Assembly Regular - April 22, 2025 - 2025-04-22 17:00:00

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

That give me truth to what I know. Give me ruthless weight. All these paperweights, all these secret faces. Aces placed in strangers' wasted blood. Oh, while you fall across the gap, no bridge stirred, no man could reach.

I pray 3 times a night, hope you hear it. I'm nearing heights I dreamt of. Heights I fear, and since nobody else can hear me, let my ears bleed, let my heartstrings rip. Following the tide, never was assigned to align to the ceiling on the moon. My stride, low Gs, low weight, low everything.

Cheap, these lights, these streaks, my guy. Too bright, can't vision, need my lenses. Blue ball in the sky, keep turning on and on and on and on and on.

On my own, you see. But you know, I just need some selfish time. I need my relics that give me truth to what I know. Give me ruthless weight. All this paper weights, all these fakers and faces.

Aces placing, changes placing. The air's so fresh where I'm from.

Well, I tried to think them away, but nothing could keep them at bay. And the doubt I fight, they come right back. Yeah.

Seems nothing would stop them or last. Fast, fast, fast. Ah. If you love it, if you choose it, accept it all. Try to feel it, don't try to control it.

If you do it, then accept it all. Your fear is bound to fall.

Or losing my mom. Or going out after dark just to walk my dog. Or my Christmas hat glowing green like from outer space. It does feel like I'm screwing up and living out of place. But it's feeling like I'm still just some idiot again.

Or feeling like I grew up knowing I never did.

It's all these things that I tell myself while I keep acting like nobody else has felt the same things in their heart. So I'm not a hero, but I better start. Well, I can't breathe underwater, but sometimes I wish I could. Not sinking to the darkness, I'll disappear for good. No boots or cape or shining magic powers in my brain.

Just memories and fantasies on which I have to cling. It's all these things that I tell myself while I keep at it.

He acted like nobody else. Has got the same things in their heart. I'm not a hero, but I better start.

Well, I know I ain't a superhero. My eyes aren't laser beams, and I.

Can't jump over buildings and I'm afraid of everything.

Grilled peaches with a little bit of char. Scoop of vanilla didn't make it quite far. Before the juice starts dripping on down, it reaches my elbow and kisses the ground. Just like a Tookie, I'm running a day. Shoo-shoo-shoo!

Off the camp, I got too much to say. Shoo-shoo-shoo!

Oh my God, it happened again. Where I end up, I thought I lost me again. Why don't you go visit the summertime? Does it miss you? Don't throw those freckles in the water.

Why don't you stop sipping on tea? Go get yourself some love. Why don't you follow that dream? Grab peaches, grab peaches, how you deserve sweetness.

Sweets. When you have ambitions in your life, that's your perfect moment to reach out and try. Grand Peaches, Grand Peaches, all you do is sell sweetness, sell sweetness, sell it. Life is auspicious when you listen, stop surveying yourself, to the message you're receiving. Heartless harmony.

Yes, you will never find it, but bet you a person tell ya, go change your mind. Go do things for fun. I know that it was stolen, but go be a child for once. I let out a laugh, I let it break off. I licked it right off there with another bone.

Life is too short, get dressed and enough. Let go of those chains that keep you so tight and tough.

You know I love you, but what I want so bad is to see you grow, to see you laugh. Fulfill your desires and prove them all wrong. Even yourself, Mama, make it and hurry along. Why don't you go visit the summertime 'cause it miss you. A begging message from your daughter.

Why don't you start sipping on tea? Go get yourself some love.

Follow, you follow the dream. Braille Beaches, Braille Beaches, all you deserve, serve, serve. When you have ambitions in your life, find the perfect moment to reach out and try. Braille Beaches, Braille Beaches, all you deserve, serve, serve. When life is auspicious, when you listen, Oh well.

I've been cursing at the sky. Let the rain fall from my eyes. I've lived a thousand lives. You can't have my heart. You can't hold my mind.

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

Where's the ground? I keep falling off the edge. Lost my ground. Now you're heavy on my head. Yeah, so full of Heart so full of pride while I sift through all my vices like I'm running out of time.

You're scorching my mind, propane to the fire, ignite my desire. I can't ignore the flame. You can't have my heart, you can't hold my mind. I won't stay, I won't stay.

Where's the ground? I keep falling off the edge. Lost my ground. Now you're heavy on my head. Yeah.

Where is the ground? Feels like I'm falling. I lost my crown. Feels like I'm falling. Where's the ground?

I keep falling off the edge.

Empty plane.

A highway memorial. The fill of some space. And maybe the moon's only pretty cuz it's far away.

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

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

It's so— [MUSIC] Same.

Maybe I can find meaning if I Look hard enough. The reason you're here is the cause of your tears and a check every month. Cut the losses. Cut the losses.

Just you watch.

I'm better than this.

Sauce.

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

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

All is quiet with no one round, but your voice is singing loud. So sing away so all can hear, so the lost can all be found. And the midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors to show.

A time to think on memories of a time I knew so.

And the midnight sun is gone away with the fog comes to show. A time to think on memories of a time I used to know.

Sat by the lake on the summer days. The wind through the shade made for a cool place to watch your subtle ways. What do I really care about?

In some other way. What do I really care about?

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

What if this will forgotten?

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

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

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

A promise soon, 'cause you're 4, 5, 6, sometimes 2 goals away. If your roof is tin and your house caves in, Nobody else at fault. Think I did something bad, I did something bad. Never question the hand they had. Say, if they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go run and spend it all.

Say, I'm not very lucky. Good evening, everybody. Welcome.

I now call to order this meeting of the Anchorage Assembly. Today is April 22nd, 2025, regular meeting. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

It's 5:00. Assemblymember Myers. Here. Assemblymember Martinez. Present.

Assemblymember Littlefield. Here. Assemblymember Rivera. Present. Assemblymember Johnson.

Here. Assemblymember Constantine. Here. Assemblymember Zalatel. Here.

Assemblymember Branga. Here. Assemblymember Volland. Happy to be here. Assemblymember Brawley.

Here. Assemblymember Solt. Here. Assemblymember Perez Verdia. Here.

Mr. Chair, you have a— oh, Student Representative. Here. Mr. Chair, you have a quorum.

Mr. Vaughn, would you please lead the Pledge? Yes. 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.

Youth Member Bell, do you by chance have the agenda in front of you? I do. Would you read the land acknowledgement, please? It's on the second page, right at the top, or first and second page.

Actually starts on the front page, just at the very bottom, and then continues over. Okay.

A land acknowledgment is a formal statement recognizing the Indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present Indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity. The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land.

It is with gratefulness and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina.

Thank you. Next on the agenda are minutes of previous meetings. Tonight there are none. We're caught up. So next we'll move on to the mayor's report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening, everyone. It's a busy season here in the municipality, and I'm happy to be here with all of you to get down to business for everyone in our community. So first and foremost, welcome to all the new assembly members who will be sworn in tonight. I look forward to working with each of you.

To the outgoing members, thank you so much for your hard work for the work that you have put in over the last few years. I know it's sometimes not an easy job, and I appreciate your dedication to problem solving and to our community. So thank you, Vice Chair Zelletal, Member Solt, Member Branga, and Member Littlefield. Your service to our community is deeply appreciated. We know that federal changes are having an impact on our community.

From AmeriCorps volunteers being sent home to UAA students losing their visa status, we will continue to track the effects of decisions made in DC. We'll also continue to advocate for the needs of our community to our congressional delegation. At the same time, we remain laser-focused on doing everything we can locally, including preparing for wildfire, addressing homelessness, and improving public safety. Wildland fire danger is the biggest public safety risk to our community right now, especially for life and property. Chief Sharagi and Wildland Fire Division Chief John Glover have been working hard to prepare us for and protect us against this risk.

They'll be hosting a wildland fire town hall on May 19th, and I encourage everyone to attend. As we turn the corner into spring, homelessness and public safety remain top of mind. We know this is a tough issue. We are taking action, working to get out of crisis mode to create long-term solutions. We're trying new things like microhousing, and our approach balances compassion and accountability.

We need to offer services to vulnerable people in our community who need help. But for those who exploit the vulnerability of others, for those committing crimes, We will have a law enforcement response. We will hold people accountable for their actions. Our community needs to feel safe, and we are committed to delivering on that. I want to acknowledge the passing of former Assemblymember Tim Steele, who represented West Anchorage.

Along with Chair Constant and Member Rivera, I served with Tim at the beginning of my Assembly career. He exemplified what it meant to be a public servant. He was a steady leader who put people first. I'm grateful for his example and his contributions to our community. I wish the best to his family.

And I believe, Member Perez Verdia, you may have served with him on the school board as well. The last thing I want to say tonight is about our schools. Running for office, one of my biggest priorities was, was about building our future. As a parent of two ASD graduates and one current student, of the Anchorage School District. Our kids are our future.

They literally are. And they need us to take their education seriously. And they deserve that from us. Neither being the mayor nor being a mother allows me to determine how our schools are funded. That's out of my control.

It's out of the assembly's control as well. But I support fully funded schools for Alaska's kids, and I'd like our state state government to know that. As always, thanks for the opportunity to speak. Back to you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Next is the chair's report. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to our regular business meeting. Tonight we have, uh, quite a packed agenda and all manner of good things to happen tonight. It's long.

We've had a good rhythm of working through items efficiently for our last few meetings. I hope we're able to keep up that pace. So tonight it's going to be a little challenging, our order of operations. We are going to take up the budget as close to 6:00 PM as possible and all the public hearing items that flow from there. So you'll be hearing from the Vice Chair a motion to change the order of the day pretty soon that would allow that to happen with the expectation that we do the most of our business that outgoing members are interested in participating in before we take up the certification sometime between 8:00 and 8:30 tonight.

So, uh, We will probably take our dinner break early, but we're still waiting for the delivery of that. So we're going to go through our initial proceedings all the way through 10A4, and then at that point we may take our dinner break. And then it's likely that any items pulled for the consent agenda will be continued in the agenda till after certification, unless it's something— there's a burning fire someone wants to talk about. So from an organizational perspective, We ask for some flexibility so we can get through everything in the order that is needed so that we can meet as many people's needs as possible for outgoing members as we welcome our new members and their families to celebrate the certification tonight and the swearing in. Also, tonight is the last meeting for our three fantastic youth representatives, Kennedy Grady, Mika Bell, and Bruno Buchmann, who have all served admirably and have been great assets to this body.

Please stand.

We had a great tour this week. I'm sad a couple members couldn't make it, but Youth member Bell had an opportunity to meet with the administration up in the mayor's office and learn how that operates and also take a tour of our fire department, police department, and health department. And in the future, as this program continues to evolve, we're going to do that part earlier and make sure that the members coming forward have an opportunity also to visit the port and the AEWU plants and the various other infrastructure enterprises and utilities that operate in the municipality and the planning department. Or the permitting center, as it's called. And I anticipate that there will be items coming forward that the youth members have worked on, but probably not going to be tonight.

But we will have an opportunity to hear some of their ideas for how to shape the program in the future. We'll greatly miss you. Thank you for all the work you've done. And hopefully we see you up here and maybe some of you up here in the future. We are going to begin recruiting for youth representative for 2025-2026 school year.

So keep your eye on the assembly page. And we'll have announcements going out soon. Thank you, Associate Ombudsman Heather McAlpine, for your stewardship of this program. I would also like to honor Tim Steele and note that the Assembly does intend to take up some honorary action for him, likely in June, to provide the family an opportunity to grieve in peace and then come forward to receive an honor for his service to this municipality. Next, I'd like to briefly talk about the Port of Alaska.

This last week, we took some momentous steps in the modernization of our port. It's been years in the making, and we arrived at a very substantial milestone with the approval of construction for Terminal 1, as well as the financial arrangements to make it feasible. That said, our work is not done. We as a body have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure construction is done in a manner that meets the goals with the finances that we have as a partnership with the municipal administration. And there are conversations about how we might structure future oversight activities to ensure that the port construction is delivered as we all need for the future.

And while we share great excitement, it's something that hopefully people in our community will never notice. The goal all along has been consistent and affordable delivery of goods without interruption through the port. For all of Alaska. This is critical because a May 2024 economic study found that the service disruptions at the port would exceed $39 million per week in economic damage to Alaska. With the work last week, we're one step closer to avoiding that potential future.

And congratulations to everybody who worked on this project, whether it's the administration. I especially want to recognize both Municipal Manager Becky Wynn Pearson and Chief Administrative Officer Bill Fawzy for your exceptional work in the last year to get this project before us. To my colleague, friend, and partner in the last many years of work, to Vice Chair Meg Zolotow, thank you for your leadership on this issue with this body. Last meeting for our outgoing members. This is it.

Thank you all for your service. I'll save my remarks for later when we discuss transition as we get to certification. But I do want to again acknowledge my gratitude to the vice chair for her service and leadership, as well as to members Solt, Branga, and Mr. Littlefield who stepped up and have.

The city over the last 3 years and more. And also to all the family members of the outgoing assembly members who have made all the sacrifices needed for your family member to participate in this very challenging and amazing work that makes our community a better place. And to those of you coming in and your families, we, we thank you for your sacrifice that's just begun. With that, I'll say we have a packed agenda. This is a business meeting and we're here to do the work of the people.

Municipality, please help to create a climate of respect in the chambers by refraining from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting or clapping and pacing unless clapping is in order. Keep signs to 8.5 by 11 inches or smaller. Keep the aisles clear except when lined up to testify. Please do not approach the dais, but if you have something for the members, please hand it to the clerk at the front. If a point of order is called, we ask you please stop speaking so that the chair may rule on the point of order and the record is clear.

If rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance. Compliance. If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, I may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption, I will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. With that, then, we're going to go ahead and turn to the rest of our agenda, which is committee and liaison reports.

We'll start with Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing to report. Thank you, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. The mission of the Community and Economic Development Committee is to evaluate and make recommendations to refine municipal code and processes to encourage Efficient government, responsible development, and healthy economic growth. Our meetings are held the first Thursday of each month at 9:00 a.m. at the Permit Center. Our next meeting will be Thursday, May 1st, at 9:00 a.m. at the Permit Center.

I want to just express a word of appreciation for outgoing members who served on this committee. Thank you for your time, for your commitment to the community and economic development of our community. And I invite new members to consider joining this committee as well. Great things are happening in this committee and look forward to continuing to work together. Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, there will be a meeting of the Quality Municipal Services and Ethics and Elections Committee next Wednesday, April 30th, from 12 noon to 1 PM at City Hall, Room 155, first floor.

We'll be spending most of our time discussing the recent election Regarding the Municipal Audit Committee, I got great news on Friday. Uh, the comptroller's office officially delivered the draft ACFR— that's our annual audit— to BDO, which starts the typically 4 to 6 week clock to final issuance of the audit. This keeps us on track of expected timelines and allows the municipality to pivot to the 2024 audit and get us back on track to meet normal issuance timelines. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. The last meeting of the Infrastructure Enterprise Utility Oversight Committee was last week on April 17th.

Presentations included one by Chugach Electric Association relating to their wildfire hazard and mitigation response. They briefed us on a number of safety systems that they have in place to de-energize power lines in the event of a hazard. We also learned that they can proactively de-energize lines as necessary based on the fire weather index and wind hazard. This is known as the public safety power shutoff. They also discussed their role in updating the community wildfire protection plan and their coordination efforts with incident command and emergency operations center if there is an actual fire.

Alaska Water and Wastewater Utility, we learned about several Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation forgivable loan programs relating to emerging drinking water contaminants. This includes a plan for a new public well in Girdwood, as well as for residents of the Tanaina Hills subdivision who have PFAS contamination in their wells. There is a program to allow them to connect to public water with no cost. Uh, Awooo also talked about waste-to-energy proposal. They note the fact that they— or rather, that the people of Anchorage generate 20 dry tons per day of biosolids, and the current program requires incinerating this waste, which has high demands for gas, water, and electricity.

And also, the equipment we're using to serve that purpose is nearing the end of its useful life. However, with a waste-to-energy program, we'd be able to burn these biosolids biofuel solids and, um, recover energy from them. And then finally, from Solid Waste Services, uh, we had an update relating the historic landfill that lies underneath Merrill Field. There has been for many years methane gas leaking, uh, from the field. That's to be expected.

However, it's reached elevated levels in some structures on the field, which presents an immediate hazard. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has given notice that we need to fix it. And as is noted on the agenda tonight, the mayor is asking to waive the formal procurement procedure based on the emergent nature of this threat. The cost to cure or to fix it will be around $3.1 million. And that is all I have.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Ms. Zeliton. No report. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bronco. I just was going to point people to two resolutions that were brought forward, one by Northeast Community Council requesting code changes for illegal camping on streets, and Scenic Foothills Community Council has results of a survey. So I just wanted to call attention to those two things. Thanks. Thank you, Miss Branga.

Mr. Voland. Nothing to report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Voland. Miss, um, Brawley.

Yeah, thank you. Just a couple, uh, brief committee reports. First, for the Budget and Finance Committee. Um, first, thank you to my outgoing co-chair, Zalatel, for her service on this committee, which predates my service on this committee as well. We met on Thursday, April 17th.

We also had a couple of new members participating. And of course, it is a committee of the whole, so everybody will be welcome shortly on that committee. We heard some information about the Trust Board, about the proposed code change that has been postponed to the May 6th meeting, I believe, and discussed having a future work session for a fuller briefing with that board on the MOA trust overall. So we will follow up on that. We will continue to also use committee time to discuss ongoing muni budget topics.

The next meeting will be Thursday, May 15th from 12:10 to 1:10 PM in City Hall room 155. And second, I'll just say the Legislative Committee, its next meeting will be Thursday, May 8th from 11:50 AM to 12:50 PM, also in City Hall 155. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Solt. Nothing to report, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Solt. Mr. Presverdia.

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of updates. The next meeting of the Assembly Public Health and Safety Committee is going to be coming up on May 7th. So just want to encourage folks, the agenda for that will be out soon. And also just want to give a brief report.

The Assembly Housing and Homeless Committee met on April 16th. The administration gave a pretty comprehensive overview of their strategic priorities, as well as we had updates from the Health Department and a data review by the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness. The next meeting of the Housing and Homeless Committee will be on May 21st. Thanks. Thank you.

And youth member Bell, I think good opportunity to brief on the tours and the visit with the administration. Yes. So the tour was on Friday and it was supposed to be all three of us, but unfortunately members Kai and Bruno were sick that day. We got the opportunity to visit the Anchorage Fire Department Station 1, Public Health Department, and very briefly to the police station. And it was just really amazing to meet the people there and see more how administrative sides of the municipality worked.

And then I also got to meet heads of other departments, including some I see in the audience from AWU and the Office of Equity and Inclusion, um, among— and the port and many others. And so to see more sides of the municipality and how they worked was a really amazing experience. And I, even after my term as Youth Rep is over, I look forward to continue serving the community in whatever way I can. Thank you. All right, next we have our addendum to the agenda.

Before we get to the addendum, we're going to address laid on the table items, which incorporate any laid on the table items into the agenda. So for items not supplemental, the code requires an affirmative vote of at least 8 members. So we have a not insubstantial number of items to be laid on the table.

So I'll go ahead and read the ones that are supplemental first.

So supplemental items include 10F.16, information memorandum, unnumbered, so answers to assembly questions. Next I have 13D.5, information, unnumbered, information memorandum, new rezone procedures regarding AO 2025-40. Next is 13F2 information memorandum, unnumbered information regarding AO 2025-43. Under new public hearings, item 14A2, resolution AR 2025-43.

-91S, Resolution of Municipality of Anchorage, revising and appropriating funds for the 2025 general government operating budget for the Municipality of Anchorage. Next is Item 14B2, Resolution AR2025-92, Resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage, revising and appropriating funds for the 2025 municipal utilities enterprise activities operating capital budgets for the Municipality of Anchorage. Next we have Item 14C2, Ordinance number AO2025-45S, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage setting the rates of tax levy, approving the amount of municipal property tax Levying taxes for all service areas in the Municipality of Anchorage general government for 2025. Next item, 14D2, which is information memorandum, AAM unnumbered 2025, summary of economic effects regarding AO 2025-46, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage setting the rate of tax levy, approving the amount of municipal property tax and levying taxes for the Anchorage School District for tax year 2025. Also, we have item 15A, assembly memorandum number AM337-2025, certification of the April 1, 2023 2025 regular municipal election.

I'm counting that one as by operation of law and not requiring a vote because it is the certification of the election, which is the primary function of tonight. The charter grants that authority. So next I'm going to go ahead and read the new ordinances. Each of these will require a mover, a second, and a third. So this is item 10G.7.

AO 2025 unnumbered, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.10 to increase the amount of the exemption of taxable business personal property. What's the will of the body? Is there a motion? Moved to introduce and set the public hearing for May 20th. Second.

Third. Moved by Mr. Voland, seconded by Miss Brawley, seconded by Miss Zolotil— or thirded by Miss Zolotil. Moved by Voland, second by Brawley, third by Zolotow. All right, next then we have a slew of new ordinances. We have a— so, oh, these are additional supplemental items, um, supplemental to item 14E2.

So I'll just read this one, um One second.

Got it. Thank you. All right, so this item, uh, is supplemental to item 14E. It's 14E2, which is AO 2025-50S.

An ordinance, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly, to prohibit the recreational use, possession, sale, and offering to another of nitrous oxide, laughing gas, amyl or butyl nitrate, poppers, and kratom, by amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 8.35 with new sections and amending AMC Section 8.05.025 to accordingly list the new offenses in the misdemeanor table. It also includes the assembly memorandum by the same title, unnumbered. Then we have Supplemental to item 10G, 10G2, which is subject is AR 2025-24-S1, a resolution of the municipality— of the Municipal Assembly regarding the renewal of the municipal marijuana cultivation license M10237 for Alaska Sense LLC, DBA Alaska Sense, and authorizing the municipal clerk to take certain action. That item is not set for public hearing, and there's a note to clarify the public hearing on this item is closed. That's a supplemental item to that item that will be continued to the next meeting.

Then we have unnumbered AM, which will be 10G8. We need a first, second, and third on this item: an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 3.20.070 and 26.30.025 to clarify responsibilities within the municipality for implementing the 1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement. Move to introduce and set the public hearing for May 6th. Second. Moved by Ms. Zeltil, seconded by Mr.

Bond. I think third was by Mr. Rivera. All right, one more, one more minute.

So I'll go ahead and read the title of another item to be introduced. We'll require a first, second, and third This is an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly submitting to the qualified voters of the Municipality of Anchorage a ballot proposition amending the Home Rule Charter and amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 28 to institute ranked choice voting in elections for Municipality of Anchorage, with the public hearing set for the meeting of September 9th. 9Th. Is there a motion? Moved to introduce and set the public hearing for September 9th.

Second. Third. Uh, so the motion is by Ms. Zalatov, seconded by Mr. Rivera. Who was the third?

Mr. Bolland is the third. Then we have one more at least. This is an unnumbered ordinance. At this time it's an ordinance to Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.90, Access to Public Records, and AMC Section 3.30.016 to update the public records requests and response procedures. The public hearing set for the meeting of August 12th.

Is there a motion? Move to introduce and set the public hearing for August 12th. Second. So there's a motion to introduce by Ms. Zalatel, seconded by Mr. Voland, third by Ms. Brawley. Those items are set out far to allow the body opportunity to contemplate whether it's in the best interest of the municipality to adopt those policies and to give the administration opportunity to provide input on the public records.

Okay, I think that's everything, at least for now.

Clerk shakes her head.

That's right. Okay, thanks for catching that. So we have item 10B4. This item is a new item and will require— will require us to go through our procedures to introduce this item. So it's item 10B4, Resolution AR-2025, unnumbered, a resolution granting approval of a period of performance greater than 21 days for a contract with SC engineers to design and construct a landfill gas collection control system at Merrill Field Airport.

What's the motion? Move to land table. Second. Moved by Ms. Zalatel, seconded by Mr. Voland. Who would like to speak to the time sensitivity of this matter?

Ms. Wind Pierson. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to speak to it. So this is a follow-up as required by the emergency procurement section of Title VII, where in— because the contract was awarded on an emergency basis, it requires the consent of the assembly to award a contract for more than 21 days. As we have discussed and as was relayed in the committee reports, this is— time is of the essence here because we have exceeded lower explosive units, explosive levels within some of the buildings on Merrill Field with methane gas emissions from the landfill.

And so this is to enable us to enter into the contract, which will require the contractor 24 months to actually complete construction of that management system, but which we must begin immediately so that we can get some work done this summer.

All right, uh, any questions? Is there any objection to the motion to lay that on the table? I'm seeing and hearing no objection. That item passes unanimously.

All right, there's a handful more items. Um, this next item is 10F12 Assembly Information Memorandum Unnumbered, Girdwood Comprehensive Plan Conforming Amendments. This item will also be subject to our laid on the table procedure. What's the will of the body? Is there a motion?

Move to lay on the table. Second. Motion to lay on the table by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Miss Brawley. Do you want to speak to the time sensitivity, Mr. Johnson?

Yeah, briefly. So as members will recall, we essentially approved the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan several meetings back. It is a plan that the Gurudwara community has engaged in for a number of years, and I believe the last public engagement piece for the Gurudwara community was last fall. So they've been waiting a long time to see this one get across the line. This AIM is just to formally adopt the plan as it incorporates the amendments that have already been debated and approved by the Assembly.

It would be useful to get the step accomplished with some space between now and when we take up the Heritage Land Bank Plan that has been scheduled for later in the month of May. And also just say that from the community of Girdwood, there's been a strong desire expressed to get this done so that one, it is formally adopted, and then two, allow them to meaningfully engage in the next steps relating to the Heritage Land Bank Plan. Also note that as I understand it, this AM was for all intents and purposes ready to go some time back, and I think it was just a technical error that presented it, prevented it from being part of the regular agenda. And so my hope is that we can just dispatch with this quickly tonight. Miss Spraulley.

Yeah, I'm just wondering, I did see this come through the email. It says it has two attachments. One of them is the updated plan. The other one is a summary of changes, but I don't believe we have those documents. So I wonder if we should wait later in the meeting.

So the documents, I'll speak to that, are available on a link essentially, and they were submitted.

Email. We decided because we had substantively gone through all of those records in detail through a public hearing process, we didn't want to print 400 pages more for the purpose of putting it in the recycling bin. And so the records are available on the link within the document, and it's in your email. All right, okay, so, uh, any further discussion on the motion lay on the table? Um, I'd like to ask unanimous consent.

Is there any objection? I'm seeing and hearing no objections. The item is laid on the table. Next we have item 10F.13, information memorandum, unnumbered opinion, 6 years of the— on the assembly, a people-centered vision for Anchorage's future. Um, Ms. Althoff, move to lay on table.

Second. There's a motion to lay on the table by Ms. Althoff, seconded by Mr. Vohland. Go ahead, Ms. Althoff. It's my last chance, that's why it's time sensitive. Answer was aye.

Is there— I would like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to that motion? Hearing and seeing no objection, the item has been laid on the table. So for these next two items, I'm going to have a little predicate to the conversation that we had a discussion around the leadership table today about the idea of community council resolutions being emergency and whether they meet the standard of the code that says to lay them on the table or not. And I am of the opinion, and we'll have more discussion about this, that they do not, because either if they were on a matter before us tonight, they would be supplemental, or the item isn't before us, there's time.

Now, that hasn't been communicated to members, so I won't object if these go through the procedure, but there's going to be some future discussion on the question so that members kind of grapple with that, that these should just flow into the normal business. They've been in your email. Get in the record. And so it's not truly an emergency that meets the standard of the code, but because that wasn't communicated in advance, I think it's fair that they're here at this time. Mr. Voland, it's a point of order.

Um, well, I think I'd like to speak to that briefly, if that's okay. Maybe a—. Okay, go ahead. Point of information. Yeah.

Um, so this happened at our last meeting too, and so one thing I'm wondering is if we can maybe better coordinate with the clerk's office. So there was a package of resolutions from Government Hill, 3 or 4 of them put together into a resolution. And maybe I just can't recall, but I don't— I don't recall requesting that to be laid on the table. And so maybe it's also important just for the clerk's office to to hear this too. Absolutely.

And it's definitely a communication issue. Like I said this morning, because of that item that is on the agenda tonight that was delayed from the last meeting because it isn't an emergency, or, you know, that that is a fair and reasonable kind of input. Again, that it wasn't stated overtly today, I think it's fair that we at least take up the question of laying them on the table. But the future practice will be, unless it is a burning fire, then it isn't probably going to meet the standard. And if it is, it's probably supplemental to something, and therefore would just need to be read and wouldn't take a vote.

So I think probably enough has been said on that. This is item 10F14, information memorandum unnumbered, Scenic Foothills Community Council survey results regarding the effects of homelessness on our neighborhood. Is there a motion? Move to approve. Lay it on the table.

Second. Okay, moved by Miss Branga. Who's second? Miss Zalatel. Would you like to speak to the urgency of the item?

Well, this is my last meeting, and the Scenic Foothills Community Council had put the survey around the community, and I felt like it important to get it moved onto the public record.

All right, um, Mr. Vong, were you trying to get in the queue? Yeah, okay, go ahead. Yeah, thanks. I think I'm not going to support laying this on the table, um, and taking this up, getting it on the next agenda instead, just so we can kind of start that pattern now. And I know that, um, in Member Brongin's absence, and I'm sure that, um, Member Martinez will be willing to steward this going forward.

Thanks. All right, um, and I would also offer just separately, since we're on the item, the motion has been made that there's been this interesting approach by some community councils to send forward a message that says, Madam Clerk, please get this on the agenda. And there's no procedure by which the clerk can do that, but we're going to communicate with the folks at the Federation to help them communicate out that it's the members discretion whether the item is introduced and laid on the table and gone through that whole process. And so we're just refining process. That's what's going on here.

So any further discussion on the motion to lay on the table? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, the item is laid on the table. Next, we have item 10F15, same dialogue, information memorandum, Northeast Community Council resolution requesting code changes to restrict illegal camping on the streets of the Municipality of Anchorage. Is there a motion to lay on the table?

Motion to lay on the table. Second. Moved by Mr. Martinez, seconded by Mr. Solt. Any discussion? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, that item is laid on the table. I'm just To clarify again, in the future, we'll be really working hard to make sure they just go through the normal flow. All right, is that everything on the consent agenda? No, that's everything on the late on the table. Excuse me, on the late on the table.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Point of information. Mr. Martinez. Chair, respectfully, you described working hard to go through the normal process, but if we're figuring out and cleaning up the processes as we go, what is normal? And I only respectfully say that 'cause I'm looking at these and these are information memorandum.

There's essentially no action items except to receive them. So what is the— I don't even understand the length of the conversation. So I would ask that Assembly Council provide to the members by email the code section that guides the laid on the table procedures, and it has some pretty straightforward language on what meets the standard for laying an item on the table. And so it's— that's what I'm talking about.

The application has been subjective. I will just put that on the record. I appreciate the legal interpretations, but it just seems that there's a delay of conversations, and I'd rather pause to say that delay is inappropriate. So at least I get that on the record. Thank you, Chair.

Fair enough. Thank you. And please do make sure that gets sent out, Mr. Gates. All right, if that's it for the laid on the table items for now, go ahead and ask for a motion to incorporate the addendum as printed and distributed in the laid on the table items. So moved.

Motion by Ms. Zelletail. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Myers.

Is there any discussion? I would like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection to the motion? Seeing and hearing none, the consent agenda has been— excuse me, the addendum to the agenda and the laid on the table items have been incorporated into the agenda. Next we will have appearance requests.

We have an appearance request from Angelo Tedesco, please come forward.

Angelo Tedesco.

Angelo is not present, so we'll move on to Stephen Jolly.

Welcome, uh, Mr. Jolly. You'll have 3 minutes. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. Uh, the mic is off, so there's a little green button. Please state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes. Okay, wonderful. Uh, Stephen Jolly, District 4. Um, so in light of recent interest in the community, uh, the Committee on Public Health and Safety, um, I think it's appropriate to reaffirm the importance of civilian oversight of the Anchorage Police Department. This is for two reasons.

First being, there must be a broad disposition of trust from the public for this institution if such an endeavor is going to be successful. And the second reason, unfortunately, is that every once in a while, the conduct of police officers sometimes constitute a violation of that trust. So there's been numerous officer-involved shootings since last year, and I believe 7 fatalities as a result, including a minor during a mental health crisis. The only reason we got to see this heavily editorialized footage of this incident is because Anchorage mandated that the police wear body cameras, which was a mandate that APD resisted and were knowingly out of compliance for as long as they could. So that's not off to a good start, and it implies a contempt for civilian.

Oversight in any form. Uh, now we live in unprecedented political times where various law enforcement agencies around the country are acting with impunity and typically against some of the most vulnerable populations in the US. What happens in the lower 48 happens here as well. Things being what they are, the quality of life of the more precarious of the working class are soon to experience a death by a thousand cuts. And as a result find themselves in a number of situations where interactions with the police become much more likely, from domestic violence situations to eviction and homelessness to an increase in mental health crises based on degraded access to healthcare or economic pressures.

So we can suggest VR training simulators and quiet rooms for officers to meditate in between calls, But the best mechanism for something as serious as life and death is an enforcement mechanism. If this is to be a civilian government now, and in terms of whatever our political future will bring, this needs to be— there needs to be checks and balances, and substantial ones. We should join cities like Columbus, LA, Denver, DC, New Orleans, and Pittsburgh, and many others in the creation of this independent police review board with the power of subpoena. This would not just be an investment in public safety, it would also be an investment in public trust— renewed investment in public trust in APD. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Next up we have the consent agenda.

The consent agenda are items number 10A through 10F and are typically routine or non-controversial items such as bid awards, new business information, reports, and ordinances and resolutions for introduction. These items may be approved, accepted by the assembly by a single vote on a motion to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, items may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion, separate vote on each of these items. Under Assembly Rules of Procedure, all ordinances and some resolutions will have an opportunity for public hearing on a future date. We'll go ahead and start with the pulling items with Mr. Presverdia.

10D2.

Item 10D2, Mr. Presverdia. Oh, and I would state that it's likely that the consent agenda items pulled tonight will be changed to after the certification. So, um, Mr. Solt. No items, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brawley. No items, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Boland. No items, thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Branca. 10A4. 10A4, except for that one, um, Miss— that one will not be after Ms. Zalatel. Thank you.

Um, 10—. Well, hold on a second.

All right, great. 10 Bravo 2, 10 Bravo 3, 10 Delta 4.

That is all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 10 Bravo 2, 3, and 4.

No. Oh, 10 Delta 4. Thanks.

Okay, um, next, Mr. Rivera. I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson. Uh, no items, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chair, no additional items. Thank you. Mr. Lofield.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, no additional items. Miss Martinez. Thank you, Chair, no items. Thank you.

Mr. Myers. No additional items. Thank you. All right, thank you. All right, then I'm going to go through the list.

10A-4, Ms. Branca. 10B-2 and 3, Ms. Zalatel. 10D-2, Mr. Presverdia. 10D-4, Ms. Zalatel.

All right, thank you. So that is everything on the consent agenda that's been pulled. I'd like to, um, go ahead and ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. So moved. Second.

Moved by Ms. Seltel, seconded by— was it Mr. Voland? Mr. Voland. I'd like to ask unanimous consent on the approval of the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection, um, the consent agenda has been passed.

All right, we'll now take up item 10A.4.

10A.4 is Resolution AR 2025-135, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing April 20th to 26th, 2025 as Volunteer Appreciation Week. Um, this item was pulled by Miss Branca. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Miss Branga, seconded by Miss Zalatel.

I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the motion? Seeing and hearing no objection to the motion, the motion passes. Welcome, please come forward. Um, I believe Miss Branga is reading and Mr. Littlefield is presenting.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing April 20th through 26th, 2025 as Volunteer Appreciation Week. Whereas the Municipality of Anchorage since its inception has consistently encouraged civic engagement through recruitment of volunteers in all aspects of community life. And whereas AARP's commitment to volunteer service has been a mainstay in supporting its mission to enhance the quality of life for all as we age with more than 58,000 volunteers nationwide. And whereas there are currently over 500 volunteers serving on Municipality of Anchorage boards, commissions, and community councils; and whereas the Municipality of Anchorage has graduated more than 1,000 volunteers from the Anchorage Police Department Citizens Academy; and whereas ARP Alaska has supported innumerable volunteers in Anchorage through their tax aid, veterans and military families fraud watch advocacy, challenge grants, Age Friendly, and Community Action Team programs; And whereas a total of 7,048 volunteer hours were served by the Anchorage Coalition of Community Patrols in 2024 to keep our neighborhoods safe. And whereas thousands of volunteers serve the many nonprofit organizations within Anchorage, filling the gap between public funding and the needs of our vulnerable communities.

With— and whereas a significant number of volunteers promote tourism both during winter and summer seasons through Visit Anchorage as well as Downtown Partnership. Fur Rendezvous, Iditarod, Town Square, and Park Strip events. And whereas volunteering improves mental and physical health, allows social engagement, develops valuable skills, provides a sense of purpose and fulfillment by connecting with community, and helps those in need. And now therefore, the Anchorage Assembly designates April 20th through 26th, 2025 as Volunteer Appreciation Week 2025 and celebrates the commitment hard work, and exemplary dedication of all local volunteers in our community who serve tirelessly to make Anchorage one of the best places to live in all of Alaska. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 22nd day of April, 2025.

Hi, Madeline. The mic is off, so hit the green button there. Right on the mic. There you go. It is good.

Welcome. Thank you, Chris. And thank each of you. I approached Mr. Vohland, Dr. Vohland to help with this. And earlier today I saw that all of you have come on board.

And I appreciate so much the support of volunteers. I am Madeline Holdorf. Mr. Vohland is my assembly person. I live in Midtown, been in Anchorage for 48 years, and a volunteer forever. But when I think of volunteers and the folks up on the dais, those are volunteers that believe in people.

They believe in you. They support you, your issues. They want someone they can trust. We also have volunteers that are passionate. And care about issues.

Those are the folks we see down at Town Square on the Saturdays, where they're vital and looking at their future and thinking what they might do. Well, the volunteers around me are peer volunteers. We work for those that may not have a voice, for those over 50 years of age, And in that process, we're able to be a voice for the voiceless. We also are brave defenders of AARP and what we do in the community. We just had a great win around the Social Security Administration where millions, thousands of people, engaged the Congress on that silly rule about people having to be in person for Social Security applications.

For, you know, ID purposes, and AARP was able to back that off, and a great win for us. And, you know, as defenders of what's important to older people. Again, my thanks to all of you for your support of this resolution. Mr. Voland, thank you. And I'd like to have Teresa Holt, our state director, say a word.

We just wanted to take time to appreciate all the volunteers, not just at AARP, but across the community. They provide thousands, millions of dollars, I don't know how much, a lot of money that gets saved by, you know, volunteering at the visitor center or helping us with— you've seen us here before around housing issues, other issues that apply for seniors. So— and I'd like to thank Madeline for taking this on. She volunteered her time to get it through the process. Hopefully it was the appropriate process.

And thank you all again.

Thank you all. Anyone else? Is it 2 o'clock? I just came awake. Okay.

Not yet. Okay. All right. I have something for you. All right.

So we are running just slightly behind clip, but that is okay. Ms. Sallotell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Make a motion to change the order of the day.

I hope you have your pens ready. All right. I move to change the order of the day to take up item 10 Bravo 3, 14 A, B, C, D, F, 13 A, 13 G, 13 F, then 15 A. With the remaining 15s, then a return to the pulled consent agenda items and the remainder of the agenda.

Second.

So there's a motion by Ms. Zelotil, seconded by Mr. Vohland, to change the order of the day to take up the items in the following order: 10B3, 14A through F, 13A, 13G, 13F, 15A through D, and then return to the consent agenda and the remainder of items. Briefly. Miss Salatel. Thank you. The 10B3 is an item that will hopefully just be postponed.

The 14A through D is our budget and tax items that are intended to be tonight. The remaining ordinances to be taken up are ones by outgoing members who have sponsored those items and would like to carry those tonight. The idea here is to hopefully get to election certification around 8 or 8:30 at the latest. If we are fast, I have a few optional ones that might come back, so we shall see. But that is the intent with this changed order of the day.

I would appreciate your support. All right, so is there any discussion on the motion to change the order? Is there any objection to the motion to change the order? Hearing and seeing no objection, the order has been changed. We'll take up 10B3 and then we will break for a short dinner break.

Ms. Zalatella. Oh wait, I got to read it. Sorry. 10B3 is Resolution AR2025-133, a resolution to repeal Assembly Resolution 2013-296S, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly approving the Design Criteria Manual, January 2007. Ms. Zolotow.

Thank you. Move to postpone to the meeting of May 20th. Second. There's a motion by Ms. Zolotow to postpone to the meeting of May 20th, seconded by Mr. Bullock. Ms. Zolotow.

Thank you. I worked in conjunction with the municipal engineer, Mr. Colhase, and Mr. Wilbur on this. We've been working on it for about a year now, but I realize it's new to all members. This gives time for all members to catch up with this item. I want to thank them for their collaboration on this, and hopefully you all can have a work session and talk about why this might be a great idea.

Ms. Martinez. Chair, I was just going to, uh, offer the CEDC as a place to also talk about this next week if there's a, an item available. Sure, it sounds great. Well, um, it can informally be referred there, and then we'll take it up at a work session and then have it back before us on the 20th. So, um, I would also offer to the anyone who's new, newer members, the Design Criteria Manual is like a black box.

It is very difficult for the public or members of the assembly or anyone who isn't a staff person to really see into. And what this does for us is it creates a very difficult situation that you, you don't know what limitations exist. And so having this process kind of move forward is valuable for us so we can start to have some insight into a very important document that guides, promotes, and restricts development in a number of ways. So that this is a good project to come before us. Any further discussion on the motion to postpone?

Hearing and seeing none, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection to the motion? Hearing and seeing none, this item is postponed to the meeting of 5/20, uh, 2025. And with that, then we're going to go ahead and recess for our dinner break. It might not quite be ready.

If it's not, then it's going to take a little longer, but I anticipate 15 to 20 minutes. It's going to be a short one. Thank you all.

Ms. Brawley.

All right, let's come back on the record, please. Good evening, everybody. The order of the day has been changed to take up items 14A through F, 13A, G, F, 15A through D, and then back to the consent agenda and remainder of the agenda. So I will go ahead now and read item 14A. 14A is Resolution AR-2025-91, Resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage, revising and appropriating funds for the 2025 General Government Operating Budget.

I believe there's also an S version. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard? There's a general government budget. 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 the S. Second. Motion to approve the S version by Mrs. Zalatel, second by Ms. Brawley. Ms. Brouse, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to update the body on the changes that are before you in the S version. This would be the adjustments that were taken on in the last 3 days between the original proposed revised budget changes into the S version revised budget changes, and they are relatively small, but for the general government budget, you will see that the changes in the S version on page 3 of the AM support include the addition of some of the member amendments that were presented on Friday. There is the needs-based housing support for the nuisance abatement fund.

The wildfire hazard and mitigation education and public engagement effort, the Muni Fiscal Future project, the Fairview Midtown bus route shuttle amendment, and the 50th anniversary of the munification of the Municipality of Anchorage. The adjustments altogether were $375,000 and leave us with a remaining balance of $105,000 under the tax cap. There were other small changes within some of the IGCs associated, but most of those amendments did not go to allocating cost centers. If there are any questions, I would be more than happy to go through any additional detail. Are you in the queue for a question, Mr. Volland?

Because before we go to members, we will hear from the committee chairs first. You can stay there. It is no problem.

Okay. Chair Zalatel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the way we'd like to handle the amendment process is I know a number of amendments were incorporated into the S version.

We'd first like to go ahead and go through the physical amendments. And then when we round back onto the main motion, if you did have an incorporated amendment, if you would like to speak to that and highlight the work you've done. Um, and then the intention tonight is to start, um, or is to do the amendments, um, in the order that they are in our packet, um, sticky paper, um, starting with Miss Brongo's Amendment Number 1 and so on. And to that.

And I have a conflict of interest on Ms. Bronga's Amendment Number 1. It involves homelessness. And as the executive director of Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness, we would have a position on such things. And I would ask to be excused for that.

I will go ahead and make the determination that you do have an interest in the homeless services, so you will be excused.

So on Ms. Bronga, we'll go ahead and let you make your first attempt.

I move to amend. Move to amend. Motion to amend by Ms. Branga. Is there a second?

Second for discussion. Seconded by Ms. Brawley. Ms. Branga.

Thank you. Um, this amendment is a goal of mine that I have had for the two years that I have been on the body, is to figure out a way to engage people who are have recently been experiencing homelessness or are currently in camps or shelters and need a boost to start getting back to work. And I know through work that Hennings has done with their Reverb program and Kenny Peterson has supplemented a work program there, and I get pictures of people with smiling faces. They've had a productive day and One of the things that kept going around is people would say, well, why don't we just hire them? Why don't they just take a parks position?

But what we found is that if you've been out of the work world for a while or you've had some behavioral health issues, a full day is probably not possible for you. A full week is pretty much impossible. And maybe some days you just can't do it. And a traditional job, you would be fired immediately. So This was the idea for this pilot one-time program is we have unfilled parks caretaker, seasonal parks caretaker positions that we would utilize the funds from those positions to contract out to programs like Reverb or LaborMax to specifically work with our homeless population on daily dignity jobs.

If it doesn't work, it was a pilot and we don't do it again. We're not taking away, permanently taking away these positions. I know my constituents that I talk to have a lot of appetite for seeing something besides just giving housing. They want to see that we are moving the needle a bit with daily dignity. So that is what I am hoping.

And if this works out, I have had discussions with Labor 71, Local 71, and they were doing talks about whether they could make it happen. They were most happy with the temp, the part-time, the summer seasonal caretaker. They didn't want to take away a position that potentially has benefits and that they really would like to fill. So I think, I think that's pretty much it. It's just an opportunity for daily dignity.

It's happening now, but the operators that are doing this, they will take all the liability. They have their own workman's comp. They will have their own van. They have their own site. And they supervise.

It's, it's a win for us. We will be moving the needle for these people, and, um, I think it's worth giving a try. Thanks. Mr. Bond, on the amendment, or you're just in the queue for the main?

Uh, sure, and I'll get back in maybe later for the main, um, motion. But I guess I have a couple questions. I'd like to hear from Parks and Rec a little bit about You know, do they support this? What— how do they envision implementation? Is there somebody here from the department who could maybe answer that?

Welcome, Ms. Gamble.

You want to hit that, Shanna, the little button, little yellow button. Or green button, maybe. There you go. There you go. Through the chair, Voland, we do not support this.

This would actually make an impact on our operation as a whole, so we would ask for you not to approve this. Okay, thank you. Back to you, Mr. Chair, or I guess— where did he go? There he is.

Yep, thanks.

Ms. Branca, I do want to make clear that this was supported by Parks and Rec prior to the previous director leaving the position.

All right, um, next in the queue, Ms. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to extend my words of appreciation to my colleague member Branca for bringing the concept forward in your last meeting. As you know, this, this is an area of interest of mine as well, but I do want to encourage my colleagues to not support this at this time, primarily because this is not the right tool for the right outcome. Not only what Parks has decided in terms of their words just now, but When government— I just have a fundamental problem that government leading the way is not the right way.

And so I would really rather hear from folks who are doing the work, and then we see the demonstration of the outcome of their work, and then we get to say, how can we come alongside you and support that work? To me, it's a different model, turning it on its head. So perhaps the introduction of work that's out there, maybe this is an invitation to— we can hear more about about that work that we could potentially come along and support at some point in the future. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to offer a slight bit of clarification on the position of the administration regarding this particular amendment. I think the— our concerns about this are not the substance necessarily of the proposed amendment, but the mechanism of funding, in that these are actually the vacant seasonal caretaker positions that are on here that Parks and Rec Department would actually like to fill, and there is a function for them within the panoply of support that the department provides for Parks and Rec facilities. Around the municipalities.

So that I think is the crux of the concern, is really the budgetary mechanism by which the funding is provided. Thank you.

All right, anyone else?

All right, you have already gone twice, but I will let you go one more time on the amendment. I just wanted to ask, so when I met about this with administration, there was some concern about the mechanism to fund this, and there was some talk about searching for another mechanism. How did that search go? Apparently not well. Through the chair, Member Branca.

I think the challenge is we are also observing some other things within the Parks and Recreation budget. So there is a Q1 budget amendment that addresses some of the costs of the transition of the Mountain View Community Center into a fully fledged community center. But part of the ability to limit the amount of that amendment is because there are other expenses that are being absorbed within, within the department, within the budget of that department already. So it's the challenge of the, of the existing budget is already, I think, at its, at its capacity.

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

Member Johnson. No.

On a vote of 2 to 9, the amendment fails. Next we have the Public Safety Advisory Commission Task Force Amendment. Who— what's the will? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Move amendment number 2. Second. Motion to amend by Mr. Rivera. Seconded by Ms. Brawley, I think. There's a chorus over there.

Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this amendment seeks to fund facilitation support for the task force on reimagining the Public Safety Advisory Commission. It's fairly common when either branch sets up these types of working groups that there is support added to the team to make sure we have the resources to run these in a professional manner.

Um, while we could do the work without this amendment passing, it would add labor to Assemblymember's staff and the community leaders who are going to be actively involved in this. Um, frankly, I wouldn't be doing this work unless I saw a clear value-add to the municipality. I don't have the time to waste, so I urge folks to support this amendment so that we can move on with the work. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

I would just add then, there's no one in the queue, that my intent for voting yes on this is that it is a local contractor. I've said it a number of times, want to make sure the dollars stay if it goes.

Thank you. On that, members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Member Johnson? No.

On a vote of 8 to 4, the amendment has passed. Next amendment we have, Miss Branga, um, This is Anchorage Police Department, $100,000 one-time for area-wide general fund for violence interruption programming for schools. Miss Braga.

Move to amend. Second. Moved by Miss Braga, seconded by Miss Zelotil. Miss Braga. Thank you, Chair.

Um, this should be no surprise. We, um, recently looked at the possibility of passing an ordinance which would extend parental liability for children who brought a weapon to school. It was— the appetite of the body was that this was going to be a difficult legal challenge and that we would rather go forward with a resolution. And that resolution, we had decided that there should be nothing punitive. There instead should be support for families, Court for Children.

And so this amendment would basically put money where our mouth is. We would be giving a pot of money to APD to run a violence intervention program through that mechanism of funding. It would be an RFP, so people would have come forward with their proposals. One that jumped to mind as I did some research on this was the Juanita Strong Program, which is all about intervening after a shooting or an incident of, a serious incident of fighting or a youth that's going the wrong way. And it's voluntary, they do one-to-one mentoring, they have peer groups.

They do— they help them with job applications, behavioral health support, one-to-one mentors groups and peer groups, and then they also do some life skills training. There's other programs out there, and Chief Case says he's actually been involved in helping in Mountain View Elementary with a more residential type violence intervention program. This is a call to action. I saw the red shirts and I thought, wow, this is Red for Ed Day. Hallelujah.

It was good. It was ARP. They're great too. But we just had a budget that did not pass at the state and we have schools that have lost counselors and at a busy high school, they cut the counselor position down to halftime. There's not a nurse in every school with this budget and The primary, the way you intervene when you see a kid that's in crisis that may possibly be involved in a school shooting at some point is to have a talk with them.

When classes are huge and students don't have the time to talk with someone, that opportunity to intervene slips away. And so with the lack of counselors, I am very much hoping we will support this opportunity to give more chances to intervene with violence in our community. Thank you. The queue is alive. Mr. Wallin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to move to amend the amendment to reduce the amount from $100,000 to $75,000. Second.

So there's a motion to amend the amount to $75,000. I will note to folks that according to my count, and I'm not a math wizard, there was $94,701 minus $30,000 means $64,701 is available left. So I don't—. Say that again. What's remaining?

$64,701. That's for everything that's left.

I'm going to rock with that then. I'm going to change— well, I'm looking at our spreadsheet here, and so that's interesting, right? Okay, so say the amount again, and then there's a motion to amend by Mr. Volland in the amount of— and what I have on my list is $64,701.

Okay, so we'll change, uh, my amendment then will be to reduce it, um, to $64,000. And that was moved by Mr. Wallin, seconded by Ms. Brawley. Okay, Mr. Wallin. Yeah, um, thank you. I mean, that's kind of what I'm getting at here is I'm looking at the, uh, the cap and, um, with the passage of the $30,000, um, for the Public Safety Advisory Commission Task Force and how much remaining we have, um, this to me I think is an important amendment.

We already passed a resolution kind of indicating our support for this concept as a body, so I want to make some positive impact be able to happen. Appreciate this being brought forward. Mr. Bowen, I'm going to correct myself and the spreadsheet. Hold on, we're going to get the number right. Right now we have differences of opinion where the number is.

Great. This is called making the sausage and it's not the best.

Okay, so I'm correcting myself. Mr. Wallin, why don't we start that process over? You have the math.

Go ahead. Okay, so I think we're going to revert back.

Oh great, that makes it even simpler. Okay, so in that case, I think we're going to keep it at $75K for this amendment. OK, so the motion to amend by Mr. Voland, seconded by Miss Brawley, is to reduce the amount to $75,000. OK, now go ahead if you want to. Yeah, so for the reasons I described previously, looking at the remaining amount, it sounds like Member Branca does not intend to move the aquatic facility amendment either.

So I think this puts us nearly where we need to be under the cap. Thank you, Ms. Zalatel. How many times can we amend an amendment? Please remember, remind me. So twice.

This is it.

So we have the item before us and then we have an amended version. This is the first amendment. I think we have one more, right? We can amend the amendment. This is amending the amendment.

Yes. Can we amend the amendment after this one more time? Okay, great. I'm going to preview it because it does relate to the amount of money. I intend to amend the amendment to add the Anchorage Health Department to this.

I think there needs to be a public health component to this beyond just public safety. And so I can support the $75,000 if we take a public health perspective as well. My question to OMB will be, do we need to designate the amounts or can we just do an amount to two departments and let them figure it out?

Through the chair, I think that if the record reflects that the intention is for it to be split between APD and AHD, that the total amount can be determined on the backside of it. All right, okay, so we're— the motion to amend down is $75,000. Any further discussion? Mr. Martinez on the amendment? Mr. Presverde on the amendment?

Amendment to the amendment? Youth Member Bell on the amendment to the amendment? No. Okay, so then seeing no one else in the queue on the amendment to the amendment, is there objection to the amendment? I'd like to ask unanimous consent.

So Okay, if there's objections, we'll go ahead. Members may proceed to vote on the amendment to the amendment.

Member Johnson? No.

All right, on a 10-2 vote on the youth. Member votes yes. Yes. The amendment to the amendment has passed. So now the amendment is to $75,000.

Um, I have you in the queue, Mr. Martinez.

In the queue for the overall amendment?

What? Yes. What else would other people be in the queue for? I just checking. Yes, the floor is the floor.

Mine. Thank you, Chair. So, uh, I'm not going to support this today, and the reason I'm not going to support this, just to be very direct, is that the order of operations is out of sequence again. Um, the intent I think we share it, and I love that members also brought the public health perspective. I think those perspectives are really important.

But I will share with folks, I'm not talking anecdotally. There's actual work happening in the community. Member Branga mentioned it with respect to the chief working with other folks. But at the core of that work, outside of the assembly meetings, I meet with community folks to make sure that they know how to work together before they come to the municipality and ask for money. On the good note, and I shout out to Chief Case, he brought in a nonprofit professional grant writer and foundation person to be able to bring more resources into APD to do this sort of work.

I commend that. But the order of operations is fundamentally that a member of the assembly is going to throw money at a department and hope that the department does the work that we want them to do. It may be— they may be doing it, but they're not requesting it today. And so, from that vantage point, I think if there are requests down the line for budget items, I really want them to come from the divisions of government that is doing that work and not speculatively. It should also come from the work that is being demonstrated outside of our awareness, where rubber meets the road, and you come back and show us this is where the rubber is meeting the road and how you can support the additional funding.

Additionally, Chair, I think that there's room— when I think of the groups here and I think of this work, I think of the alcohol sales tax dollars, I think of the marijuana dollars. So I just think of the other buckets that we have access to to support prevention, violence disruption, that type of work in our community. So respectfully, I would encourage us to move on. I think the work is ripe. It's happening in the community.

I again encourage folks in the community to work to educate us so that we know better how to align our resources. But tonight I just don't see that this meets the order of operations. And I would just like us to continue to move on. Thank you, Chair. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Mercedez. Thank you. And I want to second the comment about order of operations. I think it's really important. And I think that that in my mind, you know, if I want our police department to be doing more, quote, violence interruption programming, then I would go to the police chief and say, hey, are we doing violence interruption programming?

And if so, what are we doing? And learn about it and figure it out. And then if there's things that they need to do more of or differently because they feel like, 'cause then, well, how much would that cost? And let's talk about that and let's figure that out. And let me as a policymaker, work on trying to get you the things you need to make sure that we're doing this work.

And so I really agree with the order of operations. And I think that, that this is a good example of, of doing it the wrong way. And so, but again, I support the idea. I think all of us support the idea. This is important work.

I support our schools. I support safety, all of those things. But I think it's really important that we do this in the right way. So I will not be supporting this. Thanks.

Youth Member Bell.

So both Member Bruno, Youth Member Bruno, and myself are in support of this amendment. As youth ourselves in schools, we understand especially the importance of prevention measures. We had a few questions One of which is we were told that the reason why this is going to APD instead of Public Health is that there wasn't, um, there's more room in the budget to take it through APD. So just to clarify, clarification, if I have that correct, and also why this is coming from the area-wide general fund instead of the alcohol tax budget, because I believe we still have some room in that and this seems like a project that would be fit the alcohol tax budget.

I think Miss Brous is looking for the answer.

Through the chair to Member Bell, there is approximately $78,000 remaining in the alcohol tax budget at the end of 2025 approved budget.

Can I ask sort of a follow-up question? Um, yeah, is this— is there a particular reason why that wasn't used or why this is, um, this project is better suited for the going through APD?

I was told there was no alcohol tax funding left and this was a way to still get it. It is much more appropriate in alcohol tax.

Hmm.

All right. Thank you. Ms. Branga is in the queue.

Hold on. I'm not sure what is going on here.

Ms. Zolotow and then Ms. Branga. Go ahead, Ms. Zolotow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm going to make one more amendment to this amendment, but I'm going to speak first.

You know, I hear about the order of operations, but all of that makes assumptions that the member who brought this didn't inquire with APD or didn't do her homework or didn't do her due diligence in bringing it. And I, I just, I want to give that feedback because whether or not we agree with the item or we think the order of operations might be out of order, it's better, I think, to ask questions about that. So I'm going to go ahead and amend the amendment to add the Anchorage Health Department and change the fund source to alcohol tax. There's a motion to amend the amendment. Second.

Second. Second. Moved by Ms. Zeltl.

We need to wait. We don't know if there's alcohol tax or not. It was moved by Zeltl, second by Brawley, but hold on just a moment.

All right, so it's just add AHD, not to change it to alcohol tax. Um, the adjustments made in the alcohol tax required intergovernmental charges, which took up the remainder of that space, which is how we were briefed in the work sessions. So no change on alcohol tax. We have not changed that narrative. So this would be $75,000 to the Anchorage Police Department and Anchorage Health Department.

And the real— the add there and what I would like to see as a result if this amendment passes is that we really put a public health lens approach on this as part of a data-driven cross-sector collaboration. I really want to— in tough areas, I really want to move from the punitive to the healthy. We don't do enough of that. And while I think there definitely has to be partnership with the police department, I think if we approach kids about being healthy and what healthy behaviors are, I think that piece is needed. I'm not saying that accountability isn't needed and that we shouldn't support, um, you know, public safety, public safety as well.

I just don't want the emphasis there. I know that schools have a lot of really complex issues they're helping kids with, but I see this as broader. I see this as a partnership, not just you know, in the school, but it's public health conversation. How do we have a healthy community? So, um, to that end, I hope you can support that amendment.

Thank you. Um, Miss Brongo.

Oh, I'm sorry, you were in the queue. Go ahead. Okay.

Mr. Rivera, on the amendment? Actually, no, nothing. Okay, Mr. Bolland, on the amendment?

All right, Youth Member Bell— or Mr. Presverde, on the amendment? He stepped away. Youth Member Bell, on the amendment?

Um, yes, so I just want to voice my support for this amendment. I think that a partnership between the police department and the public health department is much better than either departments alone. I think this would be very beneficial. Also, member— youth member Bruno tells me that member Branga did talk to Chief Case, so that's good news there. All right, Mr. Presverde, on the amendment?

No, like you're in the queue, so I'm verifying if you're on the amendment. No, we're on the amendment to add AHD. OK, any further discussion on the amendment to add AHD? OK, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you.

I apologize, maybe it's because I'm not in the room, but this sounds very similar, if not the same, as the previous amendment to the amendment. Could someone just help me understand the difference between this and the amendment to the amendment that Vice Chair Zaltel made a few minutes ago that was voted on? Thank you for the question, Mr. Johnson. Um, the original amendment I tried to make was to add AHD and change the fund source to the alcohol tax. I withdrew that and just limited it to the Health Department based on clarification from the Office of Management and Budget.

Okay, thank you. All right, anyone else on the amendment to the amendment? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

A vote of 11 to 1, and the youth member votes yes. Yes, the amendment to the amendment has passed. We're back on the main motion as amended— or excuse me, the amendment as amended.

Mr. Boland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, this has been an interesting conversation, I think, about the order of operations. Um, I guess I will just say that I appreciate Member Branga bringing this forward.

Um, and, you know, ultimately a budget is a statement of our values, and I just want to reassert, as I maybe am often want to do. Um, we are the policymaking body, the legislative body of the municipality. We are the appropriators. There are going to be times where, um, we feel strongly that something should be a priority. And when I look at the order of operations for this amendment, I actually see a pretty robust, um, process that was followed.

The normal order of operations is that we have budget work sessions, and assembly members at that time are able to voice to members of the administration what priorities they would like to see, uh, in the budget. Um, and we have a work session specifically for members to bring forward their amendments and their ideas. Um, The administration, then they take the ball from there and they can say, okay, we're going to incorporate the priorities that we share and that we feel strongly about as well. And some of the amendments they may not choose to incorporate. Additionally, I think this had the added layer of process of the assembly resolution that we passed when Member Branga chose ultimately not to bring forward two ordinances.

We passed a resolution saying, hey, you know, we want to see this, this work done in our community.

So I believe that this was well within— done within a good order. And I— it also is affirming to hear that discussions with APD did take place. So for all those reasons, I am happy to see this move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, Mr. Well, thank you, Ms. Brawley. Yeah, thank you. I just want to provide brief information related to this amendment, but also on the budget. I just conferred with OMB directors. So if this passes— and I'll say as well, I intend to vote yes on this amendment.

So I am not offering this to suggest that folks should not. If this amendment passes, that would leave $299 under the cap. That is essentially up to the cap. It's a— well below margin of error. And so just to say, if anybody would like to make further amendments, if this passes, then probably you're not going to find a lot you can pay for with $299.

So, but you're welcome to try. Or otherwise, we would consider this essentially filled up to the cap. So if there are other amendments that members would like to bring, if this one does pass, then you would need to reduce some other piece of the budget. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear before we proceed. Thank you.

Mr. Martinez. Yes, thank you, Chair. And I want to celebrate my colleagues for their focus on this issue, and raising the value question I think is really important.

Statement of values was the word that was utilized, and I think that is accurate when we talk about budgets. But statement of values meets where the rubber meets the road is what our job is. We're not just in the statements of values. That would be very theatrical, although some of myself included can be. But where rubber meets the road is where I go to the order of operations questions from my colleagues.

Member Voland, through what he perceived was the assembly process with respect to the order of operations, work session, introduction to conversation, and Yeah, right on. When I described order of operations, I wanted to take it out of our body, and so I will remind us what I mentioned of order of operations. Essentially, either work starts in the community and it comes to us and we support it, or we are hoping that our dollars start work in the community. The order of operations is, is there, not necessarily within the steps that Member Branca took the accurate steps. There was no assertion also, Chair, that Member Branca didn't speak to the chief.

I'm texting the chief as we— in the background. And so there's been these interactions. But I would just suggest that from my vantage point, this issue is not going to go away. Us budgeting an item is not going to make it rubber meet the road happen. But when I think of order of operations, I will follow this for the rest of the night as well, Chair, which is essentially, are we trying to create something or are we coming alongside to be complementary to the things that are happening in the community?

There is good work happening in our community. This should not overshadow the work that's happening, whether this is yay or nay tonight. The work that's happening in our community needs more awareness, needs more support, but I'd like it to come back to us from that work, and then the request should be aligned to the rubber meets the road vantage point. Thank you. Since he hasn't spoken, Mr. Mayes has the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to Motion to call the question. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Myers.

Second, Mr. Walland. Any discussion? I guess it's non-debatable. Um, members may proceed to vote. The question has been called.

Mr. Myers moves, Mr. Walland seconds.

Mr. Johnson, on calling the question? Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, the question has been called on the question of the amendment to the amendment, which is— let's call back the question.

Or that was on the amendment. Yeah, that's done. We're on the main budget now as an amendment. Okay, the school one, Amendment 3.

Mr. Johnson, on Amendment Number 3 as amended. Yes.

We're voting on the amended amendment by Ms. Brongo. The amendment is to appropriate $75,000 to the Health Department and the Police Department for our training program. On a vote of 7 to 5, the amendment has passed.

And the youth member votes yes. Yes. Oh, yes.

All right.

All right, so we have no more amendments on the budget. So now we have the budget before us. Any members wish to discuss the budget? Miss Zelletta. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So this is my last chance at this budget. I have to A few things I'd like to say. One, I think this budget represents good government. We aren't talking about vacancy factors at 1Q, so congratulations to the administration.

I know you've worked really hard to not have that be a featured conversation, which it has been the last couple of years. I want to highlight one of mine and Mr. Johnson's amendments that was included in the S version. It's $100,000 to code abatement that deals with buildings that should be condemned. Um, that code abatement officer has the hard call many days about whether or not to condemn a building and basically have people's homes end. Um, and that amendment provided $100,000 for relocation, um, specifically first month and security deposit.

That can be a very high bar for someone if they're not expecting to move. So what my hope is, is that, um, that can be used, um, to let people move, um, when circumstances warrant that they really are in uninhabitable space where they don't have heat or they don't have water, so that code abatement can do their job and those properties can either move into new hands, be redeveloped, or whatever the opportunity is. I do want to flag that I think that follow-up work needs to be done with that money to include a change to code that lets the municipality explicitly recover that cost from a landlord. Thank you. Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we are on the main motion now, correct? Great. Um, I just want to express my thank you to the mayor to Acting Chief of Staff Graham Downey, to Ms.

Win Pearson, to Ona Brouse and the OMB team, to Director Rudolph and the public transit team, all the folks who worked overtime to get creative to help support the neighborhood of Fairview, who's losing their grocery store, and help folks get some transportation to the groceries and pharmacy access that they need. So yeah, just want to say thank you. I know that the, the neighborhood, the community will really appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brawley. Thank you. I will get on the thank you train as well and say thank you in particular to the staff of Office of Management and Budget as well as our budget analyst. I was reflecting last week on the contrast that this process has been from last year and just really appreciate the partnership and really the opportunity to work out, which I know is— there's a lot of complicated issues in the budget to deal with generally. And so I believe that this is a good budget.

And then I will say, as I did last year, we are delivering a budget on time, under the cap, right, right under the cap, and making sure that we can move forward so that we can move to the next step of the process, which is getting those tax bills out so we can pay for our government. So thank you to everybody who has been involved.

Miss Brongo. Thank you. Also, I have— I can't believe how hard Miss Brouse works to get these budgets together. And it— and she has all new members, if you can take the time to sit down with her, she demystified the giant binder of budget items that was so scary when I first got on the body. And she just She called it a story.

This is the story of the municipality. And she went through it. It was very good. But I also wanted to take a minute to shout out the money set aside for ARCH program security doors. For those of you who don't know, they are starting a detox program for youth in Eagle River or on Highland Drive and to get to get that program in play, there's a significant cost for security doors.

So I appreciate you including that in the budget. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to also offer my appreciation to the administration for the process that we went through, both in terms of the, the, the pacing, the timeliness, but the transparency. I think it's really important that it gave us, the assembly members, the ability to, from my vantage point, focus more on the substantive issues rather than the process of how things were even becoming discovered in the first place.

So I just offer that appreciation. And I would say to the mayor as well, thank you for the prioritization of those values that we talk about, right? Budgets are value documents. And the element that I mentioned before in debate is essentially my encouragement to the administration. The more you are listening, the more attentive you are to both the assembly members as we are representatives of huge constituencies, but the more you're not isolated in the— on the 8th floor in your own bubble, the more you'll be able to preemptively, programmatically, bring us along for some of the investments that we debated tonight that we want to see built into budgets, not necessarily as add-ons, because those are the value statements we want to aspire toward.

And I just appreciate the administration for that and the continued work for the next budgets. Thank you. Mayor LaFrance, hopefully the last word. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Director Brouse and the OMB team for their work in this process.

Thanks to all of you on the body and the youth members too for the time that you have put into working with us to, uh, fund our priority pillars of good governance, safe streets and trails, and building our future. I don't want to get ahead— I know you still have to vote— but, um, for putting together a budget that does this. Um, I want to note that the total average mill rate is lower than last year. There's a 0.34 reduction in the total average mill rate for general government and the Anchorage School District. So the 2025 total is 15.45, and the 2024 total was 15.79.

I also want to note that while the bonds will be up for your vote at the next meeting, The revised budget includes them in the debt amount in it as well, including $3.5 million for snow removal equipment, $33.7 million for road and drainage projects, including enhanced pedestrian lighting improvements, $8.25 million for improvements to parks and trails, including Town Square Park— thank you very much— and Fish Creek— yay— $300,000 for Chugach State Park access area. And I just finally want to note too that the 2025 budget incorporates amendments from all 12 members and was a collaborative effort to ensure district priorities were accommodated. And that includes, I believe, an amendment from youth member Bell as well. So thank you all very much for your engagement in this process and for your collaboration. I am grateful to all of you, and I'll be even more grateful when you approve it.

Thank you. Not to be presumptuous. Anyone else? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0 in the youth member votes. Yes. Yes. AR 2025-91 as amended has passed the body. Congratulations.

Next item is 14B, Resolution AR 2025-92, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage revising and appropriating funds for the 2025 Municipal Utilities Enterprise Activities Operating Capital Budget. And I understand there's an A version of a memorandum. So, um, public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's before the body? Move to approve in the A version of the AM. Second, and with the S version of the— or sorry, S version of the AR. There's no S, so there's.

Motion to approve the S version by Ms. Zeltow, seconded by Ms. Brawley, and includes the A version of the AM.

Any discussion on this item?

None at all.

Ms. Brawley. Yeah, thank you. If I could just have Ms. Braus speak to the major changes in the S version. Briefly. Through the chair, the S version changes on the utilities and enterprises budgets include a title change within the AWU capital line, an increase to one of the AWU projects, the SWS increase for the gas system at Merrill Field that Municipal Manager Wynn Pearson spoke about earlier tonight that will be incorporated through other procurement documents, but this is the budget increase for that project.

Additional language specifically for Anchorage Hydro and the release of the assembly restriction on the capital funds. The information on the account the capital funds for the Fish and Wildlife Program are held in, as well as the— oh, that was not a change. Nope, that's the same as it was in the proposed revised. So those are the changes, as well as we added the conforming language that the assembly requested for for additional changes that may be around the edges once you get done with the document. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you.

So question about that, I'm not sure how we can release the appropriation for the 2025 capital improvement on the Anchorage Hydropower Project Fund. We have not yet received the budget and that was what would release the funds. I understand it is coming and it is probably coming next meeting, so I want to just get clarification there if there is some other reason we should be releasing those funds. Through the Chair to Member Zalatell, the document was drafted with the intention after the conversation with membership about making sure that there was language available to release the funds with the assurance that there is restriction on the accounting controls. The expectation of the AIM did not materialize with the detailed budget from the owner's So if the body is interested in maintaining that restriction, we can strike those lines from the document in order to not release it until the AIM is presented to the body.

Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Brouse. Move to amend to strike lines 41 and 42.

Second motion to amend by Ms. Zalatell, seconded by Mr. Presverdia, to strike lines 41 and 42, page 1 of AR 2025-92S. Ms. Salazar. Thank you. So when we passed the capital improvement program for the hydropower, we were really clear we wanted to receive a budget for what the 2025 capital improvement program for the 91 Fish and Wildlife program is. I appreciate great interaction from Mr. Stafford today, Mr. Corcentino, and the municipal attorney's office.

That will probably be for with you at your next meeting. As soon as you have that then I would release this. The intention here is to make sure we know what that money is being spent for and that it is consistent with our priorities and aims in the Fish and Wildlife program. Thank you. Any more discussion on the amendment?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson on the amendment. Yes.

Vote of 12 to 0. And the youth member votes yes. Yes. The amendment has passed. Next, we're back on the main motion as amended.

Any further discussion?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes. Yes. AR-2025-92S, as amended, has passed the body. Next we have Item 14C. 14C is AO-2025-45, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage setting the rates of tax levy, approving the amount of municipal property tax and levying taxes for all service areas of the municipality of Anchorage General Government for 2025.

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

Move to approve the S. Second. Moved by Ms. Salatel, second by Ms. Brawley. Ms. Salatel. Thanks. This will set the taxes for general government.

All right. Any dis— oh, Ms. Brawley. Yeah, just briefly, two things. One, there was a brief amendment discussed regarding the Chugiak/Eagle River Parks and Recreation mill rate that has been incorporated into the S, and there's an email explanation if anybody would like it. You can ask council or— and then also just to say the mill rates do not need to be adjusted because the assumption was made by the administration in this S version that we would essentially fill up to the cap.

So just to say there is no adjustment needed and these are good to go. Thank you, Mr. Salt. Thank you, Chair. No, no good place to put this, so I'll put it here since I won't be here on May 6th.

But during the work session on bond issues, our fees for bonds were about 11% where normal market rates 1 to 5%. So just want to make sure we look into that on the 6th or between now and the 6th. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Salt. Any further discussion on this item? Hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2025-46 has passed the body. Next we have item 14D. Wait, oh yeah, 14D is AO 2025-46, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage setting the rate of tax levy, approving the amount of municipal property tax and levying taxes for the Anchorage School District for tax year 2025. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

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

Moved by Ms. Zalatel, seconded by Ms. Crowley. Any discussion? Ms. Zalatel. Thank you. Um, there's so much to say about education, but this is what I'm going to say.

This is my last chance to weigh in from this position, is I'm sorry we have to levy these taxes for what you're going to get, and it is not our fault. We are providing the maximum contribution we can. The legislature needs to get this fixed so that you get, as residents of Anchorage, that the children of Anchorage get the education they deserve. The opportunity cost of continuing to not fund education is astronomical. It is so much more than what we are able to levy in property taxes or capture.

And I'm just really disappointed in today's outcome. And I know that My colleagues up here are all strong advocates for education, but we are so limited in what we can do. And in the end, we levy for taxes for a budget that we don't control, that I know is full of hard decisions, but it's not a good feeling. So I hope next year when this body has to levy these taxes, you'll be in a better position. That's my immediate hope for the future.

And legislature, And Governor, you're the only ones that can make that happen. Thank you. Anyone else?

Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, and the youth member votes Yes. Yes. AO-2025-46S has passed the body.

Next we have Item 14F. 14F is AO-2025-52, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21 to not require off-site public improvements such as To road or drainage facilities to be constructed or funded by a developer of housing developments. Public hearing of this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item, welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes. The mic is off. You're— there you go. Uh, thank, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Tyler Robinson. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of Cook Inlet Housing. Um, thank you for the sponsors for bringing this ordinance forward. Let me explain what I think this is doing. I think most of you know when you come in for a housing development, you can be required to.

Address substandard roads adjacent to your development. So this might have nothing to actually do with the development. It might just be that the road itself is substandard. Actually, it's a pretty common occurrence in urban Anchorage. We don't have many roads that are fully built out with sidewalks on both sides of the street, storm sewer, the whole thing.

And so the one concrete thing that this ordinance does is there's an exception when you come in, and that is that if you're adjacent to a road and that road is already funded funded, the funds are appropriated to be improved, the city can say you don't have to fix it. This simply suggests that beyond being funded, the road is in the plan, it's in the capital improvement plan, it's somewhere in the queue of the municipality. It's suggesting that the municipality have the ability to waive that requirement. Our example on Chugach Way was this is a road that is in a whole slew of plans, it's being studied, it's being designed, but the money is not actually appropriated. We were required to build out a road adjacent, a half street road adjacent to our development, to the tune of $340,000.

We know that will get ripped up when the city actually does fix the road, and in the interim, all we've done is build a couple, couple feet of sidewalk and spent some money. So that's the concrete action. Beyond that, what we're really suggesting is how do we go beyond that? Because that really only accounts for a road that's in the plans, and most other urban roads are just simply not. I think if you were to— I tried to find out how many of our urban roads actually meet standards.

Nobody knows. We extrapolated an area between Spinard and Arctic, 36th and Tudor, and using the 42nd Avenue project that's currently being constructed right now, we believe that fixing the urban roads in that superblock alone would cost $48 million. It would alone would be more than a single bond that we passed for roads and drainage. What we're suggesting is yet there's no— if I come in for a project in that area, I got to build my little chunk of road. There is a mismatch, I think, between wanting to support housing, wanting this infrastructure, and actually having the means to address both.

So that there's that one substantive, substantive issue that this does. But the other thing it does is Can we get together? Can we have a work group like we've had with members of this body to investigate the other areas for those roads that are outside of the plans but still would compel a housing development to address them? Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to disclose for the record that I do represent Cook Inlet Housing Authority in my professional capacity in Eagle River, but this does not impact that project at all. So I have no financial gain there, at least in my opinion.

That road was built out. I would just say it's the ruling of the chair that you do not have a substantial or personal or financial interest in the question before us. So if there's any disagreement, speak now. All right, hearing none, welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes. The mic is off. There you go. Crystal Hoak. I live in Girdwood.

I just want to, I guess, testify in support of this because I know that This has been a problem in Girdwood and South Townsite, for instance. That's the parcel that I'm most familiar with. And when I had met with the planning department, they required basically a new road to be built before you could do anything on that parcel. And there's an existing gravel road there. And then there's like this new road that's kind of like platted, but it's not actually there.

So that would need to be cleared. You would need to add a road to nowhere because then you would need to build a bridge. If you were going to use that extension. So it was like one— because I very much investigated this parcel for Little Bears, and it was $1.5 million to build 850 feet of road, and we were going to need a variance or to be able to build the road for substandard, but they were still going to require the separated walking path. So it was kind of like 850 feet just for nowhere when there's actually already a gravel road right there.

So I am— I've seen this be a problem. It made that parcel impractical for us. And then once we found out about the floodplain issues, we completely changed the location. So anyway, definitely think that we need to cut some red tape. And also in that particular case, it would have helped if HLB would have removed a plat note to develop both sides of the roads.

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

Let's roll the body. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Zalatil, second by Mr. Myers. Ms. Zalatil.

Thank you. So the intention here is to put another tool in our toolbox to get to 10,000 homes in 10 years. We have a number of plans where roads are in the queue, whether that's the capital improvement program, AMATS through the transportation improvement program, or the metropolitan transit plan. I You know, and I'm not being limited there. There might be other opportunities.

It just makes no sense to keep letting infrastructure costs get in the way of actual housing development. There is an off-ramp on this as well. If a development that is proposed would have significant impacts to the area, then there's a conversation. It's not that you're bringing— maybe if we were so lucky, 100 units into a small local road without requiring updates. It is the infill, the onesies, twosies, even the eights, where we're not going to see that substantial impact.

So this seems like a common sense measure to me, and I appreciate the partnership with Cook Inlet and Mr. Myers co-sponsoring one more piece that can be moved out of the way so that we can hopefully effectuate our housing goals. Thank you.

Miss Broad. Thank you. I just had a question for, um, probably the sponsors, but may also relate to, um, someone at the— in the admin side as well. Um, it does say that this shall be, uh, the case. I was looking at the underlying section.

So just to be clear, the intent is not that, that a development would not have to get easements or the other— there's a number of things listed in here But it does say to the extent that, so I just am making sure that it's not waiving or sidestepping any kind of other actions that would need to happen besides that road improvement. That is a correct reading. Thank you. Mr. Salt. Thank you.

I just want to make sure that this isn't going to affect, like, we have a major development where it affects drainage patterns, that that's still required, or if it affects traffic patterns for a larger build out? If that's for the administration or the sponsors. Thank you, Mr. Solt. So if you look in Standard 4, there, there are when standards are requiring dedications and improvements, and it really talks about public use density, a number of things. And so the— it's where the required dedication or improvement bears a rational nexus to the public safety— or sorry, public facility improvement.

And so it is requiring to find that nexus. So if a public— if a development was causing and had an actual nexus with a public facility issue like drainage, then there would need to be a conversation about that improvement.

All right. So I am the first of the van experiencing technical problems, but I don't think there's anyone else in the queue. Ms. Zalatova. Thank you. This is just a note for the record and the clerk.

The wrong AM is attached. It is AM338-2025. It's also on OnBase attached that way, so that just needs to be corrected in the future because this has nothing to do with MATSIM crane agreements.

Ms. Brongo. Thank you, Chair. I just I just want to make sure— I've heard of many cases of extremely large bills for development, that this wouldn't have any retroactive. I didn't notice— like I had heard from somebody who had to develop an entire cul-de-sac for the one house he was putting in. And I'm sure people like that are going to be very thankful that this is going in, but hopefully it's clarified that that doesn't—.

No, I would say this doesn't— we aren't going to be issuing refund checks or asking them to undig the roads that they've put in. Yeah, no. Anyone else? I wish I could see the queue, but, um, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson? Yes.

I vote yes.

Well, is there any objection to the motion? Hearing and seeing no objection, the motion carries unanimously, a vote of 12 to 0. And the youth member votes yes. Yes. We're going to take just a minute.

Sorry.

I'm working now, so— okay, it seems like the glitch has passed. I don't know what caused it, but we'll move on. It's— I call them deadline gremlins. Next we have item 13A.

13A is AO 2024-123, an ordinance authorizing the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Hydropower, to execute and enter into 3 agreements pertaining to the municipal public water supply and the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Program. We also have the S version. Miss Alitoma. Thank you. Move to refer to the Department of Law until such time as a final pump storage hydro study scope agreement is available and a work session briefing the members can be had.

Second. So there is a motion to refer by Ms. Zalatell, seconded by Mr. Voland. You want to speak to it? Yes. So these water agreements, for those of you who are fully up to speed on them, provide two paths.

One is around the portal valve, and then there's literally an off-ramp around the pump storage hydro. Option, which we've talked about, about on this body, if the governor were to order it, these would go back into renegotiation in order for the body to be able to make that determination of whether or not they feel comfortable with that option being included in the S version of these agreements. You need to know what the pump storage hydro agreement is like. What's the scope of that study going to be? My understanding is the technical committee is really close to reaching consensus on what the scope of the pump storage hydro study will be.

But it seems with such monumental agreements, which these are 35-year water agreements, that that's really putting the cart way before the horse. So that's the intent of the motion. I do want to say that we wouldn't be having to do these gymnastics if these water agreements were never tied to other matters. I think it would have been nice that when a 35-year water decision about our water, our drinking water came forward, that it could be considered on its own merits and not tangled with something else. But this is the position we're in.

So I hope that you all, that when this comes back, you all have the right amount of information to make such a big decision. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion to refer? Is there any objection to the motion to refer? I'd like to ask unanimous consent.

Seeing and hearing no objection, the motion is referred. The purpose of that is to put the ball in our partners over on the other side's court. Chugash and MEA, you have the con. Next we have item 13G.

If we could real quick, Ms. Salitano. Um, yes, I'd like to change Change the order of the day to take up 13E. I missed it last time, my apologies. Motion to change the order to take up item 13. Is there a second?

Second. Second by Mr. Myers, moved by Ms. Zalatil. Change order. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection, we will now take up item 13E.

Item 13E is AO 2025-41, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Sections 15.20.020 and 21.10.050 to expand public nuisance laws to regulate to treat human waste and to provide minimum standards for the property keeping of large domestic animals. The public hearing on this item is now open. Welcome. The microphone's off, so there's a little green button or yellow button. There you go.

Thank you. Through the chair and the assembly, town you're from, you'll have 3 minutes. My name is Mark Coburn. Our family's lived in the South Birchwood area of Chugiak since 1997 and in North Peters Creek for 10 years before that. To give you some sense of who I am, I'm a retired professional civil engineer with more than 40 years experience in both public and private practice, including 10 years as a project manager supervisor with Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility.

This is a picture of the public nuisance I'm looking to abate. This is about a 40 cubic yard pile of manure from a, uh, Commercial large animal facility in our neighborhood. She's permitted for 20 horses on site, so that, um, based on the guidelines of 50 pounds of manure and urine per horse per day, that's 20 horses worth over the course of about 3 or 4 months.

This uncontained stockpile from 20 horses is roughly the equivalent of 250 people using a single uncontained outhouse every single day because it is an uncontained pile. The municipality has animal waste management guidelines that have been in place since at least 2025. We're told they're unenforceable. They require waste to be contained. And removed every 7 days.

That will help with preventing groundwater contamination. It will help alleviate some of the odors that are in our community. So I'm asking for your positive approval of that portion of this AMC. The second portion relates to AMC 21.10, which is use standards specific to Chugiak/Eagle River. Does not apply to anchorage at all because of a mistake in one of the tables in there.

Um, the municipality applies anchorage standards in Chugiak rather than the Chugiak/Eagle River standards. So I'm asking this ordinance, the— include changes to correct that oversight, um, to allow Chugiak/Eagle River standards to be applied in Chugiak River. So I'm asking for your positive support in this as well. And I also note that 2025 is the 50th anniversary of the merger between City of Anchorage and the Greater Anchorage Area Borough to create the Municipality of Anchorage. So I think this, in the spirit of that merger, I look for your support for this.

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

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Myers, seconded by Mr. Littlefield. Is there any discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Mr. Johnson. Yes. On a vote Mr. Presverdia, how do you vote? Sorry, I'm clear. Can you say it in the mic?

Mr. Presverdia votes yes. So on a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2025-41 has passed the body. Next we have item 13G. 13G is AO 2025-35, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly repealing and reenacting Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 12.60, Tax Incentives for Housing, and repealing 12.70. There's an S, an S1, an S2, and, um, I don't see if there is a motion on the floor, but the public hearing is now open.

That's right, no motion. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this one of these items, welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

The mic is off. Hit that little green button.

Hello, uh, good evening, members of the assembly. Can you please state your name, what part of town you're from? Yeah, uh, my name is Jason Pattengill, uh, from District 3. Uh, I am a skilled tradesman here in town, uh, but more importantly, I'm a— is there feedback on this or It sounds weird right here. Sorry.

I'm a single dad raising 2 kids here in Anchorage. I am here to speak in support of AO 2025-35, specifically the provision that incentivizes or requires the use of prevailing wages on multifamily construction projects tied to tax incentives. For me, this isn't just theoretical, it's personal.

Working for a contractor that pays prevailing wage has made all the difference in my life here. It's the reason I can provide for my kids. It's the reason I can stay here in Anchorage and invest back in this community. Prevailing wage jobs aren't just about better pay.

They often come with healthcare and retirement and training for lifelong careers.

When we encourage contractors to pay a fair wage, we're not just building housing, but we're building a better workforce in Anchorage.

Some might say higher wages increase project costs, but I've seen what happens when you cut corners.

Workers are underpaid, jobs are rushed, and the quality suffers in the community. We say we want housing, and we say we want economic stability. Well, this is how we can get both, by backing projects that support real sustainable jobs and by respecting the people who do the work.

I urge you to keep prevailing wage and apprenticeship provisions in this ordinance. It's not just good policy, it's good for Anchorage. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing on this item is now— oh, sorry. All right, please state your name, what part of town you're from, and you'll have 3 minutes. Good evening, my name is Luquita Chimilowski. I'm from the Abbott Loop area, and I'm here to express my support for these housing tax incentives as a vital tool for ensuring Anchorage remains sustainable both today and in the future.

As we face rising construction costs and increasing limited opportunities for developable land or redevelopment these incentives play a critical role in making housing projects feasible. They provide much-needed support to bring projects to fruition. The longer the duration of the incentives, the more impactful they become. Extending the timeframe gives projects greater financial certainty, which in turn enables developers to pursue more ambitious plans and, and can increase the overall number of housing units delivered. Tax incentives are not just helpful, they are essential in today's economic environment to encourage investment, reduce financial barriers, and ensure housing projects that can move forward.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now officially closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve the S-1. Second.

Motion to approve the S-1 version made by Ms. Brawley. Seconded by Ms. Zolotow. We have a packet of amendments. Um, we have the S-1, we have the S-1 packets. I'll go ahead and start with Mr. Johnson.

Do you want to move your amendment?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Johnson Amendment Number 1. Second. Motion to amend by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr.

Bond. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think as a body, we have repeatedly made the assertion that Anchorage has overbuilt parking and reduced to seeing reasons to reduce the requirements for parking.

This is just essentially trying to take what I think we widely recognize as one of the least desirable and efficient uses of space and convert it to, or incentivize its use as one of the most important priorities for for Anchorage. So I think the intent of this is pretty straightforward. I will add as well that, um, in drafting this amendment, I consulted with the administration, and then they stated that they were supportive of making this change to the underlying ordinance.

Any— oh, Ms. Zalatell. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Voland, on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah. Gosh, this is a good amendment. I wish I had thought of this myself. Thank you for bringing this forward, Member Johnson. I'm excited to support it.

Thank you.

Ms. Brawley. Thanks. Yeah, I support this as well. And I also appreciate the specificity. So, no, we're not just saying parking lot, but there is a land use definition of parking lot or parking structure.

So I think that's helpful. And really makes it clear how this can be utilized. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thanks for the member comments, but just credit where credit is due. Is Mr. Jason Norris who suggested this in the first place? Government representative.

Government in action. Any further discussion on the amendment? Any opposition to the amendment? Seeing and hearing no opposition to the amendment, the amendment is adopted.

Next we have Amendment Number 2. Ms. Zalatel. Move Zalatel Amendment Number 2. Motion to amend by Ms. Zalatel. Seconded by Ms. Brawley.

Ms. Zalatel, do you want to speak to the slight change? I do. So there's a grammatical error. I would just like to get that out of the way at first. After development, it should be comma, project should be stricken, and it should read and.

So in a mixed-use development comma and that also Offers property. Yeah, so property is out and we need a comma and an and. And that was Miss Branga on the second, Mr. Chair. OK, so to speak to this, this is the giant flashing neon.

We are open for business sign. The intention of this amendment, and it is permissive, says, hey, if you want to take and make the big investment in Anchorage, take the big swing. We're open to that conversation. This would be a— it requires 3 things and no other portions of the bonus table work. In order to get a 45-year tax abatement, you need to construct not less than 20 new residential units offered for rent at market rate in a mixed-use development and also offer tenant-supporting amenities which could be parking, on-site childcare.

This is really to say we are open to the conversation to get some of the developments like we sometimes see in the lower 48. These would be— this— the property that would be constructed would be an investment in our city. Now, I understand this is well above the current tax abatement limits proposed by the administration, even if you add the full bonus table together. That's why it sets apart.

I don't know of anyone who is going to come knocking on our door tomorrow for a 45-year tax abatement, but I sure as heck want to tell them we are open to the idea of that big investment. So I am really asking you all to dream the big dream with me on this one, to say, hey, we want that big, beautiful structure that is going to be around for a long time. I did do my due diligence on this. I spoke with Cook Inlet kind of about what their thoughts were. I spoke with Widener Apartment Homes representative about what their thoughts were.

I also spoke with Peach Investments and really started to say, what does it take to turn that giant neon open sign on to say that we want a big investment? Thanks. Ms. Brongo. I want to start out with saying I did not do due diligence on this, but I just had an immediate thought, and I wondered if you might be amenable to amending your amendment to say an on-site manager, if there was an on-site manager in this large housing complex that would, to me, be more appealing. All right.

No second on that? Okay. Mr. Abrahams. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciate Vice Chair Zolotow bringing this forward. It is certainly an ambitious amendment. I guess a couple questions, probably for the sponsor of the amendment. So first is, is there a clear idea or definition around what tenant-supporting amenities means? Thanks.

I just provided two on the record, such as on-site parking or a daycare, something to— or a gym, something directly related that the would support the tenants in living there. Okay. And I guess— thank you for that. And a second question is more of a sort of ideological, philosophical one, which is, you know, one of the other existing bonus table items earlier in the ordinance really focus on particular policy levers that we want to push and policy outcomes that we want to achieve.

Do you feel like this is getting enough public benefit for offering that 45 years of exemption? Absolutely. This would be a big investment in our community. This would be a big and substantial type of building. If the one I think about, and it's currently a commercial building, it's on Northern Lights, it's a cement structure.

It's got the built-in parking. That's the kind of investment I hope we're open to under the right circumstances.

I want to point out, like, this is permissive. This still leaves whether or not the tax abatement is the right thing and under the right circumstances to be administered by the administration once they fully can take a look at the project. But it says we're open to that kind of idea.

Mr. Volante. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I want to move an amendment to the amendment just to bounce this around a little bit in light of some of the public testimony that we've heard. So on the 1, 2, 3, 4th line after tenant supporting amenities, comma, I'd like to insert the following language: and which is constructed using apprentice utilization and prevailing wages, comma.

Can you restate? Constructed using apprentice utilization and prevailing wages. Second.

All right, so there's a motion to amend the amendment by Mr. Volland, seconded by Mr. Rivera. Amendment is to add, which is constructed utilizing or using apprentice utilization and prevailing wages. You want to speak to that? Yeah, if I could, just briefly. I think this kind of gets at some of the testimony that we've heard, you know, when we're using essentially public money to fund these projects.

A project at this scale, I think, sort of approaches what we would normally require for a public project.

And yeah, would like to grow both our housing here in Anchorage and our economy. And I think that this can do both. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have the queue, but I think it's on the main, but I'll go through it.

Ms. Brawley. I'm just on the underlying amendment. Mr. Presverdia. Yeah, I think throughout this process, I'd like to hear from the administration as these amendments come through as a co-sponsor.

And that would like to have them weigh in. Well, it just so happens it appears the mayor is in fact in the queue, unless she was on the main. Okay, so the question I guess pings over to the manager or the mayor. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, are you asking for— you're going on for the amendment to the amendment, not the main amendment?

Yeah, and Mr. Presverdia said he would like to hear the administration's position on the, this proposal. But I guess—. No, I'm sorry, I want to hear their position as a co-sponsor as this is being amended. I, I will be putting myself in the queue because I, I want to understand the relationship between their position and as this is becoming amended. So just to put that on the record, right?

So the question before us is the question of apprenticeship and prevailing wages on these 45-year, 20-unit projects.

I apologize, Mr. Chair. I was looking at the language here. You are wanting us to respond to the amendment or the amendment to the amendment? I had put myself in the queue for the amendment.

I know. So Mr. Presverdia has asked for the administration's position on every amendment that comes forward as we go through this process. So—. And we have Mr. Clowder here. Nolan, you want to just come up so you can just speak to the amendments and amendments to the amendments and whatever is— I do have comments, but I'll— probably best if you—.

Welcome. Nolan Clowder, policy director in the mayor's office. On this item, so I'm reading it for the first time as of a few minutes ago like everyone else, and it is a large, complicated thing that's being proposed, 45-year abatement. We're not sure, you know, what the basis for 45 years is. The question before us right now, I'm going to zoom in right now, is the question of whether or not on a large project as proposed here, the administration supports using apprenticeship and prevailing wages.

On the very narrow question, we'll come back to the big question soon. Mr. Chair. The adding that item onto this amendment, I have no objections. Thank you.

Sorry to be blunt there, but we're going to have you up a few times and it's going to be going back up towards the main. So Mr. Presverdy, are you satisfied? Yep. Thank you. In the queue then on the amendment, anyone else?

An amendment to the amendment. I'm sorry. Hearing and seeing none, um, any objection to the amendment to the amendment? Okay, so members may proceed to vote.

Mr. Chair, actually, could we pause for a moment? I think we're just going to change the language to capture the motion. You already did, right? Uh-huh.

Makes no sense.

So it should read, and which is constructed— yep, perfect. Using apprentice utilization, you can remove that second construction.

Perfect. Thank you. The proper amendment is on the board. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson? Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 3, and the youth member votes yes, yes, that amendment has passed. Amendment to the amendment has passed. Now we're back on the amendment as amended. So now, um, Miss Brawley, on the Amendment as amended.

I was in for the amendment. Okay. The amendment as amended. So now we're back on it. Yeah.

So I did not support the prior amendment because I'm not going to support this underlying amendment. I do appreciate the thought put into it. What I worry most about is how this interplays with the other incentives. When you deal with any kind of regulatory incentives, you have to think about kind of do you outweigh one of them and then it makes the others less attractive. Or are you inadvertently pushing people only to one outcome?

And I understand this is narrow, but at this time I can't support this particular amendment. Thanks. All right, Mr. President. Yeah, just— I'd like Nolan to come up and respond to this. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we're on the amendment as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item, you know, we have a lot of complexity and a very long abatement term of 45 years. We're not sure, you know, what the basis is. I think that that the 25 years that we had kind of based some of our core assumptions on had a lot of analysis behind it to close the financing gap.

So this is an example of something that could be revisited and brought back in a future ordinance and added on, but I think that there isn't really an opportunity to do enough due diligence on it at this time. Ben Bowman from legal flagged a couple of definitional issues with it as well, things like the tenant supported amendities and market rate are not defined in code, for example.

All right, last in the queue then, Ms. Zelital. Thank you. So I want to be clear that this would not allow you to add it with any of the other pieces of the tax abatement. This would be a generational type investment in our city. Again, If the whole intent of this ordinance is to say Anchorage, we need housing, we need tax incentives for housing, then we need to do more than just the minimum.

And to me, that means also turning on the big neon sign with flashing lights and the waving guys at the car dealership and maybe one of the guys who stands out during tax season and waves the sign around to say we are open for business. We want you to bring us our big— your big ideas. When we talk about workforce housing, we're talking about market-rate housing. And if we don't take the big swings at the housing crisis, we're just nibbling at the edges. We are just going to get the twos and threes, and we're not going to be telegraphing to the world Anchorage needs investment.

If you've driven around this town lately, you know Anchorage needs investment. Putting this in so that it is permissive to A signal to a potential developer, I believe, does no harm. It still has plenty of opportunities to make sure it will work for Anchorage. Thank you. Anyone else hearing?

And seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Mr. Johnson. No.

On a vote of 6 to 6, the amendment has failed. Next we have Amendment Number 3. Mr. Walland.

As currently written, I'll let you say it, Mr. Walland. Sure, move Walland Amendment Number 3. Moved by Mr. Walland. Second. Second by Ms. Brawley.

Mr. Walland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think this also— we received a similar amendment from Member Zolotow. And so I'll move this one just because of where we are in sequence.

But essentially, this would allow in an apex or, or more an owner-builder to owner-occupy their property and still not lose the tax abatement for that unit. I will say we are— have a certification of our election later this evening, and I feel like we have some incoming members who are very— they've been tracking these issues very closely, following them. They are ready to roll up their sleeves and engage in the subject matter. And this idea, I'm moving it as an assembly member, but it was brought forward by Assemblymember-elect Yarrow Silvers, and I think she really put some thought into this.

So, all right, any further discussion on the amendment? Second. No, I had Mr. Bond and I just wanted to verify. I started talking.

Okay, second it. So anyway, hope that you all will support this. Thank you, Miss Brawley. Yeah, I just have a question, I think, for the sponsor, but also this was a question I had asked to the— because this issue had come up before— asked to the assessor as well. So whoever can respond to it.

Is, is the intent that a person would get this tax incentive, this tax abatement, and also be able to continue to access the residential property tax exemption for owner-occupied units.

I see the assessor coming up. I think maybe the question would be, how do those things interact? Would, would this be stacking on top of that, or would it be instead of? Because I like the idea But I also want to be clear kind of what tax breaks we're giving essentially.

Welcome, Mr. Gadames.

Yeah, so Jack Gadames, municipal assessor. So through the chair to, um, to Brawley for that question, I believe the answer would be that they probably could overlap both of the exemptions for that. And so I don't have any other further comments right now. Thank you. Can I speak as the sponsor?

Is that okay? Okay. Um, so my intent would be that they would be able to receive both, you know, one more exemption more targeted at catalyzing the actual development to happen, and then the other, yeah, just the residential exemption that anyone in the municipality can apply for.

Um, thanks. Yeah, I don't have any other, other questions. I just want to be clear so this— that these would overlap, um, and so somebody could access both just for that unit.

Before I go down the camera, go to the rear. Mr. Myers, you have a good question. I'm just curious if the Municipality of Anchorage provides a residential exemption on commercial properties. Anything over 4 units is going to be considered commercial. It's a great question for Mr. Gedimis.

Yeah, through the chair to Myers, um, to answer that question, there isn't really nothing that requires that. And so we do see some property owners that live in their commercial property and use it for their primary residence, permanent place of abode. And so they qualify for those as residential exemption in addition to the property being commercial. Thank you. Clarification though, only for the portion that they're residing in.

Yes. Thank you. Um, okay, next, Mr. Presverdia. Yeah, just a continuation. I'd like to hear the administration weigh in on this as well.

Don't get too comfortable, Mr. Chair. To Member Perez-Verdia, this, this amendment is, uh, perfectly fine and we're supportive of it. No objections.

Mr. Myers again. Okay, thanks. Anyone else on the amendment?

Hearing and seeing none, is there any objection to the amendment? I am not seeing or hearing any objections. The amendment is adopted.

Next we have Voland Amendment 4. Mr. Voland. Thank you. Move Voland Amendment number 4. Second.

Motion to amend by Mr. Voland, seconded by Ms. Zalatel. Mr. Voland. Okay, so this is another, um, item that was submitted to me by Yarrow Silvers, um, and I'm moving it on, on her behalf. A— so this is trying to give a little bit, I think, more clarity around the goal of this, the overarching goal of this legislation. And really, I think it's aimed at catalyzing workforce housing.

In the narrative, you'll see affordable housing and used— you know, affordable housing, I think, is actually a pretty confusing term. Depending on who you're talking with, you may be encountering a different definition of affordable.

So really, you know, I appreciate the change that's already been made in the underlying item to clarify, you know, the goal is workforce housing. What this amendment does is it would extend that extension for workforce housing to 5 years instead of 3 years and would swap geographic location piece, that would be extended for only 3 years.

So yep, I will pause there. Thanks, Ms. Zolotow. Thank you. I appreciate the amendment. I'm going to offer up an amendment to the amendment.

For number 3, I would prefer it be titled Housing Affordability, period.

Second. There's a motion to amend the amendment. By Ms. Zelletta, second by Ms. Brawley. Ms. Zelletta. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Silvers. Thank you, Mr. Volland. Workforce housing also isn't a term that's well defined. At 120% area median income, we are definitely into not terribly expensive housing, but we're also not necessarily into affordable housing. And so why don't we just say our aim is to increase housing affordability generally, and then it's how we get there, and we don't get wrapped around a term or terms without clear definitions.

I also appreciate the swap in the years. I think that's good. I am hopeful that over time, as you get data about housing affordability, around who's doing the tax incentive and how many units and kind of what the mix of that affordability is implementation. I think that could guide further policy. We do not currently do set-asides or have a lot of incentives for mixed-income housing unless usually a fund source requires it, such as the type that are used by like Cook Inlet Housing.

So I am excited to see the municipality weigh into this kind of policymaking. Thank you. Mr. President, Mr. Salt. Thank you. I just have a question, I guess, on the section at line 29.

So hold on, we have, I think, an amendment to the amendment, the housing affordability language. That's, I think, the question we're on right now. Okay, fair enough. Um, you can stay in the queue if there's no one else. Members, thank you.

Yeah, any objection to that title change? Hearing and seeing no, the amendment is passed. So now, Mr. Sult, you have the floor. We're back on the amendment as amended. So just, I'm not sure I understand the wording.

Property where at least 20% of the units are offered for rent at no more than 120% of the area median income. What is that number?

No, they're offered for rent.

So is that the monthly rent that's being charged? And then that depends on a single, a double, a family?

Okay, so who wants to take this one? Ms. Zaltel, Mr. Cloutier? Mr. Cloutier, come on. Through the chair to Member Sult, this measure, area median income, is defined as a table that the Housing and Urban Development puts out that's based on family size. So for a certain income level, assuming that 30% of income is spent on rent, then that corresponds to the allowable rent level.

All right, okay, next then in the queue on the amendment as amended, Mr. Martinez. All right, I'm not going to be supporting this at this time, um, primarily because.

A lot of work, and I respect the folks who have articulated ideas and incoming member Silvers, but a lot of work has gone through this and I don't— the last-minute sausage-making is a little uncomfortable. And let me give you an example why. The swap aspect, from my vantage point, is a non-starter. And the reason it's a non-starter is because when I started this process, when the time of the administration coming on board, from my vantage point, I wanted to bring the very specifically housing tax credits and opportunities to my community, Muldoon, full stop. And then the idea was there were other parts of town that parallel in planning where we wanted development, where we wanted mixed use, where we wanted what we call transit supportive development corridors.

Those are geographic locations. They've been cited in plans. When we talk about activating the 2040 Land Use Plan with respect to that sort of geographic citing, that's exciting to me because people in the past had hoped that we would develop this town and had some of those plans, like for Muldoon. But if you can drive down Muldoon and tell me that Muldoon somehow missed the economic opportunity that Anchorage had, show it to me. Because, yeah, there's economic opportunity in our community, but I am very specifically focused on geographic opportunity where those promises were made.

But let me go a further step on that. Why does that matter? Keeping promises, that's a good thing. Yes, we should keep our word. But more importantly, from an economic development perspective, the idea of stackability across the ROI is what's important to me.

In those corridors where we've identified the transit support of development corridors, we tend to have more infrastructure. So there's a reason that we want geographic targeting because there's the infrastructure for it. And so just respectfully, a lot more work can continue to come forward. I don't want to shoot down the ideas, but I just don't think it's the right time to move this particular item forward. And I welcome the continued discussion about broad opening the doors for housing, but from my vantage point, geographic location is critical The people in the corridors where the promises have been made but not have been kept, we need to deliver on those promises.

Thank you. Mr. Boland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I think I disagree with Member Martinez on the characterization of plans as promises, I think as plans more of ideas, things that we'd like to see. Um, I do hear the point about the geographic location, and so I'm going to use my privilege as a seated member to amend this amendment and just to remove the portion about the geographic location. So that would stay then at 5 years if we remove that, and then that would just be adding the extra couple years for the housing affordability piece. I'll second.

Yeah, so the mover is seeking to change the amendment, Miss Brawley. Yeah, just, just getting rid of the number change is fine. So it was actually Voluntarily, I think, on the main. And so do you agree? Yep.

And so that would then strike the first portion.

Amendment as drafted, which is Section 1, page 6, at lines 14, is no longer under consideration. The section that is now remaining is Section 1, page 6, at line 29. Miss Zalatell— no, sorry, Mayor LaFrance. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, actually, I would speak in support of this amendment. I had put myself into the queue to speak against reducing the geographic location to 3 years. So I support this amendment. All right, Mr. Salt. Thanks.

Just curious how we would enforce this year on year. Are they going to have to provide proof of rents, or—. Thank you.

I think that's a question for the administration.

Through the chair to Member Salt, there's annual reporting that's required to maintain the abatement incentive, and they would have to disclose the amount of rent, and it would have to fall within the allowable levels.

Nolan, I have a quick question, follow-up on that. I assume those kinds of records are not public.

Through the chair, we do have a section that was added to the S-1 version that addresses confidentiality of records. So there wouldn't be—. If we're collecting the amount of rents by a property owner, I don't think we want that to be a public record. Okay, thank you. Anyone else?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote on the amendment. Chair, just point of information. Mr. Martinez, can you repeat what the amendment is at this point? Yeah, because it wasn't on the screen. If you look at your packet, Amendment 4 There are two sections there.

Section 1, page 6, line 14. Section 1, page 6, line 29. So it's really— I don't— you're not going to see it on the board. There you go. So thank you, Miss Clerk.

The top section is removed by amendment, so it's no longer geographic location. It's only the number 3 there, which is Section 1, page 6, line 29. That's the amendment. Thank you. All right.

I had already called the vote, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, the amendment has passed. The amendment to the amendment has passed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. This arcane detail. Ms. Zelital.

Okay, so we're now on the amendment as amended. Any further discussion? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Member Johnson, on amend— fall in Amendment Number 4 as amended. Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, the amendment And the youth member votes yes. Yes, the amendment has passed. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Now we're on to the next amendment. Ms. Zalatol. Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I ask Mr. Clowder a few questions before I decide if I'm going to move this amendment?

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Clowder. I know you have a rehabilitation tax abatement item coming. Does it specifically contemplate what to do about vacant and abandoned properties and putting them back into habitability? Through the chair to members, all hotel— that is a critical concern for rehabilitation.

Taking units that have been made uninhabitable and making them livable would be very high priority for rehab incentive. Is it in your current draft? We— it's something that we would— we are planning to incorporate. Do you have a draft of the rehab tax abatement item? Through the chair, we do not have something drafted in legal language, no.

Do you have an expected date in which you're going to bring the rehab tax abatement item before this body? Through the chair, I can't offer an exact timeline, but I can say that it's highest priority after the passage of the current AO. Okay, thank you. I appreciate the answers. I move Zelletel Amendment Number 5.

To amend by Ms. Zelletel. Second. Second, Mr. Walland. Ms. Zalatel. Thank you.

So Zalatel Amendment Number 5 takes the S and puts it into an amendment format. This really focuses on the rehabilitation of existing units for purposes of being able to move them from an uninhabitable state into habitability. The feedback was taken at the work session. It is only on the improvements. I don't think we should wait.

We have homes that are vacant and abandoned now. We are in a housing crisis. We have also paused multifamily design standards which would apply to these rehabs. If we are truly feeling urgent about the housing crisis, let's go ahead and do this. And if it needs tweaked later in the administration's version, that's fine.

But why wait? Construction season is upon us. And if we can catalyze this next season to get, you know, units moving in the right direction, because tax.

Statement is the thing that makes these pencil, then let's do it. Let's not wait. And that's what this amendment does. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. I, um, I, I would have the administration come up and speak to this, and if they feel compelled to, I, I will. But I, I've already heard them speak. I heard them say that this is a priority of theirs and they plan on working on it. Um, I'd rather move, uh, correctly than move too swiftly, so I, I won't be supporting this, but I would I think it's a priority as well.

I just want to make sure that we're doing it in the proper way. So rather than debating it on the dais today, I'd rather not pass this and give the administration the opportunity to bring something forward for us to look at and pass. Thank you.

Mayor LaFrance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would ask the members to take this up as a separate ordinance. I appreciate the energy and the desire to move forward quickly. There are lots of moving parts.

I propose that we take what Ms. Zelitel has drafted as this amendment, Vice Chair Zelitel, and use this as a basis for the draft and go from there, and that we can commit to introducing something within the next month. Yes? Ben, I'm looking at you. Nolan? Okay, 6 weeks?

6 Weeks we commit to introducing something. The concern here is that we need to be very clear about what is eligible for the abatement. We don't want to unintentionally incentivize something on the scale of replacing the carpet, for example, and, you know, to make sure that we are achieving what we want to do. So I would just ask the members to not support this amendment. Thank you.

Mr. Martinez, I'll pull myself out the queue. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Zalatil. Thanks. If you read the amendment, it doesn't incentivize anything like repairing the carpet.

It is specifically to move a property from an uninhabitable state into getting a certificate of occupancy. It is very narrowly crafted. It was done with legal— members have full ability to bring forward fully crafted ideas on this dais. And I know I said it last week, we cannot impart our urgency to anyone else other than to try to convince you. But 6 weeks from now and another month process, to get it over the finish line.

We're in the middle of summer. Opportunity cost. So I would ask for your support. Mayor LaFrance.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Again, I am grateful for the support of the body to move forward with constructing as many units as possible. And I apologize for the carpet hyperbole and appreciate the intent, but do ask that we take some time to work on this particular piece and that it will be time well spent. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, Mr. Roland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I, I, I think I hear from members— well, at least one member— a desire to take a little more time with this.

I certainly hear, um, the mayor's desire for that as well, and I, I I have talked with other members of the administration about this similar concept. I was on the— what I think was the original S version with member Zolotow that tried to take a crack at this. I will say, if, if this does not end up moving forward tonight, I would very much like to be on that project with the administration and ensure that this does move forward. Thank you. Mr. Salt.

Thank you. I, I do support this amendment, and I think my preference is I'd rather get through the amendments, and then if we're going to pause, pause at that point.

So I do support this amendment, and I prefer that we go through all these amendments, and then we get back to the, the main ordinance. That's when we would take a pause at whether we want— decide whether we want to push this to another date. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue on the amendment. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. No.

On a vote of 7 to 5, the amendment has passed. Next we have— are there— next amendment is Zalatow Amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Zalatow Amendment Number 7.

Motion to amend by Ms. Zalatow. Is there a second?

I am not hearing a second. Okey dokey. All right, we're back on the main motion as amended. Any— Miss Alito. Thank you.

So, you know, it's unfortunate we couldn't get a second on that last amendment because there is construction that requires elevators or to do like a pedestal construction over grade that is expensive. And to provide incentives for that is the kind of construction we want to see. As far as elevators go, I would really like to incentivize those so we have more accessible units in our community. So please take that amendment back, think about it more, and then come back and amend this ordinance at another time to provide that opportunity. A tax abatement amendment— or a tax abatement piece of legislation like this is a big piece of legislation, and I appreciate the administration for bringing it forward.

I just want to make sure that it's being monitored, that it works throughout. We have brought tax abatement items before and they were never used and they just languished on the shelf. I think there are lots of levers here to pull and lots of options. But if options start to come forward that are not contemplated in this ordinance, please be flexible and meet the builders and the folks who want to build where they're at. Help them make their projects pencil.

Again, we're in a housing crisis. We have a big, hairy, audacious goal of 10,000 homes in 10 years. We shouldn't nibble around the edges of this. We have got to be responsive and nimble. So I support this.

I think it's a great step forward. I don't think the work is done. I don't think the work is even done just with a rehab companion. I think this work has to live and be iterative. To tell the community we're open for business and we want this housing built.

Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Are we on the main motion, Mr. Chair? I think we're on the main motion. On the main motion as amended. Yep.

This is it. This is the question. Mr. Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2025-35S1 as amended has passed the body. Now, I made a commitment to the incoming members there would be a motion to change the order of the day to take up reconsideration. There's one last item that is is on our list of items that we had previously offered up as the list we wanted to complete before the transition begins, and that is item 13F. So I would ask for a motion to change the order of the day with the consideration that there is one item left. Is there a motion?

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I, I, Mr. Salt, I'll give you a second. Do you want to take this up now? Yeah, I'm okay with making that motion to change the order of day. You are?

So second. So the motion to change the order of the day is to take up 15A before 13F. All right, there is a motion to change the order of the day to move item 13F after the 15s.

All right, is there any objection to the motion?

I'm seeing and hearing no objection, so it is ordered that we'll now be taking up Item 15A.

Item 15A, certification of the April 1st, 2025 Regular municipal election. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Zelletal, seconded by Mr. Rivera.

Madam Clerk, is there—.

Yep.

Moved by Ms. Zelletal, seconded by Mr. Rivera. Mr. Rivera.

We'll go ahead and take a report from the elections administrator. Welcome. The microphone is off.

Good evening. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm Liz Edwards. I'm the deputy election administrator. And I just want to give some brief points from the 2025 regular municipal election.

So in this election, we mailed out 204,493 ballot packages domestically, with 1,385 sent to military and overseas. The voter turnout was 60,455 voters, so about 25.38% of the voter turnout. And new to this year, we implemented a new secure document portal. This was a pilot program that allowed voters to vote via a secure document portal from their phone or computer. And we got a lot of positive feedback from the voters, voters who typically vote by email or fax.

One of their main complaints is that they have to find a printer to print out their ballot and voter declaration. And for those who are traveling or are overseas, finding a printer is very difficult for them. So this allows them to vote from whatever electronic device that they have. And we actually got a few selfies from people who were traveling who showed us that they voted by the portal, and they were very happy to have the opportunity. Um, also new this year is we implemented a new signature database that we've been building, and this allows for us to maintain signatures that we have received from the State of Alaska Division of Elections.

As well as import our own signatures that we gathered from the— our own envelopes. So we're able to take out really old signatures and also reimport valid signatures from envelopes from previous elections. And we believe that this new signature database allowed us to cut back on the number of no sig matches. This year we had 386. Compare that to 602 in 2024, 623 in 2023, and even higher at 692 in 2022.

So we definitely saw a decrease, and we think that the signature allowed that. Um, also, as we'd like to thank the election workers, we have volunteers from all over the community, and we just couldn't do this without them. And I do want to get a shout out to the Election Corps team for all their hard work the past few months. And this was a very big document. So as always, we're more than happy to bring this before the Ethics and Election Committee to discuss any statistics or questions that were— that you find in this report.

So thank you very much. All right. Any questions for the election administrator? I'm not hearing any questions. All right.

Anything from the members?

This is it. This is it. If you have any last words, members, we're leaving. Now would be the time. I see Mr. Herrera reaching for the cue.

Go. Someone has to start. Okay.

Last time I did this, it was all kind of waterworks, so I'll try to be a little bit more Centered and calm this time. So first, to the elections team, I am continually impressed by the team's ability to run professional elections with the utmost integrity. So very well done to the team. Thank you. Second, farewell message to my colleagues leaving the body.

Karen, I always think that this body is stronger when we have different viewpoints and perspectives at the table. And I've always appreciated, but not always agreed with some of your thinking around public safety and homelessness. I appreciate your willingness to serve and dive into the tough work. Mark, it's been great to be dais buddies with you. This side of the dais has a certain character to it, just like that side of the dais has a certain character to it.

And I'll miss having you as part of the group. Randy, thank you for being a partner on Project Anchorage and for putting yourself out there to talk about taxes, which is always a favorite of our constituents, isn't it?

And then of course there's Meg.

You know, the first time that Meg and I had a chance to have a conversation interact with each other. We—. Our first meeting was sort of in conflict, and I learned in that meeting that you don't want to be across the table from Meg because she is a formidable champion for what she believes in, as we've seen tonight and practically every meeting. Meg, you've been a great partner to work with on behalf of Midtown, and more broadly, as a member of the body and in leadership as vice chair, it's been great to see you come into your own very quickly, very confidently take on some of the biggest issues that we face as a community. It's been quite the roller coaster, and I wish you best on your next endeavors.

Mr. Presverdio. Oh, well, let me say a few things myself.

Just, I think that serving on this body is really challenging. And, um, and I want to thank especially Mark and Karen for the work that they've done. Um, Randy, I want to thank you for, uh, your service, but also, uh, as a co-chair on the, on the Housing and Homeless Committee. It's been a lot of fun working with you. And Meg, uh, we got on the assembly at the same time, and it's been a, a wild 6 years.

Um, and I, and I think you've done a lot of amazing things over these years, and I really thank you for your work and your dedication and And you've accomplished a lot in that time. You should be very proud of it. So thank you for your service. Thank you to all of you for serving, and we will miss you. Mr. Salt.

Great. Thank you. Just use a few seconds to thank everyone on the assembly. Only you know what it's like to be on the assembly. And those that you're about to come on board, you'll soon find out.

All I can say is just, you know, enjoy the time here. There's a lot of memorable moments. Luke singing opera to Reed Smith, Pete Peterson singing the Alaska flag song, July 11th, 2023, Chris recognizing the assembly should stay in its swim lane. I actually wrote that down. Don't know why.

Christmas resolution serenade, the Eagle Scouts when they come by, and just a few weeks ago, the Hadestown performance. So there's a lot of benefits, a lot of cherished moments. Live in those moments and they'll get you through the hard ones. And remember, we're here all for the same reason, because we care about Anchorage and we care about you. Thank you.

Mr. Littlefield. Uh, short and sweet. Thank you, Chair. Um, when I came on to this assembly, I envisioned hard work and dedication, which it is. Everybody on this is this dais does do.

It's hard work and dedication. I never envisioned that it would be so interesting. Keyword: interesting. It's been a moment in my career— I am actually going to retire— that I'll look back and say, I thank God and I thank everybody that I had this opportunity to sit on this dais and work with these wonderful people and for the community. Thank you very much.

Ms. Brawley. Yeah, I'll be brief. I have really enjoyed serving with the members who are stepping down tonight. I'll say, Randy, it's been fun to be neighbors with you. Also, since you are my and Cameron's constituent, please feel free to reach out with any concerns.

But thank you for representing South Anchorage because I know at your heart you're a South Anchorage person. To Karen, it's been really great to serve with you. I'm glad we got to work on projects together. I appreciate that you always speak your mind and that you dove right in. And I know sometimes you felt like you were out of your element, but you, you advocated for yourself and made sure to, to say that.

So thank you very much. To Mark, I'll come back to you, Meg. To Mark, I'm sad to be losing actually two members of the Tattoo Caucus on this body. So that's an open invitation to others to join us. I'm happy to do that.

And I really Hope you have the best of times with your granddaughter and your family. So thank you for your service. And Meg, I will keep it short, but I have learned so much from you and have been really glad to walk with you together.

Miss Branca. Dang, they had to do that. I was telling them I didn't even have a retirement party at my school. School because I get a little weepy at this. I told the members the other day this is the bravest thing I have ever done.

And stepping up here is not easy. And I have worked really hard for my community. Sorry. And I really think.

Administration, the people that work for this city who took so much time to try to get me up to speed, to let me know how the city works. And it was just incredible. I learned so much. And then to be up here with these warriors that have these great ideas and they are there to support you, it is pretty incredible. I offered to run for this seat because of how deeply I care about District 5, and the East Side and parks.

And I hope that— well, I know the person taking my seat is going to be as great an advocate or better. I hope you all will keep your eye on the youth, which was one of my main focuses on the assembly, and our parks, and just safety in general in Anchorage. My biggest pride is I may not have done a lot of things right, but I truly listened to my constituents. I took calls on Christmas Day and answered almost every email that came through, public or not. And I really learned so much from all of you about what you are concerned of in the city and how you think.

And sometimes we agreed, sometimes we didn't, but I was richer for those conversations. And I want all of you to know that your assemblypeople sit up here, but we, we are the same. We are neighbors. We are people that really care about the city. And, and we thank you for reaching out and giving us opinions and helping us do a good job.

And be kind. Be kind to us. It is a big job. Thank you.

Mr. Voland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I just want to voice my appreciation for the outgoing members and all of the tremendous hard work that you've done.

I'm going to miss serving with Meg and Mark on AMATS. I don't know that I'm going to miss doing over 20 public meetings on one ordinance with Meg, but I wish you all very well in your next chapter. Madam Mayor, we do still have some remaining boards and commissions vacancies, correct? So in case any of you decide that you're a little bored, there are other ways to support the municipality as well, and you may be, uh, maybe counted on for that. But anyway, yeah, thank you very much.

And Randy too, uh, you know, just want to highlight that the really good work that we've been able to do together on housing, I think it's been really meaningful. So thank you all very much. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I want to echo everybody— what everyone has already said, and so I won't pontificate and go into it too much, but I appreciate getting to know everybody. We may not have agreed on everything or much, but I've enjoyed getting to work with you. Karen always makes us snicker here, so we appreciate that, and Randy's insights, and Meg— Meg is sharp. I've learned a lot from her, so I wish you the best.

And Mark, I'm certainly going to miss you the most. You've helped me a lot in Eagle River and your vast knowledge and history of that community. So I'll be calling on you when I need you. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you, Chair. Well, Mark, you've got to turn it down.

You talk so much over here.

Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak my words of appreciation to my colleagues. And rather than individual kudos on the dais, I'll do that privately. But I would say to the members of the public, echoing Member Branga's point, it ain't easy serving in these seats. And let me go even a step further.

Everyone comes here from vastly different vantage points. And it's interesting, as I was thinking about this today, Chair, I was thinking of the term diversity, equity, and inclusion. And I was thinking, Just the diversity of ideas here, no matter what, who looks like or where we come from, we all come from different walks of life. And that richness is what makes Anchorage special, but it also is what makes the work difficult. We are not robots, we're real people.

And so we bring our vision, we bring our vocation, we bring our vantage points. And on that vantage point, Chair, just reminding the folks, it takes a lot of work, but we require a lot of grace. Grace with each other. We're working with imperfect tools, trying to do the best we can, and oftentimes we don't get it right. And you know what we do?

We go back to work and try to get it right the next time. In the true spirit of citizen representatives, the charter— defines this body as essentially a part-time legislative body. People have outside jobs and lives, and we come here on this particular space. So I share the words of appreciation from my colleagues, but really to the members of the public, the deep appreciation that we all have because we're willing to roll our sleeves up is what I hope that we leave this moment of transition with. And on that note, Thanksgiving Day, y'all know it wasn't a lot of snow this year, but it was cold and nasty outside nevertheless.

And it was bitter cold on the day after Thanksgiving Day. And one of the sidewalks wasn't properly plowed near a bus stop on Tudor Road. And it was because, you know, mixed jurisdictions, you know, is it the state road, is it the city road, the plow stopped on a corner. Well, all we know is that there were neighbors who said, "They didn't plow our street and we have to get to the bus stop. Can somebody come out and help us?" And the day after Thanksgiving, I was out there with Karen, ice picks and shovels, clearing the bus route.

So whatever you think about anybody on the dais, behind that are people who really care about the community, who roll their sleeves up in ways that we will never know, but some of us have a privilege to have seen. I thank you all.

Mr. Johnson.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you to the outgoing members. To Meg, I'll say, I'll say that for the folks who regularly watch the assembly business, I think you've seen the incredible amount of work Meg has done as vice chair of the assembly, but I think very few people can appreciate what she has done around behind the scenes with some generational projects, including Eklutna and especially the Port of Anchorage. An incredible amount of dedication she's shown to making sure that these projects are well executed, And the impacts of these and then the value she's brought to it will stand to benefit Anchorage folks and Anchorage and Alaska in general for a generation to come. And I don't think too many people can appreciate what Meg has done there, but I will say I do.

I'll say to Mark, I very much have enjoyed your candor, your decency, your common sense approach. It was a voice that I think really added value to our work, even if you weren't the most outspoken member, when you spoke, it carried weight to it. Karen, I really enjoyed your humor, your kindness, your honesty. I mean, I will say more than anyone else in this body, like, you know exactly, uh, when, when Karen speaks, she is speaking from her heart and she's speaking what is on her mind. And, and I really appreciate that about you.

And to Randy, um, thank you. Thank you for being such a great partner to work with for South Anchorage and Girdwood. Your energy, your enthusiasm, your positivity, and just your very pragmatic approach to problem solving has just really made it great working with you, and I really enjoyed our time, and I wish you the best in what's to come. So thank you. Thank you all.

You will be missed. So I'll stay in the queue for First, and oh, did we lose you? I'll start with you, Karen. I will suggest that probably you are the most fierce advocate for our parks that has been serving since I've been involved. And if there's a legacy, that's not a— that's nothing bad to be a legacy.

So thank you for that service and for always being a voice for our parks. And Mark, it is such a regret to have you go. Grandbabies are what they are. You got to go be with family, but you have proven a life of service and you are well suited for this work. Thank you.

And Randy, you are proof that even if there's conflict when you begin and people have a perception of you, when you show up and you do this work, people can surprise you. And you showed us the best of what it means to be a member in very honorable service to this municipality. Thank you, Meg. Ms. Zalatel, I think that probably if we studied the math of assembly members, there has never been a more prolific legislator in this municipality. I think that my intuition on that question will be proven true by the facts.

And it's not just diligence, it's a commitment to work with everybody. It is putting your whole self into the work and being a fighter for the cause. And it has been an honor and a privilege to serve shoulder to shoulder with you.

Through some very challenging times in this municipality. I can only say thank you and godspeed for your great adventures ahead. Miss Zalatel. All right, I'm going to try to get through this, but before I read the statement I have, because I really do want to read that statement, I want to say a few things to the members here on the dais. Every one of you have a surprise surprised me, everyone.

And people don't often surprise me, but you all surprised me. Um, everyone up here contains multitudes, and we are not the public persona that people think we might be. Um, I think that's what makes it so easy to bring legislation with every member that crosses this dais, because everyone at their heart cares about this town. Um, special shout out to my Midtown partner Felix. Felix, it's been a real pleasure.

You set me up for the perfect succession plan for this seat, that you will be a great member, mentor to the new member, and I can step away knowing not only is a good member coming in, but that they've got great reliance on Midtown. Don't ever let Downtown eclipse Midtown, ever. So All right, serving on this body has been the honor of a lifetime. For the past 6 years, I've approached this work with a clear commitment to center the people in our policy decisions, to act with compassion when we hold the power to help, and to step into the difficult space where leadership is needed most. This seat has always been about getting things done for people, whether it was the creation and expansion of the Mobile Crisis Team to 24/7 operations, reforming housing policy to address our deepening housing shortage, or launching a universal screening tool to make municipal benefits more accessible.

Every effort I have championed has come from listening to what Anchorage residents need to thrive. And it's not just the residents we hear from regularly, but those who are unable to access the process, those who are working, caregiving, too busy to show up. It's hard to show up here in the summer. It's not about responding to the loudest voice in the room, but about identifying real need and working collectively to solve it. I've learned that progress often requires discomfort.

During the pandemic, we made tough public health choices in the face of loud opposition, not because it was easy, but because it was right. The same courage must continue to guide our work long after I leave the seat and your hard choice will come. I want to express my sincere thanks to past and present mayors I have worked with. While we may not have always agreed, each administration brought a commitment to public service that shaped Anchorage in meaningful ways. I want to thank my fellow members, past and present, for their dedication, their debate, and their shared belief in our city's potential.

I've known this transition was coming, but it still feels very abrupt. There's always more to do. There's always another challenge to meet. And that's what— that's part of what makes this work so meaningful. The work is not done.

I have left you 4 new ordinances to consider in the near future, each focused on making our city more fair, more functional, more forward-thinking. I trust this body to take that work seriously because the people of Anchorage deserve nothing less. I am proud of what we have built together in these past 6 years. I am hopeful for Anchorage's future. And I want to close with this.

If you are a woman who cares about this community, I hope you will consider running for local office. We need your voice at this table, on this dais. We need your leadership to be in the room. Don't wait to be asked. Step forward.

Raise your hand. Say, I volunteer. Women's experience matters in the place where decisions are being made, and it belongs in all of our decision-making processes and in all of our decision-making spaces. Next month, on May 25th, it will mark 20 years since I arrived in Alaska. I wasn't expecting to find a home.

But that's what I found.

I found a place, a purpose, my Alaska family. Thank you for welcoming me, for trusting me, for walking in this journey with me.

Finally, to my husband Zach, our daughter Zelda, thank you. Thank you for the sacrifices. The support, the grace you've shown through the years of late nights, tough weeks, and time away. I look forward to this next chapter and chance to spend more time with both of you. Thank you for the opportunity to serve.

I look forward to continuing this work in new ways, always rooted in compassion, always focused on people. To the chair, you were the first to step forward and say, You should do this. I am eternally grateful. You have become a great friend. And to the other outgoing members, you have all served so well.

It is hard to leave this dais, but sometimes you just know when it is time to go. And lastly, don't forget about Midtown. You can't avoid us.

With that, then, on the question of motion to approve AM337-2025, Members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yeah.

On a vote of 12 to 0 and the youth member votes yes. Yes.

AM337-2025 has passed the body. We'll now take a 10-minute break.

Now we're good to go. Third try. Madam Clerk, could you please administer the oath? Would the new members please come forward?

If you will raise your right hand.

I swear or affirm. I swear or affirm. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States— [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] —the Constitution of the State of Alaska— [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] —and the Charter of the Municipality of Anchorage— [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] And that I will faithfully perform the duties— [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] Of Anchorage assembly member to the best of my ability. To the best of my ability. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Congratulations.

So once the oaths are signed, we'll let groups take photos there at the dais, at the lectern, with their families and friends, and then we'll get back to the business.

Alright, so let's do some rotations with friends and family who want to be with their individuals there. So let's do some photos, and now would be your chance to come up for a photo.

Not my problem.

Thanks for making me start the meeting again. Yeah, I'm like, wait a minute.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Okay, I think we are ready to move on to the next step, which is to elect a new chair and vice chair.

We do not need a motion.

So Anchorage Municipal Code 230.010 says at the organizational meeting following certification, the municipal clerk shall call the roll of all members of the assembly duly elected and certified. So we will take the roll call. Member Myers. Here. Member Martinez.

Present. Member Gokar. Here. Member Rivera. Present.

Member Johnson. Here. Member Constant. Here. Member Baldwin-Day.

Present. Member Volland. I am still happy to be here. Member Silvers. Here.

Member Brawley. Here. Member McCormick. Here. And Member Perez Verdia.

Here. Okay, we have all 12 members present, um, and the municipal clerk shall administer the election of the chair and vice chair. And so at this time, nominations for chair are open. I nominate Christopher Constant. Second.

Second. Are there any other nominations for chair?

Hearing no other nominations for chair, is there any objection to Christopher Constant serving as chair?

Hearing none, Christopher Constant is elected chair. Uh, now we will move on to vice chair. Madam Clerk, I'd like to nominate Anna Baralee for vice chair.

Second.

Are there any other nominations for vice chair? Cameron Perez Verdia for vice chair.

Clerk, unfortunately I have to decline the nomination. Thank you.

Okay, we have a nomination for Anna Brawley. We had a nomination for member Perez Verdia who had to decline the nomination. Are there any other nominations for vice chair?

Is there any objection to Anna Brawley serving as vice chair?

Hearing none, Anna Brawley is elected as vice chair, and we're just going to take a quick second to have Anna and Erin swap seats.

All right, thank you everybody. Before we get back to our business agenda, the clerk is just getting everything settled, and I would want to say thank you to my peers for your support one more time. I—. In the conversations leading up to organization, somebody sagely said, I think it's probably time for a new face for the assembly. And I will say that I generally agree, and it is almost time, and there is some handoff that is essential, and there is a lot of detail to this work.

And I did some math recently, Mr. Rivera and myself, starting this minute, are beginning our 97th month of service to this municipality, which is just an astounding amount of time when I think back on all of that. And then the next senior member, 60 months, and then the next senior member, 33 months, and then a handful of folks, 24 months, and then a third of us, day one. There's a lot to learn to make this ship sail smoothly through the difficult seas that we face. And so I heard all of those words and I took them to heart, and, um, I will do my very best to get us to the place where at the end of this last year for Mr. Rivera and I, this body is ready to, to sail the stormy seas. And so with that, I'm grateful.

And are we ready, Madam Clerk? Next item on the agenda is 13F.

13F is AO 2025-43, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly Amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.11.060, Dimensional Standards, Sites and Buildings, to preserve the historical solar access protection standards and height restrictions. The public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you're here to testify.

The microphone is off. There's a little button there, green or yellow. There you go. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from, You'll have 3 minutes.

Good evening. I'm John Blaine. I live in Turnagain. I've been here in Anchorage for a long time. What an emotional evening.

Thank you all. It's made me proud to be an Alaskan. I like the diversity, the equity that you have shown. And I, being in a small minority as an octogenarian, thank you for being included. My reason for coming is to ask you to consider positively restoring the height limitations south of Town Square.

I don't see why this is even an issue. The idea of having 200 feet tall buildings.

Buildings on the south side of Town Square doesn't make sense to me unless there's a whole lot of money involved, and I don't understand that.

Every single study done of downtown recommending changes that would be beneficial has said, "Keep solar access." for Town Square.

But an amendment that Mr. Boland made a couple of years ago changed that to suddenly go from like 55 feet to 200 feet. That's a 20-story building. Mr. Constant, I think this morning, said, well, the performing arts center shades Town Square more than anything else. Somebody did.

And anyway, that's an argument that I've heard, but that would not be any excuse for having more solar access denied to Town Square. Finally, I'd just like to say that I want to see Anchorage grow. I'm very glad to see the 10,000 in 10 Years plan. And I hope that it succeeds. Thank you very much for having me.

Thank you. Anyone else? Now's your chance. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Karen Branga. I'm from East Anchorage, District 5, and I was hoping to speak on this, and it is a little weird right here, but first I wanted to show off— Ron Oliva had the most most wonderful speech that he wanted to do. Very nice. But I'm here about Town Square.

My family put in some of the original bricks as memorial to people we knew. It was a very important space to us, and sun is very important to us. I think when you've lived in Alaska for 60-plus years, you have even a greater understanding of what sun means. I sold the house that I loved so much because of solar problems. The neighbor really loved trees.

They were giant cottonwoods to the south. We couldn't garden. We wore coats all summer. And we ended up moving to a house with good south-facing access. At the time, people were like, you've got to be crazy.

You've got a home on the Iditarod Trail backing University Lake Park. It's crazy. And then I met another woman who lived near Inlet View, and she had a perfect house with the same problem and ended up selling it and building a new house that the whole south side is all window. She's on a hill looking to the south. And so I get it.

If you go by Town Square Park any day and it's sunny, Sunny. People are out there laying in the sun, enjoying it. And I just hope that we will do the compromise to preserve those solar access rights. Yes, the PAC is big. The PAC shades.

But we shouldn't make it any worse. Thanks so much.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Oh, there it is. Nope, one more.

I'm just kidding, we're going to replace that mic. You've all seen it. So, Randy Salt, West Anchorage, represented by Member Brawley and Perez Verdia. And I'm relieved to be here. So I'm speaking in support of AO 2025-43, which reinstates historic height limits on blocks 69, 70, and 71 to protect solar access for Town Square Park.

These limits were originally adopted in 1985 through AO 85-173 to prevent shadowing of the park between April 21st and August 21st, our summer, from 9 AM to 3 PM. This standard has benefited the public for now nearly 4 decades. In 2023, an amendment removed those limits. An amendment I actually voted for. The amendment was made without offering alternatives like variances or transfer of development rights, both of which were included in the 2020 Downtown Plan.

This ordinance reflects consistent recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission that had reviewed and approved the ordinance prior to the amendment, the working group, and the Our Downtown Plan, all which preserve sunlight in public spaces. This amendment bypassed planning and zoning, and I would recommend, recommend this compromise would also bypass planning and zoning by the same logic. If a development does come along that cannot make use of an innovative design to allow sunlight to reach Town Square Park and is deemed to be for the greater good over solar access for Town Square Park, then you can make that change then.

I appreciate the late-on-the-table item introduced tonight, which shows the significant impact of the PAC on Town Square Park. However, this makes it even more important that we preserve the remaining sunlight at the core of our city.

Another point, it is also— this also aligns with the legal deed restriction on Block 3A, Block 70, or sorry, Lot 3A, Block 70, which limits building heights to protect solar access. And I guess by legal opinion that I checked on, is deemed park space or should be deemed park space, the air rights. And we all know that dedicated park rights need to be overturned by action of voters. The assembly cannot do that. Also, with Proposition 3's recent approval, the community is investing nearly $3 million in the park improvements.

Protecting sunlight ensures the investment is fully realized. AO 2025-43 is a practical correction and compromise that restores balance between development and public use. I urge your support. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Welcome. Please state your name. Are you speaking on your behalf or the council? Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

The microphone is off. There you go. Okay, um, thank you. I'm Kathy Gleason. I live in the Turnagain area.

I'm a 43-year resident of this city, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on AO 2025-43, an ordinance that would allow the reinstatement of solar access protection in the downtown public spaces. As I'm sure you are aware, as Ben has, has been mentioned, um, in 1985, an ordinance was passed that established building height limits south of Town Square Park from City Hall to the Penny's parking garage. And for 40 years, residents and visitors alike who have enjoyed experiences in Town Square Park have greatly benefited from the warming sunlight in that beautiful public space. It's unfortunate that 2 years ago the Assembly chose to approve a late-night amendment to AO 2023-43 after the public hearing was closed that removed building height limits in this area. This decision ran counter to the Planning and Zoning Commission and working group's recommendation that solar and view access is maintained for Town Square Park.

Fortunately, AO-202543, uh, is again on your agenda for consideration, which would reverse the action taken in 2023 and reinstate the building height restriction, which in turn would restore solar and viewshed protection for a well-used public space in our downtown area. It is my understanding that the ordinance does include a compromise for the northeast section of Block 71 should a potential hotel project be resurrected. The April 1st election ballot results, which were certified this evening, included Proposition 3, the Parks and Rec bond that was passed with about a 10% margin. This bond includes $2.9 million for Town Square Park and renovations. And this money will be much better spent if this core public downtown area has solar access protection that provides a green, sunny, and inviting destination without shadows casting down from 200-foot buildings to the south.

I urge your yes vote on this ordinance, and as Anchorage residents As was said, we're experts at appreciating sunlight when we can get it. Sun is beneficial for our downtown businesses, events, and visitors. Tall buildings shadows— tall building shadows being cast over Town Square Park is not. Thank you very much.

Anyone else to testify? Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none. Public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Move.

By Mr. Myers, seconded by Mr. Gerker. You want to speak to it, Mr. Myers? No, I'll just echo what Mr. Solt said and move to approve and encourage my colleagues to support it. All right, in the queue I have Mr. Walland. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So I think it'll be important for us to hear from the planning department. Um, in some of the emailed testimony that we've received, and I think in some of the testimony that we've heard tonight, there's been a characterization that this was a late-night amendment after the public hearing was closed. Um, I did move the amendment as a sponsor. I was requested to move that amendment by the planning department, um, and including the long-range planners who worked on both the downtown plan update and the downtown code update.

So it's not something I just thought of on a whim. I looked at shadow studies with the planning department. They explained their rationale to me, which was helpful. So I think what I'd like to hear from Director Babb, who's at the podium there, is maybe a little bit of the rationale from the planning department in bringing forward that, that amendment. Suggestion and then also to hear the current position of the department.

Through the chair to Member Voland, if it is okay with the body, I would like to bring up long-range planning manager Daniel McKenna Foster who was here during that time and was one of the long-range planners who made that recommendation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Voland. Um, yes, so I was on the working group. Actually, Director Babb was on the working group at the same time.

What happened is in early 2023, we were doing a lot of work in downtown, in especially in the D Street area, as part of the Brownfields project to do a D Street area-wide plan. As part of that, we're trying to envision what, what should we do in that area. And we had a big public event at the museum, and part of that, we had D Street including the JCPenney garage and that section, and we had hundreds of people come through talking about what they wanted to see there. And people said, we'd love to see this redeveloped. We wanna see a hotel, residential.

I wanna see a Chick-fil-A, all sorts of really good ideas, really good energy, people excited about downtown. So from that, we realized, well, what's up with the JCPenney garage? Why can't we get that developed? And so we got in touch with JCPenney in Texas and also Simon, which manages the mall. And talking to them, we said, well, why haven't you redeveloped the JCPenney garage?

And it's complicated ownership isn't only JCPenney, but one of the things they said explicitly was, There's a height limit on that, and if we wanted to develop it, we would need to go higher because we want to make sure we maintain the parking, but we want to do, you know, hotel or residential, and we would need to change that height limit. And so in doing that, we looked a little bit more into the record. We couldn't find any actual shadow studies. Now you can use SketchUp and you can do a pretty accurate model of shadows. And we looked back through everything.

We found a lot of the stuff came from a time when there wasn't computer modeling to be able to do that. So we, looking at that, the spirit of the Our Downtown pledge is about getting more development downtown. More housing downtown, and then having a pretty concrete example of somebody saying, we'd love to do something with this, but there is this limitation here. We came forward and presented that to Assemblymember Voland. It wasn't ideal that it came towards the end of the project, but it was only because the D Street plan was happening in the spring of 2023 as we were moving through the process to do the code update.

And that's why we came so late. But we, we tried to provide as much information we can. But it really came to that. A lot of people said we'd love to see downtown redevelop, downtown be really vital, and this was a pretty concrete way to, to do that. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Can I ask a follow-up? You have the floor. Thank you. Um, so, you know, before I ask a follow-up, I, I do think it's also important to highlight that amendments and substitute versions of ordinances often— and it is a norm— they often come after the public hearing is closed.

We don't do a new public hearing for every amendment that an assembly member wants to bring forward. We don't do a new public hearing for every substitute version of an ordinance that is brought forward. I just want to state that for the record. I do want to ask, if this does not pass, what are the height restrictions that are going to be retained due to other mechanisms. Does that make sense?

Do you understand the question? I think what I'm getting at is the deed restriction is still in place.

Through the chair, so the deed restriction is sort of a private contract between the owner and the property and the deed. Zoning is doing that in a different way. It's using the zoning power to impose that same restriction. The deed restriction exists whether or not the zoning says yes or no. We've seen that all over the muni, right?

When we were doing ADU, accessory dwelling units, people said, well, you can't have an ADU, but by the deed, the zoning doesn't change that. Zoning doesn't change the deeds. But this would be using the zoning power to impose that same type of restriction.

So my understanding is that on one of the blocks here, they actually can't go up to the 200 height— the new 200 height limit— for exactly that reason. My understanding, and looking back at the record, is there was a time when the municipality owned the parcel and they put the deed restriction on there, or there was a private agreement or some sort of exchange, um, and, and there was a monetary value to that. And so under municipal ownership, that deed restriction was created, and that park sort of air rights was created. And that's sort of a different ownership structure than using the zoning to create a similar type of restriction. Thank you.

It was also sort of implied, um, that in order to you know, raise the limits as we did previously, that maybe that would have needed— and this could be a question for counsel or legal, I'm not sure— that voters would need to approve the removal of the air park. Is that the case?

So I believe the air park is— was something created by the muni, adopted by the municipal— by the assembly for a specific lot. And it doesn't apply to other lots. That's my understanding. So to— I imagine to remove that park, that air park, I don't know the specifics too much, but to remove that specific one, yes, I think it would take a bigger process. But none of the other properties have that.

It doesn't apply. It's like one lot out of maybe 9 lots that has that. Okay, great. And then, um, Yeah, I guess in closing, um, I'll just say, you know, I, I'm looking at the hierarchy of needs here in Anchorage, and to me, I think especially downtown, so much of that work, as was mentioned by the department, was focused on how do we revitalize downtown, how do we build up downtown, how do we get more housing, how do we have more flexibility with building shapes. Sorry, I have one more question for you guys.

Um, it was also mentioned that this, this ordinance here was a compromise. But if I'm not mistaken, when we raised the height limits to 200 feet, that was already a compromise, because what would have been the height limit if we had matched the surrounding properties? Because this is already a carve-out. The 200 feet was already a carve-out specifically for Town Square Park.

Through the chair to Member Voland, the height limit downtown is governed by Merrill Field and the flight path of the incoming airplanes on Merrill Field.

Thank you. So buildings on the west side, west end of downtown, they can go up now under that rubric to 400-plus feet, right? And I think that buildings in this part of town could go much higher than 200 feet. I want to say it's 300, 350, somewhere in there is what I recall.

Through the chair, yet part of the downtown code update was getting rid of the height limitations in B-2A and B-2B, understanding that there's already a height restriction because of FAA for Merrill Field, and it sort of gets higher the farther part of the way. But in, in, in other areas, other properties zoned the same way, they have a much higher height limit. Okay, thank you for that. Um, I guess the final thing that I'll say, Mr. Chair, is that my sense— you know, the, the Downtown Community Council has not weighed in on this via resolution.

However, you and I attended a meeting where it was discussed, and my sense from that community council is that they are more focused on wanting revitalization to come to downtown than they are about preserving solar access to Town Square Park. I didn't see a strong support from the Downtown Community Council on that point. So I'm not going to be supporting this ordinance as one of the members who represents downtown. And I guess I would just— I would ask for the support of my colleagues in not supporting this as well. I understand the differences of opinion, but You know, I think there's also something to be said for letting the, the constituents of a district sort of drive their own future of their neighborhood, and, and that includes downtown.

Thank you.

Mr. McCormick. Oh yeah, Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank Randy for his hard work on this, uh, AO, along with, uh, Diane Holmes, one of my constituents out in the crowd that's put in a lot of work to, uh, for this.

And I point that out to say that Town Square Park is a huge asset to our entire community, that constituents in South Anchorage are concerned about the solar access and keeping this park enjoyable for all of us. So I would urge my, my new co-workers here to support this. Thank you. Member Brawley. Thank you.

Um, I actually am having some flashback because this ordinance, the one that's being described, the amendment that was made, was actually made 2 years ago tonight, essentially on the same meeting as election certification. Several of us were sworn in and I think watched this vote happen. And really since then, and actually it had the same number, it was 2023-43. This is 2025-43. Just an interesting coincidence.

So we're back here again. I've been approached by multiple people in those last 2 years to bring a similar item like this, to restore this back to the way it was. And I declined because I do not support this. The short version of that, I could say a whole lot about zoning, but the short version is zoning does not create great places. It's not meant to do that.

It is not meant to legislate in a place that people like to be. It does have a role in regulating property. It lets you know, it lets you know what you can do with your property, where you can build it, how big or tall it can be. So certainly height is a consideration, but the general idea of zoning is also to treat similar properties the same. There's a term for essentially arbitrarily, even if you feel like you have a good reason, arbitrarily restricting what one person can do with their property that's different than their neighbor.

That's called spot zoning. So I see we have a potential amendment that, that attempts to mitigate that. I'm not moving that amendment at this time, but I think it's a serious consideration. And then lastly, I will point to in the AIM that I brought, it really is just a printout of the website about this project that has a legislative history on the lawsuit that's been referred to, and really the timeline. And part of the timeline, in addition to the Planning Department recommending this, was owners of the JCPenney parking garage and those folks around there really speaking about what to do with the old parking garage.

Is there a way to make it better? And there's certainly been, I think, a lot of interest from the public, probably from Mr. Bullock and Mr. Constant's constituents, to do that. And And the height restriction, as was said by those owners, that the height restriction is a significant impediment to redevelopment. So I think we need to think seriously again about these balancing priorities, about when we make decisions about property rights on the lot level or the block level.

And I also am not going to support this and urge others to do the same. Thank you. Mr. President. Thank you. I want to share some comments, but I'm, um, I also want to understand this amendment that's in front of us from Member Solt.

Is there an intention to bring this forward by members?

Okay, yes, I'm, I'm asking, is there an intention for members to, to bring this forward? Because I'd rather debate this and then we can debate the main motion. So I'm, I'm I'm wondering if somebody is on behalf of Mr. Salt, right? We're bringing this forward. Is that—.

I bring it forward. You? Okay, so let's, let's do that, that first, and then I'll make my comments on the main motion. So the action would be, um, take the mic if you have the floor, and I'll go ahead and let you step in because my comments are on the main, and say, I move to amend. Mr. McCormick, move to amend.

And it would be Amendment Number 1. All right, move to Amendment Number 1. And then is there a second? Second. OK, so a motion to amend is made by Mr. McCormick and seconded by Mr. Myers.

So now the tradition is you would speak to the amendment, but I think that might be a little challenging. And so you would, as a member, have a right to ask for an expert or someone who might have an opinion to provide input.

Randy, would you like to speak to it?

It's fine. Get back to it.

Mr. Salt. Thank you. Randy Salt, uh, West Anchorage.

So let's see here. I think this is a compromise to make the north half of Block 70 55 feet, the south half 230 feet. Let's see. Let me read this. It's been a second.

And we talked about the deed restriction. Yeah, to me, that's, I think, what we were trying to do here was just make a compromise on that Block 70. So it was 69, 70, so 70 would have been the middle where Lot 3A exists, and we have that deed restriction for the, uh, 55 feet to make that uniform. That helps, hopefully. All right, satisfied, Mr. McCormick?

Yes, thank you. All right, so I have myself in the queue. I'll hand the gavel to the Vice Chair. Thank you. Um, I just want to point out this amendment, if you look at it, it's— it looks like a compromise.

So, but you have to orient yourself to what we're talking about. So if you are standing at Town Square Park looking south, you have all of those properties that are there kind of directly across 6th Avenue. That's the north. And then behind it, if you visualize, is a giant state parking garage that is a $30 to $50 million building that's never going to be torn down or rebuilt. And so If this is proposed as a compromise, it is a compromise in name only because the south lot has met its highest and best use, at least for the next 50 to 100 years.

Anyone else on the amendment?

Right. Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Mr. Johnson, on the amendment. Yes. I'm sorry, can you say that again? Yes.

On a vote of 4 to 8, the amendment has failed.

So, Mr. Presverdale. On the main motion, I'm, um, so this is a little bit of a difficult conversation we're having tonight because I hear the two arguments. One is that, um, that the— by changing the height restriction restrictions, which we did in the past, it, it creates an opportunity for development. Um, and I'm not clear based on what's been said if that's still true or not, so I'd like to make sure I'm clear on that. If that, if that is the rationale, is that we need to keep it the way it is because creates the opportunity for development, and if we change it back, that it restricts the opportunity for development.

So I just— I want to get clarity on your interpretation of that.

Thank you. Through the chair to Member Perez-Faria, I'd like to invite Daniel McKenna Foster up again to speak to that.

Thank you. Through the chair, yeah, initially it was specifically about getting that property developed, but the more we look into this, it's really more about the fairness and the equal application of the zoning. Because if you use zoning to apply a special restriction to one lot but not another lot, that's where things start to get a little bit tricky. Because some other person who has a B-3 lot in downtown enjoys the rights that go up to whatever the FAA height limit is, but these particular ones that don't have a deed restriction don't enjoy that right, only because the zoning says that they don't. So there's the, you know, we've heard explicitly, they said we'd love to go higher and build residential or hotel.

But then there's the other piece of the zoning is specifically restricting the rights of a couple of properties. And really it comes down to a trade-off of is it more valuable to have, you know, the sunlight access for certain times or the ability of those properties to enjoy the rights that all the other properties around them have. And so that's kind of the more we looked into it, that's really what it became, I think, a fairness issue. Okay, um, well, so, uh, yeah, I'm not sure where I'm— I, I would— I just have to say a few things. I don't think I have any other questions for you guys, um, but I, um, I mean, I, I've been approached as well by the folks that came in and are talking about, uh, the, the shadowing of Town Square and, and the concerns around that and that we're about to spend a lot of money developing Town Square and the concerns.

But none of this matters until something's developed, right? Nothing matters until something is done. So I'm not feeling compelled one way or the other, actually, because if something comes in front of us and it's going to be developed, then we can make changes. And so.

Um, uh, but I, but I appreciate the effort of those that are coming forward to, to reverse this, but I would, I would prefer to keep it as is for now, um, and wait and see. And if there are, um, if there are developments coming, great, but right now it's not going to matter either way. The sun's still going to shine on downtown, and we're going to hopefully incentivize more development down to downtown. And when that comes, we can make the decision at that point. So I'm, I'm, I'm not going to support this.

I think we should keep it as is and and do as much as we can to encourage people to develop our downtown. Thanks. So I don't speak on every item, but this one is downtown in particular, and I probably have the longest history on the question. So I'm going to ask the vice chair— Mr. Costin. Thank you.

So there, Ms. Brawley, the vice chair put in an AIM that's very helpful. If you open it up, there's a table that she briefly discussed. There's a history here. It was asserted in the public hearing that in 1985 an ordinance was passed, and from that day forward we had sun protection downtown on Town Square Park. That is, I guess, a true read if you kind of cut out everything that happened in the middle.

So in 1985, an ordinance was passed and approved, and it was an ordinance that took 3 blocks 5 blocks actually, I think, and put height restrictions on them and essentially took people's rights from them by assembly action. And the YWCA sued the municipality shortly thereafter and won their lawsuit in 1990 and 1991 because essentially their rights had been taken from them by ordinance. And it wasn't a lawful act. And so a settlement happened where the municipality ended up paying a substantial sum to the property owners of one, basically one lot in the middle of the block on the south side of the Town Square Park. And it was a $750,000 expenditure of the municipality that was taken as a reduction of the purchase price.

So essentially what happened as a settlement for taking by the municipality we gave to the property owner $750,000 for the right to restrict the height on their lots by mutual agreement, which is by the deed restriction that you've heard about. So there was some assertions that voters could take away and allow for the heights to increase, but that's not in fact the case. The deed restriction is what will hold on that property where the restriction is at. There's nothing that's going to evade that restriction. And so ultimately, that property, which is the center of that block, will always and forever have that height protection unless some great act of the Supreme Court comes in and says it is no longer valid.

Highly unlikely. If you are in the real estate business, you see a deed restriction, and if you don't like it, that's it, not going to change. And so that's a fundamental principle of this conversation. But those restrictions were applied to the properties adjacent. There are 3 lots, 4 lots adjacent to the properties that had a cash value paid to them in 1991 of $750,000.

The net present value, the difference between what that money would be valued today is like $2.25 million per lot. The taking that this ordinance and the principle that we have the right to take the rights of those properties to build how they want would be valued at. And so ultimately, I think to Mr. Presverdia's point, that doesn't really matter unless we get sued, likely would lose, and it would be very expensive for us to figure out the answer. If someone planned to build. So that's one piece on the zoning.

There's a second layer to that though. There is a practical limitation to the height you can achieve on those lots that currently exist. I've asked for but never been given kind of a calculation of floor area ratios that you could achieve with the, the square feet of the half block, quarter block subsections that are abutting the height-restricted parcel, so on the west and the east, what are the heights you could achieve? Because you essentially have less than a quarter of a block in each of those locations. So the actual geometry and geography limit the height to a reasonable height.

I think it's about 100 feet practically, because I don't think you're getting up much more than that on those lots because You don't have a whole block. You don't have a half a block. You don't even have a quarter of a block to build. And so a lot of this conversation is just about making people feel good that they've done something when it doesn't really do anything other than take the rights of people who would wish to develop above the 55 feet. And so the 26-foot height is going to stand on that middle lot no matter what we do here today.

The size of that could go up depending on what we do today, and if we don't allow it, we are taking from private property owners their rights, and I have a hard time with that. So that's my position on this. Anyone else wish to speak on the item? Mr. Chair, I was in the queue.

Oh, okay. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. I'll say for my part, I think the most compelling argument, uh, I found in favor of this proposed ordinance comes from our downtown district plan adopted in 2023. And on page 75, there's a section related to sunlight access and the importance of sunlight access.

And specifically in there, there's a sentence that states, meet or exceed existing sunlight access protections for Town Square Park, including the height limitations established by municipal ordinance. And that references AO- 85-173. I mean, look at this district plan and then believing it was developed by the community and is meant to represent the interests of the community and their vision for development in the downtown area. It seems to me that they clearly stated that they believe the solar access for Downtown Square Park is a priority for the downtown area. Um, and as such, and, and out of deference and respect to the folks who developed this district plan, I'm inclined to support this ordinance.

Anyone else?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson? Yes.

On a vote of 4 to 8, AO 2025-43 has failed to pass the body. Next, we'll have item 10— wait, 10B2. Okay, thanks. 10B2 is AR 2025-128, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly extending the expanded capacity of 200 individuals at 1111 East 56th 26th Avenue Shelter. This is not a public hearing item, so, um, what's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Hold on, this item was— yeah, it was pulled by Miss Zelatova. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by— second— Mr. Presverdia. Did you want to speak to it, Mr. Rivera?

Uh, yeah, generally, um, I, I am supportive of the item. It's It sounds like, uh, well, just based off of the health department's shelter dashboard, uh, this particular facility continues to be at capacity, so it makes sense for us to continue it. Thank you. Any further discussion? See any— oh, Mr. Myers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering if the administration can give us an outline of the cost for this.

The question was, is somebody prepared to provide a cost for maintaining the 200-person capacity?

I'm looking at either Director Brouse in the back or Director Rash here in the middle.

Through the chair to Assemblymember Myers, we spend about between $500,000 and $510,000 a month in shelter operations at East 56th Avenue.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing, hearing none. Oh, Mr. Martinez. Yeah, just to make sure, just to close the loop on that question, essentially it's budgeted already? Yes, correct.

Right on, thank you.

Okay, anyone else? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, AR 2025-128 has passed the body.

Yeah, 10B3 is done. All right, next we have item 10D2. 10D2 is AM 346-2025, approval of 3-year shelter licenses for Anchorage Rescue Gospel Mission, Brother Francis Shelter, Clare House, Complex Care, and Covenant House. This also is not a public hearing item. So, um, Mr. Presverdia, you pulled this item?

Yeah, I move to postpone to the meeting of June 10th. Second. There's a motion to postpone to the meeting of June 10th, uh, by Mr. Presverdia and seconded by Mr. Rivera. Mr. Presverdia, I'll let Mr. Rivera actually speak to this one. Thanks.

Uh, yeah, uh, if I may, Mr. Chair. Great, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thank you, Member Perez Verdia.

So, um, this is the first time that we're going to be taking action on any shelter licenses, and I think for folks who remember when shelter licenses were created, this was a big stinking deal. It was a huge conversation in the community when we created shelter licenses, and so I think rather than just approving this without much review, I wanted to give time at the May Housing and Homelessness Committee or some other venue to dive a little bit deeper into these licenses. And just so the record's super clear, I don't have any issues with these operators. I'm interested in learning about the implementation of shelter licensing, what we hoped to get out of it, and what happened in the real world. Did we meet the mark?

And I'd rather we take the time to explore this in committee than just at least in my opinion, sort of rushing to approve today, um, a project and that has spanned many, many years. So based on my conversations with Director Rasch, this shouldn't have any negative impact as folks have already been operating with provisional licenses for a couple years now. So a couple months more provisional licenses, um, is— should be fine. Thank you.

Mr. Constable. Thank you. I also support the motion to postpone But I want to, like Mr. Rivera, celebrate the fact that these are now before us. This was a project that actually landed before the pandemic, and we've been waiting, but for all of that difficult time, to see these come before us. And I want to point out specifically, uh, in huge thanks to Pastor John from Anchorage Rescue Gospel Mission, because they were not subject to this licensing, but they chose to go through the licensing because it provides, I believe, some layers of protection and opportunity for those organizations to receive support.

And so there was some fear when the conversation started about licensing that the intent was to cause harm or to make it harder for shelters. And I can see how that fear felt real. But really, the practical reality from those of us who moved this forward was we wanted to provide an opportunity to have a meaningful engagement and community neighborhood responsibility plans and ways to really engage. And so again, to Pastor John, super grateful. And I do urge us to take the time to have a work session to hear from these folks and talk about what it means to be licensed and what it could mean for the future.

So I urge your support. Mr. Presverdia. Thank you. Just a couple other things to add. I welcome the conversation at the Housing and Homeless Committee and I also want to say that, that just a signal to the administration in preparation for that, that like Mr. Rivera, I would like to see the more and more information, more data about what are the, what are the criteria that were used.

I think we know that from the licensing, but how did they meet those criteria? What, what, you know, learning more about sort of how this has helped them in some way or been a challenge to them in some way. Well, I think one of the concerns about setting this licensing up is that it would be onerous and it would be challenging and it would be difficult. But at the same time, I think it was put in place to both meet the needs of the community surrounding these facilities and making sure that they were listened to in terms of the impact that these facilities may have on them, but also to make sure that the people who are there are safe and the facilities are run well. So I'm looking forward to hearing more about, about what we've learned and what we know and, and how these facilities are doing.

So Hopefully we can have that at an upcoming meeting. Thanks. Member Raleigh. Yeah, thank you. I support the postponement of this.

I support these licenses and the reasons that were already given for that postponement. I'll just note that I was really surprised that there wasn't any additional information attached to these. And so I think another kind of more specific request would be maybe we come up with— and by we, I mean not, not the assembly, but the health department— come up with a simple template or some kind of summary that is consistent across these licenses, because I think we get a whole stack of paper related to state liquor licenses or our local marijuana licenses, of course. So we don't need to go that far, but I think we need to find some kind of minimum that, again, we can consistently use. And yeah, excited to see this moving forward.

Thank you.

So just last note, I guess I kind of zoned out when Mr. Barris said it'll be at the committee. We don't need a work session if there's a committee that's going to tackle it. So we don't need to double the work, but we can have a work work session. And, um, yeah, okay, anyone else? Members may proceed to vote.

Motion is to postpone to June 10th.

Member Johnson? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, AM 346-2025 has been postponed. Next we have item 10D4 Item 10D4 is AM351-2025 Grant Agreement with Institute for Community Alliances to fund homeless management information systems operations. This also doesn't have a public hearing, but it was pulled. Oh, is there a motion? I missed probably—.

Move to approve. Oh, Mr.—. I move to postpone to the meeting of May 6th. There's a motion to postpone. Is there a second?

Second. Okay, motion to postpone by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Presverdia. You want to speak to that, Miss Brawley? Yeah, thank you. Um, uh, my predecessor indicated that this was a priority of the administration to postpone, um, to that next meeting, and I just confirmed with the meeting manager.

All right, any further discussion on the motion to postpone? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson. Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, AM 351-2025 has been postponed to the meeting of May 6th. Then we've now finished our consent agenda and can take our dinner break. Oh wait.

So next we have item 13B. Oh, I'm sorry, 11A. That one didn't get on my list. Item 11A.

There we go. Item 11A. So this is AM324-2025.

Recommendation of award of a contract to Alaska Family Services, Inc. to implement the Anchorage Child Care and Early Education ACE Fund Early Educator Child Care Subsidy Program for the Municipality of Anchorage. There is an A version, and this item was postponed from 4/8/2025. It's not a public hearing item. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Moved by Mr. Presverdia, seconded by Ms. Brawley. You want to speak to it, Mr. Presverdia? Yeah, I'm really excited about this information. Oh, is the A version?

Yeah, yeah, the A version. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. My understanding is that Mr. Trevor Storrs is on the line as well if there are questions. He chairs the, uh, the, the, the board, and I'm excited about this opportunity that we found a vendor that can distribute these funds and, and, um As someone who was a part of the development of this, this project, it's exciting to see it move forward and to see these funds getting out into the community and into the organizations that really need them. As we all know, we're in a child care crisis right now.

And so these organizations desperately need this money to be able to hire the people they need to hire to run the facilities that they're running. And, and I'm excited to see this particular project because it really does support the staff who work at these, these these facilities. So, um, just want to urge, uh, support for my colleagues.

Any further discussion?

Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson? Yes.

On a vote— oh wait, oh yeah, okay, on a vote of 11 to 1, AM 322.

4-2025A has passed the body.

Next we have— these are our public hearing items continued. AO 2025-38, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.03.050, Appeals. Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.15.040, Definitions. And Anchorage Municipal Code of Regulations 21.20.004, Schedule of Fees, Board of Adjustment, to update appellants eligible to appeal and cost of filing appeal. Um, there is an S version, um, and we added under 13B-2, 2025-38S, to the title.

Um, I'll read it. Um, an ordinance, the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.03.050, Appeals, Anchorage Municipal Code Section 21.15.040, Definitions, and Anchorage Municipal Code Regulations 21.20. 2004 Schedule of Fees, Order of Adjustment to update appellants eligible to appeal and costs filing appeal and waiving, Planning and Zoning Commission review of this ordinance. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

Welcome. The microphone is off, so hit that little button. Rob Brown, Glen Alps Community Council President. I request 5 minutes. Okay, thank you.

And hold on one sec for the new members. Community Council members, can get 5 minutes, or community council presidents or representatives get 5 minutes if they're officially speaking. Thank you. You have the floor. Okay, uh, I'd like to express Glen Alps Community Council's concerns regarding the proposed ordinance that seeks to arbitrarily double the fees for filing an appeal to the Board of Adjustment.

This proposed increase without any demonstrable evidence of the actual costs incurred by the municipality in processing these appeals is deeply troubling. Where is the detailed cost analysis? Where is the breakdown of expenses that justifies the exorbitant increase? To simply declare a doubling of fees without any transparent accounting is an insult to the residents of Anchorage. If the muni wishes to cover the cost, they have a remedy in the courts.

We are told by the mayor's staff at the workshop— or yeah, the workshop for it— that the increase was necessary due to a substantial increase in appeals. However, upon review of municipal records, we find that in the past 4 years, there have been a mere 5 or 6 appeals filed with the Board of Adjustment. So how can it be construed as a substantial increase? This claim is not only misleading, but also demonstrates a fundamental disregard for the facts. In the assembly workshop for this ordinance, the mayor's staff also claimed that they couldn't find the number of cases presented to the Board of Adjustment and would provide it.

And I'm asking the assembly if they ever did that. It took me less than 30 seconds to find the page for the Board of Adjustment, and all of the case decisions are on the bottom of the page. Dean Gates made a false statement to the assembly members at minute 24 in the workshop for this ordinance, claiming that an appeal to the Board of Adjustment in Bear Valley held up a development for 4 years. That's 100% not true. The case he was referring to is in the Glen Alps Community Council, and no development was stopped and no order was given to do so.

So why is the municipal attorney making a false statement and the mayor's office staff obscuring the truth? The assembly owes the public a clear and precise explanation, not vague claims that disappear under scrutiny. This ordinance is not about physical responsibility or legal compliance. It's really a calculated attempt to silence public dissent and insulate the municipality from accountability by drastically increasing the cost of appeals to 10 times what it costs to—. Near 10 times what it costs to file in Superior Court.

You're effectively erecting a financial barrier that will deter all but the most affluent residents from challenging potentially flawed or harmful decisions. And we know from history that poor and underrepresented fall victim to bad development more often than not. So it's not about streamlining processes. It's about stifling them. It's about creating an environment where bad planning decisions go unchallenged, where municipal errors are swept under the rug, and where the voices of people are effectively silenced.

The Board of Adjustment serves as a critical check and balance on the municipality's land use decisions. It provides a forum where residents can seek redress when they believe those decisions are unjust or detrimental to their communities. By making this process prohibitively expensive, you're undermining the very foundation of fair and equitable governance. This ordinance sends a clear message that the rights of Anchorage residents are secondary to the convenience of the municipality. It sends a message that accountability is a burden, not a responsibility.

It sends a message that the public's right to participate in the democratic process is negotiable. Reject it. Stop considering these ordinances which continually attempt to silence the public. I urge you members of the assembly to reject this ill-conceived ordinance. Demand transparency.

Demand accountability. Demand that the voices of your constituents be heard. Do not allow this body to become a shield for municipal errors and a barrier to public participation. Don't let it become a tool to deny the public the ability to hold you accountable. And set the tone for one of your first votes that you won't shut down the public process.

Be a champion of the public process. Thank you, Mr. Presverdia. Just a clarification, can you tell me what community council you're, you're chair of? I missed that.

Glen Alps. Glen Alps. Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else wish to be heard on this ordinance? Anyone at all?

Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. Let's roll the body. Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Voland.

Was that Mr. Myers? Second. Okay, moved by Mr. Voland, seconded by Mr. Myers. Point of information, is that the S version or the original? S version.

Thank you, Vice Chair. The S version.

All right, Mr. Presverdia. Yeah, I'd like the administration to, to speak to this item.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, members of the media, Mr. Downey is approaching along with Director Babb.

The microphone is off. There you go. We are going to fix that by the next meeting.

Great, thanks. Sorry, were you just asking for our opinion on this? Yeah, I would like to— well, I mean, because the other sponsor is no longer on the body, maybe you can share some information about this, the rationale behind it, and then speak to why you're in favor of it or why you're bringing it forward. Absolutely. Yeah, I think the gist of it, as you all may remember from the work session, is we are making an increase in fees that is much less than the actual cost of the fees.

We know at least one appeal can cost upwards of $20,000 to the municipality. So again, the fee is much lower than the actual cost to the municipality per appeal. The other major change, which I think is actually the more significant one here, is that we're aligning the rules for standing with those of the court system. So there's a recent Alaska Supreme Court case that shifted the standard, or that clarified rather, that the standard for the court is interest or injury standing. So that means in order to bring a case in court, you have to have been harmed in some concrete way.

In this case, we're also now aligning the administrative procedure with that same standard. You can't just bring a case because you think it was wrongly decided. You actually have to be impacted by that. And that's sort of the standard of the court system. And we're going to apply that same standard in our administrative processes if we pass this ordinance.

Thank you very much. Ms. Brawley. Yeah, thank you. Since Assembly Council Mr. Gates was mentioned, I just wanted to see if he had any comments he would like to make. In light of what was shared earlier.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I would like to actually— I for sure did not intentionally make any false statements about some planning— excuse me, Board of Adjustment cases I mentioned in our work session. What I do recall is I said it was in Bear Valley. I did not mean the Bear Valley Community Council.

I wasn't speaking of community council boundaries, but this whole valley is Bear Valley. Glen Alps is on one side, Bear Valley on the other, And it is the geography, geographic location. At least I think that's what you said I misstated. Other than that, I don't think I misstated anything else or intended to misstate anything else. So thank you for allowing me some moment to clarify.

Oh, and I could add, if I may, that was a planning case for Canyonview Estates, and it was appealed from Planning Board case number S-12545. And you know, it's all public records, so anybody who's interested could verify.

Thank you. No additional questions. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, I'm going to be in support of this. I think, you know, in light of the testimony that we heard tonight, I, I think part of the reason that it looks like it's a substantial increase is because it hasn't been updated since 2018, the appeal filing fee. And so, you know, nearly a decade, and that has not kept track with increasing administrative costs. So that's one reason I think it's time for us to update that. I do appreciate the work of the administration and, and the sponsor, former, former Assemblymember Zalatel, in.

Giving more clarification around who, who is an aggrieved party and who is able to file an appeal. And I think, you know, I know that a lot of us who were sworn in tonight ran on a desire to cut red tape. This is, I think, one way that we can do that, and that the assembly can support the municipality in becoming an even better business partner to those who would want to build housing or mixed-use or revitalize different parts of Anchorage, different neighborhoods.

The development that we're hoping to catalyze. Right. And which is why we passed an ordinance earlier this evening on abatements of multifamily property.

Many times these appeals have caused decreases in, in units of housing. And so, you know, for me, if we're going to be decreasing housing units, given the need that we so clearly have and given the goals of 10,000 housing units in 10 years, yeah, we've got, we've got to be a, a good business partner, and we can't, you know, I think that the, the threshold should be significant, um, when it causes significant reductions in housing units. That's, I guess, what I'm trying to get at. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, anyone else?

I would note just a little— oh, anyone? No? A little— go ahead. Just a real quick clarification, Mr. Gates. It wasn't the Glen Elks Community Council, it was the Glen Elks service area.

There is a maze of layered puzzles of elements that are at play here. I went into the decision and it definitely says Glen Alps service area in the decision. So I guess the point is it's complicated. Anyone further? Members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson.

Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 3, AO 2025-38 passes the body.

So next we have Item 13C. 13C is AO-2025-39, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 2.30.030 to add that the United States, State of Alaska, and Municipality of Anchorage official flags and the municipality's official land acknowledgment statement shall be displayed in the chambers. Public hearing on this item is now open.

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

Second. Moved by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Rivera. Any discussion on the matter?

Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson? Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 2, AO 2025-39 has passed the body. Next we have Item 13D. 13D is AO— oh, actually, Miss Vice Chair Burley points out that we're coming upon the witching hour. Um, our agenda concludes our, our notice concludes at 11 PM for our regular meetings, and we can extend at midnight if the members find the items are so significant and important to work on, but only if 8 members agree. And so it's not a simple majority vote, it's a supermajority vote.

So, um, the question then is, should we extend? Because if we don't intend to extend, we should turn to audience participation. Move to extend the meeting by, um, until 11:20. So there is a motion to extend to 11:20 by Mr. Presverdia, seconded by Ms. Brawley. Any discussion on the motion?

Ms. Brawley? Yeah, um, I, I would at least propose that we, um, I know that, that the, uh 13D, uh, AO 2025-40, is an item that is a priority for the administration. I would propose that we at least make time to take up that ordinance, and then the new public hearings then could roll to the next meeting. But that would help us clear a bit more of our business, right? Um, on the question, I'll start.

Is there any objection to the motion to extend by 20 minutes?

I am seeing and hearing no objections, so we are extended by 20 minutes. Next, we'll take up public hearing on AO-2025-40, an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 21.03 to create two new rezoning— zoning map amendment processes, including a rezone process initiated by the municipality, an abbreviated rezone process for rezones that do not require a change to the comprehensive plan. There is also a substitute version AO 2025-40S, an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2103 to create two new zoning— new rezoning zoning map amendment processes, including a rezoned process initiated by the municipality and abbreviated rezoned process for rezones that do not require change to the comprehensive plan and waiving Planning and Zoning Commission review of the ordinance. The public hearing on these items is now open. Welcome.

Come forward, please state your name, what part of town you're from, You'll have 3 minutes unless you're speaking on behalf of the Community Council.

It's off. It's on. There we go. Off and on. John Isaacs, Turnagain Community Council.

I would like the full 5 minutes.

So I'm John Isaacs. I'm on the board of the Community Council and I'm also co-chair of the Land Use Committee. We recognize that the 2040 Land Use Plan actions and strategies assigned certain implementation initiation actions to the municipality for initiating zoning changes, primarily targeting rezones and overlays, and we think this is a good thing for you guys to correct with this ordinance. We support it, but we do have some concerns about the details about how the community— that means residents, property owners, and community councils— will be involved in the initiatives and the timing and the adequacy of public notice, particularly with regard to municipal-initiated rezonings. It's been roughly 8 years since the completion of the 2040 Land Use Plan.

Even those of us who are intimately involved with it cannot remember all the details. The assembly memorandum that accompanies this ordinance cites 11 specific land use plan actions related to targeted rezones and overlays. In addition, there are others that would probably apply to this that are of concern to the community council regarding the airport. These zoning actions are broad, but they're far-reaching implementation actions often summarized in a single statement. You know, an example is facilitate one or a series of targeted area rezones of commercial industrial areas.

You know, these— how they're developed and how they're implemented has the potential to affect a significant portion of the Anchorage residents. When put forth for consideration, they require more community input beyond testifying before a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting or an assembly meeting. Section 2103-202(c)(2)(1) eliminates the requirement for a community meeting for rezoning that implements the comprehensive plan. And for rezonings initiated by the Assembly, the Administration, or PCC. Without a community meeting or an equivalent mechanism of having a discussion among stakeholders about a proposed rezoning, there's really no dialogue.

And no offense, but testifying before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Assembly is not a substitute for that dialogue.

Also, given that Section D1 and D2 remove the ability to protest a rezoning that's initiated by the Planning Department, PCC, and the Assembly, added community involvement in developing becomes even more important. We'd like to see a commitment by the municipality to involve community stakeholders in crafting specific rezoning proposals. I note that a presentation that was given in the work session on April 4th, the planning department did say that they will try to do more outreach, and we'd like to see a commitment in the record of this ordinance to do so. Um, without such a commitment, there's really little comfort that input limited to testimony or public hearing would be meaningful, and we would not support this proposed ordinance if that is the case.

There's also the question about requirement for notification to affected property owners for rezones that are instituted by the municipality. The two mechanisms that are left for notification are either a public notice in a paper or notifying a community council.

And it does away with written notice, does away with posting for these types of ordinances. While we appreciate the notice that community councils have specifically required, zoning changes such as targeted rezones, zoning district overlays, and large-scale initiatives are likely to affect large numbers of property owners who would be unaware of a proposed zoning change that would affect their properties. Without written notice, only those notice who were contacted, those property owners who were contacted by their community councils, see a published notice, or diligently find and read every Planning Commission and Assembly meeting agenda will be aware of the changes that can physically alter their property in their neighborhoods. We'd like to see written notification to property owners be continued.

Requirement for large-scale rezones. We know it's a costly one, but you really have to let people know what's happening to their properties.

Another issue is sort of the timing of public notice. Uh, we commend the practice that the assembly's been using recently to have more time between when a public notice is introduced for an ordinance and the ability to participate and provide meaningful testimony. That really helps, uh, quite a bit with us giving testimony. Allowing more time between the introduction of an ordinance and when it is scheduled is important. Limiting late-on-the-table ordinances and amendments that would— related to rezonings would also be helpful because it's nearly impossible to find and meaningfully comment on the current version of an ordinance with S versions and late-on-the-table.

We also support continuing to work with FCC on their local lens projects. So I guess finally, a couple of things. Uh, we recommend that there be an annual review of the rezonings to see if they're having the desired effects and seeing if they're created unanticipated adverse effects in neighborhoods. We think that would be a good idea to make sure that you're doing what you intend to do. Um, with that, we appreciate the comments and be glad to answer any questions.

I don't see anyone in the queue for questions.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Good evening. Jason Norris, South Anchorage.

Broadly in support of this. When I first found out that we have all these plans that all of this public input goes into, and then we basically put it on individual property owners to go through all the rezone process to implement the plans for us, I was a bit appalled. And so I do support that. Creation of a mechanism by which the assembly or the administration can implement the plan that we've all agreed on. I do have an issue with the, the protest, uh, portion of this.

I do find it a bit strange that we have a comprehensive plan that can be adopted by majority, and then we would immediately give that away and implement it by supermajority because one person spoke up and said they don't like it. As Mr. Downey just referenced, you know, our standard should really be actual harm. And if you're 300 feet away, you may not be harmed at all. I'm going back to, I believe it was 2025-38 and some discussion there. But this passing, making a protest to where you have to pass by supermajority really does place a rezoning on an even higher approval level than sending a new tax to the voters, which is what Project Anchors was trying to do.

If I remember correctly. I'm referring to the 8 votes needed with the protest. Assuming that a rezoned area could be limited to one district, one person 300 feet outside of any one of your districts could raise their hand and protest, and then you would need 60% of the remaining members. You would need a supermajority of the other members outside of your own district to agree with you for something that only affects your district. And I don't know if that's something any of you would like to sign up for.

But this is obviously elevating the rights and the voice of a single property owner over the community that has come together. It's really disrespectful to all the public process and input that goes into our comprehensive plan, and we need to get on with implementing the comprehensive plan for the greater good of the community. So urge a yes vote. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

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

Hi, my name is Claire Lübcke, and I live in South Edition. I had a great childhood in the south side of town, and I love this whole city. And I've been a renter for the past decade, stayed here for college. I support this AO because I believe it's about what we actually want to see in Anchorage. In public conversation, we often get hung up on what we don't want to see.

But as been mentioned here, we have a comprehensive plan, and in that plan that represents this, the result of robust community input, expertise, passion, years and years. I'm excited about this ordinance because it provides better tools to implement those plans and as such to implement our collective vision for the future of our community. I understand that visions are not static. They need to change and adapt to new circumstances. But I'd rather see new visions emerge than past visions simply languish.

I ask that members please preserve the intent of this AO by ensuring that rezones are actionable when they are initiated by an elected administration or are already included in our comprehensive plan. I believe in our representative democracy, the legislative process, city planning, all this amazing stuff y'all are here to do. I also believe there are real consequences to inaction, and I believe that there's there's a real threat of death by process. Um, so yeah, excited to build the community that we are envisioning together, and I really enjoyed the reflections this evening on what it means to like love this community and serve it. So thank you all for your time and consideration.

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

I urge your support on this ordinance for many of the reasons stated. We've already passed the comprehensive plan and the land use plan that calls for changes to how land is being used in our community. But it takes additional steps to actually actualize those plans. And I believe this helps do that. And so allows additional tools for the municipality to start the rezoning process rather than relying and putting the onus on individual property owners.

Um, and so I think it can reduce costs and help us build housing and actualize the plans that we've already passed instead of adding or continuing to have veto points, uh, to actualizing the plans that we've passed as a community. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Are you speaking on your behalf for the council?

Community Council, Glen Alps Community Council. Rob Brown. Welcome. Please say your name. And I'd like to Summit statement again.

Okay, uh, so Glen Alps, we have some unique experiences. We have a unique experience with the Board of Adjustment, and it was in Glen Alps Community Council, which is also Glen Alps Road Service Area, as to my last testimony for clarification. We also have dealt with rezones, and we have gone through the planning and zoning process before the assembly And that process was fruitful because if we didn't have the information discovered in the planning and zoning process, then you wouldn't have had the correct information in front of you when you're often dealing with many, many, many topics per night. And I really believe that you don't have the opportunity to be as thorough as the planning and zoning process. So we do have a deep concern regarding this proposed ordinance.

So we have unique environmental challenges where we live. It underscores a troubling pattern. In addition to that, it seems like every attempt to expedite development in Anchorage is consistently coming at the expense of public process. And that's really the theme of my testimony tonight. And for us, it's not a discretionary step.

This is a fundamental safeguard against the inherent risks associated with our steep slopes and prevalent wet areas. My house was flooded as a result of the changes to runoff patterns from, from a development. So this mechanism currently in place with planning and zoning ensures proposed developments undergo rigorous scrutiny to prevent landslides that could threaten our homes, manage stormwater runoff that could lead to flooding and protect the delicate wetlands that contribute to our natural ecosystem. So not using local knowledge and input and instead only an internal municipal department to determine if the comprehensive plan is met is wrong and usurps the public process we expect you to adhere to. However, my concern does go beyond the need of Glen Alps.

As I mentioned, this proposal is symptomatic of a recurring trend. And whenever the argument for efficiency or speeding up development is presented, the first casualty seems to be the opportunity for meaningful public input and the established checks and balances within our land use regulations. So I ask you, why is it this streamlining development consistently translates to sidelining the voices of the very people who will be most impacted by these decisions? Is true efficiency achieved by rushing through a process and potentially creating future problems? Like environmental damage, infrastructure failures, failures, or negative impact on property values that will ultimately cost the municipality and its residents far more in the long run.

The Planning and Zoning Commission, through its mandated reviews and public hearings, serves as a critical bridge between developers, municipal staff, and the community. It provides a forum where residents like those in Glen Alps who have firsthand experience with slope instability and drainage issues can share their knowledge, raise concerns, and contribute to a more informed decision-making process before projects reach the assembly. So it's not about hindering development for us, it's about ensuring responsible development and development that considers the unique characteristics of our diverse neighborhoods and respects the rights and concern of its residents. So time spent in thorough review and meaningful public engagement is an investment in the long-term sustainability and livability of Anchorage. By consistently providing speed over process, you risk creating a system where decisions are made in a vacuum, potentially overlooking critical local knowledge.

And creating unintended negative consequences. And this in turn erodes public trust and fosters a sense that our voices are being disregarded in the pursuit of expediency. So it's deeply troubling to me that in a single meeting, this assembly is proposing to simultaneously dismantle the rezone review process and effectively eliminate public input and make it significantly less feasible for citizens to appeal land use decisions to the Board of Adjustment. This dual action reveals a clear and disturbing pattern that a systematic attempt to silence community voices and shield municipal decisions from public scrutiny exists. By removing the established checks and balances that protect our neighborhood and by making it prohibitively expensive for residents to seek recourse to the Board of Adjustment, Board of Adjustment, you are creating a system where the interests of developers and municipal expediency take precedence over the rights and concerns of the people you are elected to serve.

So this is an overreach, and we believe it undermines the very foundation of our democratic process. It's not ironic to me that the same people that are decrying authoritarianism nationally are seeking to isolate and centralize power. It is ironic to me that that is occurring. A truly effective, sustainable approach to development must embrace transparency and actively seek the input of its citizens. Thank you.

So we have about 10 minutes left in this meeting. Welcome. If you're going to testify, please come forward. You state your name, what part of town you're from, you'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Stephen Callahan. Um, I support this ordinance. We do, uh, do a lot of work in Anchorage, and I'd like to remind you that on the hillside, typically lots are 40,000 square feet. Uh, so it'd be pretty— make common sense to take that out of the, uh, make an exception for that in this ordinance. I believe this will be used for smaller sites, not generally larger sites.

Typically a larger site, a couple acres, will require a comprehensive plan amendment. That is typical of larger projects over so many acres. Because of the size and the impact, that, that's, uh, will probably still happen. But the 21,000 square foot requirement will probably lead to gentrification of property in certain neighborhoods. The neighborhood I live in, the residential lots typically are 10,000 square feet, nowhere near the 21,000 that would require a, uh, that would fall under this, because generally under $21,000 you would not be able to rezone.

So you'd basically have to do a replat and rezone, so the, the character of the neighborhood will not change greatly. And as far as the Board of Appeals situation, uh, it tends to be used as a weapon against the developers. So I'd like to remind you that, that, uh, You know, we do have the right to own land. Private landowners can use their land the way they want. Their right to happiness is to hack up a 20-acre lot into 1-acre lots.

That's their right. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Moved by Mr. Wallin, seconded by Miss Brawley. Wish to speak to it, Mr. Wallin?

Um, I will briefly— actually, is there an S version on this? Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you. Um, I, I want to hear from the administration here in a moment because they are bringing this forward, but I, I do briefly have a question for, I think, for the department on this. In some of the public testimony that we heard, actually, or Mr. Downey, whoever wants to speak to it on behalf of the administration, um, in one of the pieces of testimony that we heard, I think we heard about the value of the Planning and Zoning Commission process.

Could you speak to the new processes and the role of Planning and Zoning Commission? Uh, thank you. Through the chair to Member Voland, there is an AIM that was attached. There's a nice illustration of the current processes and the new processes. And I think to your specific question— and happy to speak more generally later— but planning and zoning would be involved in every single rezoning process, including the two new rezoned processes.

Perfect. Thank you. I just want to get that on the record. And then if it's okay, Mr. Chair, I would like to invite the mayor or her team or whoever wants to speak to this.

Before you do that, I'm going to make a quick clarification again, like we did at the work session. Would be involved in every process unless waived by the assembly, the legislative body takes specific action. But okay, go ahead, sorry. Right, um, so yeah, Mr. Downey, if it's you, um, and you want to speak to this, that'd be great. Yeah, happy to.

Thank you for the opportunity through the chair. Um, so you'll see, I think the AM and the sort of chart at the end of it is a handy reference. The current process for rezone is very expensive and very uncertain, which is an even greater cost for development that are— is it or isn't going to happen, often in the tens of thousands of dollars in fees, plus consultants to manage that process, and a minimum of 7 months to get through that rezoning process. And a lot of our comprehensive plan relies on individuals to rezone their individual properties in order to implement the plan. And functionally, what we've seen over the last 20 years is that just hasn't happened.

So this is sort of a reaction to that experience of the last 20 years, that we need to make it easier for individuals to rezone when that rezone has been called for in our comprehensive plan. So that's one of the new processes in this ordinance. The second new process clarifies when the mayor or you, the assembly, or the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to initiate a rezone that affects many parcels. So an area-wide rezone. The goal here is to create clarity where currently there is not— what's that— any.

So the code says that the mayor and the assembly may initiate rezones, but it doesn't describe how. So by outlining this process here, we hope to create clarity for everyone, including the public, about what's going to happen when the municipality initiates a rezone that impacts multiple parcels. Um, in the streamlined rezone for individuals, I think primarily the thing we've cut out there is a community meeting, but there's still planning and zoning commission hearing, which involves notice to every community council, as well as opportunities for those councils to have meetings with the administration, with assembly members, with the planning department, um, and of course it comes before you as a body to decide on it. So a bunch of process in there for the individual rezones. Similarly, on the municipal-initiated rezones, there's not that singular community meeting, but there is again still Planning and Zoning Commission review with notice, and we're not, as a testifier mentioned, going to do the posted notice or the mailed notice because we could be impacting tens of thousands of parcels, and it just seems irresponsible to ask the taxpayer to spend $70,000 for what is sort of otherwise general legislation that has general impact.

So we will be looking at ways to meaningfully engage the community when we make those kinds of changes. If we are going to make big changes to zoning, there will be meaningful outreach, there will be meaningful conversation. If there's not, those changes aren't going to be successful. You're going to vote them down. So you'll help hold us accountable to that piece when we get to those.

Happy to answer more questions, of course.

Thank you. I'll say, um, 3 things, and I do have an amendment. The first is, uh, this implements our plans. Uh, it is a— in my mind, some of the current wording in our zoning code, which was passed before our most recent plan was, was approved, essentially put this process in place and did not contemplate some key things, like how, as, as Mr. Downey said, how the municipality itself implement the plan that we are charged to implement. So this is really important.

Second, I would say that there is an extensive process already because these are property rights, but we need to again be very careful in balancing the various interests, including the folks who own property and what their rights are. Third, I'm going to move Brawley Amendment Number 5 in our packet. Second. Motion to amend by Ms. Brawley, seconded by Mr. Voland. Miss Brawley.

Yeah, um, I brought this for discussion. So the original version of this ordinance removed, uh, I believe it removed a protest mechanism that was outlined in detail in our code. The S version brought it back. I am suggesting or advocating that we remove this process, not because we should not have a process, but because it requires— and I think Mr. Norris earlier spoke to this, but I'd independently come to this conclusion as well, that we should be extremely careful when we are placing on the assembly a requirement for a supermajority. So there's only a few situations where that applies.

There are some procedural motions overriding the mayor's veto, a few others, but we do not routinely hold ourselves to a standard where we need to have two-thirds vote. And so I understand perhaps where this, this original code came from, but I believe that it's proper that we do not apply that process and that this is already a legislative process. And so ultimately it is a political process. And I don't believe that we need to impose that additional burden. Thank you.

Point of information, Mr. Chair. Mr. Warren, can we make sure— can we just take a moment to make sure that the new members have this amendment before them? Do they have copies? Hold on, Mr. Presverdia.

I was just going to move.

Extend the meeting to midnight. Second. There's a motion to extend by Mr. Presverdia, seconded by Mr. Bohannon. I would note that we've counted down there, including this item, are 4 items left, and then everything would be done tonight. And so, um, that's for folks.

Let's not have another meeting just for this. Yeah, so, um, with that question, I think I'll just ask members to vote on the motion to continue the meeting. Meeting, or extend the meeting. He said to midnight. This— we got 4 items.

I don't think we'll use it all if people are judicious with their speech. I'm hoping. Members may proceed to vote.

Member Johnson? No, we're not going to get it.

Oh, on a vote of 9 to 3. Oh yeah, 9 to 3. Yeah, we were extended to midnight. Surprise. Okay, so, um, who— you had a question.

You asked for members to receive the amendment. The clerk has handed them out. I think. Could I have one as well, Travis?

Thank you. Okay, so motion to amend, Miss Brawley, seconded by Vaughn. Miss Brawley, you already spoke to it, so in the queue on the amendment, Mr. Rivera. Okay, uh, yeah, thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So as I'm looking at the original version The original version does— my reading and understanding is that it reorganized this particular section in code and moved where the protest language is, and it has— I'm looking at it right now, the original version, page 5, has the protest language in it. So I guess I just want to hear from the administration Generally speaking, how did the original version and then the S version think about protests, and then your general thoughts on the amendment? Yeah, so the original— through the chair— the original version did not particularly contemplate protests, and so we did not include the existing right to protest that exists in the current rezone process. We didn't bring that into the two new processes.

That we were proposing here, the individual and the muni-initiated rezone processes, in part based on some community feedback that people said this was an important thing for them. We added back in the protest for the individual rezones. So it's the same protest process that already exists for rezones. We sort of added it back in for those individual rezones. But it is not— we were sort of basically trying to change code as little as possible with that piece.

So there's not particularly strong opinions about it.

Thanks. So could you just explain a little bit more the original version, the protest language, because there is language in the original version that has protest language. What does that language apply to?

I might defer to Planning Director Meili Sabab on this one.

Through the chair to Member Rivera. I'm sorry, you're asking if the language in the original version—. Can we pull up the ordinance? Is that applied? We can do— because I want you all to, to see what I'm seeing, which is page 5 of the original ordinance and the protest language that I'm seeing right here.

And so I just want to understand what the thinking was when you drafted the original version and Included this language.

While we're waiting, Mr. Rivera, if you don't mind, I would just like to kind of make a quick note. Um, you know, this— the notice mailing— I'm gonna say it, I'm gonna keep saying it until I'm out of here. I think we need to come up with a text notification system with this municipality where any number of services could in fact you could sign up for, and if there is a zoning action, you get a text that tells you it is happening because this is 2025.

Through the chair to Member Rivera, this section was just moved from another part of the code to this location, so it already existed. Thanks. I'm just trying to connect the dots, right, to understand this. So then, yeah, that's, that's what I thought, that this language was just reorganizing. So then this amendment, is that a totally different part or is that getting rid of what was in the original?

I believe that the amendment under question at the moment would get rid of this piece altogether.

Thanks. So I guess now understanding and connecting all those dots, what are the— does the administration support this amendment?

I think we're probably neutral on it, and I think it's, as the, as the body in question, I think it's your right to decide whether you want 8 votes or 7 votes on a protest. I think there could be potentially room for people to make protests in a way that doesn't trigger an additional vote, but I'm not sure what remedies would be available to a person. You'd have to think about what the effect of the protest is. So I would say neutral on this one. It seems like a decision for you all to make about your rights and responsibilities.

I'm going to ask a quick question, Graham. What's the— what's the logic behind creating a higher burden for an individual property owner attempting to rezone versus the government Why would, why would we have two standards? Why would it be harder for the individual small developer to get this done because one of their neighbors is mad? I think the idea of, of having this required for the individual rezone as opposed to the area-wide rezone is that when an individual is initiating a rezone, there's less sort of public process requirements on those individuals, whereas us as the, uh, you know, the mayor's office or the assembly When we propose a change, there's a lot of other public process and layers on top of us. So I think the thinking is a property owner wants to change their individual zoning, maybe they should provide additional notice to their neighbors.

I think you got right there. It's great. When we're going to do this, it's going to be right here. When they're going to do it, it's going to be at the table at the permitting center, and who knows when it would come to the light of day. Fair, fair answer.

Thank you. Miss Brawley. Yeah, first I want to say I apologize for misspeaking. I think I had misread the item. So I will kind of withdraw— not withdrawing the amendment, but withdrawing the comment that it was not in the original version.

So that was incorrect. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Um, but I still do believe— and, and so it is a policy decision if we would remove this from code, but I do believe, um, that again, that, that imposing a supermajority requirement should be done very lightly. So it's been in our code apparently, and I do think there is a Again, is this kind of a pre-appeal situation where we are creating a higher standard if there is a dispute over this? And I know we have— those of us who have watched meetings have seen a lot of very contentious items that become very public or very political.