Assembly Regular - July 29, 2025- 2025-07-29 17:00:00

And now that you take me seriously. And now, and now, Valadis stays mad at me. And now that you take me seriously. Oh.

Too good! It'll do good— it will all too good... Too good! It'll do good— it will all do well...

Too good! It'll do good— it will all do well... Ahhahahaha!

Substance that keeps you locked in, oh, and keeps them talking.

Oh, oh, found out a way to spend your life holding hand with empty faces that you'll never see again. Search out a way to find a version of you you like. Why aren't you getting tired of me yet?

Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet?

Why don't you talk to me?

Everything left on my own.

You can't tired of everything. Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet?

Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet?

Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet?

Why don't you talk to me?

Waited for a sign to arise.

Painted lines round her eyes. Her eyes.

All of her life, call out my name, she rise.

Lightning strikes in diamond mines. A bloody stone adorn on mine. A morning wasted on trivial. An evening wasted on primitive things. Around here everybody knows everybody.

Their past lives documented to the closest topic. At what time does the conversation start and end? Yeah. Oh, is the good guys coming to save us? Promise a good life.

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

We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God. We want, we want, thank God.

Hello everyone, we'll get started in a couple minutes. Mr. Constant and Mr. Perezverdia, can you hear us on the phone?

Yes, I can hear you.

Okay, I heard Cameron. Chris, are you there? Yes. Okay, we can hear you as well.

Okay everyone, I'd like to call this meeting of the Anchorage Assembly to order.

Today is Tuesday, February 29th, and we will conduct our regular business this, this evening. First, I will turn to the clerk and ask to call the roll.

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

Present. Member Baldwin-Day. Present. Member Johnson. Here.

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

Happy to be here. Member Silvers. Here. Vice Chair Rivera. Present.

Member Gerker.

He is excused tonight. And Member Perez-Verdia. Here. Chair Borelli, you have a quorum. Thank you.

Next, we will do the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Martinez, will you lead us in 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.

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

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

Next, we will move on to minutes of previous meetings. We have two sets of meetings, uh, before us, uh, the special meeting of July 11th, 2025, and the regular meeting of July 15th, 2025. May I have a motion? So moved. Second.

Moved by Mr. Myers and second by Mr. Rivera. Um, I will ask, is there any objection to approval of the minutes? Not hearing or seeing any, so we will consider those approved by unanimous consent.

And next, we will move on to the mayor's report. Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening, everyone. We appreciated the robust discussion at the work session yesterday. I want to highlight several things related to both shelter and housing. You will see the ordinance to help encourage the rehabilitation of vacant and abandoned residential properties on the agenda. At a time when housing is expensive and hard to find, it makes no sense to have our housing stock sitting vacant and suffering from neglect.

This policy will create opportunities to repair these homes and bring them back onto the market. We also plan to introduce on August 12th two zoning changes that will make it easier for folks to repair their homes. The first will waive the non-conformities process for those who just want to make interior renovations. The second will make it easier to repair mobile homes. Both were recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

As you heard yesterday, my team has been working to solidify a year-round safety net of shelter and services for people experiencing homelessness. To significantly reduce the number of people sleeping in our parks and on our streets, we must ensure that Anchorage has a year-round stable and coordinated shelter system for those who need help. The contracts you have before you tonight establish year-round stable shelter, and unlike recent years, we're putting forward a plan months ahead of winter. Having two year-round licensed low-barrier shelter sites means improved conditions and access to services for clients, as well as fewer impacts on surrounding areas. It also allows for flexible surge capacity at each site in winter and keeps shelter sizes in line with municipal code's limit of 150 beds.

This plan actually reduces by 100 beds the number of municipally funded beds in downtown from what we have had January to June this year. This is on top of the 100 shelter beds at the Alex Hotel, which were funded with state funds through the end of the year with the Assembly's approval. Additionally, the municipality is supporting hundreds of beds at private shelters and dozens of supportive housing units in Anchorage. To prevent homelessness and move people out of shelter, we've supported hundreds of families with $5.5 million in rental assistance with federal funds. In a bit of good news, our Recovery Residences micro-unit pilot project will soon start construction.

We received proposals from 12 bidders. We will be announcing the selected bidder on Thursday, and we anticipate bringing at least 24 micro-units online this fall. This transitional housing and treatment program will be a bridge to stability that— for the people it serves. We believe this will be a low-cost model that can be copied by other groups in our community. It'll take all of us working together and trying out new ideas to make real progress.

And while we're talking about housing, we heard members at yesterday's work session that you have concerns about the reappropriation, taking money from housing for shelter. We will look at other funding options to keep the housing money intact. Thank you, and I look forward to a productive and respectful meeting tonight. Now, um, I'd like to invite team members from our Youth Employees in Parks program to come up and give a brief presentation. And thank you, Chair Brawley.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, if we can have the youth come up as well, we'd like to get brief introductions from folks, but first we'll hear from from staff. Go ahead, and please remember to say your name, uh, and what part of town you live in as well.

And I'm sorry, you need to turn the mic on. There's a button there. Yes, go ahead. Good afternoon, my name is Michelle Lebeau and I'm with the Anchorage Park Foundation. I'm here because my role at the Anchorage Park Foundation is the director of philanthropy.

So what that means is I raise dollars for the youth employment and parks program. Many of you know that as YEP, and that's something that many on the assembly and the mayor's office have supported and been champions of year after year. As you know, the YEP program is a partnership between the municipality of Anchorage and the Anchorage Park Foundation, and that's been a strong partnership since 2007. And that it is a Youth Conservation Corps program that brings teenagers from all across the city together to work in the summer in our parks and trails. And they do everything from plant trees to remove invasive species.

They help protect our streams and they improve the trails that we all enjoy. And part of that work is, you know, an opportunity to really build job skills. And for many of these teens, this is their first work experience. This is their first job that they've had. And it's a summer of bonding.

It's a lot of leadership opportunities. And so we really appreciate the assembly's support for this program year after year, as well as the mayor's office. And we bring the, the teens here every year so they can experience how— what it means to be part of sort of civic engagement, to be active members of the community in the future. So we have the opportunity to meet some of the crew members, and you can— they will tell you what district they're from and what project that they have enjoyed thus far this But before we have the teens come up, I also want to introduce our year-round program staff who work really hard with the Youth Employment in Parks Project. So Merith Gutierrez, who's with Anchorage Park Foundation, is really helpful in keeping this program going year after year.

Also Brad Muir and Emily, um, Kukatan are here, and they're really those that help make this program successful. So I'm proud to, um, introduce our 2005 crew. Of teenagers, and they're all between the ages of 16 and 19-year-olds, and they've been working really hard today, especially, and every day this summer to really help our spaces become beautiful. So thank you again to the assembly and to the mayor for allowing us this time. And if there are any questions, there will be some time at the end of this for questions for the teens.

Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Um, and so folks can come up and just again say your, uh, your name, what district you're in, or what part of town, and your favorite project. And then I will also note we have some handouts that were provided with a map of projects, and there was a kind of printing snafu in the larger version, so the map— the dots are a little bit off of where they would normally be. So please look at the booklet version if you want to see where the projects are.

And so go ahead, we'll start with you. Good evening, my name is Liam Wood. I'm from District 4. My favorite project this summer was the Virgin Falls. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rosa Hoppe. I'm from District 6, and my favorite project was Earthquake Parks.

Hey, I'm Pia McCarthy. I'm from District 3, and my favorite project was Virgin Creek Falls.

I'm Ada Bernier. I'm from District 6, and my favorite project was also Virgin Falls.

My name is Ruby.

I'm from District 6, and my favorite project was in Far North Bicentennial Park.

My name is Javan Jorette, I'm from District 3, and my favorite project was Virgin Creek Falls.

Hi, my name is Austin Ward, I am from District 6, and my favorite project was Virgin Falls.

Hello, I'm Logan Sabo, I'm from District 5, and my favorite project this summer was helping Alaska Trails construct a bridge at Far North Bicentennial Park.

Good evening, my name is Eli Ward. Uh, I'm from District 6, and my favorite project this year was Virgin Creek Falls in Girdwood. Hello, my name is Marcus Krichner. I'm from District 3, and my favorite project was the Arnold Muldoon project. Thank you.

My name is James Dyasik, and I'm from District 4. My favorite project was Baxter Bog.

My name is Elijah Moore. My— I'm from District 2, and my favorite project was Earthquake Park.

Hello, my name is Josiah Williams. I'm from District 5, and my favorite project was in Earthquake Park.

Good evening, I'm Patrick Farthing. I'm from District 2. And my favorite project was our work at Far North by Centennial Park.

Hi, my name is Haley Block, and I'm from District 2, and my favorite was Earthquake Park.

Hello, my name is Mason Loy. I am from District 6, and my favorite project was Russian Jack Park.

Hello, my name is Kieran Dooby. I'm from District 6, and my favorite project was Bicentennial. Hello, my name is Augie Martinez. I'm from District 6, and my favorite project was Virgin Falls.

My name is Sherman Jackson. I'm from District 5, and my favorite project was the Muldoon project.

Hello, I'm Nevaeh Funk, and my favorite project was— oh wait, I'm from District 5, sorry, and my favorite project was the Virgin Falls.

Hello, my name is Sterling Smith. I'm from District 5, and my favorite project was Baxter Boggs.

Um, I'm Audrey Barker. I'm from District 5. My favorite was Version Falls.

Hi, my name is Faria. I'm from District 1. My favorite project is planting tree at Children Park.

Hi, I'm Esther. I'm from District 1. My favorite project was gravel pile at Bordone. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Meredith Gutierrez, and I'm from District 6, and I am the field educator for Youth Employment Parks and the youth engagement manager for the Anchorage Park Foundation. This is my 7th summer, and some things I'd love for you to know about these teens is that this summer they planted over 1,200 trees. They, they moved over 30 dump truck loads of gravel by hand. And they also rehabilitated almost 19,000 feet of trail in Anchorage municipality this summer. So thank you so much for your support.

If you have any questions, we would love to answer them.

All right, thank you. I see one member in the queue. Sorry, Mr. Rivera.

Sorry, as you can see, we have some growing pains up here. It's okay. I don't see any members in the queue, but thank you so much for being here. We always love to see our youth working for our parks, making our city better, and also coming and sharing a little bit about you yourselves every year at this meeting. So thank you again for being here.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we'll move on. Next on the agenda is the assembly chair's report, and as you will see, I am not Chair Constant. So, um, good evening everyone and welcome to our regular business meeting. Mr. Constant is unable to attend this meeting in person tonight, so I am serving as chair for this meeting, and Assemblymember Rivera has been gracious enough to serve as vice chair.

So thank you, Mr. Rivera. I look forward to this opportunity to usher us through a productive meeting and also ask members' patience as I learn this new chair. First, for downtown safety, I want to begin by acknowledging the shooting that happened downtown last week. My condolences go out to everyone who was affected by that incident. It must have been very scary for the people at the scene that night, but I'm glad to see that APD is increasing their presence downtown on weekend evenings, and I hope that increasing downtown safety will be a long-term endeavor for all of us.

This goes beyond any one bar, any one establishment, but this has been a larger issue in downtown for many years. Some of the problems downtown in the evening obviously run counter to our goals to create a more vibrant, active downtown where people go to have fun and also feel safe. As an assembly member, I personally can commit to reviewing the areas that we do— that we do have control over in terms of safety and licensed establishments to see if there's work we can do to make our bars and downtown overall safer. Then some, some positive news for downtown. We're excited to see growth downtown.

It is important to address our safety issues because we're really on the cusp of some great growth and vitality in our urban core. In a presentation last month at the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting, we heard from the Anchorage Downtown Partnership, who pointed out a number of new businesses that have opened downtown recently. And several new buildings and renovations, including the Wild Birch Hotel, the Hilton Hotel remodel, new housing developments, and a new facade on the office building that's now known as the Santos Building on Fifth Avenue. And last week, we heard that the Block 41 project at the site of the former Fourth Avenue Theater and that surrounding block is set to begin construction— construction for a mixed-use tower with retail and potential housing. After years of stagnant development downtown and what folks have called a hole in the ground for a while, It is great to see this revival, and I'm hopeful that we are finally turning a corner on bringing downtown back to life and creating that vibrant hub for our community.

And speaking of housing, if you didn't catch the Anchorage Daily News article a couple of weeks ago on housing development in Anchorage, I encourage you to read it. And I know that the mayor spoke to this in the last meeting a couple of weeks ago in the discussions earlier this month on the camping ordinance that we took up last meeting. We heard from a lot of folks, members of the public who had great suggestions for things Anchorage could do to be addressing homelessness and the cost of housing. So I'm pleased to report that after a lot of work in recent years, we've made significant progress on many of those ideas. It will take some years to see those results, but housing developers have been starting to announce new projects and expanded projects that have been made possible thanks to recent code changes, tax incentives, and other process improvements.

In just the first 6 months of this year, the municipality has permitted 146 residential units for projects with 4 or more units. That's a huge increase over the 79 that were issued for all of last year. So while things feel tough right now in the housing market, I'm cautiously optimistic that we're going to start seeing more affordable housing options for purchase and for rent in the next few years. And hopefully all of that really helps us start to address or continue to address our other problems like homelessness, outmigration, filling our workforce shortages, and making sure that we have a community that folks can afford to live in. Next, we'll return back to the topic of youth.

We want to say congratulations and goodbye to our assembly intern this summer, Martin Carmen. He was present up here on the dais the last couple meetings. It was great to have him up here so he could learn the ropes and really understand more about the inner functions of local government. And with this transition coming up to fall soon enough, we'll be welcoming some new assembly youth representatives to our meetings. We have a work session on Friday, August 8th, where we'll be hearing from a few of the candidates of folks who applied and really get to understand their priorities and, and help us determine who's going to be sitting there at the youth representative seat in the— on the dais for that next school year.

It's great to have youth and young adults involved in our processes and sharing perspectives, as well as the work of the Youth Employment and Parks and other ways to get youth involved in government. Finally, I'll wrap up by saying the municipality will soon kick off the 50th anniversary celebration of the unification of the former City of Anchorage and former Greater Anchorage Area Borough governments into what we now know as the Municipality of Anchorage. The exact date of this anniversary is September 16th, but the municipality and our partners will be hosting events all the way through September to November to commemorate the good, the bad, and the wild of the formation of the municipality. A website will be launching this week with events, activities, and history stories at muni.org/50, the digits 5-0. And with that, I will just give some— our usual announcements.

So we'll be doing our best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible. So just our usual reminders. This is a business meeting. We are here to do the work of the municipality. Please help create a climate of respect in the chamber.

Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing. Please keep signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in the chambers. Please keep the aisles clear except when lined up to testify. Please do not approach the dais directly, but if you do have something you'd like to share with members, please hand it to the clerk sitting down below for distribution. And to members, please, and the public, please stop speaking if a point of order is called so I may rule on the point of order and so the record is clear.

If the rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance, and if compliance with the rules does not occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there is an actual disruption to the meeting, I will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave the chambers. And with that, we will— I will give the reminder about public testimony when we get to that point. And so then we will go to committee reports, and I will start down at the dais with Mr. Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Nothing to report. Nothing to report.

Sorry, I needed to acknowledge you, Mr.— uh, thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee will be held on Thursday, August 7th, at the Permit Center at 9:00 a.m. And I just wanted to also pause a moment To echo a little bit of the word about housing development in our community, as it was reported by the news, and I mentioned that I would report back at this meeting that I had recently attended the National Association of Counties annual conference, joining colleagues from across the nation and fellow Alaskan leaders, including the mayor of Kodiak Island. And the experience reaffirmed what many of us in Anchorage already know: that we're not just part of the national policy conversation.

In some ways, we are positively leading the curve. Across the country, local governments are urgently trying to unlock economic potential, remove barriers to housing, and address childcare shortages. These challenges are not new to us, but what sets us apart is that we have been responding with clarity, coordination, and creativity. I wanted to also highlight that counties across the country are beginning to now prioritize childcare as essential infrastructure. Anchorage has already taken that lead.

We understand that access to childcare is not just a family issue, it's an economic one. Our investments reflect that. The national spotlight is paying attention. Breaking down barriers to housing, Chair. Communities everywhere are seeking to increase housing supply by modernizing development codes, reevaluating permitting processes, and promoting infill development.

Anchorage is ahead of the curve again. We've already begun to address these systemic challenges to spur development of new housing units and increase our city's livability and resilience. And lastly, I will report that our recently adopted economic development framework, a values-based, community-aligned rubric that helps to guide decision-making and investments, is not just something that we passed here as well. It's something that other communities are paying attention to as well, because the conversation is around how to get diverse communities with diverse interests to a shared conversation around development opportunities. We have a framework that helps us do that.

I just wanted to shout out the work that people in this municipality have been doing, members on this body. And the last word to the administration— Mayor, thank you for keeping your word of listening, being responsive. I appreciate the commitment to maintaining investments into housing and into vacant, abandoned properties. Thank you for that work. Nothing further.

Thank you. Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. The Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee met on July 17th. That's a lot of words to say that we spent time talking about the port, about the utilities that are a part of our city, and things like Merrill Field.

We received an update from Merrill Field and a rate increase that's going to be coming. It's a very small rate increase. And in fact, in case you were wondering, if you want the absolute cheapest monthly parking in Anchorage, you'll find it at Merrill Field. I don't think they're actually accepting cars at this time, only if you have an airplane. But there— it was actually astonishing to see how low the rates are at Merrill Field compared to other monthly parking other places in Anchorage.

We also heard an update from the Port of Alaska on some projects that are not necessarily related to the Port of Alaska Modernization Program, but other things that are going on at the port to make sure that operations continue to run smoothly. We will also— we also received an update on some things related to the port modernization, including the insurance that's required for that project to move forward, and we'll be seeing some appropriations around that as well. We also heard an update on our waste-to-energy program, which is really exciting. If you are not aware that we are exploring options for how to burn waste, both the waste that comes through the toilet and the waste that comes through the garbage, to create energy in Anchorage, that is a project that is currently happening cooperatively here in Anchorage with Solid Waste Services, and I just lost— help me. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So the Waste-to-Energy Program is moving forward, and we are actually hoping for a $1 million appropriation in congressionally directed spending to be able to move that forward with design and permitting.

And there is also an RFP study for study that is live and that's set to close August 6th that will help us learn more about what exactly we can and cannot burn. So that, um, our next meeting for that committee will be happening on August the 21st at 11:15 AM at City Hall. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Next we have Mr. Johnson. No report, thank you. Okay, next I'll pivot to, uh, the phone. Mr.

Constant, do you have a report?

Nothing to report. Thank you. Next, Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Madam Chair. No committee reports, but one quick liaison report.

I'm looking forward to attending the Alaska Municipal League Summer Legislative Conference from August 12th to 14th in Utqiagvik. I think we're going to have a good group there, and I'm looking forward to the discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Assembly Budget and Finance Committee met on July 17th. Um, in addition to hearing our normal standing reports, we notably heard an update on the fiscal year '23 audit, the ACFR, where we are on that.

The administration is working very diligently, very hard on getting that completed as timely as possible. Um, and we also had a preliminary conversation at that meeting around assembly priorities for the upcoming budget cycle. We had a follow-up to that conversation at a work session on the 25th of July, and we were able to capture some good input from our colleagues. So Co-Chair Brawley and I of the Budget Finance Committee will be working on a draft resolution where we can essentially voice our priorities and values, what we'd like to see in this upcoming budget. And, um, however that lands, we will transmit that resolution to the administration, and then we will anticipate receiving their 120-day memo, which will express their values and priorities for the budget.

So that work is ongoing. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Next, Member Silvers. Nothing to report.

Thank you. Thank you. And, uh, Mr. Perez-Vedia.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, just one quick update. Uh, the meeting of the Assembly Public Health and Safety Committee meeting will be on August 6th at 3 PM in Room 155. We encourage people to attend. Thanks.

Thanks. And I have one additional report. Member Brawley. Thank you. I am reporting as one of our National League of Cities liaisons.

I am a member of the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Committee. So I was able to attend the summer leadership meeting in Columbus, Ohio, as part of that committee. In addition to being my hometown and getting to learn a lot about housing construction and really how that city works from a new perspective, I also was excited to connect with peers across the country as we worked on draft federal policy resolutions specifically on topics within that committee's purview, such as water and wastewater policy, weather monitoring, disaster mitigation, renewable energy, and other important topics that I know, that I know are of interest to the municipality as well as the rest of the country. So the committee and other committees like it are working to prepare these policy position resolutions that will be brought to the full membership in November at the National Organization— I'm sorry, the National City Summit, which this year will be held in Salt Lake City. So, so that federal advocacy work is an important part of NLC and giving guidance to staff as well as folks who participate in that advocacy.

So that's my report. Thank you.

Okay, so next we will move on to the addendum to the agenda. But before we get to that, we are going to address one laid on the table item this evening. So that we can incorporate that into the agenda. Um, so there is only one item. It is a.

Supplemental item tonight, so I'm just going to read it into the record. It is supplemental to an item that's being introduced, uh, 10G6. It is Resolution Number AR-2025-221S, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating operating projects committed general fund balance in the amount of $1,300,000 to the Office of the Mayor, Community Development, uh, for rehabilitating properties that are vacant. We had an echo there. To make them available to and assist with transitioning individuals or families out of overnight emergency sheltering.

And can I just confirm, did we lose members on the phone? I'm sorry, that was me. Somehow two lines constant here. Oh, no problem. Glad you're still here.

Okay, so that item has been read into the record and it will be part of introduction. So next we will move on to the addendum to the agenda.

Um, okay, sorry. So I would like to ask for a motion to incorporate the agenda as printed and distributed, including the supplemental late on the table item. So moved. Second. Okay, moved by Mr. Rivera, second by Mr. Voland.

Is there any objection to Adoption.

Not hearing or seeing any, so we have incorporated the addendum to the agenda.

And next, we would normally have appearance requests. We do not have any on the agenda tonight, so we will move on to the consent agenda. And just one moment.

Okay. The consent agenda items numbered 10A through 10G are typically routine and non-controversial items such as bid awards, new business information, reports, ordinances, and resolutions for introduction.

The items on the consent agenda may be approved by the assembly by a single vote to— in a motion to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, items may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion and separate vote on each of those items. So next I will go down the dais and ask members if they would like to pull any items, and I will start with Mr. Perez Verdia. Thank you, Chair. 10D3, 10D7.

Okay, 10D3, 10D7. Next, Miss Silvers.

10B3.

Okay, 10 Bravo 3. Next, Mr. Boland. No items, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rivera?

10 Delta 21, thank you. Okay, thank you. Mr. Constant?

No items. Thank you. Next, Mr. Johnson? No items. Ms. Baldwin-Day?

10 Bravo 1 and 10 Delta 6.

Okay, 10B1, 10D6. Next, Mr. Martinez. No items. And Mr. McCormick? No further items.

And Mr. Myers? No additional items. Thanks, Chair. Okay, so I will read the list back. So I have 10 Bravo 1, uh, pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day.

10 Bravo 3 pulled by, uh, Miss Silvers. Then I have 10 Delta 3 and 7 pulled by Mr. Perez Verdia, as well as 10 Delta 6 pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day, and then 10 Delta 21 pulled by Mr. Rivera. And did I miss any items?

Okay, not hearing any additional items, then I will ask for— so we will consider those items pulled. Then next, uh, I will ask for— sorry, checking my script here.

Okay, um, then I'm looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of the pulled items. So moved. Second. Okay, I heard a motion by Mr. Rivera, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day, and I will ask again if there's any objection to, um, passing the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Not hearing or seeing any, so we will consider the consent agenda approved.

So for the public's information, the assembly has passed or accepted all items in 10A through 10G— or sorry, 10F— other than the items that were just pulled, and then we'll take those up next, or those have been introduced, which were the items in 10G. If you were here to see action on an item listed in the consent agenda that was not pulled, those items have been passed or accepted. So next we will move on to the pulled items, so starting with 10B1. Let me get my agenda in front of me.

Okay, 10B1, Resolution AR-2025-217, a resolution of Anchorage Municipal Assembly approving deteriorated real property tax exemption under AMC 1235 for parcel 00414657000, City View Number 2, Block 5, Slot 1A. What is the will of the body? I'm sorry, this was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, move to approve. Second.

Second. Okay, moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Boland. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you, Chair. I was, I was hoping to ask a couple of questions of the administration pursuant to some questions I received from constituents and other folks who are interested in particularly deteriorated deteriorated—.

Woo—. Real property tax exemption. So whomever would like to answer. Thank you.

As we are contemplating additional incentives for property rehabilitation in Ingraham, I was hoping to put on the record just a little bit of context for what exactly the purpose of the deteriorated real property exemption is and how that is— how that's actually applied and what the considerations are for deciding that that that sort of tax exemption is appropriate. So if you just speak to that, that would be great. Yes, through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day. So this incentive under Chapter 1235 in code exists to incentivize the redevelopment of deteriorated property, especially in cases where it's not financially viable to redevelop the property. So to mitigate some of the negative effects of deteriorated property that have on neighborhood you know, local economy and, um, and, and other factors and nearby property values.

So the purpose is to encourage redevelopment of those properties.

And when, when this exemption is applied, there are particular considerations that, that the municipality and the, the municipal assessor consider, correct? Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, yes, there is an application process and there are specific requirements in code. And if you'd like, I can describe what that looks like. So they— the application requires— it has to be submitted in writing to the CFO, and an approval can be granted— is recommended by the CFO and submitted to the assembly. So it's the assembly is who decides on these things, and that's what the current measure is.

The application requires that it demonstrates that the property meets the requirements in code. So there's a definition of deteriorated property that has to be met. There also has to be a demonstration that the exemption is necessary for the redevelopment, and there's a few different ways that that can be done. In this case, the justification is that it was necessary for the ongoing viability of the business operation. There's also a requirement for the— that it produces public benefits that can be described, you know, job creation or other kinds of impacts reinvestment requires a financial statement as well, and then any other information that might be requested or required by the Finance Department.

And with respect to this, this particular tax exemption specifically, this was a— this represents a pretty significant investment of capital in this particular property that, that has been undertaken by the property owner. Am I, am I correct in, in that statement? Through the chair, yes, you are correct. This did require a significant investment by the applicant. Excellent.

And the timeframe for this tax exemption is 10 years? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And can you speak just briefly? I heard some, you know, some rumblings in the community that this tax exemption will be borne, that the burden will be borne by the community, that this will increase taxes for other real tax property payers.

Can you talk a little bit about the impact to the community? Yes, through the chair. The impact to other property taxpayers in Anchorage will be non— will be negligible. There will be no discernible impact, in fact. So what— so there's kind of— there's kind of two ways to think about how a property tax abatement could impact other taxpayers.

And if I take something that's currently being taxed and I remove it from the tax rolls, and then everybody else has to pay higher taxes to make up for that, then, you know, everybody could have a higher rate from that. In this case, most— what's being done here is a lot— is new value is being added and then we're giving a tax break on that. There is an underlying property value that's negligible, that I think is contributing about $4,000 a year in municipal revenue. So we aren't going to be able to get that going forward. Um, the new value created won't be taxed for 10 years, but at the end of the 10 years, it does get added to the tax rolls.

So with them demonstrating through the application to our satisfaction that this is necessary for the— for this to be an ongoing viable operation,.

You know, we're doing is we're, we're sort of investing in the growth of our property tax base in the longer term. Excellent, thank you. So $4,000 in annual property taxes spread across the entire municipality would be the de facto tax burden? Uh, yes, essentially. Great, thank you so much.

Those are all my questions. All right, thank you. Next I have, uh, Member Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I am Happy to support this item, um, and I hope that my colleagues will as well.

I did want to mention, so, um, something that we just, uh, accepted on the consent agenda under information reports was an item, um, from myself, item 10F5, which is, uh, recommendations on the proposed transit supportive development overlay. It's just a memo of my own recommendations on that project, but I think it's relevant here because as part of the next steps outlined in that memo was to develop a design template and menu of incentivized neighborhood market vertical mixed-use prototypes and referenced as that was using K Street Market as a study of these sort of types of walkable, retail, mixed-use that we'd like to see more of, at least I would like to see more of in the transit supportive corridors.

And I guess I just say all that because I would encourage the Administration to be looking at how we might use similar tax abatements within the transit supportive corridor. I know that we— the Assembly recently adopted multifamily tax abatements, but I think it would be interesting to look at how, you know, if there are other other deteriorated properties that can have a better use that serves the community within, you know, looking ahead, if that transit supportive overlay is adopted, I think we can get kind of creative with how we bring some of these properties back up to use. And there's a lot of them. I'm thinking particularly in like the Spinard area, for instance. So anyway, I support this, but I also want to see it maybe go a little bit further in the future.

Thank you.

Thanks. Next I have Mr. McCormick and then Mr. Constant. He had a question. Is this bakery, uh, still operating today?

Uh, through the chair to member McCormick, to my knowledge, yes. Okay. And then it looks like in the memorandum that talks about in 2015 they did a renovation, maybe found the asbestos, but are now deciding that they would like to do a renovation that's going to require removing this? Uh, through the chair, that is, that is my understanding, yes, from their application. Okay.

And then my question kind of mirrors, uh, Member Baldwin-Day's, and the property taxes that we will be forgoing here, it sounds like it's about $4,000 a year. Through the chair, yes, that's the value, the tax, that's the tax revenue from the current building that was, that was there prior to the, to the renovation. And so that's what we're giving up that we would— that we have historically collected. Correct. So that does not include the valuation after the renovation?

Correct, it does not. Okay. And then it looks like in their statement of like economic impact here, they're claiming if they did a $1.7 million renovation, their return on capital without this tax abatement would be -0.6%. And then it sounds like maybe $40-ish thousand of tax abatement. That they'll do a positive return on capital of just under 1%, my understanding?

Yes, from the— I believe, yes, that's correct, in their materials. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, Mr. Constant. Thanks. And I want to speak a little bit to the public benefit part of the equation.

As has been suggested, the taxes will be foregone for the next 10 years on the improvements, which is an investment. By the municipality. And there's one thing that is undeniable if you work in real estate or have friends in the neighborhood: Fire Island is listed as an asset on nearly every property listing in the neighborhood. Why? Why?

Because that asset in the neighborhood is an attraction to the neighborhood, and it actually keeps and sustains value into a neighborhood because people— it makes it desirable for people to want to be there. And so what does that mean? That means that all of the properties surrounding that for quite a distance are actually going to see their valuations increase because of the value of that asset that's in their neighborhood, which means ultimately everybody benefits in the long run because your property is worth more. We collect marginally more taxes off of 1,000 different properties, which adds up substantially. There is a true public benefit to seeing this project conclude from start to finish, and that value is important because For a number of reasons.

Anyhow, I'll just leave it at that and say that the public benefit is actually accruing across many properties and the whole neighborhood, and in my opinion, Anchorage as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Johnson. Yeah, quick question. If during the 10-year period for which the taxes are abated, if the current owner of the building, FIRB, who applied for and received this exemption, or may receive this exemption. Does that abatement, um, the tax exemption, transfer with the title for the property to the next owner?

Through the chair to Member Johnson, this tax abatement is transferable if there's a new ownership. That's correct. There are some— there are, there are some nuances to that. If it's— if it, uh, it has to be transferred in whole. It can't be like subdivided and transferred in that manner, but it, but it can.

But the the exemption can be transferred with the sale of the property. I don't think it affects my thinking necessarily on this particular item, but it does raise an interesting question, right? I mean, if part of the argument for this is that this particular business creates value for the neighborhood, that if they sell the property and it's used in a different purpose, it may not create that same value for the neighborhood, but the future owner will receive the benefits of that tax abatement. So that's an interesting question, which again isn't going to affect my, my support for this particular item, but does feel potentially problematic. Through the Chair to Member Johnson, I think Ben Bowman from Law is here, and he may be able to address some specific aspects of that that I might have missed, because I believe the use of it would have to— there may be some additional qualifications that I think he could be able to address.

Microphone. Good evening, uh, the chair, to Assemblymember Johnson. Uh, the section specifically which addresses the transferability of the tax exemption is 1235.050 beta, and it's an exemption may be transferred in whole only. So as Mr. Cloud had stated, it cannot be split up, uh, to another entity or owner after substantial completion or beneficial occupancy.

Or earlier when the change in ownership is required for the inclusion of low-income housing. So generally there is some transferability under certain conditions and factors, but it's, it's not blatantly and blanketly transferred.

Okay, thank you. I'll take a closer look at that section. Okay, thank you. And I have Mr. Constant in the queue.

Thanks, and I'm sorry I keep getting kicked out and keep calling back in, but I think that since the question of the future of the business has been raised, I believe that the petitioner is in the audience. I would like to ask them to come forward.

Yeah, thank you. Somebody from, um, the owner in the audience who could speak to this and answer questions? Yeah, I do see, uh, Ms. Fleischman, if you can come up.

Okay, she's approaching the dais right now. So yeah, thanks, Ms. Fleischman. The question of, uh, what your plans are essentially for the next 10 years has been raised. I just wonder if there's any kind of horizon that you're imagining that you're selling the business outside of the corporation in the next 10 years, and maybe take a minute just to tell us about your operation and celebrate it a little bit. Yeah, thank you.

And please make sure the microphone is on with the button. The light will turn on. And then please also say your name on the record. My name is Janice Fleischman. I'm the owner of the entity that's applying for this.

The building is very specifically built for a bakery. It would be kind of ridiculous to think with the amount of electrical and plumbing and the way it's designed— I hope you've been there to see it. It was built in order to create a community space. It's being used that way. I was there on Saturday and there must have been 50 kids there, let alone the adults bringing them there.

So it was built to be a bakery. We've been in business now for 17 years, and we've built the K Street Market. And again, we built that with the intent of creating a community space, a place that enhances downtown. This building was way out of our reach in terms of financially, but it was what we felt the, the neighborhood deserved because they came to that shoddy old asbestos-filled inadequate building for 7 years. So we did what we felt that we would be able to do, but it was at a great cost because it's a very difficult place to build.

We have absolutely no plans to leave it.

I want to thank you for your investment and belief in that part of town. So thanks for your comments, Ms. Pleisman.

Anything else? Thank you so much.

All right, thank you. I don't see any other members in the queue, so, um, I will call for the vote.

Member Constant? Yes.

Member Presverdia? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, that item passes. Or I should—. I believe I need to read the AR number. Is that correct?

Okay, thank you. Feels right. Yeah, great, we'll go with it. Um, okay, so, uh, that item has been approved. So next we will move on to item 10B3, uh, Resolution AR-2025-2022, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly expressing support for maintaining the previously approved and current expanded increasing the shelter capacity of 200 individuals at the congregate shelter located at 1111 East 56th Avenue and affirming the municipality's role in ensuring adequate emergency shelter.

This was pulled by Ms. Silvers, so I will turn to you. Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion by Ms. Silvers, second by Mr. Boland, and I'll turn first to Ms. Silvers. Um, so I think if you look outside, if you look at our point-in-time counts, uh, if you look at the utilization of our current shelter capacity, I think it's abundantly obvious that we need more shelter beds as well as housing.

This right here deals with the shelter portion of it. It's really concerning to me that we would contemplate opening up a new facility but just move people from one place to another instead of actually expanding our capacity when we have the room for expansion, um, and especially on heels of passing a new ordinance that asks folks to camp away from playgrounds, schools, and trails.

I do understand that the administration wants to fix some issues in the SWS building so that it can safely shelter more people, and that they don't want to exceed the capacity that is allowed in our shelter licensing. And they also believe that clients can be better served in the SWS building at a capacity of less than 200. So in the spirit of compromise, I have two amendments, and I will move Amendment Number 1. Second. Okay, Silver's Amendment— or Silver's-Voland Amendment 1, moved by Miss Silver, second by Mr. Voland.

Go ahead if you want to speak to it. And what Amendment Number 1 does is it just moves the initial 200 down to 150. So it says that we support a shelter capacity of 150, which is what is currently in code.

Thank you. Next in the queue, I have Mr. Bolen for the amendment. Yeah, thank you. I hope my colleagues will consider supporting this. I think that The shelter at 56th Avenue has really been an asset for our community, and I appreciate that we've been able to sort of utilize it in a way to break out of this pattern of emergency winter shelter that goes offline every spring.

So I'd like it to continue operating. You know, in conversations that I've had with the administration and also in the work session, I hear the concern about 200 people being, being a bit of a tight squeeze. And I also appreciate the desire to be consistent with our shelter licensing requirements. And so, um, yeah, ultimately want to, want to utilize this place as, as best we can, um, and hopefully keep it at a capacity of 150 individuals. Thank you.

Okay, next I have Mr. Rivera in the queue for the amendment. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So clarifying question and then a comment. So Member Silver described two amendments. I don't see two amendments, but are we looking at both of the sections in Amendment Number 1?

Is that what we have before us? Amendment 2 is lower on the paper, and I plan to make that after we deal with the first one.

Okay.

I guess as long as the clerk understands that that is what we are doing and the body understands. I can move it all as one. I guess if you just let me speak to the second part of it as well.

Yeah, it sounds like this was presented to us as one amendment. Okay.

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, thank you. Yes, so, uh, Ms. Silvers, please explain your amendment, then we'll go back to Mr. Rivera. Okay, um, so the second portion of the amendment adds a Section 2, um, which basically says that we support and urge the administration to do the renovations that would allow increased capacity. And so some of the things that they may need to do is fix the elevator, put in industrial toilets and stuff like that. And so this basically gives support and urges them to look at making those repairs.

Thank you. So, yeah, getting back to the comments that I was originally going to make. So I came into today's meeting prepared to advocate to bring this number down to 100 and add 50 simply for the winter. So 100 year-round, 50 for the winter. This does 150 year-round.

Certainly it is something that I will consider, and I could see myself supporting something like this. Um, over the years, uh, I think much to the chagrin of my constituents, I have certainly put up the Midtown District as part of the solution, and, uh, it has done so over the years.

I guess my, my concern is that if this amendment is supported and approved and the overall resolution is supported and approved, that the intent here is to be additive to our total number of shelter beds and not to, um, say yes to one particular thing and no to another particular thing. So I hope that this just means we will have some additional shelter beds. I guess I do sort of have a question for the administration. Um, so this— I imagine that these additional 50 shelter beds weren't planned as part of what the administration was putting forward in terms of appropriations. Um, could you speak a little bit to how this changes the dollar amounts that we're looking at?

Yeah, and I'll ask— I'm not sure who's most appropriate to speak to that.

Okay, I see Miss Agnew-Benben approaching the dais.

Good evening. Through the chair, this in some ways mirrors our proposal because our proposal is to have 100 year-round beds at that location with potential surge capacity for up to 50 additional beds, and that those could be authorized by the Health Department Director on an emergency basis. So it could be— we know there's a 2-week cold snap coming up. We can authorize some amount over that period. And for 2025, the budget that we have available to us is really for 200 congregate beds.

That's why we're proposing having 2 sites with 100. The surge capacity, we believe— and I would let the OMB director speak to this— but we believe we'll be able to find that for the latter part of this year and then work with the Assembly for 2026 to include that in the budget for next year. But in 2025, just to be clear, we do not have budget for 150 at this site and 100 at a different site. We have budget for 200. Congregate beds for the remainder of 2025.

Okay, got it. Thank you.

Okay, next I have Mr. Perez Verdia, and then we'll turn back to the queue. Thank you. Um, we're on the amendment, correct? Yes, we're still on the amendment. Okay, I just— I'd like Miss, um, Agnew Benven to come back up because there was one question that I, I don't think I got clear on.

Um, Um, so the, the, her last statement was, was we don't have budget to increase to, uh, this to, um, 150. She just say her last statement again. I, I wasn't clear what she meant, that we don't have the budget for this or we do. Uh, through the chair, Member Perez Verdia, so in 2025 we were planning on 200 congregate beds. And so that's the budget that we've— that we're working with.

And so in order to get to, as the mayor shared at the beginning, a year-round shelter system, this facility, East 56, is authorized for 200 beds only on an emergency basis.

Emergency basis. And we know from the fire inspector, Brian Dean, that, that is not something that can be perpetually renewed. It's not for a year-round use. It's for an emergency authorization, which has been in place. So our goal is to reduce this site to 100 beds on a year-round basis.

Part of the reason for that also is that this is potentially a site that the municipality could own for shelter. Which is something we've understood from the assembly that you want us to investigate. And so by reducing capacity to 100, we'll actually be able to make some of the improvements, repairs really to the facility to make it function better. Right now it's being— there's very expensive repairs happening on a monthly basis because 200 people is just too much for that location. It's also quite crowded.

So there isn't a place to move 200 people. If you want to do work on the building. So by reducing capacity to 100, we'll be able to evaluate the long-term value of this for the municipality, bring this— bring that proposal to you. It'll also allow us some space to make improvements to the building while people are still in it. It will also make a much more habitable shelter for the people staying there.

We'll be able to have more separation between different genders and generally a better calmer place where people can get better case management and better exits from shelter. So that is why our goal is to have 100 year-round beds at this location for the time being, with a potential surge capacity of up to 150 beds if and when it's needed.

So just, just to be clear, can you talk about the impact of this amendment? I want you to be really clear about how this amendment would impact our ability to function as you planned? Sorry, do you mean to our budget or to the plan? Both. To the budget and our plan.

How would this amendment impact that? Well, I will speak to the plan and then I will let OMB Director Braus speak to the budget. This essentially accords with our plan if the Assembly is willing to approve a contract for 100 beds at a second site. Which is also on the docket this evening.

Thank you. And then how would this amendment impact our budget? Through the chair to Member Perez-Verdia, this is Ona Brouse, Director of Office of Management and Budget. This amendment is not limiting for the proposal that we have brought forward to you. If this amendment is intended to allow for up to 150 at the East 56 site with additional beds available in another location, then this would be Totally within the bounds of the proposal, and we would work with the assembly to find additional funds if we were able to, um, contract with our vendor to go up to 150 on a full-time basis.

So this amendment doesn't limit our operations in terms of the, um, double-site proposal, but it would limit operations if it were intended to only be at East 56 as shelter alone, because that would reduce our number that we would were available to have at the East 56 site from 200—. [SPEAKING CHINESE] Thank you very much. That's all my questions. OK, thank you. Next on the amendment, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions for the administration as well. Is there an expectation that there will be demand for shelter beyond the 200 beds that are currently proposed irrespective of cold weather surge needs?

Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, it is not an easy thing to measure demand for shelter. The demand for the number of shelter beds is really a function of how long a person stays in a bed. So if someone stays in a bed for 1 week, the same bed could serve 52 people. If they stay in a bed for 4 months, that bed's going to serve 3 people. So our goal is to have a year-round system that is very tightly coordinated.

We've been working since the fall with the assistance of our third-party oversight to do very robust, very on the daily, 7 days a week coordination of our beds to use them as efficiently and as well as we can. That's both to divert people out of shelter who don't need to stay there for very long. For example, we just recently got 2 people plane tickets to the Lower 48 who had places to go, and that was the way out of the shelter bed. And then it's also to provide robust case management services, connections to treatment for people who have more complex needs. And we believe that with that type of coordination and a year-round system that stabilizes the system, Also, one thing that isn't immediately apparent is that when you're only operating for 5 months of the year, it's hard to hire year-round staff.

So it just limits your ability to have a really good team and training. So with all of those things, we believe that we can function with fewer shelter beds than we had last winter because we won't be turning on additional hotel rooms. We've put more of our resources towards transitional housing and housing and rental assistance. To have exits from shelter. And we believe with that robust coordination, we will be able to meet demand.

And then, you know, when we have cold snaps, when we have other things, we will need to use emergency powers to, to, to manage that. But that's why we want to have some surge capacity in our low barrier shelter sites, which we currently don't have. Thank you. So I, I'm, I am in support of additional shelter capacity during winter months, especially as temperatures drop, demand increases.

I think one of the things that I noticed was in the, the point-in-time count that we saw at the last Housing and Homelessness Committee meeting, it was actually shelter that was underutilized. Everything else— transitional housing, non-congregate shelter, those were the places where we had 100% utilization. It was shelter that was not utilized at 100%. So I'm, I'm really in favor of the mayor's intent to operate two smaller sites as opposed to one for a variety of reasons, but one of which is there, there is significant impact on Midtown having this shelter at 200 people. And, and I I agree with my colleague on the dais that Midtown has— Midtown has done some work to support the shelter needs of our community, and I'm really proud of that.

I'm not sure that having 150 people at the— with the current building condition is a wise move. So this is— this is not— this is not an amendment or an item that I will personally be supporting. I, I think we're, we're coming to a point of pushing the envelope on what is financially responsible for the municipality to undertake. So this will, this will be a no vote for me.

Okay, uh, next, I know Mr. McCormick hasn't spoken. Is this on the amendment? It is, yes. Um, it sounds like this number, the 200 number, and now the amended 150, is an up to, and the administration says it doesn't limit what they can do or how they can use it. It's just kind of an upper threshold.

I guess my question is to the, the mover of the amendment of— it sounds like we agree needing more shelter beds. Why are we lowering the limit that they can put there?

So, um, it's 200 now, which is, um, 150, which is the capacity that we are allowed by policy, and then a 50 surge, um, and they're lowering it to 100. And so what my amendment does is tries to bring it back up to 150.

So it, it's basically, it's a compromise.

And if we did not amend it though, would it remain at the 200? It would remain at the 200.

So we are lowering it. I I, I'm still confused, I guess. [SPEAKING SPANISH] Yes, it's like Mr. Volland wants to provide clarification. Yeah, thank you.

So, um, in other items that will be before us tonight, there are proposals from the administration to lower this, um, lower the current capacity from 200 to 100 and to move 100 folks, um, to a different location, maintaining the same sort of overall shelter capacity of at least of municipally contracted shelter to 200. I think that there, from some of the answers that we've heard here from Ms. Bemben and from Ms. Braus, there appears to be a little bit of a disconnect between the sponsors of this item and the administration. What the— if this were amended, um, the language reads, it is the policy of the Municipality of Anchorage to maintain to the maximum extent feasible not less than the emergency shelter bed capacity permitted by the municipal code for a low barrier congregate emergency shelter. So our intent in bringing this forward is not just saying, oh, we can surge to 150. Our intent in bringing this forward is saying No, it's gonna be a goal, you know, so long as there is a need of.

Capacity in our overall system, that this would be— there would be 150 clients at the location on 56th.

Okay. Mr. McCormick, any other question or—. No, thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Johnson has not spoken, so I will go to you. Yeah. Thank you. I think I also have a question for Ms. Bemben or whoever else wants to tackle it. For Section 2, the repairs and renovations, I know you have mentioned that there is some thought long-term about making improvements to this facility to accommodate more people.

This Amendment and the Resolution, if it is passed, specifically calls for those renovations to take place. Do you have any sense, ballpark, what the approximation of the cost of such upgrades would be?

Through the chair to Member Johnson, we would absolutely need time to evaluate what those renovations and repairs would need to be and what the cost and kind of phasing of that would be. I imagine that some of the things that have been really problematic as we've been operating in this facility would be the bathrooms. There are two large garage doors on one end that let in a lot of cold air in the winter, so We have had to replace a lot of windows, so I think dealing with that. So there are some near-term things that just to make it more operable would probably want to be done first. And then I think if we were going to evaluate it for long-term use, especially if the assembly wanted to authorize more than 150 beds in there, well, there would need to be a change to code.

We also have some zoning issues to deal with there. We would also probably need to do a replat. Because of how it's configured with the other uses on that, that parcel. So all of those things— none of those things happen quickly. And then to get a cost estimate, of course, we need to do some type of structural and architectural review of the building.

So again, part of our approach here is that by reducing to 100, it makes it possible to do some of those things with people still occupying the facility. With 150 in there, it's better than 200, but still pretty tight. So again, also just to reiterate, we budgeted for 200 beds this year. So if we're suggesting to run East 56 at 150, you know, we didn't really find a feasible option through our congregate RFP for operating at 50 beds anywhere. So I'm not sure if the solution then would be just reduce overall capacity, or, um, if people— if you want us to go back out to bid, that's a lengthy process.

We just spent 3 months negotiating to try and get the best locations and the best price for the municipality from the 2 bidders that we got. There were only 2 bidders, and we negotiated hard with both of them, and we looked at many, many sites around town that they brought to us. So I don't think another RFP process is necessarily going to produce different results. And if I might add something briefly to what Ms. Agnew noted, we have asked for an initial review of the facility from our operations and maintenance team. The initial estimate they've come back with is as high as $11 million to fully renovate the building.

So it's not a simple task. We've looked at the elevator itself is not the simple barrier to the operation of the second floor. There are fire code concerns about the layout of the walls on the second floor that make it inoperable as location for sleeping humans. So even if we fixed the elevator itself, there would be a larger Jenga puzzle of how we actually made the entire building operable. So as Miss Agnew-Bemben noted, the idea here is to have a lower capacity in the building to allow us to take a real run at the— what repairs would be required.

It's part of the calculus here to assess what we could potentially do to make it a longer-term operable facility at the higher level that I know the body is interested in. And the challenge is it's just not simple. There's lots of different moving pieces, and it's also not a simply located amount of money. I mean, if we had $11 million to fix the facility, that would be fantastic, but it's certainly not something that we're going to identify in the next few months. So this is part of a conscious overall long-term plan to try and assess how we can make change in this facility to be able to make it something that is, again, responsive to this desire to have more long-term shelter beds.

But it's just not simple. That building was not designed to be a place where people slept long-term, and it been a short-term solution with some real challenges. And so this moving around of the population that's in that facility is a conscious part of a long-term plan that will allow us to reach the desired goal thoughtfully and while addressing the, again, the significant hurdles that are part of that process. I appreciate that information. So I'll say I am disinclined to support the amendment or the underlying resolution.

Because these are serious questions that I think need to be answered, at least fleshed out formally, before we take a position as this body to support this action. I mean, even if we don't have precise numbers related to the repairs and renovations, this resolution, if amended, would call for that to take place and would create, I would hope, um, an impetus, if not a mandate, for the administration to pursue that, which we know the cost would be some millions of dollars for those renovations. Additionally, we can assume that it would increase the operational cost for the facility. And just if I extrapolate, um, from the contract before us to increase that by 50%, that's around half a million this year, a million and a half for next year. These are large numbers, which I think if we were to consider going that route— and, and perhaps we can— but it is enough that it will impact the budget, the municipal budget, in other places.

And so to not even consider that before taking a position feels a bit reckless to me. Nowhere in this resolution or the amendment is there any mention even of the additional costs that the municipality is contemplating taking on here, let alone actually digging into the numbers and, and the impacts there. So while I'm not necessarily opposed to long-term contemplating operating this facility on a more permanent basis and perhaps at a larger capacity, I simply do not feel like we have anywhere near the information we need to, to take that action today. And I think to do so would be a bit reckless at best.

Okay, thank you. I know we have a number of folks in the queue. We have been dealing with, as you have probably heard, some consistent phone issues for members on the phone. So I am going to recess us briefly so that we can reboot the phone system. We will pick up where we left off, and then I will just note we do have our stack of folks in the queue, all of whom have spoke— before, so I'll keep running through that process.

So folks on the phone, if you just hang tight, we're going to reboot the phone system, so we'll take about a 5-minute break. Thank you. Here's something weird. This new computer is not keeping time.

Let's see if it does it now.

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

Wait for a cool place to watch your subtle ways. 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.

The dogs are all at play. Tell me it won't change. While putting off the work, too late to just simply wait. To be tough in some other way.

What do I really care about?

What do I really care about? Am I afraid to make a noise?

Was this world 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. I hope it was not.

Where there's no boundaries to have and nowhere to go. 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 One thing, don't let these wounds sting. I promise soon.

'Cause you're 4, 5, 6, sometimes 2 girls. If your roof is tin and your house caves in, then 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 me like it do, but it's all the rules I always lose.

I wake up and begin to choose. I don't know what to do, do, do, do. Yeah, trees to hang on and nowhere to go. Don't let them take your shine, don't let them steal your mind away from you. Say if they owed you money, I won't need a penny from Oh, you, you're stronger than you think.

Don't let these wounds sting. The bomb is soon 'cause in 4, 5, 6 long times to go. Get away, stay in your house, gaze in, nobody else at fault. Think I did something bad, I did something bad. Never question the enemy and say if they If they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all.

Say I'm not very lucky. If they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all. Let me tell you a secret. Let me tell you, oh. Let me tell you a secret.

Let me tell you, oh. Let me tell you a secret, a secret, a, oh, secret.

I keep it all alone! I keep it all— Keep it all alone! [MUSIC] I keep you cool...

Is sitting out gazing at nobody else at all. Think I did something bad, I did something bad. Have a whiskey in the hand, they say. If they owe me money, if they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all. Say I'm not very lucky.

If they owe me something, let's go out and spend it all.

Okay, I think we almost have our phone issues resolved. Mr. Presverdia or Mr. Conson, are you there?

Cameron, you there? Yes, I'm here. Oh yeah, we can hear both of you for now. Okay, thank you.

Okay, well, I think, um, we should call the meeting back to order. Okay, yeah, members can come back. I think we're, um, I think we do have our members on the phone, so hopefully we can get through the business while they are still there. I know they are still walking back up. Where we left off, we have a queue of folks.

Everyone in the queue right now has already spoken, so I will move through, see if it is for the amendment. And then also just to note, Mr. Perez-Vedia, I have you third in the queue. So first—. Thank you. Oh, sorry.

Can you both on the phone confirm that you are still there?

Still here. Okay. Perfect. Correct. Okay, so Ms. Silvers, you are next in the queue.

Did you still want to speak to the amendment?

So just to clarify, a new RFP is not necessary. An amendment could be negotiated in the contract, um, and as stated in this resolution, it would be subject to assembly approval. So that is something that the administration would explore and then put before us for approval. The purpose of this amendment is for expanded year-round shelter. Otherwise, quite frankly, I don't see the real benefit of bringing in a second operator at another location if we're just going to pick people up and bus them across town and not expand our system.

The other purpose is to get away from winter-only sheltering, which, as you know, means that people go out into our parks in the summer Almost every person on this dais, about half of them, said 2 weeks ago, in reference to another ordinance that we passed, that we do not have enough shelter to pass this ordinance. And so now I'm hearing that there are too many barriers to even explore adding more beds to our system within a facility that already has those beds. So I guess in the end, the question is, Do you want people in shelter year-round, or do you want them in shelter in the wintertime and then in Cuddy Park and other parks during the summer?

Thanks. Next, Mr. Voland. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate Ms. Silvers for bringing up the, the point about a new RFP not being necessary. You know, in response to one of my colleagues from Midtown suggesting that, you know, Midtown has really stepped up, I think that's true.

But I, you know, when we had a work session on other topics that will be before us tonight, other items, and this is related, you know, I had questions about what is the current capacity? Where are people being sheltered now? So I guess I would maybe like to invite Thea back up and get some clarity on that, um, because although Midtown has stepped up and what.

Dinklage has 2.

I know that there is still a, a lot of folks historically have been sheltered or housed in Fairview and East Downtown. So how many people are sheltered in Midtown right now versus how many people are sheltered in Downtown and Fairview?

Through the chair to Member Voland. Thank you for the question, and I did work on this today between when we talked yesterday at the work session, um, and I'm not yet in possession of a map, which I would love to produce. It's a great idea. We've definitely done them in the past. The most recent one I could find was 2018, which didn't seem quite up to date, but I did make notes from other sources to try and answer this question.

So if we first look at our municipally contracted shelter, East 56 currently has 200. Our proposal is— it goes down to 100 with a surge of up to 50. That's in Midtown. Um, the proposed location that we'll be talking about later, Linda's Place, is technically in Mountain View, but it's right on the border of Fairview, Mountain View, and downtown. We're saying proposing that have 100 beds plus a surge of 50.

We currently have 100 non-congregate beds in Spinard at the Alex that are funded with state money. We're hoping that could be funded year-round next year. And then we do family cold weather shelter that's also municipally contracted. That one is more of a scattered site approach. They do have a— I think it's a fourplex, and I apologize, but I don't actually know what district that's in.

But that does support about 68 people during cold weather. And again, we're working with that vendor to see what it would take to operate that year-round because we know there's demand for family shelter year-round. When we look at community shelters, our complex care facility is right off of Fireweed and C. I think that's also Midtown, right? Yep. Nope.

Yes. Yes. No. Yeah, that's not Midtown. It's on the border of, of District 1 and, and the Midtown District.

Okay, okay, thank you. Um, that's a— that is 80, 83 beds there. Um, Brother Francis is another community-operated shelter. That's 120 beds. That's definitely in downtown.

Covenant House has 40 beds now of shelter. They've converted part of their facility into longer-term transitional housing. So their actual shelter beds are down to 40. That's also in downtown. Also in downtown is our Anchorage Safety Center.

So that's right at the jail complex. That's technically could house 50, but really it's closer to 25 because 50 would be a lot in there. In Gospel Rescue Mission, that is a high barrier shelter in Midtown. It doesn't receive any municipal funds. It is licensed.

That's 92 beds.

For family shelter, Clare House is another 20 beds in Spanard. We have the McKinney Family Shelter, and I'm sorry, I don't have the occupancy for that. We don't put any funding into that currently either, and that's in downtown. We do have VA-supported— it's called VASH, Veterans Administration Supportive Housing. They do a permanent supportive housing model that's a scattered site.

So that's really all over Anchorage. You asked yesterday about other types of healthcare facilities. A lot of that is concentrated in the U-Med District. So again, in kind of the border of East Anchorage and Midtown, that's where we have, for example, Alaska Psychiatric Institute. We have resident inpatient mental health at Providence.

We have detox beds, we have residential treatment, we have— that's where the two crisis stabilization centers would be located. Assisted living is another service that we actually have about 3,000 beds of assisted living in Anchorage. Those, according to the 2019 study I looked at, we had assisted living in every zip code except one. Partly, oftentimes you see assisted living more in For example, Eagle River or Hillside, where there's larger homes because assisted living operators often have between 6 to 8— need to have rooms in the house. So they often purchase larger homes and provide those services there.

Hang on one second because I know I had a few others. Let's see. Oh, I think those were all the ones I counted for you. So I'm sorry, I don't have a good— Oh, I guess we also, because you also asked about supportive housing, we just did emergency rental assistance that is going out kind of all over town because it's, we're getting people into any unit that we'll, we can, we can find. So that again is a very much a scattered site model.

And then another sort of investment that the municipality has made over the years with the Assembly's support is the It's not— it is kind of supportive housing. It's really low-income rental plus case management. So the Barrett Inn is an example of that. Lakeshore is an example of that. Those are both in Spinard.

And really, Golden Lion is operating that way too, which is also in Midtown. So I mean, I think that's a kind of big picture.

Does the Guest House still have guest house, some permanent supportive beds? No, Guest House is operating again as that kind of low-income permanent housing, rental housing. Yeah, I seem to recall because I was one of the co-sponsors of assisting with the purchase of the Guest House. At the time, there was 110 beds of extremely low-income housing, 20 units of permanent supportive housing. So I don't know if that has changed, that proportion, or what.

I appreciate that. So I guess, you know, just to maybe drive the point home, Do you feel like it's fair to say that the— of congregate shelter, that the majority of congregate shelter capacity is in District 1, East Downtown, Fairview area? I really would say it's Spinard, Midtown, Downtown. Of congregate? Yeah, I mean, in— so for Downtown right now, we did have 90 beds at Henning House.

Which is downtown. We had 45 slots of warming and we had 50 beds at Merrill Field, which is also— I think that's probably also in Mountain View, but kind of right on the border. Those have all closed. So we don't have any of those and we're not planning to reopen any of those. So we've really taken 200 beds offline as of June 30th.

And then our year-round system, we're proposing the 100 beds at East 5th at Linda's Place, 100 beds at East 56th, and then the same plan of that surge capacity up to 50 as needed in each place. Okay, I guess just to be clear, like, I'm talking about not just municipally contracted congregate shelter but including places like Covenant House or Brother Francis. Those are both in downtown, yes. Right, so proportionally—. Well, then we also have the 83 beds of complex care which is shared between—.

I think technically that falls in District 1. I think it's on the south or the north side, the north side of Fireweed. I have to look at a map. Okay, I know I was trying to find— I'm sorry, I was trying to find the map over there so I could give you this more precisely. But I just, I guess I hope that gives context for this item.

And as we consider other items, is looking at where in our city do we have capacity already, and where are the best candidates for areas to look at to grow capacity. Thanks. And if I could just speak to that last comment through the chair. So I just really want to impress upon you that We put out an RFP, we got 2 bidders, and the reason it took us from April until July to come up with an intent to award is because we asked those bidders to go back and back and back to find properties that potentially could work. And that's really the— so in addition to that, prior to even putting the RFP out, we did a really comprehensive look at What are the buildings the Muni owns?

What are the locations that we have that potentially could support the different things that we are trying to bring online? And for Muni-owned, really the only options—. Chair, point of information. Go ahead, Mr. Esridia. I am—.

Are we on the amendment to the resolution?

Yes, thank you. We are on the amendment to—. I don't believe we are speaking to the amendment on the resolution.

It sounded like you are raising a point of information. So yes, we are on the amendment. And then I will also remind all participants here that we should stick to the content of that amendment at this time. Thank you. Okay.

Right. So I also will note that we— I know we had to take a break. We have been at this for a while. We have not reached our hour of debate, but we may need to extend debate shortly. So just making a note.

Next, I have actually two members who have.

Uh, or one is not in the queue anymore. Uh, one member who has not spoken yet, so I'm going to turn to Mr. Constant and then go back to the queue of folks who have spoken already. Thank you. Um, I can't help but have some feelings about the debate.

Um, that there was a, I would say, a short-sighted view that suggested look back at the last meeting. There is a small minority of you who voted against that item because it's criminalizing, that whole argument. And yet here we are putting up burdens in front of people to have enough shelter. I rebut that argument simply by saying, look further back, and the argument then was having too many people in a small space that isn't effective for those people is not good. In fact, it's cruel.

And I believe that the 200 number in this facility has served, but only in emergency capacity. And the 150 is cruel. It works in an emergency because that's when we don't have any other place to have anyone go, but it should only be in an emergency. We've been really clear in our code to try to reduce the size of our shelter capacity— not capacity, our shelter spaces— having distributed services so that the humanity of people can be respected. I believe if we stay anywhere near 200 in surge capacity or actual capacity.

And even this 150 number is just looking back towards a previous administration's idea of bigger is better. I don't support this amendment. That's generally speaking my comment to the overarching resolution.

Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Rivera. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. Um, you know, generally there is a value to diversifying our system, even if we're not necessarily increasing the number of shelter beds.

For I think many of the reasons that Member Constant stated, we've had this debate many times around capacity and what's the right number. And so it makes sense for us to look at that diversification from that standpoint. You know, one of the things that we haven't really talked about is And, uh, Miss Bemben has impressed this upon us that it took many months of negotiations to get to where we are right now. Um, I certainly would hope that going back to the negotiating table and asking for 100 to go up to 150, um, that that wouldn't set this back. Um, so there's just a lot of I think unknowns at this point.

There's what does the provider want to do in this scenario, what are our budgetary concerns. And in the end, I think we need to make a decision on what makes the most sense for the system and for the clients. So I'm open to the idea if it makes sense to boost East 56 up to 150, but I just think based on today's conversation, we're not there. Just yet. And, um, that's, I think, a conversation we can have again in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Martinez hasn't spoken yet. Mr. Martinez, just quickly, uh, question to the sponsor of the amendment and the overall item. Um, what are the best practices that you're following With respect to the number of, of folks that you are looking for, originally the item was 200, and then the compromise that was described with this particular amendment is 150.

In your research, what is the number related to the best practice for a congregate shelter before it turns into a warehouse model where you don't actually help people, where you just have— you just put them into a space? Do you have any background information that suggests that the best practice is 150 versus the 100, which had been vetted by, uh, prior folks for some time? Well, actually, I would say that the 150 has been vetted because that is the best practice number that this assembly put into code. So that's the number that's in code. That's the number that's been vetted.

That's the number that's been put forward as best practice. So, I mean, I guess we could change code and say that we need to cap out our shelters at 100 if that's now the new best practice. So in my vantage point, and I appreciate the, the comment, the assembly is a policy-making body, and sometimes we get best practices connected to the policy well. Other times not so well. But I don't necessarily look to my colleagues here for the best practices with respect to homeless response coordination and work.

I think there are other experts and professionals who do that. But I do remember post-pandemic when Brother Francis was lowered, the amount of folks at Brother Francis was lowered. I remember very specifically The, the more people in a space with limited operator and limited training folk, the more difficult it is to meet the needs. So small— as a value proposition, smaller is better because it's more manageable in, in the sense of that. And so the surge then capacity gives us the ability to do the 50 and 50 in both places.

So I think that, that is essentially the same position as a rub there. The numbers don't essentially change, but the day-to-day operation is different than the surge capacity. And, and I don't— I'm not the expert on that, but I do know that a value proposition suggests the smaller the, uh, the facility, the less folks, the more opportunity for case management and resources to reach individuals. That was one of the big lessons we definitely learned out of the reorganization of Brother Francis downtown. But thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Perez-Fridia, do you still want to be in the queue for the amendment? Yeah, I just have a brief comment.

Go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to share, you know, we— I think the administration has a really solid plan, and we've heard that, and And the concern I have with this amendment and the underlying resolution is that it feels like it binds them in some way to a certain capacity. And I would really prefer to allow them to move forward with their plan as is. I appreciate their willingness to work with this, with the amendment.

But, you know, I'd like to see the plan as stated move forward as is. So I'm on the camp of not necessarily supporting this, this amendment and the underlying resolution. Thanks. All right, thank you. And Ms. Baldwin-Day, go ahead.

Yes, I'm curious if either of the sponsors of this amendment have actually physically visited the East 56th Avenue shelter in person in the last 3 months.

Because if, if the answer to that is no, it's really easy to throw darts at a number and to say that this number sounds good. But if you have not physically been to the facility, if you have not observed the conditions in which people are being sheltered, and it's very difficult to have an appreciation for the difference that 100 people would make to shelter operations, and certainly the difference that it would make to have— having the capacity to renovate a building during the winter months in order to make it a better shelter for the community at large. So I really struggle with this assertion that we have— that arbitrary— an arbitrary capacity of 150 people as a requirement, as a threshold, is wise for this space. Having been there, I— I struggle to envision how 200 people has been a workable option for the amount of time that it has. And let's be clear, there have been 200 people at that site for the entirety of the summer.

We did not spin down East 56 this summer. We literally are— we are in the midst of creating a year-round shelter model. So, so the assertion that we don't have summer shelter This, you know, is functionally inaccurate. So again, to the sponsors, if you have not been to the shelter, I question the choice of this number and why. And, and, oh, and beyond that, the questioning of the administration's plan to operate two sites at 100 beds apiece.

Um, really, really struggling. I have, I have been to it. And, and you believe that— I haven't toured the upstairs, which is beautiful. Okay, um, I do want to note for timing, as I mentioned, um, we reached an hour for debate, so, um, we could entertain a motion to extend or we could take a vote on this amendment and the underlying item.

Okay, um, seems like people are ready to vote, so let's go ahead and vote on the amendment. So we are voting on, uh, Silver's.

On Amendment 1?

Member Presverdia? No. Member Constant? No.

Okay, on a vote of 5 to 6, um, that amendment fails. So we are back on the underlying item. As I said, we've reached an hour for debate.

Yeah, so seeing that there's someone in the queue, Madam Chair, I'll go ahead and make a motion to extend debate by 10 minutes. Second. Okay, we have a motion to extend, um, by Mr. Rivera and second by Mr. Boland. Um, any objection?

Okay, not seeing or hearing any, so, um, next we have— yes, I want to vote. Sorry, I was on mute.

Okay, so there is an objection, so we will take a vote on the motion to extend, uh, debate 10 minutes.

Member Presrudia? Yes. Member Constant? No.

OK, the motion to extend has also failed on a vote of 5 to 6. So now we are through debate and we are back on the vote for the underlying item 10B3, Resolution AR-2025-2022. So members may proceed to vote. Member Constant. No.

Member Presrudia. No.

Okay, on a vote of 4 to 7, that, uh, resolution fails. So next we will move on to item 10D3. Let me get back to my agenda. So that is Assembly Memorandum AM562-2025, recommendation of award of a contract to MASH Property Management LLC. MASH for the congregate shelter services for the municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Health Department.

Sorry. Okay, not reading the rest. Okay, so this was pulled by Mr. Perez Verdia. Mr. Perez Verdia, move to approve.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Perez Verdia, second by Mr. Rivera. Point of information, Chair. Yes, question. Is it your intent to move the A version or the original version of the AM?

My intention is to move the A version. Is that correct? I'm looking at it now.

Yes, thank you. The A version was the most recently submitted version. Yes, yes, the A version. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and thank you as well. So we are on the A version, so 10D3 number or letter A. So go ahead, Mr. Beresfordia. Thank you.

Did you want to make comment to that?

He might have gotten kicked off. I'd like to hear from the administration, um, specifically, um, for them to, um, um, review this, this contract briefly, and then also speak to the need of it. Okay, thank you. Yes, so if somebody from the administration could speak to, um, the contract and the necessity of it from their perspective. So I'm not sure who would be the appropriate person to speak to that.

Okay, I see Miss Agnew-Benben approaching the dais again with Miss Rash from the Health Department.

Uh, Kimberly Rash, Anchorage Health Department. Uh, so this A version of the contract here is, uh, for 100 beds at 1911 East 5th, uh, at a per-day flat rate of $10,800, which is 108 per person per day. The contract would be starting on, uh, August 30th and going until the end of this year. And it does have two one-year contract extensions, uh, which would be subject to appropriation. The funds would be subject to appropriation.

Um, the services provided at this facility by the contractor would include, um, making sure that each person is connected through the CE process, working with the third-party oversight. They will be providing food to the clients that are residing at that facility. They will also be having— they will be meeting shelter licensing requirements, which is specific to ratios, as well as making sure that they are working with the other shelter operators, again, through that partnership with the third-party oversight.

And Thea will speak to the need.

Thank you, Director Ash. Through the chair to Member Perez-Verdia, as we've discussed at the work session and as I've heard members say tonight, the goal is for Anchorage to have stable year-round shelter so that we don't have ups and downs in the summer and winter. I shared this statistic yesterday, but I'll share it again here today. When I looked at the APD data for the 50 people that died outdoors in 2024, it might surprise you to know that 44 of them died between April and October. That's also the time of year when we tend to have fewer beds.

So I think this type of low barrier shelter is a life-saving intervention. It's also in some ways the duty of the municipality to, to provide this level of shelter because Without it, not only do people run the risk of dying, but they also end up interacting with our police officers, with our fire and EMS, our mobile crisis teams. And by providing a shelter where people can get navigation and support, connections to treatment, housing, other services they might need, we really reduce the burden on our first responders. So the need for this particular location is because, as discussed, East 56th Avenue is only allowed to have 200 people on an emergency basis. That's not a year-round option for us.

150 Would be the maximum we could have there. Our budget this year, we have budget for 200 congregate beds. Our proposal is to split those 200 beds into two 100-bed sites with surge capacity in each of them. The value of having the surge capacity in a shelter site is that last year Assembly authorized warming. Warming was only available at night, and people couldn't sleep there.

It did serve a vital purpose, but I think we can all agree it's not ideal. It also occurred in a downtown location, which was not preferable because it created a lot of traffic because people couldn't stay there. So this alternative is to provide that year-round stable location where we can surge if we need to on cold days. We also— this facility would be operated by MASH. MASH has been, I think, had a very good track record in terms of operating this type of facility.

They're also operating at the Alex right now. We heard from the, the community council meeting that Member Valand convened, the downtown community council has had a very good relationship with MASH through their good neighbor policy that they have for the guest house, which is also downtown. That's when we were just talking about, that's, that's really permanent housing. Because these would be licensed facilities, this facility would also have a good neighbor policy required. At that same meeting, I heard folks from Fairview say that they would really like that policy framework to be beefed up.

I'm 100% in on that. We can work on that together and provide a good framework for those policy agreements for all of the licensed locations. The other advantage to this site is that it would be part of our year-round operation. It therefore would be subject to the third-party oversight that the assembly asked us to ensure was available to make sure that, that the beds are operating well and that there's oversight by licensing. It also would be overseen by the health department.

And then there's a third layer of oversight, which is because this would be a contract. With the municipality, so the health department will be managing it as a contractor as well. So I think I've probably spoken to the need for it.

Thank you, Chair. Just one additional question. You've heard some at the work session we held, some concern around the location. Can you talk to us about the choices you had and the process you went through and how you ended up choosing this location as opposed to others? In Anchorage.

Yeah, so we did, um, ask the two bidders to bring multiple different locations to us for consideration, um, and there were locations in parts of Spenard, parts of Midtown, parts of downtown, um, and kind of the Ship Creek industrial area and in Mountain View. Those were the the locations that were brought by those two bidders. Again, we don't have control over that process.

We can't find other places in other parts of town. So those were the areas of town where facilities were brought for consideration. And after a very exhaustive process, these two seem to be the most advantageous. Some of the advantages of the East Fifth Avenue property are that it isn't— it's not— it's surrounded by commercial uses primarily. It does have— the operator is planning to put a fence around it.

It has multiple floors, which will allow us to separate genders, which is a pretty important thing in emergency shelter. They will be adding adequate bathrooms and showers.

I think those were some of the main reasons why this one came to the top. And also, I think the size— just one other thing. I guess what I was saying earlier about the— we have budget for 200. So if we did 150 in one location, then we're only left with 50 in another location. And what we found through the process is that 50 is not really a feasible size to operate, like freestanding.

So it's okay if it's like part of your operation because you're doing it. But it just— I don't think we could find an operator that would just do one 50-bed shelter. So that 100 and 100 made the most sense for that reason too.

Thank you. Thank you for that. I just would like to add, there's probably going to be a long queue, but I just want to add that I'm supportive of this. I really want to encourage my colleagues to support this. It's part of a comprehensive plan of how we're going to really seriously address homelessness here in Anchorage.

It aligns with our long-term vision of scattered site, and I appreciate the work that it took to negotiate this and to get this contract in front of us. I really want to encourage my colleagues to seriously consider this and approve this this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Sure.

Could I add one thing that I forgot to say about the location? I think we need to move on to the next person. Next, I have Mr. Voland in the queue and then Mr. Constant. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, I completely disagree with Member Perez-Verdia that this is aligned with a scattered site model, unless scattered site means continuing to scatter in East Downtown and Fairview. We have policy guidance, which I brought to the work session on this from 2018, indicating that we should look to other places of town first. Um, you know, going back to Member Martinez's comments on a prior item about best practices and having smaller locations. So this is proposing 100 people less than a mile from Brother Francis Shelter, who has a capacity of 120. That's Brother Francis, just down the hill from the Hope Center.

We also have Covenant House downtown. So are we just looking at locations? Are we looking at these locations in context? Um, Yeah, I am opposed to this. I, I feel frustrated by the answers that I'm hearing from the administration tonight because it feels like they're trying to put us in a very narrow corner.

This is the only thing that will work. We looked at these locations. No other locations will work. No other capacities will work. We can't do 50.

So if we're saying that, you know, our goal is to do these smaller scattered sites, I guess we're locked in at 100 plus. I'm not hearing the research and the best practices about the, the capacity proposal here, especially so close to where we already have a lot of folks being sheltered. I think there's a lack of creativity, frankly, and I feel like the administration is taking a passive role by just saying, well, we'll let the providers bring up the locations for us. So yeah, I'm frustrated. I won't be supporting this.

I also feel like this is not the best use of our very limited municipal resources. Going back to the guest house, $3.4 million we joined with other funders. How much does the Guest House cost the municipality annually? Can I get an answer from that, for that, from the administration?

How much does the Golden Lion cost the municipality? Not the, not the treatment center that we're bringing online, but the housing at the Golden Lion. How much does that cost the municipality annually? And here we're looking at $9 million for 3 years of shelter.

The Chelsea Inn is for sale right now in Spenard for $1.5 million. There's a proposal that has come forward from the community, from a community member. The name of the group is Outreaching Lives. They have 10 units in Mountain View that they want to rehab— deteriorated properties. We've been talking about that project.

They want to rehab to get 10 units. So I'm looking at, okay, well, Chelsea Inn, there's 34 units. This proposed rehab in Mountain View, there's 10 units, that's 44 units, $2 million, about $2 million of capital cost involved. And we are considering $9 million, 3 years, for a building we still won't own. It won't be a long-term asset to the municipality.

So I cannot support this, and I think there's, there's more questions than answers that I have about this. Thank you. All right, next I have, um, Mr. Constant. Go ahead.

Thank you. And, uh, it's 2 meetings in a row then that the members of North Anchorage have a difference of opinion. Um, I believe that the scattered site approach has been implemented and is an ongoing process that We've seen shelters set up in Midtown. We've seen shelters set up across Menard, and it's the downtown as the urban core does have a responsibility separate from the issues relating to equity and other questions that we are addressing in an ongoing manner. But I do have a question for the mayor, and that is, Mayor, you mentioned in your report that you'll, you'll do your best to find an alternative funding source, because for me, I can't sacrifice housing for shelter, and there is money available for housing that's being requested to be used for, for shelter, and I just can't get to yes if that's the case.

The question I have for you, Mayor, is how committed are you to finding an answer that provides funding for shelter that doesn't reduce our ability to provide some housing rehabilitation funding?

Go ahead, Madam Mayor. Through the chair to Member Constant, um, you have my word, I am committed. Director Brouse and I had a conversation earlier today before this meeting looking at potential sources, and I don't know if you want to hear— I'm hoping we can have that conversation later, but Director Brouse is here Right now, Madam Mayor, I'll just say this: your word is good to me.

And with that, then I would say I would urge my peers to support this matter.

Okay, I don't see additional members in the queue or on the phone, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Constant.

That was it for me. Oh, yes. Member Presverdia? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 8 to 3, that item passes, or 10D3 passes.

Next item we have is 10D6. That is Assembly Memorandum AM566-2025, Intergovernment Agreement with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for Project Management of the Planning, Design, and Construction of ADOT and ADOT PUF CFHWY 01291 Amatsdale Street and Fulkerson Street Reconstruction. This item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Chair, is this a move to accept or move to approve? Which is the language? This would be a move to approve. Move to approve. Second.

Okay, seconded by— or sorry, moved by Baldwin-Day, seconded by Rivera. Ms. Baldwin-Day, you want to speak to this? Yes, please. I was actually wondering if anybody from AMATS is here this evening, and if so, would they be willing to answer questions?

Mr. Young and Ellen is approaching.

Hello, I'm Aaron Yulginilan. I'm the Executive Director and PO Coordinator for AMATS. Hi, Mr. Yulginilan. Thank you for being willing to answer questions. I'm curious if this, this particular project incorporates pedestrian crossings or active transportation crossings that would include Tutor as part of the Dale Street and Fulker Street reconstructions?

So I'm looking at the project description. It doesn't specifically call out at the intersections of Tutor for these two. It does say that it'll connect with the non-motorized facilities already existing on Tutor and 40th Avenue where possible. Got it. Um, so yeah, that, that was one of the things that I— that sort of raised my radar a little bit, that the scope of the project as it's outlined in this memorandum is to reconstruct from Tudor to 40th, but not necessarily Tudor inclusive.

So would it be,.

Be possible for AMATS to consider amending the Transportation Improvement Plan to actually include the intersections of Dale and Fulker at Tudor Road as, as potential additions to the project scope? Um, yes, that could be considered as part of our next TIP amendment. We're anticipating starting that next one in October of this year, so it'll be before the body in December later this year. We— the, the Policy Committee has done that for other projects where they've specifically designated that an intersection will or won't be included as part of the project, most specifically on Spinard. Excellent.

Okay, well, given, given some of the, the developments that the municipality is considering along Tudor and the existing issues that we know we have with respect to active transportation safety along that corridor, I would, I would love for that, that to be reviewed as an option at whatever the next available meeting might be. I will leave that in your capable hands to decide. Will do. All right, thank you very much. Thank you.

I have nothing further. Okay, thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Perez Verdia? Yes. Member Constant?

Okay, on a motion of— or sorry, on a vote of 10 to 0, um, Item 10D6, AM566-2025, is approved. Next we have Item 10D7, um, that one is Assembly Memorandum AM567-2025, recommendation of award to a contract to Henning Inc. for congregate shelter services for the Municipality of Anchorage. This was pulled by Mr. Perez Verdia. Move to approve. Second.

Okay, moved by Mr. Presverdia, second by Mr. Martinez. Uh, Mr. Presverdia, do you want to speak to this? Yeah, thank you. Just, just briefly, similar to the last item, um, this is part of a comprehensive plan that the mayor has been working on. Um, I'm looking forward to, uh, to see this unfold, and I'm, I'm really looking forward to seeing this facility, um, upgraded as As has been mentioned before, in the few times that I've been there, it is in serious need of repair and upgrading, and reducing the number of occupants is going to be a key part of that.

So I'm excited about this next step for us in our overall plan and really want to encourage my colleagues to support this item. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, I have Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to correct something on the record, uh, that was, that was said at the, um, the work session on this item yesterday. Um, and there was, there was some difference in things being calculated on a per day versus a per month basis, and there was a number thrown out that $171.89 was the true cost per day, the total cost per day of, um, of operating shelter at this site.

And I, I just wanted to correct on the record that that is— that number is the cost per person per month of additional facilities use at this site. It is not the total cost per person per day of operating the shelter. And I felt like that was very important to correct on the record, um, out of deference to, you know, first, accuracy in the public eye, but also, um, to make it clear what the, the contract really looks like as far as comparing apples to apples between this particular contract and the MASH contract at that we just contemplated. So I wanted to make sure that that was clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, I wanted to say thank you to Henning. Uh, you stepped up in, in difficult times, under shifting circumstances, and in a building that is not designated for people, and made that work.

And, uh, you know, good days, bad days, I just wanted to make sure that I was on the record as thanking you. And I also want to say that it was very compelling when at the work session the question was asked about keeping the cost the same with any increase or any expanded capacity that we may need And the answer was, we will work with the municipality to keep the cost the same because essentially you're doing the work that we need to get done, and there's— and that's what's the value. And I just wanted to thank you on the record. I know it's difficult and there's a high degree of public scrutiny around all of these things, but, um, thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Member Constant? Yes. Member Presverdia? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 1, item AM567-2025 passes or is approved. And then our last consent agenda item tonight is item 10D21. That is Assembly Memorandum 586-2025, Amendment Number 1 to the contract with BDO USA to provide professional audit services to the Municipality of Anchorage. This was pulled by Mr. Rivera. Move to approve.

Second. Okay, motion to approve by Mr. Rivera, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Mr. Rivera. Yeah, uh, thank you, Madam Chair. So I pulled this item just simply to put on the record that the funding for this contract amendment won't just be coming from the legislative branch, but rather will be coming from the executive branch.

Um, that has been my understanding based on conversations with the chief administrative officer, and I just wanted the record to reflect that. Thank you. Encourage a yes vote. Okay, thank you. I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Or we all abstained. Stand by momentarily.

Okay, why don't we do a voice vote? We'll get the record corrected and then it will be time for dinner break. I apologize. Member Myers? Yes.

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

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Constant, I think, has left. Yeah, I believe he's excused the rest of the meeting.

Member Brawley? Yes. Member Voland? Yes. Member Silvers?

Yes. Member Rivera? Yes. Member Presidio? Yes.

Okay, on the actual vote of 10 to 0, this item is approved. And with that, we have concluded our consent agenda business, and so we will take our dinner break and return in about 20 minutes. Thank you.

Okay, everyone, we are going to reconvene the meeting.

Thanks, everyone. Okay, so we are on item 11A, and then I will also note we no longer have our members on the phone. I believe they're excused for the rest of the evening. Okay, so we are on item 11A. All right, our members ready to go?

Okay, great. Okay, so 11A, Resolution AR2025-192, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly strongly encouraging the administration and the Anchorage Health Department to develop a dedicated strategy for For engaging individuals living unsheltered who suffer from untreated—. Late reading. Thank you. And I will note we have an original version and an S version.

We have no motion pending. What is the will of the body? Move the S version. Second. Okay, S version moved by Mr. Martinez, second by Ms. Silvers.

Mr. Martinez.

I will ask Member Silvers to speak to the S version. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Hilvers.

Oh, and while she's pulling up notes, I will also note that this item was originally postponed from June 10th, um, and July 15th, so, uh, we are back on this item. Thanks. Um, okay, so, uh George— or Member Martinez, through the chair, will have to speak to the substance, but I will speak to the changes in the S version. So as originally written, I had some concerns.

One of the concerns that I addressed in the S version is that current outreach is done by several professional teams. It's done by the HOPE team. MCT, MIT, and those operate out of our police and fire departments. I think a lot of planning and effort went into standing up those teams, and I think they're doing good work. And I think as originally written, the resolution just kind of says, let's throw all that out, let's do it this new way, um, you know, so let's switch to a field-based model directed by the health department.

And so that wasn't something that I was willing to support. But I like the basis of the resolution and, you know, the focus on mental health care, and so I wrote the S version just to make some of the changes. Section 3 calls for facility proposals, and I made some changes there. I think it's a bit premature to call for facility proposals. Um, right now we have the Anchorage Center for Treatment, which just opened and is expanding.

Um, we have the South Central Foundation facility opening in 2026. Um, and we have the mini residences, uh, proposal that's moving forward. Um, and so I think that what we really need to do is take stock of what facilities we have, identify the pathways for treatment, And that is what that amendment paves the way for. And so then identify the gaps that need to be filled and then, you know, looking at a budget for filling them before we actually do the work of looking for facility proposals. And then the final change in the S version proposes discussion at regularly scheduled Public Safety Committee meetings rather than a report.

Uh, which I thought was a better venue, uh, to work with the information.

Thank you. And Mr. Martinez, do you want to make an additional comment? Sure, thank you. Um, so the original item essentially does speak to the calling for the administration to provide a strategy for dealing with some of our most vulnerable folks in our community. This is a complementary item to another resolution that I've introduced around, uh, looking at the state's responsibility for the failed behavioral mental health response statewide and how that has impacted us in Anchorage.

So essentially, this is a complementary item to that, which has been postponed to the next meeting. The, the S version is essentially a 3 amendments crafted as an S version. Yeah. And so the 3 amendments were some additional less language in one area, a little more language in another area. And they were generally fine with me.

Thank you. All right, thank you. Next I have Mr. Boland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I am not inclined to support this, um, for a couple reasons.

Number one, frankly, I don't think the administration— well, I'm unsure, but I, I don't believe that they had— that they have the capacity or the expertise to deliver on this.

And I think we need to be judicious about these resolutions that direct the administration to do things, to produce work product.

I think there's maybe times when, you know, the policy guidance is appropriate, but to me, this kind of is a little bit outside of our lane.

Also, we did a lot of work of convening a whole task force on complex behavioral health needs, um, just a couple years ago, and I think I'd really like to build upon that work and revisit that document and move forward with some of those recommendations. I don't want to sort of retread ground that we've already covered, so for that reason, I think I'll be voting no. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. I think my thinking is similar to Member Volland's, but I would like to ask the administration, since this is being presented as a framework we would hope that they would utilize if it was adopted, if anyone from the administration would be willing to speak to whether they see this as helpful, a hindrance, if this models their current practices, if there's any necessity or benefit to this in their eyes.

Through the chair to Member Johnson. This is Thea Agnew-Bemben. I think this is very compatible with the work that we're doing. I think, as you all know, part of the mayor's strategy, both in the homelessness and health strategy and in the public safety strategy, is to really expand our capacity and our connections to behavioral health care and and specifically as this states, for people who are currently unsheltered or living in shelter or other kind of untreated circumstances in the community. Evidence of that is we've been convening a crisis response workgroup since January that we've talked about.

This summer we have an outreach pilot project going on that I think we've talked about too. So I think with the changes that Member Silver has proposed, This feels really compatible with the work that we're doing and supportive, and I don't have any problem with it. Okay, thanks. I appreciate that answer.

Thanks. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 8 to 1, um, AR 2025-192 passes the body. Next, we will move on to our public hearing items. Beginning with 14A. But first, I will read these reminders. If you are here to testify on a public hearing item, please come forward and state your name, the community council, or area of the municipality in which you live.

Please, to everyone, stay on topic and direct comments to the chair or to other people on the dais, and I or someone else will interrupt you if you're off topic, if there is a point of order called. It is helpful if testifiers would provide comments on any proposed amendments if there are any items tonight. Uh, for those testifying, you will have 3 minutes. Community council members have 5 minutes. And just a reminder as well, assembly members do not typically answer questions during the testimony, uh, during the public hearing.

That comes later during the.

Debate and maybe a time for, time for answering those questions. Otherwise, public testimony is the public's time to speak. So with that, we will move on to Item 14A. That is AO-2025-84, an ordinance of Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 1260, Tax Incentives for Housing, and enacting— thank you. So the public hearing on this item is now open.

Does anyone wish to testify? Please come forward.

Okay, okay. Does anyone wish to testify? Anyone in the room? That's— thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm going to move to continue the public hearing to the meeting of August 12th.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Rivera, second by Mr. Johnson to continue the public hearing. Do you want to speak to that, Mr. Rivera? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So this is being done at the request of the administration.

They're going to be taking this item to the CEDC meeting on August 7th and are requesting more time. Thank you.

Member Brawley. Thank you. I wanted to also share, um, that in addition to the administration's request, that I support this request. I am working on a couple of amendments, one regarding definitions of which properties would qualify under this ordinance, as well as looking at how to incentivize building more units. And so for that reason, I would also ask that the body consider postponement so that those can be discussed at the committee and then come back at the next meeting.

Thank you.

Okay, oops, sorry, clear out the queue. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue. Members may proceed to vote, or I should actually— sorry, we— I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to postpone this to the meeting of August 12th. Is there any objection? Okay, not seeing any, then this item will be continued and the public hearing will remain open for the meeting of August 12th.

Next we have item 14B, ordinance number AO-2025-79, An ordinance authorizing the sale of properties foreclosed on for delinquent taxes and/or special assessments. The public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify?

Anyone at all? Okay, seeing and hearing no one, the public testimony is closed— or the public hearing is closed. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Mr. Rivera, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Rivera, do you want to speak to it?

Okay, I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 9 to 0, that item, uh, AO-2025-79, passes the body. Next we have item 14C, ordinance number 20— AO-2025-80, an ordinance authorizing retention of a tax foreclosed parcel for public purposes, legally described as Lot 8, Block 1, Georgiville Estates. Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify?

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public testimony is now closed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to postpone indefinitely at the request of the administration. Second.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, moved by Mr.— motion to postpone indefinitely moved by Mr. Rivera, second by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Rivera, do you want to elaborate on that? Yeah, thank you.

So this one's actually a good news story, uh, the delinquent tax has been paid and this item is moot, so no need for us to take action. Thank you.

Thank you. I see no one else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on the motion to postpone indefinitely.

Yeah, I'm sorry, let us ask for unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the motion to postpone indefinitely? Seeing and hearing no one, this item is postponed indefinitely. Next, we'll move on to item 14D. Ordinance number AO-2025-81, an ordinance authorizing retention of a tax foreclosed parcel for public purposes legally described as Lot 1, Block 11, Laurel Acres subdivision.

Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, the public hearing for this item has been closed. What is the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Uh, Mr. Rivera, would you like to speak to this one? Okay, no additional comments.

I don't see anyone in the queue. Members are— actually, I will yet again ask for unanimous consent. Is there any objection to approving this ordinance? Seeing and hearing no one, we will consider this item passed. So AR AO-2025-81 passes the body 9-0.

Next, we have Item 14E, AO-2025-82, an ordinance authorizing the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility to convert a portion of a sanitary sewer main to a privately owned sanitary street extension located at a 20-foot alleyways to the south and east of A Street and within A Street row. Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, the public hearing is closed.

What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Motion to approve by Mr. Rivera. Second by Mr. Johnson.

Um, any additional comments on this one, Mr. Rivera? Okay, also not seeing anyone in the queue for this item, so I will ask unanimous consent. Um, is there any objection to passing this ordinance? Okay, seeing and hearing no one, we will consider that item Passed. So AO-2025-82 has passed the body with a vote of 9-0.

Next we have Item 14F, AO-2025-86, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code to reenact Chapter 1070 and enact Section 1070.010 to include and standardize municipal inspection fees regarding license processing. The public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, the public, public hearing on this item is now closed.

What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Rivera to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Rivera, would you like to speak to this one?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the only thing I'll say is, um, the sponsor is not available tonight, so if there are any questions we will have to postpone action on this item, but otherwise, if we're able to vote today, that's also fine. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rivera. I do not see anybody else in the queue, so members— so members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a motion of 9 to 0, AO 2025-86 passes the body. And next we will move on to item 14G, resolution number AR 2025-213, a resolution relating to the proposed issuance and sale by Civic Ventures of a series of refunding bonds for the purpose of refinancing the Civic Ventures revenue refunding bonds. Uh, the public hearing for this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify? Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, uh, this item— or the public hearing for this item is now closed. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Rivera to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Any further discussion on this item?

Actually, I would like to make one brief comment. Sure. Member Brawley. Yeah, thank you. This item has an oblique title, but it is important because it is essentially the bonds and funding source that pays for the debt on the Denynas Convention Center.

And so every 10 years this is reauthorized, and there's also a number of rather specific policy pieces in it regarding how the funding is used, because in order to secure the asset that has been, um, uh, that has this loan on it, um, that there's, there's certain policies or certain ways we need to use the funding, etc. So I had an extensive back and forth with Mr. Falsi. So thank you so much for your information. I think this is an item that there's not a policy choice really for the assembly to make here, but I would urge members to keep an eye on this particular piece and other pieces related to our bed tax, our room rental tax, as it's all related to kind of the big picture of how we use those funds to promote tourism and other uses, including building our convention center and operating it. So, so I would just make a note that that is relevant.

There's not a lot of room for us in that item, but hopefully in future moves we can consider policy changes. Thank Thank you. Oh, and I see we also have Ms. Baldwin-Day in the queue. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I was—.

Um, I was curious about the, the summary of economic effects that is attached to this item, and I just want to be sure I'm reading this correctly. So I'd love for whomever with the administration would like to answer this question. So the, the operating expenses of the current debt service that are shown here, if I'm reading across, it looks like we're actually— the— this reflects the annual savings, or the savings on an annual basis for the debt service. So $624,000 would be the savings. Am I reading that right?

Through the chair to Member Baldenday, yes, that is correct. In the first year, it's a little bit lower in the out years, but you've got the story essentially correctly. Excellent. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you.

I don't see additional members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Okay, on a vote of 9 to 0, Item 14G, AR 2025-213, passes the body. Um, lastly, we have our, um, our alcohol license. So I'm just making sure. Okay, um, so we'll read from the script. Um, so we have Item, uh, 15A.

There's only one of these today. So the next item on the agenda involves an application for a liquor or marijuana license and/or a special land use permit for alcohol or marijuana. The process to review these items is different than the Assembly's legislative role because they are— these are administrative or quasi-judicial hearings and require us to make a decision only on the record before us and any testimony today. So just for the record, we're in the quasi-judicial category. So I will open the public hearing on this for Resolution AR-2025 215, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating its conditional protest regarding a new restaurant eating place license number 16816 with restaurant endorsement for TMT Real Estate, DBA High Tide Coffee.

Waived reading. Thank you. Public hearing on this item is now open. Does anyone wish to testify?

Anyone at all? Okay. Seeing and hearing none, public testimony on this item is now closed. What is the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Moved by Mr. Myers, second by Mr. Rivera. Um, any commentary on this one?

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

Okay, and on a vote of 9 to 0, AR 2025-215 passes the body. That concludes our business items, so now we will move on to audience participation.

So if anybody would like to participate in audience participation, please come forward, and you will have 3 minutes to speak.

And please remember to give us your name, what part of town you are from, and then you will have 3 minutes on the clock.

And also please remember to turn on the microphone. There is a button in front of— on the base of the microphone. Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. Dawn Morse, Mountain View.

I speak to the $11 million plus for congregate shelter. My burning question tonight is why are we even looking at this? Why are we not investing in 30 tiny home installations for 10 to 15 people each modeled on In Our Backyard? We know the need is housing. We know people thrive in community.

We know they disappear in hopelessness in mass shelter. We have a successful pilot project showing that quality tiny home installations can be built inexpensively, beautifully, and spaciously, creating natural supportive community. I saw more than 100 faith leaders at the Muni-hosted convening excited about collaboration. I heard a Methodist pastor offer church property for consideration at last month's assembly meeting. Instead of moving forward with constituent enthusiasm, the administration proposes awarding Henning Masch $16 million to perpetuate mass shelter where clients are treated as numbers and the funding goes to management who in no way represents demographic that they purport to serve.

This is not the best value use of muni funds. Let's be honest, it's a convenient use of muni funds and a terrible waste of resources if we want to actually address the crisis. To fix this, I ask Mayor LaFrance to set up a simple proposal process with meaningful funding awarded to small community groups staffed by people with lived experience who actually care about the people who live in their neighborhood rather than proposals that strongly favor large established vendors. Is the objective to make things better for community, or is it to maintain the status quo? I spoke with an unsheltered neighbor yesterday afternoon.

For more than 3 years, he's been shuffled through the systems with many promises and no help. 4 Major organizations— the Coalition, 3RNC, Rural CAF, and Henning— used him in their statistics. 7 Project entry and exits in HMIS. Without adding a single word about him as a person, his needs, or how they might help. He said, "I just need a case manager." I'm a bit like Forrest Gump.

I'm no expert, but I can tell when something is wrong. In 2 hours of research, I found 3 solid housing options, one with full support training. He's meeting tomorrow morning to set up the training and support for everything. He could hardly believe it. I could hardly believe it.

It took just a tiny bit of will not one of those big agencies could be bothered. I propose our city fund new groups, people who know the streets and what it takes to move from them to success in the world. I propose that we support the humanity of neighbors and not use them as our statistics. I strongly oppose funding MASH and HENING to perpetuate mass shelter. I support using significant funding for tiny home installations in my community, managed by staff who care.

Now, thank you. Thank you. Does anyone—. Oh, all right, thank you. Does anyone else wish to testify?

Please come forward.

Yeah, yeah. And if you are here to testify, I'll ask if you please come to the front so we have an idea how many folks would like to speak. Thank you.

Good evening. Go ahead, please state your name, uh, for the record. Sure, I'm Kai Holland. I'm the, uh, House District 9 representative to the legislature and just came tonight to just check in and say hi, but I've got a couple minutes, so I thought I would take a couple minutes, if you don't mind. I think I have 3 things I want to just bring to your attention while I'm here.

First off is just an awareness of the work that we're doing and the energy-related issues for the South Central area. There's a number of us that continue to be very concerned about the gas supply and the issues that have been exacerbated with the changes to the renewable energy policies at the federal level that have thrown many of the projects into disarray that were being developed that were beginning to create a pathway towards the diversification of the energy that we need and perhaps some relief on the gas supply. So we'll be continuing to do more work on that, and if any of you have interest or thoughts on that, I would welcome your input as we plan some work in the interim to prepare for the next session on that. The second thing is I want to make an opportunity to just give a shout out to the Anchoridge Fire Department, the work they're doing on the wildfire mitigation efforts. We've had a, a good summer from the standpoint— we've had plenty of sunny days, but we've also had plenty of rainy days.

And from the standpoint of wildfire, it's been a little more relaxing than it might have been at the beginning of the season when we were very concerned about the dry conditions and what we might be in for. But that notwithstanding, they've done some outstanding work. The East-West Connector Fuel mitigation project has come out really well. The community wildfire protection planning process is going well. And I just want to recognize that we are continuing to meet once a month on the fourth Mondays.

It is now a group called the Wildland Urban Interface Citizens Advisory Team, the WUI CAT, that is continuing to work closely with the agency and the department on these projects and trying to to keep the community mobilized on the work that we're doing, to not wait for a community wildfire protection plan, but in fact we're already doing the work that a plan might have done. And the folks that are helping facilitate that have recognized that Anchorage is way ahead of most communities they ever get to work with that generally wait for the plan and then get to work. And they've come to a community that's already at work, and now we're building a plan to help integrate all the pieces. Final piece of this is just to recognize that tourism is so important to our economy. A lot of my work has been focused in on economic development because at the end of the day, if we're not excited, inspired, and looking forward to the growth in our community, it gets hard to do a lot of the other work that you're doing.

So I'm working on challenges around creating 1,200 new startups. I'm supporting a tourism-focused startup weekend the first weekend of September, the 5th, 6th, and 7th. And I would urge you to support the work we're doing to try and grow the tourism industry. So thanks for a couple minutes of your time tonight. Yeah, thank you.

Um, one brief.

Question, uh, Mr. Holland, if, if one would like to become part of the WUI CAT group, how can they do that? Thank you. Um, you know, you can reach out to me and I can introduce you. We can get you on a mailing list that comes out with meeting announcements. There's also a website that's wuicat.org, I think, but I can follow up with you and get you some contact information.

And I think also assembly members Johnson and McCornick are probably also aware of the group and have been following along with that work. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Please come forward. And reminders to state your name, what part of town you are from, and you will have 3 minutes on the clock.

Thank you. My name is Jeremiah Crawford. I'm a resident of South Anchorage and own several businesses in downtown Anchorage. Wanted to bring to your attention tonight We operate several businesses that are adjacent to the proposed Fifth Avenue, uh, 100-bed homeless shelter. The obvious objections that might come from a business owner with regards to safety, both for my employees and my customers, might seem somewhat obvious and selfish to bring up.

What I would take the time to do though is implore to you I heard humanity mentioned several times tonight and shifting from a, from a 200-bed to a 150-bed, it seemed like there was a lot of conversation surrounding this, this idea that, you know, 100 seemed to be like such a more manageable caseload versus the 200-bed. I operate every day for 15-plus years in the downtown area, Mountain View downtown area. I, I've firsthand seen Narcan be administered. I've firsthand seen pedestrians be hit by vehicles. In every one of these tragic instances, it was always someone that was experiencing homeless.

I mean, that's a bit of an assertion, but based off of the, the evidence at hand, it would support the fact that we're dealing with cases of homelessness. We're dealing with an extremely congested area with homeless and mentally disabled people within that area, people that are affected by, you know, drug addiction. And I think that there's a serious oversight in the concentration of it. I think the idea of going to a small case model, a small, small case, you know, smaller beds per, per housing will yield to less workload on emergency services, less workload on your caseworkers. I mean, talk to any social worker that's, that's had to go into these bigger— and 100 seems like less than 200, sure, but it's still extremely large by comparison to a lot of the other cases that are coming out of other communities that are having success in homelessness.

So I would implore you to look at the proximity to 5th and 6th Avenue. Drive to SWS on any weekday and see the sheer volume of people on the streets. Like, do a dump run, just go do the middle of the day and the amount of people that you have to avoid. And that's a much slower street. I promise you, I've seen people die on Fifth Avenue.

And I feel genuine that if we go forward with this Fifth Avenue location, it will be not the first, not the second. It's going to become a systemic problem because of the sheer busyness of Fifth Avenue and putting that many people that are displaced in an area that— explore the building. I would challenge you. I've been around that property a lot. I could see a lot of challenges with trying to house 100 people without exponential issues.

So thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. That's okay. And a writer, please state your name, what part of town you're from, and you have 3 minutes.

Okay, Jamie Lopez East Anchorage, formerly Coalition, formerly homeless. So the Brighton Circus, the start of every meeting, you know, there's a formal land acknowledgement and it tries to pay tribute to the people that this land belonged to.

Never would I have imagined that the CEO of the Alaska Humanities Forum essentially has no humanity and voted to make Alaska Natives criminals on their own land. I know Athabascan Dena'ina personally, as a result of AO 2025-74S2 passing, that are now criminals. They cannot camp outside, cannot essentially start a fire to stay warm. And this debate was never about, you know, the schools, the playgrounds, licensed child care facilities. That was a red herring because now everything is protected.

And so now everybody is going to be going after any particular state. And so, well, I did watch work session yesterday and I thought there was some good honest discussion. I did not see that tonight. Um, essentially when you describe shelters, you're essentially describing 250 beds of, uh, congregate shelter, uh, in addition to the 1,000— excuse me, 100 at the Alex Hotel. So a total of 350 that you're talking about, but you're basing these on numbers that you're getting from people that aren't necessarily accurate.

It's sometimes the best guess data sampling. So again, Anchorage Coalition on Homelessness, this was May 31st data and they updated it. Obviously the last time, 556 are unsheltered. That represents people within a 30-day period that essentially were touching one provider or any number of providers in the system of HMIS. 734 Is set to go inactive.

Those are people between 30 and 90 days as of May 31st that they had no idea where they went. They've just gone back outside. Uh, 5 to 10% self-resolve, who knows where they go. And then once they hit 90 days, 333, uh, inactive, that means that they stopped counting. And so essentially, if you add those numbers up, it's 1,623.

I missed it at one point in time, but anyways, the whole point is those are hits within a 90-day period, and that's the true number of people that are outside. And so you've gone from this to essentially this, where now as of June 30th, 600. Anytime I see an increment of 25 or 0, it's automatically suspect. This is best guessed of somebody in an office with little field experience. And then instead of counting heads in beds, now we have 100% housing, uh, completely full.

Is that 2 beds? Is that 10,000? Who knows? And the set-to-go inactive number is, you know, removed because they don't want you to know how many people between 30 and 90 days are actually there. And so we've gone back to obscuring the true number of the homeless outside so that it drives policy to make essentially the easy decision of not trying to support the people that are outside, those that are abandoned, forgotten.

And so I would ask you to please try and think about that in the future. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else wish to provide testimony?

Okay, not seeing anyone further. Um, then lastly, we have member comments, and I will start, um, down with Mr. Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. No additional comments. Mr. McCormick?

No comments. Mr. Martinez? No additional comments. Miss Baldwin-Day? I just like to thank Vice Chair Brawley for serving as our chair this evening and piloting us through, um, a meeting.

I know that's a really tall order and definitely some pressure on your shoulders, and I think you did a brilliant job. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. I'll just second Member Baldwin-Day's comments. Mr. Rivera.

Thank you, no additional comments. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a couple comments. Um, one, yes, good job, Anna.

Um, two, you know, I, I do have to express my concern It's a growing concern that the mayor and her team do not fully grasp the challenges that are facing downtown, and that saddens me. Um, I also am a little bit mystified tonight that certain colleagues of mine who moralized at length about us not having places for people to go took the first opportunity they could to reduce capacity in their district. That also saddens me. Thank you. Ms. Silvers, no additional comments?

All right, thank you. And I'll just say thank you everybody for a great meeting. Thank you to Mr. Abear for serving as vice chair, and have a good rest of July, and we'll see you We don't have any work sessions this week, so we will have a quiet week, I believe. And take care, and I'll see you next time. Can I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved. All right, and we are adjourned. Thank you.

Somehow you kept me.

Guess I haven't cried enough. Let me love you down. Let me love you down. I never came over. I tried to be sober.

Down, let me love you down. I never came over. I, I quit. I'm sober. Let me love you down.

Let me love you down. Let me love you down.

Let me love you down. Let me love you down. Let me.