discover that there is a basis for an investigation, a further investigation utilizing those tools, can we come back and ask for them? Thank you.

Okay, uh, Mr. Voland has not spoken on this amendment yet, so I'm going to go ahead to him first. Mr. Voland? Oh, I'm sorry, uh, sorry, back, uh, ignore what the floor thing says. Sorry, go ahead, Ms. Silvers, have your question answered. So the municipality does regularly, regularly investigate allegations of wrongdoing without making a preliminary finding that there is facts supporting the allegation of wrongdoing.

We do this regarding, you know, almost any employee or official of the municipality. We would gladly do that. Most of that's conducted privately, obviously, either through HR or through the municipal attorney's office. And no, in general, there's not a requirement that you know, facts be proven before an investigation is launched. In general, that's what an investigation is for, but I just want to emphasize this is a policy decision for this body.

It's not a question for the lawyers as to whether you want to launch the requested investigation in the S2 version. It's a decision for this body to make based on what this body currently knows. So to clarify, I could just make wild accusations about somebody on this body and make wild accusations before the public to bring pressure and then request you to do an investigation on them without any verification of the truth of those allegations, and this body could decide to go ahead and okay that? Is that what you're saying? Taking it out of the context of this body, because I think that complicates things, if you just put in the context in the context of the municipality writ large, it is not unusual to have wild allegations come our way and for people who are in the know to do a preliminary look to see, is this worthy of further investigation?

And in general, you trust the discretion of the investigator and the person in that position to decide how far to probe. Is this too wild to warrant further resources, or do we want to keep digging? And then based on what you find, do you want to keep digging some more? It's actually unusual for a decision-making body to interpose itself in the midst of that investigation, try to tell the investigator how that should proceed from the get-go. So in those preliminary investigations that you're talking about, do you have the tools of subpoena power?

Do you have the tools of, of demanding that records are saved? Which I think that we're required to save our public records anyhow, so I'm not sure why I don't know why we would need to even put that in there. Like, that's already a requirement. In the employment context, it's a little different. Of course, you have all the tools of management to tell an employee, "We're doing an official investigation and you need to cooperate." It's obviously different when we're dealing with elected officials on the assembly.

And then I guess my final question was, so could we come back and give you those tools later if that basis was found? Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay, next, Mr. Voland. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, I think Member Silver's, for me, is actually just hitting on some salient points.

Um, I don't think that subpoena power is needed by the Municipal Attorney's Office at this point. I think that is something that could be approved later.

I guess I'm not hearing clearly from the municipal attorney that there's, um, maybe fully an appreciation for, um, us trying to separate out a preliminary review and get that basis of facts, because the problem is I don't— I no longer believe the accusation document.

Knowing what I know now, I think it is flawed. I think the accusation document puts forward campaign activity which is totally separate from removal code to begin with. I think we, we have heard tonight and we have had information provided us that now has been entered into the public record that gives an entirely different representation of why travel was approved versus an accusation that was delivered. I think we've heard from a co-sponsor of the S-1 version that they don't even know that they endorse the accusations that their version is tied to.

And so for me, I think I'm now at the point, now that we have gone round and round on the hamster chair— a hamster wheel, You know, we are at this point are torturing this with these amendments, and I don't think that we're necessarily going to get to a factual basis that we're all, we're all saying, hey, look, these, this accusation, this list of accusations has been vetted, it's in context, it actually pertains to the section of code that we're trying to use.

At this point, I'm a no vote, end of. I will not be voting to move forward in an investigation because I'm not hearing that it can be done in the manner that the assembly is attempting to request via these, these amendments.

And I just, I have several other concerns about the validity of the accusations that are even put forward. And I think Member Silver's point is, is well taken. Think about the politicized process that we are setting precedent for. I as a member can just make any accusation I want, and if I have a majority as my team and we're going after a minority member minority used in the sense of political minority.

Think about how we could weaponize that, that we're going to withhold certain elements of information from the public, but we're just going to spread like wildfire these accusations and move forward in this process at great expense and time to the municipality. So I, I appreciate that we've had this I think, fulsome conversation. As part of leadership, I am dedicated alongside Chair Brawley to improving our processes, our policy for travel, what the approval can look like. I look forward to exploring that special audit that was done. I think that there are tweaks that we can make.

I think there are recommendations that we can put in, in place that will help ensure that as Member Baldwin-Day described, the purpose of assembly travel, that that is being met, and that every member, so long as we're all on the same page about what that policy entails, can request of the chair to use that portion of the travel budget. So I think that's really the, the conversation that we should be having as a body going forward. All right, thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, I'll note we are, uh, at the end of our extended debate, um, and I will remind folks that that is on the entire item, it's not per amendment. Um, so I'll see if there's any other motion to extend. Move to extend debate 10 minutes. Motion to extend by Member Gerker to extend, uh, by 10 minutes. Is there a second?

Second. Second by Mr. Handlin. And any objection? Yeah, I'm going to object. I think we've beat this one to death.

Then we're going to take that one to a vote. So what we are voting on at the moment is whether to extend debate by another 10 minutes.

On a vote of 6 to 5, the amendment— or the extension of debate has failed. We are now— We are now essentially at the end of our debate. It is 9:11. And we are in— so just to be clear, we are in the motion to amend. And so the next vote before members is the motion to amend that was moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day that's up on the screen.

On a vote of 6 to 5, that amendment fails. Next, uh, so then we are back on the main motion. Again, there is no further debate. I'm going to clear the queue really quick. Members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 5 to 6, um, that, uh, AR 2026-182 S2 as amended has failed the body, or has failed to pass the body.

Okay, um, sorry, I know everybody was waiting. Um, I was just conferring with the clerk. The one thing that I realized I had failed to do, um, in the movement toward debate was, um, that I had failed to offer Mr. Martinez an additional opportunity to speak before that vote. But I see, um, I say he's indicated a gesture it's okay, and either way this vote has been taken. So I just want to note that that was a mistake that I made, um, but the vote has landed already.

Yes, Mr. Perez-Rodilla? I'd like to move for immediate reconsideration.

Yeah, and just to note, that can be— or that must be done by someone who is in the prevailing side because it was a no, and Mr. Perez-Rodilla was a no, then, then that would be in order. Um, a second can be made by any member regardless of how they voted.

Second. Okay, there's a motion to immediately reconsider by Mr. Perez-Furria, second by Mr. Volland. Do you want to speak to that, Mr. Perez-Furria? Uh, nope, I encourage a no vote.

Okay, there's no one else in the queue. Members may proceed to vote on the motion to immediately reconsider this item. If you do not want to reconsider it, the vote would be no. If you do want to reconsider it, the vote would be yes.

Okay, on a vote of 3 to 8, um, this item, uh, is not going to be reconsidered, so that motion has failed. So, um, we are going to take our dinner break. And then I will note, I know there are members, or there are members of the public here for various public hearing items, so I will just briefly state that we will open those hearings. The intent of the sponsor on 13A, 14A, well, the intent of the sponsor on 13A is to postpone indefinitely, so I recommend if anybody's here to testify on that, you may save yourself some time. On 14A, B, and C, the intent is to open those hearings hearings and, um, with the will of the body, continue those hearings.

So for those who are planning to testify on those, I want to offer that, um, that there may be an additional opportunity pending action of the body. And with that, we will adjourn for dinner— or sorry, not adjourn, break for dinner. Thank you.

Okay, everyone, uh, let's come back to order.

So we have our public hearing items on our agenda tonight. I'll ask if anybody is still having conversations, please take those outside if you want to continue. So next we're on item 13A. So that's our continued public hearing for tonight. AO 2026-13, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Sections 4.60.090, 27.30.080, and 2730.085 5 to establish a review and comment procedure by an advisory commission for capital improvement projects within the Chugach State Park Access Area, or CASA.

Public hearing item— or public hearing on this item is now open.

Anyone come forward to testify, if you would like?

Madam Chair, actually, I'm going to move to postpone indefinitely.

Okay, there's a motion to postpone. Definitely second by Ms. Park. Do you want to speak to that, Mr. Bullock? Yeah, thank you. I just want to do this, uh, for the awareness of the public who are going to be here on a prior item.

Um, you've indicated prior, Madam Chair, that this item has been sort of a placeholder while we approach the question of sort of what to do with CASA and what does that public process look like. I know that you have stated that your intent is to postpone indefinitely, and you are a co-sponsor of the subsequent item we'll be taking up tonight.

Okay, and as we— as this motion was made while the public hearing is open, then I'll just note the sponsor does have an opportunity to respond, but I would just concur with what Mr. Mullen said. So is— I guess I'll ask, is there any objection to indefinite postponement of this item?

Seeing and hearing none, then this item is indefinitely postponed. So next we'll move on to our new public hearings. The first one is AO-2026-89, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly enacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.110, Tax Incentives for First-Time Homebuyers. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

And then as usual, I remind the microphone is off, so please turn it on, state your name and what part of town you're in, and you will have 3 minutes. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Jason Norris, South Anchorage. I've already said plenty.

Sorry, one second, we're making sure the timer's going. That does conclude. You will indeed have an actual 3 minutes. Okay, go ahead. Thank you.

Okay, I've already said plenty in my written testimony, so I want I won't belabor those points to— except to say I feel this would be ineffectual at best and detrimental at worst. But I do have some things to add. Ignoring zoning is ignoring the solution. The administration's own frequently asked questions from a year ago state exactly that. And in many cases, our dimensional standards are the same that they were 50 years ago.

Some of them, I looked, predate unification. And I can't think of a single government regulation— that governs our everyday lives that has not changed in 50 years or longer. If they're that important, it is worth our time and effort to take a look and to change them to benefit us. As our understanding of the world goes, so change our regulations, and for good reason. And we certainly learned a lot about urban planning in that time, and, and our needs as a community have certainly changed, and it's time that those change with it.

Uh, to be to be bluntly, maybe even brutally honest, this all feels like distraction and misdirection. Press releases, releases saying that housing permits have surged when in reality they're about a month ahead of where they were last year, and we're at the end of permitting season. And so this all, as we're going into winter, feels just a little bit disingenuous. MHOP was stalled on purpose a year ago pending community conversation. Community conversations.

On the 25th of this month, the administration is finally having a single community conversation on what we want 10,000 Homes in 10 Years to be. We're over 2 years into a 3-year administration, and this feels like a reelection talking point, not an honest conversation. Because why would the administration not come into office with a vision for what this was supposed to be? And if they didn't have that vision, 2 years ago would have been a great time to ask all of us, to give us time to, to deliver the input that is needed.

Now it just feels dilatory, transparently performative, and quite frankly sad. Item 10B3 tonight shows they understand the problem and that it's getting worse. They just don't seem to want to do what is necessary to solve it.

Bottom line is you cannot taxabate yourself out of this this crisis. And even if you could, you would dig a deeper fiscal crisis. It's time to move beyond these types of actions and get to the item that will actually make a difference for our future and truly put us on the path to solving this housing crisis. And I'll just note, I don't enjoy being up here with this tone of voice. I don't like being up here negative, but I, I also cannot see this continue and not make note of it.

So when MHOP comes before the body, mercifully, after all this time, I encourage you to support it and to support moving housing forward. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. Again, turn the microphone on with the green button at the bottom. When the green light turns on, it's on. No, you don't have to hold it, just click it once. Make sure that there's a green light at the top like this though.

Um, and yeah, please push it. I just want to make sure it works. Yeah, there you go. Um, and then state your name, uh, you'll have 3, and what part of town you're in. You all have 3 minutes.

Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Um, hi, I'm Lisa. Um, I live in Fairview, but I just, uh, bought a house in, um, East Anchorage off Bonavista. So good evening.

Um, I recently purchased my first home, a 1970s split-level in East Anchorage. Anchorage, and this has been a long time coming. My partner and I currently make about $200,000 a year, yet we are priced out unless we wish to be quote-unquote house poor. The average house value in Anchorage is about $500,000, yet currently the cheapest new construction home listed on Zillow is $465,000 for 1,000 square feet of space.

Uh, we attended the parade of homes earlier this year, and I would not pay the the top dollar being asked for what amounts to a Home Depot house.

I wonder if any of you have frequented open houses recently or toured any of the homes being sold as is. This ordinance cites Strategy 4 of the Land Use Plan 2040, calling for the use of property tax abatements to incentivize developments that are difficult to finance. But individual buyers like myself are unable to access financing for deeply deteriorated homes. Only investors and firms have the means to access such financing. I know because I have been competing with them for the past 2 years.

However, there are plenty of homes from the '70s and '80s that require rehabilitation but are able to be financed through conventional mortgage means. Strategy 2 of the Land Use Plan states targeted investment in older neighborhoods and commercial areas will enhance quality of life and improve a neighborhood's ability to attract and retain residents and businesses. These homes being sold as-is tend to be priced in the $300,000 range. So providing tax incentives to first-time homebuyers looking to rehab older homes works in the spirit of Strategy 2 and works to improve the core neighborhoods of Anchorage that do not have room for massive new developments. The house I bought was owned by a couple living out of state and was hard lived in by tenants.

The bones are good, but we are currently renovating it to remove mold, broken fixtures, etc. Because the couple lived out of state, the 2026 property tax exemption for owner-occupied houses is not eligible for this house. I will be an owner-occupant of this house for 5 months of 2026, and I cannot— this incentive is not available to me until 2027. So I urge you to please consider that existing housing inventory is worthy of tax incentives. Many of us first-time home buyers do not have the equity or the down payment for a $500,000 townhome or an $800,000 starter home in the new developments springing up.

Yes, thank you for your testimony. Um, next person, please come forward. Uh, state your name on the record and what part of town you're in. Microphone. Is on.

Thank you. Go ahead, you're 3 minutes. Frances Cedar, District 4. I live in a house that was built in 1952. 4 Generations of my family have lived in the same area in Anchorage on the same street.

We're told we're the only ones. I'm here to suggest to you that I do not appreciate tax abatement for other people, and the reason is that rolls my way. My taxes are so incredibly incredibly high. We can barely make them. If you can justify to me why my old house is worth $500,000 right now, I would like to present all of the plumbing bills, all of the roofing costs, all of the replacement of appliances.

A house built in 1952 has floors that are failing. I want to help Anchorage. I want to see people housed. I want to see first-time homebuyers But let's get real. The cost of construction is between $300 and $500 a square foot.

How are normal people— is Baldwin Day going to afford that? It just isn't going to happen. And if you overburden people like me, I won't be able to pay for my house. And I serve a very important purpose in this community. I am a certified brain injury specialist.

I treat neuro diseases as a I'm a medical speech-language pathologist. I'm one of the only people in the state. That doesn't make any difference. I'm just like everyone else in my neighborhood. Our, our property taxes are too high, and every break you give builders and first-time homebuyers is a break that I pay for and my neighbors pay for.

The existing property taxpayers are paying for these breaks for the builders and for the new buyers. And we just can't do it. We need to come up with some other solution. You're going to destroy part of the infrastructure of Anchorage. A lot of people who contribute to this community are in my position, and we have older homes.

I can't pay another $8,000. I showed up with a bag that had $8,000 in it last time, but I didn't get to speak. I had to go down to the property tax people and pay that before the next assembly meeting tonight. That's a lot of money, and I'd like to see you really consider that. I mean, can't we go for grants, something better, so that you're not disenfranchising people like me, where generations of my family have positively contributed to this community?

Thank you. Thanks. Um, excuse me. Next person, please come forward. Microphone's already on.

State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll 3 minutes. My name is Sarah Short, and I'm not a first-time home buyer anymore because I've lived in my home stably for almost 30 years, and I want to keep it. It's one of the things that my husband lived in. It was his family home.

I'm a disabled veteran, and I spend my time time serving this community. I can't go back to work because I have a 5-year-old and I have 2 other children who now currently are 23 and 30, and they do live with me part-time because I cannot afford to buy a home because our taxes are so incredibly high. We start talking about taxes and how we spend them. I want Anchorage to have economic growth growth. I want us to have stability and safety.

And once again, I want us to have accountability. And accountability means I want to know where that tax money is being spent. I want my roads fixed so that— and I know I got the eye roll. Thank you, Miss Scout. I love that.

I really love the fact that We are addressing first-time homebuyers because I want my kids to be able to do that. I got a grandbaby on the way and they would love to have a home that's bigger than a 600-square-foot apartment. You know, me meaning I put a wall between part of my house and they use the kitchen and they use the laundry room because they're in my house, which I love because the baby's going to be there. But come on, people, we really need to stop overtaxing the people that are actually here and start doing some revitalization programs and bringing businesses back and people who want to grow their families here. We need to do something to keep them.

That means we need to get the crime off the street, we need to get the drugs off the street, and we need hold assembly members accountable for their spending. I'm going to say it every time I get up here. What Martinez did was wrong. I don't care if you don't want to hear it. I'm a taxpayer.

It does impact stuff like this because this is my tax money. And I also cannot afford a roof. I can't afford a floor, but I scrimped and saved every year. I can't do Airbnb anymore because you're doing taxes on that. You're micromanaging me out of my business.

I can't do it anymore. I had a couple assembly members used to come to my homes for events. They can't do that anymore because I had to put them to long-term rentals. Short-term rentals are not taking your money. It's theft and crime and drugs and misspending by you all.

Would anyone else wish to testify at this time? Please come forward if so.

Okay, Mr. Wall. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. At the request of the assembly, I'm going to move to continue the public hearing— excuse me, at the request of the administration, but also maybe the assembly. I'm going to move to continue the public hearing meeting on 9/15. And if I could also speak further to the motion.

There's a motion to continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 15th. Is there a second?

Second. Second. Or sorry, there was a motion by Mr. Bohlen, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Bohlen, do you want to speak to it further? Yeah, well, I think I'd like to ask the administration, you know, I personally haven't really seen any support for this item.

At least addressed my way. So I want to ask the administration, what is the plan for this ordinance? Is there going to be an S version? Should we foresee changes to this? So I want to be clear before they respond.

Um, the motion that we're in right now is the public hearing is open. The motion is to continue the public hearing. Um, one second, one sec. I just want to make sure that we don't get into debate if we're not I'm not going to debate the item, but I think it, you know, for me, I, I could essentially foresee a move to approve and kill this thing rather than doing a second round of public hearing. So I think that would inform my decision to vote on whether to continue the public hearing or not.

Yeah, and just one second, the clerk is researching because again, we are not supposed to debate before a public hearing is closed. So I want to make sure that whatever we do right now is in order.

Okay, thank you. So the clerk has indicated that we can debate the propriety of the postponement. So I will urge members, anybody's asking questions, please try to stay out of the, the core content of the item and speak to the postponement. Postponement. So I will see if there is someone from the administration who would like to respond to Mr. Bullock's question.

Mr. Dole.

Through the Chair, Bob Dole, Director for Community and Economic Development. We envision an S version based upon feedback from various public members. There is about 3 or 4 areas we envision tweaking on this one and coming back to the assembly with it. Okay. Appreciate that answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Next, again on postponement, Ms. Silvers.

I think that I would like to just vote on this tonight. I think we have all the information that we need, and I think, you know, if you want to bring back another version, uh, it would probably be substantially different. So I would just do that and let us dispatch with this tonight. Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Ms. Schulte? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I, um, I do have an S version in the works, so if that factors into anyone else's consideration, want that to be clear.

Mr. Gerker? Yeah, I would actually appreciate us postponing this. It sounds like there's multiple versions that are going to be, you know, coming along, and procedurally just seems a lot easier and cleaner to me to keep this thing alive and then do whatever we do with the substitute versions rather than, you know, vote up or down and potentially down and then have them come back with something else.

Okay. But before we proceed in the queue, I will just note, so right now where we are is the public hearing is open. So if members— one option is to continue the public hearing. That is the motion before us. Another option is if that fails, we in theory could close the public hearing, postpone, do some other item with it.

But I will note that right now this motion, um, uh, we need to dispatch with that either way. So, Ms. Scout, go ahead.—. Yeah, I'll briefly respond and maybe speak, then send it to the attorneys. I mean, anybody can introduce an item, uh, if it's an item that already exists.

This, you can do a substitute version. If it's a new item, you can take pretty much the exact same text, or more or less, introduce it as a new separate item. And so I think anybody who's contemplating changes to this could be made to this item, or it could be a separate new item. But the public notice for it would require a public hearing in the future either way.

Yeah. Yeah. And I don't know if the attorneys have anything to add there. I don't see any. Okay.

So yeah. I think the question is, if there's appetite for change to this, the question is whether to keep this number or pursue a new number, essentially. And there's different paths to get there. Okay. There's no one else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on the motion to continue the hearing to the meeting of September 15th.

And just to note, the public hearing on this is still open if that is the case.

Whoever's on the phone, if I could ask you to mute. Or that might have been Mr. Johnson.

So just to note, I did speak with Mr. Johnson before the dinner break. He indicated that at 10 PM he would need to be on the phone, so I'll check again before we lock in the vote. Mr. Johnson, are you there? Mr. Johnson, are you there?

Yes, I'm here. My vote is yes. Okay, thank you. Yeah, yes vote from Mr. Johnson, and sorry for not checking earlier.

Okay, so on a vote of 10 to 2, this item, the public hearing is continued on AO 2026-89 to the regular meeting of September 15th, 2026, and I imagine more to come on that one. So next then we have item 14B, AO-202693, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly enacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.100, Tax Incentives for Mixed-Use Multi-Unit Housing. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Okay. And as you're approaching, I'll note the microphone is already on. Same instructions. Name, where you're from. And, uh, you have 3 minutes.

Frances Seder, District 4. Same comment. What are we doing? We're going to be facing an energy crisis. I lived through 2 energy crises in Anchorage in the 1970s when I was a kid.

It was one of the scariest things we have ever experienced. You didn't know if you would have gasoline, heating, how were our schools going to operate. We're facing that again, and we're going to build more infrastructure that we can't even heat? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I think until we're sure where our energy is going to come from and whether or not we're going to be funding Canada further with Enstar instead of Alaska, um, I don't think this makes any sense.

I think we need to re-examine this. I know we want to try to save Anchorage and make it productive. But if you build a lot of new buildings and you don't have a way to heat it, or electricity is too expensive, how's that going to play out? They'll stand empty. People will not be able to afford to live there.

The rents will go high. I know you're trying to smooth out the market, but that's a very slow shift. And for the rest of us, we're going to once again be paying to bankroll the Debenhams with tax breaks. Rich builders do not deserve to have our tax money when we can barely afford to pay our property taxes. Thank you.

Okay, anyone, uh, further wish to testify on this item? Mr. Wald. Also move to continue to the meeting of 9:15. Okay, there's a motion to continue the public hearing on this item to the meeting of of September 15th. Is there a second?

Second from Ms. Scout. Would you like to speak to it further, Mr. Voland?

Okay, um, don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. The vote is— or the motion is to continue the public hearing of this item to September 15th. Member Johnson?

Yes.

Okay, and a vote of 12 to 0, um, this item AO-2026-93 is continued to— the public hearing is continued to the regular meeting of September 15th. The next item is AO-2026-98, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 4.60 and 27.30.005 to enact a new Section 4.60.001 HB 3110 or 310 and establish the Chugach State Park Access Advisory Board. Um, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify.

And then I will also note, as folks are coming up, the intent is to continue the hearing on this item from the sponsors. Uh, so this, uh, just to let folks know as well, if you testify tonight and there is a new version, you would be able to speak to the changes in new version. So if, if that factors into decision whether folks want to testify or not tonight, just let you know. So first person, microphone's already on. Please state your name, what part of town you're in, and you have 3 minutes.

Okay, good evening. My name is Roger Marks. I'm representing the Board of Supervisors of the Glen Alps Road Service Area, or GARSA. We manage the roads that go to the 2 busiest trailheads at Chugach State Park, Glen Alps and the Rabbit Lake Sunnyside Flat Top We support the proposed ordinance and creation of a CASA advisory board. Most of us live near the park, we use the park, we value the park, and we see the park as an asset for the whole Anchorage community.

And we see the creation of the board as a positive step for realizing the goals of CASA, which is providing capital improvements that support access to the park and ameliorating the neighborhood effects of access by park users, which we generally see as benefiting everyone. And we see creation of the board as a means for balancing the needs of the neighborhoods and the city as a whole. When there are conflicts between these goals, while it certainly calls for deliberation in the public interest, we do not believe a small number of people should be able to leverage a large number of people by withholding entering into cooperative agreements. We emailed you some comments on July 23rd. There were 5 comments.

I'll briefly summarize them here. First, you might want to consider adding a policy goal to the advisory board to strive to balance neighborhood and larger community needs. Second, you might want to consider having the advisory board hold at least one open hearing each year where the entire Anchorage community could weigh in on potential CASA projects they deem valuable. And third, similarly, you might want to consider having the advisory board systematically consult each year with each user group and each road service area that provides access to the park for them to weigh in on potential CASA projects they deem valuable. Fourth, you might want to consider including as a voting member of the advisory board a board member of one of the road service areas that provide access to the park, given their familiarity with road conditions.

And a fifth, final comment: in situations where a proposed project might increase maintenance maintenance costs for road service area. You might want to have the advisory board work jointly with the road service area regarding quantifying those costs, where the additional funds might come from, and elevating the issue in its recommendations to the Assembly and administration. In closing, again, we see CASA as a win-win proposition for Anchorage in situations where compromises are required. We are confident the advisory board could be a sound mechanism mechanism for crafting solutions, and we look forward to the creation of the board and working collaboratively with it. Thank you.

Hey, and there's one person in the queue for you, uh, Mr. Voland. Hey Roger, thank you for being here tonight. Appreciate your testimony. Um, I, I just want to clarify one thing, and I, I think I know the answer, but for the benefit of my, um, colleagues as well.

So one of your recommendations was, um, that there should a spot on the board for at least one spot for one of the service areas that has basically has access to the park because there are limited road service areas that do not provide access to Chugach State Park. In the current proposal, our language, myself and my co-sponsor Chair Brawley, specifies 2 seats for, um, limited road service area representatives— or not even representatives, actually residents is the language that we use. And I think what you're suggesting, if I understand correctly, is maybe we could fine-tune that language, be a little bit more specific, that it would be at least 1 spot for a limited road service area that allows that access to the the state park. Am I understanding that correctly? Well, we, we suggest maybe go further and have an actual board member from a road service here, from one of those road service areas that provide access to the park, was our suggestion.

So on the Board of Supervisors and proximal to the park, or— okay, okay, thank you, appreciate that.

Okay, next person please come forward. Uh, microphone's already on. State your name, what part of town you're in. Yes, thank you. My name My name is Barbara Hood.

I'm a resident of Stuck Again. We're the Bashir neighborhood, and we are represented by the Campbell Air Strip, um, LARSA. And I'm right— I'm submitted comments to the assembly. I think my comments cover what I would like to say, unless you have questions. But I'm here to cover something that our council actually passed in advance of this ordinance being introduced at our May meeting, because we were very concerned about CASA and how it had been applied to our neighborhood.

We are the more angrier version of what Roger just said. I think we want many of the same changes, but we had a different experience. His neighborhood has not gone through what we went through, and it to us was unfair and it's left a bad taste. We did ask for a postponement, and we invited the co-sponsors of this ordinance to come to our next meeting, and we're very grateful, Chair Brawley, that you're willing to come and talk to us because I think there's a lot of mending that could be done that would take bring us a long way before we come back to this because as many of you know, there was a resolution brought right in the middle of a public process in which we were all participating as, you know, fair-minded good citizens and the assembly came through with what the existing CASA group had recommended and tried to strong-arm what we thought a decision that was underway in a way that really made the whole process deeply tainted. So the existing CASA group, our experience with them because they are all trails and parks advocates is that it's a biased group, and we don't want to be working with a biased group.

We'd like to be working with a balanced group. And I'd just like to read some— to read to you some of the provisions of the ordinance that we passed in May, seeing some of the same concerns that you see, that the co-sponsors see, and that the assembly should address. I don't, I don't think we have any problem with the board. There should be a board. You have a governing body of any use of municipal resources.

But anyway, uh, the, the whereases in our resolution— I think I've explained that the current group is fully, uh, parks access people, no neighborhood people. Um, the resolved part of our resolution was that the composition of the ad hoc CASA advisory group fails to conform to the November 18th, 2025 directive from this assembly because it includes no representative of ARDSA or LARSA. So this assembly even recognized recognized in November that it needed to be a more balanced board. And these are the people most familiar with the needs for road, parking, and trailhead improvements in the relevant service areas. Second, that any official group involved in evaluating or recommending projects for CASA, whether it be an advisory group or formal commission, must include a balance of representation between parks advocates and LARSA.

Sorry, my writing. And then to better ensure that both prongs of CASA's mission— improved access and ameliorated neighborhood impacts are adequately addressed, and also that the roles and responsibilities of the new advisory group or formal commission and policies and procedures by which it will be governed and the ethical standards to which it will be held accountable should be much more clearly established to ensure fair public input and fair and transparent decision-making that fosters confidence in the CASA process. Um, sorry, our neighborhood supports CASA, but I think in order to succeed and continue, it needs to be balanced and fair. Thank you for your testimony. Excuse me.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Uh, microphone's already on. State your name and what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes. I'm David Pease.

I'm the longest tenured, uh, member of the Upper O'Malley Road service area. We are extremely disturbed by this proposal to change the language in 3C of the original ordinance, which was passed by the voters which required consultation and approval of the road service areas. That was an integral part of the legislation that was passed at that time. It was signed by Assemblyman LaFrance at the time. We worked with the Assembly to get that language put in there, and it was integral to the support of the road service areas to have that language in there.

It's now being taken out. That's a bait and switch, and it does not sit well with the road service area. We know these roads, we know what it takes to maintain them, and we know we have to have involvement, and, and we're an integral part of making this thing work. This was the cost of this— CASA thing was sold to the road service people as an ability to upgrade your roads to provide park access. And we have access through to Prospect Heights and Sideroth, and now that's being taken away from us, and it really chaps us.

Then I— we have a problem with the board itself. Um, you've got a 7-member board. Apparently it's going to have someone who is knowledgeable about trails. If you read the ordinance, it says nothing about trails. The ordinance is to ameliorate the neighborhood effects of access to— by park users and the maintenance thereof.

And it goes on and says, talk about minor arterials, collector, neighborhood streets that lead— that leading from streets to higher classifications and are generally used by the public to access to Chugach Park. And then I think they also want to have someone on the board from— oh, a board member who has demonstrated experience in outdoor recreation in Chugach Park. We're talking about park access, not what goes on in the park. The whole thing of this was to have park access. And then it's— I think it's really rich that you say that if you live in an artsa you're eligible to be on the board, or if you live in Alersa.

People that live there have no idea what's involved with taking care of the roads or how the road service areas work. We're also a little troubled by the notion that this is to be an open and transparent process. We got an email— as far as I know, well, I've checked with 3 road service areas, the sponsors or the municipal assembly attorney never consulted with the road service areas about about this. It was just dropped on us. We got it through John Weddleton, uh, and I— the email said, our goal is that this to be a collaborative and transparent process, and we would greatly appreciate your feedback for a proposed ordinance.

Well, when you drop something like this on us and tell us that this is the board, we're taking away your rights to, uh, be an integral part of, of the, of the decision-making that impacts your road that's not a collaborative and open process. So we're, we would like to have the ordinance stay the way it is, and if there's going to be a board, it needs to be a legitimate board that has road service people on it. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Um, I'll ask, is anyone else in the room wishing to testify at this time?

Okay. Um, and then I'll note we do have one person on the phone as well. So I think no one else is coming up, so we'll call, um, Miss Hello. Hi, this is Miss Pease. It is this.

Hi, this is Anna Braley. Um, I am calling from the Anchorage Assembly. Um, we are on AO 228698. You signed up for phone testimony, and when you're ready, we can give you your 3 minutes.

All right, very good. I am ready. Okay, please proceed. Yes, um, I'm Nancy Pease and I'm speaking on behalf of Rabbit Creek Community Council. Our council submitted written comments approved by our board.

They were submitted Friday, so they should be in your packet. Um, we would like— we support the CASA Advisory Board in general, but we've been think there need to be some revisions to make sure that it is balanced and transparent, and we hope that our District 6 representatives or the sponsors will make some amendments. Um, Rabbit Creek appreciates the Assembly's continued commitment to improving public access to Chugach State Park, but we think that there are several necessary revisions to the future advisory board so that it can provide informed constructive input. We specifically want to ensure that a majority of board members have firsthand knowledge of park access issues and that road service areas and community councils that border the park have direct communication or representation to or on the advisory board. So a couple of specifics here.

Um, Currently in Section 1, not— the current draft AO could allow appointment of a board with not one single member having experience in recreation access to Chugach State Park. That might be okay for one or two of the technical experts, but we feel the majority of CASA advisory members should have direct knowledge of Chugach State Park access conditions. And two, it seems unlikely that people without direct direct experience could contribute as meaningfully as people who know the gradients, the winter driving issues, the overflow parking, the glaciation, and also erosion or overuse of certain trails. This in no way precludes members from any geographical part of Katla from serving, since we know that there are park users who live all across the bowl. So to achieve that direct experience, we'd like to amend Section 1, Part 4, so that the 4 community at-large members will demonstrate experience in recreation in Chugach State Park within the Anchorage Bowl over the past 5 years, including use and firsthand knowledge of multiple access points.

We also feel that the members residing within the limited road service areas should be those areas bordering Chugach State Park, not down in the lower part of the hillside. Next, we think it's important to inform and involve community councils and road service areas in the vicinity of the proposed project and not set up the advisory board as a way to bypass them. So to do that, we would like to have a clear line of communication. Let's— when it says the municipality shall communicate, let's let's put it on the municipal manager or other designated support staff to CASA to do the communicating. And let's make sure that's 60 days before the proposed project's approval and include community council— councils and road service areas in the vicinity of the project.

In addition, if there's not going to be a cooperative agreement, we need to have transparency about the financial impact. So we'd like the CASA support staff from project management and engineering to provide the road service areas with a documented estimate of annual and lifetime maintenance costs of the CASA project, especially for drainage structures and fill on steep slopes.

And also in Section 141C— 1C, rather— we think that the board should have a role in conceiving and evaluating proposed access projects. Let's have some grassroots creativity. So we'd like to add a section to 1 specifying that the Board shall evaluate access projects identified by Board members or community members and nominate those projects with merit for inclusion in CAFSA CIP updates. I think that's the main points we had. Again, our letter is in your packet, and we hope that We look forward to the advisory board, but we ask that our representatives from District 6 and/or the sponsors make some substantive amendments.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, and I'll note also, uh, uh, for benefit of the public, um, Ms. Pease identified herself as speaking on behalf of a community council, and so I didn't interrupt her in the moment to make the change on the timer, but we did to allow out in 5 minutes, just to be clear for the record. And Mr. Vohlen has a question, if you're still there, Ms. Peace. I am.

Hi, Nancy. Thank you for your testimony. I wondered— this might be tricky because I know you're speaking on behalf of your community council, but on that first piece, I think it's really interesting. The, um, the— if I understand correctly, the proposal is to be less about geographic representation, more about experience with recreation access conditions within the past 5 years. And I'm wondering if you can kind of unpack what that means, maybe what a little bit of briefly what the discussion was on the community council.

Is that somebody who within the last 5 years, um, you know, regularly hiked or went backpacking and drove up to do that? Or I want to hone in a little bit on what is meant by experience with recreation access conditions? If you could just unpack that a little bit. Yeah, it could be somebody who goes to multiple locations in Chugach State Park, who drives there or bikes there, and then uses the park. It could also be people who live in that area and routinely see conditions of parking on the shoulders, You know, loose dogs running up into yards, those kinds of impacts.

So it just means that you are up there on the hillside at and in the access areas to Chugach State Park. So you see the patterns of use, you see the weather conditions, the road conditions. You're not just somebody who has a theoretical interest. But you have actual physical experience seeing and observing the conditions of park access. Okay, got it.

Thank you, that's helpful. Well, as someone who hiked TARM again on Saturday, I think I might qualify, but I promise I won't put myself forward. Thank you, Ms. Pease. All right, okay, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. So, uh, thank you. Good evening, Thank you, Miss Pease. Okay, um, anyone else wish to testify at this time?

Anyone at all? Mr. Mullins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are going to move to likewise continue the public hearing for this one to the meeting of 9/15. Second. Motion by Mr. Mullins to continue the public hearing on this ordinance to the meeting of September 15th, seconded by Park. Do you want to speak to it?

Yes, I, I will speak to this. Um, we would allow— we would like to allow the opportunity for more public input. Um, members may have seen, you know, certainly we've tried to solicit that. Um, I put out an op-ed sort of explaining, um, why we were bringing this ordinance forward and inviting the public to participate and weigh in with their thoughts. Thoughts.

As we heard in public testimony tonight, Chair Brawley has agreed to attend the next BASHR meeting and hear from those folks. And then I think there's lots of thoughtful input in our email inboxes from various stakeholder groups and members of the community. And so we would like the opportunity to process all of that and to make some changes. And I know other folks may want to bring some amendments too. So, um, just want to allow more opportunity for that.

We also will likely have a work session, um, on this topic. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, Miss Silvers on postponement or continuing the hearing. I would like to move to amend the date on that to October 6th. Second.

Okay, there's a motion to, um, one sec.

Motion to amend the amendment— or most— sorry, amend the motion to change the meeting date from September 15th to October 6th. And it was moved by Ms. Silvers, seconded by Mr. Martinez. One second.

Okay.

Yeah, and I'll note for members' awareness, if the— if that is amenable to the original mover, then, then we wouldn't have to make an amendment.

Okay, yeah, sounds like we want to hear from the Silvers if you want to speak to it. I would like to move this to October 6th because a lot of community councils meet for the first time in September after taking the summer off, and I believe that many of them would like the opportunity to weigh in. I know that BASHR is one of them. I believe they actually meet before the September 15th But I do know that there are a lot of other councils that are emailing and wanting to weigh in. And I don't think that we need to hurry through this.

I think it is good to— there has been a lot of important points brought up in testimony, and I think it is good to really consider all that, you know, rather than rushing. Thanks.

Okay, Mr. Buland. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, you know, I hear Member Silver's point. I do want to back up a little bit though, and, um, I, I guess I, I would say I, I wouldn't want to go postpone it any longer than that. One of the reasons is because, um, you know, the, the item that we previously, um, postponed indefinitely, Chair Brawley's original ordinance, which would have made the, um, the procedure essentially the, the CASA improvement project subject to the Anchorage, uh, is it the Parks and Rec Commission? Um, that has been— that was introduced for reading January 13th of 2026. This has been lingering.

We've known we need to do something about CASA. We need to do something to make this more fair. We've had multiple work sessions. We had a resolution which caused a little bit of a dust-up. You heard about that tonight.

I've been saying on a public record now, we've got to do something to balance the interest of ARDSA and the LURDSAs, to balance the interest of the neighborhoods who are proximal to access points and those that want to use those access points.

Points. I was vocal in encouraging the administration to put together an advisory working group, which they did.

You know, this has been a problem, I guess, that has needed to be addressed for some time. Okay. And then Member Brawley— or excuse me, Chair Brawley— held her ordinance in the anticipation that the administration would, would bring something forward, an alternate proposal. We were waiting on that. I said on the public record multiple times I would like to be involved in that project.

That opportunity was never extended to me. Nothing was brought forward by the administration. So this has just been waiting and lingering Finally, I will say at a leadership meeting, um, there was, I guess, a difference of interpretation on who, who was going to be involved in the drafting of this, of the administration's version of this that we've never seen. Um, the— our previous municipal manager, Becky Wood Pearson, indicated to Assembly leadership that she thought that the advisory working group was going to be able to be part of that process, that they would also be able to work on a similar proposal. Now, my understanding from what I've heard secondhand is that certain members of that advisory working group have taken it upon themselves, that effort, to draft something.

Again, I've never seen it. I don't know.

Um, but then in that same meeting, the mayor's chief of staff said no, that is not part of their mission. And so for me, it was a little bit disturbing that the, the advisory working group that we have for so, you know, for so long pushed that we, we need some voices at the table, we need somebody to advise us and weigh in on these projects and the capital improvement sequencing and how we're going to do all of this— their input wasn't requested. For, again, whatever draft we haven't seen. So I don't want to continue to kick this can down the road. We need to do something about this.

We need to make it more fair. The co-sponsors are digesting the information that has, um, has come to us, and we deeply appreciate it. And so yes, there's some time that can be taken with that to have a thoughtful approach and receive that public input. But I just don't want to push this off too far, too much further. With that, I will, as the original mover, I will just accept that and fold that into my motion that we would continue the public hearing until October 6th, if the second agrees.

Miss Park, you were the second on the motion to continue the hearing. Are you accept— do you accept the change to October 6th? Okay, second says yes. And I have myself in the queue very briefly. Chair Parley.

Thank you. Yeah, I'll just say, I mean, this change was made to the motion. I am fine with either date, I'll say that. Also, I mean, we're moving into another budget cycle where we will— where we are going to be the ultimate deciders, which is already true, but we will not have the full benefit of this body. But that's going to be true regardless.

So I would encourage members that we do take the time, that we work on this together, that we look at amendments, things like that, but also that the underlying conflict that this is going to surface will not go away until we resolve it. Deal with. And so whether this thing exists or not, that is what we're going to have to deal with. So thank you. Any other comments?

So now, just to be clear, we have folded that in. So the motion on the floor is to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of October 6th. I don't see anyone else in the queue. Oh, sorry, Miss Scout, go ahead.

I'm going to ask the administration to, because it's really their process. It's not a full advisory board. So if anybody could speak to that, the status of it.

Through the chair, Kent Colhase is online and we will try to get him on the Speaker. Yeah, Mr. Culhace, uh, please just speak up when you're there, and then I'll note also I know Mr. Culhace has been the support staff for this ad hoc working group, so that's why we're asking him to speak to it.

Here at 10:35, we're having a little bit of trouble connecting with Mr. Culhace. We can try to take that question away, uh, and get you an answer as soon as we can connect with him.

Okay, and I have Mr. Bowen in the queue. Yeah, um, so I, I guess I just want to say for the public record that the— I think it's more appropriate to cause— to call it an advisory work working group. It is not a formal board or commission, and those work differently. And part— one of the reasons that we need to bring something like this forward is because a working group works behind the scenes, behind closed doors. That's not a public process, whereas a board or commission, they work through a public process.

Um, additionally, I just want members to know that Again, what was represented to us is that in the administration's crafting of this version that was supposedly going to come forward at some time and, and was stated by the chief of staff that it was not part of the advisory, the working group's charge or mission to, to weigh in on the merits of a formal advisory board. Member Brawley and I did have legislative services process team circulate an email to that working group asking for their input, because I think it's very important. I think that's very valuable input. If you have a working group that's, you know, helping inform the process, why wouldn't you want their input on a formal advisory board? So just want to state that for the record, and it's not a question.

Thank you.

Okay, and I think I see Ms. Fleet-Green stepping up, I think, to answer Scout's question, is that correct? Yeah, I thought I would come up and help clarify through the chair to Member Scout's question regarding the current board. Just to refresh everyone's memory, the body created that and directed the administration to create that working group last year when we were going through the budget process to come up with the capital improvement project list. For this coming year. So the charge was that, that was its mission, and that group has now gone through the mission.

They did a lot of fantastic work. They held many, many meetings, and we have that list as we do capital improvement lists, and that will be coming forward to the body as part of the budget process. But that was the charge that— that the assembly gave that working group, and that is the charge that the administration followed.

Okay. I don't see any other members in the queue, so again, the motion is to continue the public hearing on this item to the meeting of October 6th. Members may proceed to vote. Member Johnson.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, this item is now continued to the meeting of October 6th, and again, intent to schedule a work session between now and then. Next item we have is item 14D, and I will note there's an error on our agenda, so I'll clearly read that it states AR 2026-99. The correct number for that one is actually AR 2026-193. It's a resolution approving an administrative agreement, TMS AA-2026-07, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the Teamsters Local 959.

Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify. Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one come forward, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion to approve by Ms. Scout, second by Mr. Voland. Oh, Park, I'm sorry. Motion to approve by Ms. Park, second by Mr. Voland. Um, would you like to speak to it, Ms. Park?

Yeah, just that, um, family leave is very important to working families, that the opportunity to have some time with their new child is something that can't be replaced later on. So I urge all the members to vote to affirm.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. Again, this is AR-2026-193.

Member Johnson.

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AR-2026-193 passes the body unanimously. Unanimously. Next we have AR 2026— again, this is an error on our agenda, it says 2026-100, it is 2026-194— a resolution approving an administrative agreement, IAFF AA 2026-11, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Association of Firefighters Local 1264. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward, microphone is already on. State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes to testify. Uh, good evening, Justin Mack, president of the Anchorage Firefighters Union. I just want to thank the administration for working on this.

Our members ratified this administrative agreement nearly unanimously, and I just want to make myself available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Um, anyone else, please come forward if you wish to testify. Anyone at all?

Um, okay, seeing and hearing no one wishing to testify, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Motion by Mr. Vohland to approve, second by Miss Scout. Um, any discussion on this item, Mr. Vohland?

Just urge support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay.

And, uh, before we proceed, I'll just check. Mr. Perez-Fordia, it looks like you're joining us on the phone, is that correct?

Yep, I'm here. Okay, um, so I don't see anyone else in the queue. Members may proceed to vote. The vote is on AR 2026-194, item 14E. Member Perez-Fordia?

Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-194 passes the body unanimously. Next, we have AR 2026-189, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly approving an administrative agreement, L302AA-2026-03, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302. Before I open the public hearing on this, I will also note about a prior disclosure of interest from Mr. Handlin, prior ruling that, that he is not— his interest does not apply to this particular bargaining or part of the bargaining unit, so you do not have a conflict. And I will see, ask if anybody would wish to testify.

Public hearing on this item is open.

Anyone wish to testify? Okay, seeing and hearing no one, then public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Ms. Park to approve, second by Mr. Bohlen. Would you like to speak to it, Ms. Park? Um, I, I am a long, uh, long time union member and union supporter, and, uh, we need these folks to get us through the winter. So, uh, I would urge my fellow members members to vote in favor.

Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, and of course folks on the phone, uh, yeah, not any further comments. Members may proceed to vote on this item. The motion is to approve.

Member Perez-Verdia? Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes.

Member Silvers?

Yes. That was a yes for Miss Silvers. Okay, on a motion of 12 to 0, item AR 2026-189 passes passes the body unanimously. Um, then the last pieces of business on our agenda are our quasi-new and continued quasi-judicial public hearings, uh, to some degree. So I'll just note the next item on the agenda involves applications for a liquor or marijuana license and/or special land use permit for alcohol or marijuana.

The process to review these is slightly different, and I will note that we are in a quasi-judicial posture on I believe at least 3 of these. So, so we'll get to that when we come to it and then we'll go ahead and move through our business and open the first public hearing. One second. Okay. Public hearing on 15A AR 2026-214, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating its conditional protest regarding renewal of beverage dispensary tourism license 402 for Ivory Manufacturing Corp of AK.

DBA Flight Deck Bar and Arctic Inn, located at 832 West International Airport Road, Anchorage, uh, AK 99518. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify. 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. Motion by Mr. Vohland to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Any further discussion, Mr.

Vohland? No, Chair, thank you. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue, um, so members may proceed to vote on AR 2026-214. Member Presverdia? Yes.

Member Johnson?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, that item passes the body unanimously. Next we have 15B, AR 2026-218, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly approving an alcohol special land use permit for sporting activity or event license with license number, uh, 60394 for Nana Management Services DBA Fine Arts Building. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

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.

Motion to approve by Mr. Volland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any further discussion?

Okay, don't see any members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote to approve AR 2026-218. Member Presverdia? Yes. Member Johnson? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, item AR 2026-218 passes the body unanimously. Next, we will move on to item 15C, AR 2026-219, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly approving an alcohol special land use permit for sporting activity or event license number 60395 for Nana Management Services, DBA Wendy Williamson Auditorium. Memoriam. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

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

Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to approve, second by Mr. Vohland. Would you like to speak to it? Yeah, actually, I'm— both 15B and 15C treat with a service that's been a long time coming, both for dance performances and other, other things on the UAA campus, and also concert sports and things that happen in the Wendy Williamson, there's not been the possibility of alcohol sales in either of those venues. And this represents a really important step forward for UAA and for, for their revenue streams. So I appreciate support on this.

Thank you. Okay, I don't see any further members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on AR 2026-219. Member Perez Verdia? Yes.

Member Johnson. Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 12 to 0, AR 2026-219 passes the body unanimously. Our last public hearing item, AR 2026-225, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly approving a marijuana license and special land use permit for Baltazar Holdings LLC, DBA Sensamiya, a marijuana retail sales establishment with with license number M35490. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify.

And I'll note the microphone is open, so, uh, or sorry, microphone is on. State your name and what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. Okay, my name is Fran Gregor, and I'm a member of the Northeast Community Council, here to testify that we have voted many, many times against having an additional marijuana retail retail sale establishment on Muldoon Road. This applicant would be number 4 on the location of Muldoon Road from boundary to 16th Avenue.

So on March 17th, we received a flyer from Baltazar stating that his final wish or desire is to go in front of the muni and present his request for application by fulfilling his meeting, which was scheduled for April 13th. So on April 13th, we showed up at his location, 1431 Muldoon Road, in the tire shop, and his— for the meeting, and his employees said he just left. So we said, we're here for the meeting. There was no computers, no chairs, no tables, nothing. So they they— we asked them, we said we're supposed to have a meeting for him.

So they went and they found him. So he came back. He promptly called his lawyer and his paralegal. And they wanted to have a Zoom meeting, but nothing worked. There were no computers, no iPads, no laptops.

So they did it by telephone. So they had their phones, and we were there, and the meetings that I picked up yesterday at, uh, from Elizabeth Appleby, I believe, at Elmore Road, Muni Planning, uh, stated all this stuff. Even George knows that we have voted down this additional marijuana facility on Muldoon Road. It's too close. There's the playground for the kids.

There's the junior high, there's a children's preschool there. So anyway, I picked up this letter yesterday with the minutes, and it is nothing. They came in at 12:30, we were there at 11:50 for his meeting, and we waited. And so I know that this was a haphazard type minutes that they drew up, because when the minutes were submitted to the MOA, they had the wrong address. The legal lawyer and her paralegal in this documented minutes submitted the wrong address for Balthazar's land permit.

How do I know this? Because they put my address in there. So I am on a special land use permit for Baltazar, and I have a copy right here.

I don't know if anyone's interested in seeing it.

Thank you for your testimony. If you want to provide— I think our staff have stepped away for the moment, but, um, pardon me. Oh, thank you for your testimony. Um, if you do want to provide that documented. I think our staff have stepped away for the moment, but if, um, you want to leave it, they can make copies and make sure that we all receive a copy.

And then did you get a copy from, uh, the president of the Northeast Community Council? She said Pam Rager, she sent everybody a copy. Yeah, I believe if it was emailed, we received that email. Um, but yeah, if you do want to leave it, I apologize, our, our staff has stepped away for a minute. But yeah, and actually, ma'am, sorry, if you want If you want to leave it closer to the computers here toward us a little bit more, I don't want it to get mixed up with the other— oh, the vice chair is going to step down and our staff is coming back.

So yeah, if you want to just hand it to Travis when he walks by. Also, I will note, so we are 8 minutes before we continue with our public hearing. We're 8 minutes out from— 7 minutes out from 11 PM. I'm going to need to ask ask for a motion to extend. I know it's been a long meeting, but we have one item left.

So moved. Second. And if I could ask what time? Uh, let's extend to 11:15. Okay, there's a motion to extend to 11:15, um, by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Miss Scout, I believe.

Any objection? I object. Okay, there's been an objection. Then we will take a vote.

Shall I speak?

Past my bedtime.

Okay, and the clerk is figuring out the vote. I'll just note, um, that if that happens, we will just continue with our public hearing, and then, um, if, if we don't finish with this item, it would continue to the meeting of, uh, August 18th.

Okay, we're gonna have to do a voice vote. Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

Oh, sorry, it's— yeah, go ahead and vote. I'm sorry. Member Presverdia?

Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, we are extended to 11:15, so we'll turn back to our public hearing. So next person, um, the microphone is already on. Please state your name, what part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Yolanda Mesa.

I live in, uh, South Anchorage, and I'm here in support of this. Uh, Baltazar has been a, a business owner, successful business owner, entrepreneur. He's been working on, on, on, you know, supporting You know, he pays his taxes. He's a, you know, he's a reputable guy. He, um, he has a family man.

He has, you know, he's raised three— two, two, two wonderful men. And I, I think, um, alcohol definitely is more, you know, damaging to, to, uh, people's lives than, than, uh, THC and CBD. It is a useful tool in, in helping with pain. You know, I— my partner has cancer and she does use THC and CBD, and it is a— he is a law-abiding citizen. He will follow the rules.

He's been working on this project for 11 years, so he's done his research. He, he is working all the time, so definitely you know, missing meetings is a— it can't happen. He is a hard-working man, and I think this is a good thing for the community. He will be law-abiding and follow the rules, and I, um, I think that's it. Anything else?

Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Microphone's already on. State your name.

You'll have 3 minutes. Again, my name is Sarah Short, and again, I'm going to talk about accountability. We just heard a woman who's lived in East Anchorage talk about the fact that her own address was used in conjunction with this pot shop. You know what, I don't have a problem with pot shops. I really don't.

They did I did have some medicinal qualities for my husband when he passed away from cancer. And I have several people in my neighborhood that need the stuff. But I will say this. We have enough drugs in Anchorage and enough drugstores and enough dealers on the street. We don't need to encourage any more.

We need accountability. We need you guys to be able to watch over these business licenses, hold them accountable, and make sure that they are actually filling out their paperwork the right way, that they are listing all the reasons that they want to be licensed, where they want to be licensed. You guys have taken on Airbnbs now, you've taken on pot shops, liquor stores, but you're failing on the basics with the roads. You're failing on the basics with accountability with your own spending. So things like this, let's draw the line somewhere.

Let's bring up some common sense and let's hold everybody, including yourselves, a little bit more accountable for approving these licenses. I made a mistake when I sat through the one about the Flight Deck Bar because I live close to there. Last week I offered a gentleman who came out of there completely sloshed, I offered him a ride and he didn't take the ride. There's nobody watching outside these pot shops, you know, to make sure they're not in the parking lot and then driving home. Again, I support the use of medicinal marijuana.

I don't have a problem with it, but I think we have enough and I think we need to start giving back back to the sober community, the family community, the honest community, the people that are integrity intact and accountable for their spending, not like Martinez.

Next person, please come forward. Um, the microphone's already on. State your name, what part of town you're in, you have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Abraham Hernandez. I live in Midtown.

I'm here to I don't know how to— I don't know where to begin though. On back on the, uh, was that April 25th, we went to a council meeting and people voted and they agree that, that this was going to move forward, and then all of a sudden everybody left and they say that they disagree. So I don't understand why they, they, they agreed to the, to a vote, and then they changed their minds. And now I'm sitting here. I sat a while back on, on a meeting with the opposition, and they openly admitted that they're consumers of marijuana products, but then again, they're here pushing for this business not to move forward.

I think this is more of a personal indifference than a real matter, and I think— I don't see a reason why Mr. Baltazar can move forward with this business. Since the beginning, he's been doing this within, within the law, so I don't understand how come other businesses are opening up around the same area and his particular business can move forward because of a person that is a user of marijuana products is opposing to it. That's basically all I have to say.

Okay, next person please come forward. Microphone's already on. Please state your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Alan Boggs.

I'm a resident of that location. I can see both of those facilities from my house. I'm an environmental engineer. I have my doctorate, public health, and I've seen personally friends of mine I went to Alaska Methodist University, UAA, and I also went down the states, of course, to get my advanced degrees. But I saw kids that I grew up with die because they got marijuana.

This is when the Vietnam issue was going on, and lots of drugs were in Anchorage. They were spiked with marijuana having cocaine in it. Then when I was going to AMU, I had a friend doing LSD every weekend. Now this is controlled substance we're trying to propagate and get into the system by people buying Product, we know what the basis is. I saw in grad school people getting poisoned because people wanted to sell more, make more, and so they tried to get them addicted.

Doing a controlled substance sale is much, much better than the street Avenue that we have now. I've lived in the house 45 years. I went to Anchorage High School, so I do know about Anchorage, and I would like you to understand that this is a very important item.

I know Baltazar I helped him out when he first started, and he's a very ethical person.

And also, a lot of you don't know me, I'm a lot older, but I used to work for the muni, the state, the federal government. I was a consultant. I worked for the oil company. Counties, and I've seen a lot of bad things going on. You go up the slope, oh, we don't have drugs up— they do.

What they do is people mix it with things and make it a lot worse. Fentanyl— think about fentanyl, what they're adding to marijuana now. Fentanyl kills you the first time. It's not something even, you know, think about. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

Next person, please come forward. State your name and what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. Yes, good evening. My name is Rod Rodriguez.

I'm a, an Anchorage businessman in real estate. I'm here tonight to support Park Baltasar that I consider a pillar in our community. As being an honest man and a hardworking business owner.

Um, Walter Sarr is the owner of Walter Sarr's Tire Shop in East Anchorage, business that he built from the ground up through hard work, sacrifice, and determination. His story is a true example of what can be achieved in Anchorage when someone is willing to work hard and invest in their community. Well, Tushar's contributions extend far beyond his tire shop. He has developed housing in Anchorage and provides employment, living wages, and house opportunities that support more than 20 families in Anchorage.

He has repeatedly invested in his own time, money, and resources into our city and community. He is now asking the city to give him the opportunity to have a land use permit on their, uh, on his property, uh, and give him a fair opportunity through the appropriate channels. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Um, next person, please come forward. Uh, state your name. Microphone's already on. State your name and part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, this— I'm Bart, and I live in Muldoon. I've known Baltazar since 1999 when he first started out in the tire business, and I watched him expand his tire business into Muldoon, demolish the porn shop that was there, built a tire business there, expanded the tire business. And, you know, now he's expanded into housing. He's redeveloping houses and multiplexes in Mountain View He's built a duplex on Tudor, so he's expanding, you know, opportunities out there.

You know, character-wise, I mean, known him for a long time. He's always honest, willing to help. He's a great asset to the community for redevelopment. I recommend you support this. Also, the Northeast Community Council had originally approved supporting his marijuana operation.

He went back to them a few months later when he lost his investors, investors in Fairbanks, and they turned around, denied his application. He has followed all the rules. He's went through planning. They have determined that his business is going to be the required distance away from the park. He's met every rule that the municipality has put into law for marijuana operation.

He's doing what is legal. I recommend you guys I support his business. Thank you very much. Okay, next person please come forward. Uh, microphone's already on.

State your name and part of town, 3 minutes. Thank you. My name is Milan. I'm— I've been living in Anchorage for about 17, 18 years. I support Mr. Balthazar with all his businesses.

He helped my businesses many times. He is really ethical. Fair and super supportive, so I do approve anything that he is going on. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone's on. State your name and part of town, 3 minutes. My name is James Mull. Uh, yeah, I've known Baldessar for 30-plus years, and I've found him to be of the highest moral character.

He's He's a very hardworking guy, and he's been changing— doing my tires for the last 20-odd years, and he's always done a perfect job, and I believe he'd do a perfect job with the marijuana business too. So that's it. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. Anyone at all?

Okay, um, please state your name, what part of town you're in, you have 3 minutes. Uh, thank you. Jana Weltsine, attorney for Balzatar Holdings, and Mr. Balzatar is going to come up. Um, I think first, I know you guys have had a long night, and so I'll try to be very brief. I wanted to address the Zoom meeting.

Um, there was a lot of community engagement with this application. Uh, September 21st, 2023, uh, he attended a community council meeting. October 19th, 2023, community council meeting. November 6th, 2023, community council meeting. November 16th, 2023, community council meeting.

January 16th, 2025, another community council meeting. And then the MOU was revised and re-entered introduced February 2025 and then voted on March of 2025. I wanted to go a little bit into that detail, and I know I'm going to run out of time, so I'm going to try to go really fast. Uh, October 19, 2023, the Community Council conducted a straw poll, and it was for Bazzatar's application. It was 31 in support and 13 opposed.

In this structure, Good Cannabis was going to be the manager of the company, a manager of the actual store. Good Cannabis is a Fairbanks-based operator, prolific throughout the state, really great, great brand. They were going to come in and basically teach Balsatar kind of how to run the marijuana retail store. Um, November 16, 2023, a memo, MOU, stating, outlining that Good Cannabis was going to run Balsatar's store and be kind of the face of the business was introduced, and it was passed 45 in favor sign against. Um, then Good Cannabis decided to put its kind of resources elsewhere and went into other stores in the state and decided not to move forward this project.

So instead of Mr. Balzatar kind of saying, oh well, we got the MOU signed, let's just move forward anyways, he went back to the community council and said, things have changed, I'm going to be running the store, it's going to be me. Um, and so that brings about the March 2025 Community Council meeting. In the meeting, um, there was brand new procedures for voting on this particular issue. Uh, people had to come in, and there was no notice to us that this was going to happen, but that's what happened. Uh, people had to come in, uh, had their IDs checked.

If they didn't have a Northeast Community Council address on their ID, they were asked to, um, prove ownership of their property, um, or a lease, uh, for an apartment or a their house or prove that they own a business in the, in the district. People weren't prepared for that proof, so we saw folks get turned away. A gentleman that owned the business in the community got turned away. A woman who was renting for a house, she didn't have her lease on hand, she got turned away. Those in the room voted, it was 34 to 34, and then the folks online, the Zoom online, they were polled too, except except they weren't, to our knowledge, verified the same way.

And so 4 folks on the Zoom voted for, and the remainder against. So the ultimate vote was 51-34, and the MOU failed. Then we, you know, started— oh, I'm a little short. Thank you for testimony. I also recognize you are the petitioner, essentially, or representing the petitioner.

So I think if if we can finish our public hearing, I think you'll have another opportunity to provide information if assembly members are seeking that. Okay, so you want me to stop talking? Uh, yeah, for the time being, so we— because we will need to close the hearing in order to move forward. Okay. And there's just— there was a late on the item table from the Cook Inlet, um, and I want to address that.

I just got it tonight even though it was set in March, so I just wanted to address that too. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I think we have ways to, to bring you back up, so and Nazar, you can go too. Okay, yeah, then I'll just ask, does anyone wish to provide testimony at this point? So just, uh, to continue that, uh, and sorry, one second.

Um, so, um, microphone is already on, so I'll ask you to state your name, uh, what part of town you're in, and then you'll have 3 minutes to testify. My name is Baltazar, and I own Baltazar Tire for the last 25 years. I have been a staple of the community for the last 25 years, where I provide a full 14, 15 full-time employment through the years of my people. So we also running a construction company where we provide housing, shelter to a lot of people. Back a little bit before I lose my thought, in about the November— March, March 21st meeting.

So like I should say, we just, we just voted Nobody was checking. Just my people was checking what were refusing to vote. So we are— they get a little square where they give people. So none of my people was in there to make sure they were fairly treated. The people in line, they know nobody check ID, they know where they are, where they came from, or why not.

But anyway, so, uh, the vote was submitted, those papers signed They give you a little tray, they give you to the people. So they count the vote. Listen to this, they count the vote. So they say, you know, baldies are what you want, okay? So the number, she say 50 minutes later, 50 minutes later, she say, you know what, never mind, you, you professor, you fail.

She won't let me lie, she won't make me lie either. They fail. You know what, we didn't pass it. Said we, we make a mistake. Are you sure you're making that kind of mistake in the important meeting?

He's like, you get up going in the delegation to say, you know what, let me take your shit out of it, your chair out of it. You fail because the people who running is the one who want you to fail. I never had a fair shot in the community. I have been treated unfairly and discriminatorily toward my person, is what I feel. Yeah, a lot of people— Alan, he won't let me, uh, like, he heard over here in the back, in the, in the bathroom, correct?

Yeah, thank you.

Sorry, uh, just a point of order during testimony. Okay, well, anyway, so anyway, he was saying, you know, we're hearing, you know what, let's go do something, you know, exactly specific, I don't know, but I was set to fail that night no matter what. I can understand they don't like the proportion of marijuana or cannabis business, but like the people who running or they have Cannabis Bliss, Catalyst, they meet the condition, you know, they meet the law. So are we, so do I. So why not be treated fairly based on the same condition?

So I'm here, you know, to be treated fair, apples to apples. Cannabis regulation to them, cannabis regulation to my end. The same way they have the rule having applied to them, apply to me.

Okay, um, the clerk has informed, um, that the— it is 11:15, and so, um, essentially our meeting is done. And so this item needs to be continued until the next meeting. Motion to extend 10 minutes.

10, 15, 15 Minutes. I think this is on the line of whether we're even able to extend, unfortunately. Um, yeah, I'm seeing sad looks from the attorneys, so I think I think it's hard when we hit that clock. And so, um, so I— yeah, I apologize. There's a gentleman here to testify.

So just to be clear, um, we, we cannot continue the meeting, so we'll need to adjourn. So we will need to take this item back up on August 18th. Yeah, yeah, and I apologize, but that is— that's what happened. So our meeting is adjourned. Adjourned.

I will also say— I will give general advice to members of the public. You are welcome to send written testimony if you do not wish to come back to testify in person. Point of information, Chair, because we're essentially pausing this meeting or adjourning in the middle of a public hearing, does it continue by default at our next meeting? Yeah, so yeah, and we are still in the public hearing, so just so the public is aware, um, we are not in a meeting posture right now. Um, but yeah, this, this, uh, item is continued.

The public hearing is open. Okay, thank you.

Um, can you just give us a couple minutes?

For members of the public who might be confused about what's happening right now, um, uh, so there are very specific rules that govern, uh, the way that our meetings can be conducted and how late they can go. And so, um, I believe that the attorneys are conferring right now about what happens if we hit this 11:15 threshold and a public hearing is still open. So if you'll give us just a moment, they're sorting that out right now. Uh, but there are— again, there are laws in charter that govern what can happen in this meeting and at what time that can happen. So they're trying to sort sort that out.

Believe me, this is not how we would prefer for this meeting to end without resolution of this item. So if you'll just bear with us for a moment, thank you. And it is going to rock it again.

Out now. Yeah, I'm still helping the community. The rest of this year I'm going to be working on all the events.

I already— I mean, we did the primaries too.

Actually, we're open for early voting already. Yeah, yes, yes, yes. So I'm just making sure all the 8 buttons work. Yeah, yeah. It's all good.

Why didn't I come in this way? But like, first, I think there was some other—. Did I misread something? But there was some— yeah.

Okay, thank you everyone. I know this has been a challenging night. I will state very clearly, one, that we are not in a meeting right now. Two, that the meeting ended at 11:15. We have been conferring about if there are options or alternatives to that, but I think the code is pretty clear and we did not extend the meeting.

So again, I am sorry that we did not finish our business tonight, but to be clear, this item is continued to the meeting of August 18th. The public hearing is open. Anyone who has not testify will be welcome to do so. And then we will, uh, at that point close the public hearing and take up this item. Thanks.

Yeah, no, I picked up the admin role because this is—. I serve on a board of mine, we do a couple of conferences a year, and that's the main point that we're here. And like, you guys are also playing like bread and butter, like, very successful. Yeah, yeah. So let's leave that all in.

It's every 2 weeks, right?

You kept me.