Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - July 7, 2026 - 2026-07-07 17:00:00

We'll get started in a couple more minutes.

Okay, everyone, we're going to call this meeting to order now that we have our folks present.

So, uh, this is the regular meeting of July, uh, 7th, 2026, and I will first turn to the clerk to call the roll.

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

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

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

I think she just stepped out. Member Baldwin-Day is present in the room. Member Scout? Present. Member McCormick?

Here. Member Park? Present. It's my understanding that Member Johnson is excused. That's correct.

Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you. Next, we will move to the Pledge of Allegiance, and I will make sure— I will first welcome Mr. Dole, our Community and Economic Development Director, to his new seat on the dais, and I will ask him to lead our pledge.

Thank you. Next, I will ask Member Scout to read the land acknowledgment.

Thank you. One second. Um, 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 Anchors Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the, on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. It is with gratitude and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. Thank you. Next, I will turn to— next, we'll do minutes of previous meetings.

Minutes. There is one set of minutes on our agenda, the meeting— the minutes of the regular meeting of June 23rd. May I have a motion? Move to adopt the minutes from the regular meeting of June 23rd. Second.

Motion by, uh, Mr. Vohland, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Is there any objection to adoption of the minutes?

Seeing and hearing none, the minutes from June 23rd are adopted. Next, we will turn to the mayor's report. So, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and good evening, everyone. I hope you all had a wonderful Fourth of July weekend.

It was so great to see so many people downtown for Saturday's parade, celebrating together and commemorating 250 years of the USA. This morning, we announced that the municipality reached a historic settlement agreement with the U.S. Maritime Administration. This agreement will bring the Port of Alaska $180 million in addition to the $11.3 million awarded in 2024. We've put to rest a legal saga that stretches back to 2013 when the municipality first sued over faulty design and construction work. Now we are finally moving forward.

This total recovery of $191.3 million will go directly toward construction costs for the Port of Alaska Modernization Program. So to put that in perspective for our residents, every federal or state dollar we secure for construction reduces the impact of future shipping surcharges by about $2.50 down the line. When you add this settlement to the $25 million from the state and the $61.5 million in federal grants secured under my administration, the impact is massive. We are effectively protecting Alaskans from as much as $694 million in future surcharges on food, goods, and everyday supplies. I want to extend a huge thank you to Senator Sullivan and Governor Dunleavy for their steadfast advocacy for our port.

And props to the Municipal Attorney's Office for all their hard work. We truly have an incredible legal team here at the municipality. Just last week, we celebrated the start of pile driving for the new Terminal 1 with a ceremonial signing of a massive steel pile. We're turning the page, building momentum, and truly bringing our port into the future. This has been a huge team effort that has spanned mayoral administrations and assemblies.

Thanks for all— thanks to all who have worked so hard to get us here. Turning to item 10D7 on tonight's agenda, recommendation of a grant agreement with True North Recovery Inc. I want to take a moment to acknowledge what a tremendous partner True North has been throughout this process. They've spent the last 2 months doing community outreach and revised their proposal to take into account neighborhood concerns. I truly believe that the services True North provides are vital services we need in Anchorage, and I appreciate their flexibility and collaboration.

To the neighbors of Fairview, Thank you for your engagement. We want to make sure your concerns are addressed and that you have an open line of communication with True North and my office. The spirit of collaboration and progress is visible across our community right now. Summer project season is in full swing, and I want to take a moment to highlight all the incredible work happening. There's a lot going on downtown.

You may have noticed that Town Square Park is looking a little different. Dirt is turning and construction is well underway. Soon, construction will also begin at Peratrovich Park, which will include installing new security cameras. We're also looking forward to a new downtown library branch opening in Old City Hall. These physical changes go hand in hand with our efforts to ensure our community is safe and vibrant.

Thanks to an expanded Healthy Spaces team, a coordinated system of year-round shelter and crisis care, targeted outreach, and the steady enforcement of our camping and Title 8 ordinances, our parks and trails are cleaner and more welcoming than they have been in years. We still have plenty of hard work ahead of us, but we are fully dedicated to making real change. Lastly, I want to give a shout out to APD and the 120 local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel who engaged in the crime suppression effort called Operation Summer Heat. This year's effort outperformed last year. It resulted in 127 arrests and the seizure of illegal drugs, including 30 pounds of methamphetamine, which is 58 times the amount of meth seized in last year's operation.

We have got to continue this increased effort and focus on drug enforcement year-round. I look forward to continuing to hire more APD officers and eventually standing up a street drugs unit. Thank you all, and I look forward to our work tonight.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Next, we'll go to the chair's report. I have a few remarks prepared. Um, first, I hope everyone enjoyed the Fourth of July weekend. This year's holiday was special because it marked the 250th anniversary of of the signing of Declaration of Independence in 1776.

As we've celebrated this anniversary this summer, I've really been reflecting on what we are, what it means to be American, and on the series of historical accidents and the many acts of dedication and bravery that have led to the small miracle of this experiment of a nation surviving to this day. In July, we often look back on— sorry, in July, we often look back to 1776 for inspiration, but this year brought me back to July 1863, The Battle of Gettysburg, considered the turning point in the American Civil War. I've stood on that battlefield, certainly not at the time that it was a battlefield, which was not one distant field, but really encompassed an entire town and all the farms around it. Some of those buildings there still have cannonballs and bullets lodged in the bricks. And barns and homes became field hospitals where limbs were amputated on kitchen tables and Americans' lives ended at the hands of other Americans fighting on opposing sides.

Sides. War monuments often celebrate the glory and the righteousness of the cause, but battlefields are graveyards. And at that same battlefield, President Abraham Lincoln honored the dead, but the words that stick most with me still are his call to the living. And I'll quote just an excerpt: Fourscore and seven years ago—now 250 years ago—our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It is for us, to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth.

The America 250 celebration is not just about reflecting on our past. It's also building our future. Just as we asked the community last year to use the municipality's 50th anniversary to envision the next 50 years for Anchorage and the communities that it represents, I hope that we can use this opportunity to think about what kind of community, state, and country we want to build for the future. This is the time to think big and take bold, decisive action. Our community is looking at us to make the hard decisions about our future, to keep things on the right track, and to take our city beyond surviving to thriving.

I know we can do it. I know we have a great team on this assembly, in the mayor's office, in the municipality, and across our community. As I look out and see a number of faces today representing many parts of that community. Each and every person has a valuable role to play, and I look forward to continuing to work together to address the challenges of our day and to leave a legacy we can all be proud of. Our country was built on the strong belief that the people are the government, and for 250 years there has been a push and pull among those people to determine what kind of country we have.

I hope the celebration of America's 250th causes us all to pause, to take stock of the what kind of country we want to live in, what kind of community we want to live in, and find new inspiration and excitement to work to make that vision a reality. Next, I'll just briefly echo the mayor's comments on the Port of Alaska. It's very exciting to be a part of that groundbreaking and to be with many people who played a role in that huge project that is still ongoing. And the Marad settlement is a huge milestone for us to have concluded. And now that we've secured millions of dollars for the port modernization project, that represents a direct benefit to Alaska residents, as the mayor as stated, that is real dollars in people's pockets.

It has been quite a story to get to this point, and that included consistent stewardship by the Assembly and many others on this project, and that has laid a strong foundation for where we are today. So I look forward to— as much as we don't love the noise— look forward to those piles being driven and us moving forward with that project. Next, I will give a brief preview regarding two items on the agenda of interest regarding proposed—. Censure and proposed initiation of the removal process of an assembly member. As chair, I am tasked, along with our clerk and counsel, for managing procedure and ensuring our business is conducted according to the rules, from our laws to our internal processes and policies.

This is a weighty matter, and it is one without major past precedent in this community, so it is important to move carefully with a full understanding of the legal, financial, and due process ramifications of our actions both for members and for the public. Additionally, I reported last week at the July 1st Audit Committee meeting that I've asked Internal Audit to do a review of our travel approval process and past approvals, and I'm actively working with the Audit Department and the clerk to make sure, make sure those records are available and that they are doing their analysis. As I said previously, the results of this review will be discussed at a future Rules Committee meeting when that work is completed, and I anticipate proposing some changes to our travel policies to improve them and being, uh, making sure that we're being responsive to any findings from audit. So when we get to the items in Section 12 on the agenda, I intend to ask the body to postpone both items to our next meeting on July 21st after we have the opportunity to hold a work session scheduled for Friday, July 17th, which is a briefing from our attorneys and the clerk on the process, answering members' procedural and legal questions before we begin any substantive deliberation on either of those items.— that is the request. We'll see what the body does.

With that, I'll do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible, especially on a beautiful evening like this. This is a business meeting. We're here to do the work of the municipality. Please create a climate of respect in the chambers. Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, and pacing.

Keep signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Please keep the aisles clear, and except if you're lined up to testify, Please don't approach the dais directly. If you have something to share with members, please hand it to the clerk, um, the stations below for distribution. Please stop speaking if a point of order is called so that I may rule on the point of order and the record is clear. If the rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance with the rules.

If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there is an actual disruption, I will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. And lastly, I'll just remind folks our usual rules about testifying on public hearing items, which will come later tonight. When you come forward, please state your name, uh, include the community council or the area of the municipality in which you live, your district or your neighborhood. Please stay on topic and direct comments to me, the chair, or other people on the dais.

I'll interrupt you if you're off topic, and you'll have 3 minutes, and community council representatives who are speaking in that capacity will have 5 minutes. Last reminder, assembly members don't typically answer questions during this period. But they may, they may respond during debate. The public testimony is the public's time to speak. So with that, next we will move on to committee and liaison reports, and I will start this evening with Mr.

Handlin. Nothing to report. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee will be Thursday, July 9th, and on that agenda we will be talking about— we'll have an update from the Downtown Partnership.

We'll also have a report from a conversation around building an 18-hour economy in our community and what that looks like. We'll also have a conversation with ACDA, and I've asked them to come talk about missing middle housing options and the way the Development Authority could work on that as well. And liaison report, Chair, as you know, I am the— one of the National Association of Counties representatives for our body, and last week, Member Baldwin-Day and I had the opportunity to sit with community members talking about the missing middle housing work that we're doing. And one of the community members asked us, why can't we look at other cities and find out what they're doing in other places so we could bring some of those best solutions to us? And my retort was, the National Association of Counties and counties all across the country are having this exact conversation that we're having today.

And I wanted to just reflect on that. This week, a proposed resolution at at the NACo National Conference is going to ask the federal government to do more to support missing middle housing options, those— the same types that we've identified in our work plan as well. So that's my update and the liaison report. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Gerger. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nothing to report. Thank you.

Ms. Silvers. Nothing to report. Thank you. Mr. Perez-Rodilla. Thank you, Chair.

A couple of updates. The next Housing and Homeless Committee meeting will be on July 15th at 11:00 AM. Please join us there. The agenda for that should be out soon. And then just a report on our last Public Health and Safety meeting.

We had, we had an update from the, from the fire department on wildfire preparation response, and we had a pretty comprehensive update. And the mayor alluded to this. About some things that are happening over at APD. We got the report on the Operation Summer Heat. You already heard some of those numbers.

The more arrests than last year, more evidence found, more stolen vehicles identified, and a significant amount of drugs. The mayor mentioned the amount of meth, but also significantly more cocaine and fentanyl is still coming into our town. So this is an issue that we, we continue to fight and think about what kind of creative solutions we can to not only stop the flow of drugs into our community but continue to create opportunities for reducing the use here in our city. Also, I got an update on the community service officer program and we are hiring more community service officers. It's very exciting and we're seeing them out in the community.

We have right now 23 that are authorized to that were authorized in 2024. So we have 15 of those filled and we're continuing to fill those slots. So that's an exciting update on that. And then just a last piece is we did get an update on a wellness program that's being initiated by APD. And it was a really great opportunity for us to learn about some of the opportunities that are there for our police officers who face really challenging situations every day in their work and some of the peer support that is available.

And some of the, the spaces that they can have folks to, to talk to about the challenges that they're facing. So that was a great update by APD. Appreciate that. And that's my update for today. Thanks.

Thank you. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. The next meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee will be Thursday, July 16th, from 10 to 11 AM, City Hall Conference Room 155. We are going to be continuing our conversation about our budget priority resolution.

So we will review an updated draft of the proposed assembly fiscal year '27 budget priorities memo, and then hopefully we'll be sharing that early next week. So we would welcome additions and changes from members either in that meeting or as floor amendments. The intent is to publish the draft as a placeholder on the July 21st regular meeting agenda and then take it up for action including any proposed amendments. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Miss Baldemar, thank you, Madam Chair. The Municipal Audit Committee met last Wednesday, July 1st, and in addition to the special internal audit of assembly travel that the chair has already mentioned, we also heard a follow-up report on the workers' compensation fund. There was an audit, an internal audit done last year on that fund, and we, we learned how, what steps we are taking as a municipality to stabilize that fund. Uh, we also, in really fantastic news, uh, got to, um, hear an update on our external audit for 2024, which is finally complete.

And I, I cannot overstate how impressive of a feat it is, or it has been, uh, what our controller's office has been able to pull off over the last couple of years. Uh, prior city leadership did not in fact complete the required external audits of the municipality. And so we have been playing catch-up since, uh, on the 2022 and 2023 annual consolidated financial reports. And obviously that has pushed all of the more recent reports into arrears. So I really want to thank Stephanie Ryan and the entire controller division for the work that, that she and her department did to ensure that this ACFA was completed.

Also Philippe Brice, Lance Wilbur, Mr. Bill Falzy, All of these folks are, um, are doing incredible work to catch us up and ensure that our finances are available, clear, and transparent to the public. So the 2025 audit is now officially in process, and we hope to see that later on this year. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Ms. Scout.

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

Thank you. That's the end of our committee and liaison reports. So next we will turn to the addendum to the agenda. Before we do that, we will address our laid on the table items, and there are different procedures for these. So what I'm going to do is start with our supplemental items that I just need to read into the record, items that are already on the agenda.

Next, I'll move to items for introduction, and I'll address which types of votes we need for which items. And then lastly, there is one item tonight for action to add to the consent agenda. This, so we'll take that up last. Uh, first, these supplemental items, and these are going to be a little bit out of order on the sheet, but tried to organize them, uh, in a logical way. So the first one is unnumbered AIM, uh, 2026, uh, related to 10D7 regarding the True North Services contract, a letter from Senator Tobin and Representative Fields regarding that contract.

The next one is unnumbered assembly memorandum, uh, AIM 2026, answers to assembly questions. From the chair, through the chair. The next one is AIM unnumbered 2026 public testimony for June 23rd and July 7th, 2026 meetings. And then lastly, regarding item 12B, AR 2026-92, an AIM from Member Silver's email communications. So those are laid on the table, supplemental items, and attached to those those relevant items.

Next, we'll read items for introduction, and so I will take them up. We have 2 that are published on our sheet and then 2 additional ones that we received by email, so we'll do them in that order. Um, yeah, sorry, on the sheet, the first one is AO on number 2026, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 4.60 27.30.085 to enact a new Section 4.60.310 and establish the Chugach State Park Access Advisory Board. For this one, we need a motion or a first, second, and third for introduction.

Madam Chair, I would move to lay on the table for introduction with a public hearing set for August 4th, 2026. Second. Third. Okay, a motion by Mr. Bohlen to introduce this item and set the hearing for August August 4th.

Was it 4th? He said— okay, August 4th. And then the second was, uh, Mr. Martinez. Second or third was Mr. Perez-Fredia. So that item has been introduced.

The public hearing is set for August 4th. The next item is, um, uh, it would be an S-1 version for AO-2026-62, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 4.50 to enact a new section 4.50.120 and establish the Anchorage Public Safety Partnership Commission. This one also needs, uh, first, second, and third.

Looking for a motion to introduce. Move to introduce. Second. Third. Oh, and I think the public hearing has already been set for July 20— what is it— 1st.

Thanks. Thank you. Motion by— to introduce by Member Perez-Fordia with setting the public hearing for July 21st. Second by Ms. Baldwin-Day, and then the third was, I believe, Ms. Gallo— no, oh, Ms. Park. Thank you.

Okay, so, uh, yeah, first by Pres. Verdia, second by, uh, Baldwin-Day, third by Park. Thank you. So that item has been introduced and set for the next meeting. Then the last two that I'm about to read for introduction, both of these are resolutions, and so per our code, even though these are for introduction and for future hearing at a future meeting, we need a majority vote on these.

So I'll ask for a first and second, and then we will take a majority vote whether to introduce these. So the first one is unnumbered AR 2026, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, TMS AA 2026-07, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the Teamsters Local 959 TMS regarding a change to collective bargaining agreement language. Language. This one again needs a first, second, and then we'll vote. Move to introduce and set the public hearing for August 4th.

Second. Third. Thank you. This one just needs a first and second. So, um, motion by Mr. Bolland to introduce this item and set it for public hearing on August 4th.

And I heard two people at the same time. I'll go with Mr. Presverdia. And so for this one, I guess I will ask, is there any objection objection to introduction of this item.

And I will just also note, if there is an objection, then we can take a majority vote. Seeing and hearing no objection, this item has been introduced and set for the meeting of August 4th. And second one, same set of rules, AR 2026 unnumbered, a resolution approving an administrative agreement, IAAF AA number 2026-11, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Association of Firefighters Local 1264, IAFF, regarding a change to collective bargaining agreement language. So this one needs a first and a second. Move to introduce and set the public hearing for August 4th.

Second. Motion to introduce this item by Mr. Boland and set the public hearing for August 4th, seconded by Ms. Scout. Is there any objection to introduction of this item?

Seeing and hearing none, this item—. Seeing and hearing none, this item has been introduced and will be heard on August 4th. August 4th. The last item we have before us for late on the table at this time is an item for action. So this is unnumbered AM 2026, a change order number 1 to the contract with Granite Construction Company, or Granite, for the SDS 001 and SDS 002 rehabilitation project number 2205 for the Municipality of Anchorage, Don Young, Port of Alaska, 2025 C06, for $7,636,000 $302.

This one needs a first and second for introduction, and because it is contemplated for action tonight, it will need a majority vote, or we can do non-objection. So is there a motion? Move to lay on the table. Second. Motion by Mr. Boland to lay on the table, second by Ms.

Baldwin-Day. I'll ask, is there any objection to laying this item on the table? Okay.

Seeing and hearing none, that item will be numbered as 10D20 on our agenda, and a member can pull it if they would like to.

Okay, so that concludes the laid on the table items at this time, and we will then move ahead with our addendum. So can I get a motion to incorporate the addendum to the agenda including the laid on the table items? So moved. Second. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Boland.

Any discussion or objection to that item.

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the addendum, uh, to the agenda including the laid on the table items has been incorporated, and then we'll move through those items shortly. Next, we have on our agenda appearance request. There was no one signed up for tonight's meeting, so we will move on to the consent agenda. So the consent agenda is—. Making sure I cover my bases here— —numbered 10A through 10G—typically routine or non-controversial items such as bid awards, new business information reports, and ordinances and resolutions for introduction.

Items on the consent agenda may be approved by a single vote to approve the consent agenda. Prior to approval, those items may be pulled by a member for discussion and separate vote. And of course, all of our items that have public hearing will have an opportunity for that at a future So we will move down the dais, and I'll start tonight with Ms. Park. Any items to pull? Nothing, thank you, Chair.

Second, Mr. McCormick? No items, thank you. Uh, Ms. Scout? I'd like to pull 10F2.

Okay, I have 10F2 from Ms. Scout. Any additional items? No, thank you. Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yes, thank you. 10 Echo 2, please. Okay, 10E2 pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any other items? Okay, next, Mr. Boland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 10 Delta 7. Okay, 10D7 pulled by Mr. Boland. Any other items? Okay, that's it.

Okay, next, Mr. Presverdia. 10A1.

10A1, and I believe that one's for reading and presenting. Um, next, Ms. Silvers. No items, thank you. Uh, Mr. Gerker. My items are pulled, thank you, Chair.

Mr. Martinez. No additional items. Mr. Handeland. Uh, 10 Delta 5 and 10 Golf 4. Okay, I have, uh, 10D5 and 10G4.

One moment, just double checking.

Okay, um, any other items that we missed? I'll read them back out. So we have 10A1, 10D5, 10D7— or I should say names as well— 10A1, Mr. Presverdia, 10D5, Mr. Handlin, 10D7, Mr. Voland.

10E2, Miss Baldwin-Day, 10F2, Miss Scout, and then 10G4, Mr. Handeland.

Okay, any other items?

Okay, um, so those items have been pulled from the consent agenda. So now I'm seeking a motion to approve the consent agenda minus those those pulled items. So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Bolland to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items.

Second by Mr. Gerker. Any, uh, discussion on this motion?

Any objection to adoption of the motion?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, the consent agenda has been adopted. So if you were here for one of the items other than those which are pulled, those have been just unanimously approved by the So now we'll move through our items. The first one that we have today is 10H or 10A1. So let me read that one. AR 2026-187, a resolution of the Anchorage—.

A municipality of Anchorage recognizing July 26, 2026 as the 36th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This item was pulled by Mr. Presverdia. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Perez Verdia to approve, second by Mr. Voland. Any discussion on this item?

Uh, Ms. Scout, go ahead. I would just like to request to be added, please. Madam Chair, myself as well. Okay, thank you.

Does anybody have objection to be added to this item? All members? Okay, okay, then please direct that all members are added to this item.

Yeah, um, okay, so yeah, all members will be reflected on this item. Any other discussion?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, any objection to adoption of this resolution or approval? Okay, seeing and hearing none, uh, this resolution is approved. Um, then I will turn to Mr. Perez-Fredia for reading. I believe Ms. Park is presenting, and anybody who is here to receive this item, please come forward to to the podium. Thank you, Chair.

A resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage recognizing July 26, 2026, as the 36th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whereas on July 26, 1990, President H.W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, establishing a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities. And whereas on September 25th, 2008, the American with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, ADAAA, was passed to fulfill the legacy of guaranteeing civil rights to persons with disabilities. Whereas 1 in 4 Americans living with a disability have expanded opportunities due to the ADA, reducing barriers, changing perceptions, and increasing full participation in the community.

And whereas the Municipality of Anchorage affirms the principles— of equality and inclusion for persons with disabilities as embodied in the ADA, Alaska statutes, and Title V of the Anchorage Municipal Code. And whereas numerous organizations in Anchorage and Alaska, including the Alaska Disabilities Advisory Group, the Arc of Anchorage, Cook Inlet Housing Authority, the Alaska Deaf Council, Stone Soup Group, Access Alaska, Hope Community Resources, and the Disability Law Center, work in our community to bring forth the promise promise of equality and inclusion for persons with disabilities that was envisioned with the passage of the ADA. And whereas Anchorage will honor the establishment of the American Disabilities Act with different community events, including the Anchorage Disability Pride Celebration hosted by Disability Pride Alaska on July 25th from 12 to 4 PM at the Delaney Park Strip in downtown Anchorage. There is an upcoming Disabilities Expo Day at the Alaska State Fair on August 24th to August 25th. And now therefore, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly resolves that July 26th, 2026 is recognized as the 36th anniversary of the American Disabilities Act and does hereby reaffirm to continue to work towards full ADA compliance.

Passed and approved by Anchorage Assembly the 7th day of July, 2026.

Thank you. And I'll invite anybody who would like to speak, please go ahead. Thank you. My name is Annette Alfonsi, and I am the director of Empowering Education, a new local nonprofit here in Anchorage. I would like to first introduce Angela with Choice Access Interpreting.

Any of you have a moment of anxiety as you realized I was asking you questions and you didn't understand the language in which I was asking you questions? That's perfectly normal. Congratulations. Aaslaagii. So to get everyone caught up, what I just said is here in Alaska, we work hard and we play hard.

Additionally, I was wondering if anyone here had had to request ASL interpreters to be able to access this gathering, or CART services, or live captioning. So when I say that Alaskans work hard and play hard, I mean that we have a lot of industries that contribute to hearing loss. To include our commercial fishing, our seafood processing, transportation, aviation, mining, oil and gas. I'm seeing a lot of head nods, which means you guys are already on this page. We also have a lot of really fun hobbies which also contribute to this, to include snow machines, four-wheelers, boats.

Some of us even have float planes.

All of these contribute to hearing loss over time. So we work hard, we play hard, which means hearing loss happens a lot. About 10% of the population in Alaska experiences hearing loss, which is about 1 in 10 Alaskans.

Yeah, we have more than 10 people here. So on that note, and this is also a conservative number, because if you're anything like my father, admitting that you are hard of hearing and you might need some hearing aids is just something we we don't do. So that's a conservative number at best. So when people think about ADA and accommodations, it's very easy to think about curb cuts, ramps, elevators. But people with hearing disabilities often are excluded from this conversation because it's an invisible disability.

But things like interpreters, CART services, and live captioning are equally as necessary for this population.

If a resident cannot understand the things that are being said in this room, they are essentially being excluded from government. So with this resolution, Anchorage is not only recommitting to ADA compliance, but it's also committing to leadership, because compliance should be the floor, not the ceiling. Universal language access allows residents to participate, and it means means planning for accessibility before someone has to ask for it. At Choice Access Interpreting, we work with deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind Alaskans every day, so we see firsthand the difference that communication access makes to the lives of many Alaskans to include their civic engagement. We stand ready to continue our partnership with the Municipality of Anchorage, with community organizers, to help make accessibility proactive proactive rather than reactive.

Our hope at Choice Access Interpreting is that Anchorage becomes known not simply— sorry, I accidentally pressed the wrong button. Yeah, go ahead. That Anchorage becomes known not simply for ADA compliance, but a city where accessibility is built in, allowing every resident to participate, contribute, and to belong. Thank you.

I'll be super fast. So I just wanted to also give a shout out because Choice Access Interpreting provided interpretation services during every weekend of the Three Barons' Fair and the Scottish Highland Games. If you look at the court of public opinion on the social medias, on the interwebs, you'll find that people were really really excited about this. And so just a shout out to them. And also wanting to share that's because of funding from Deaf Navigator Program at HOPE Community Resources.

So these are various nonprofit and individual entities that are working to make local events more accessible to everybody in the community. And it would be awesome to see more of this. And just as an idea, now that you know about choice access interpreting, maybe be some municipal events in the future, perhaps. But thank you all so much for this resolution and for allowing us to take some time. As a note, it's not even 6 o'clock yet.

I'm so excited at the efficiency of this meeting compared to some others in the past. And so thank you all so much for still making the time and making the space for this conversation in English and in ASL today. Thank you so much.

Thank you for being here, and I'll just make a brief note, um, well, two brief notes. One is, I know, um, as you said, that compliance should be the minimum, and I know that, um, the municipality has been making, um, making strides as best we can, including making sure that closed captioning is, is working on the video feed for these meetings, and, and recognizing that we we can continue to use technology and other means to make our meetings more inclusive and welcoming to everyone. So thank you for being here. Second, I will note just for the members and for the person who will soon be confirmed is I neglected to say earlier it was not a pulled item, but we did approve the executive appointment for Mr. Bill Falzy to be our muni manager. So I will just note that we will do the swearing-in ceremony this evening.

The actual appointment is effective July 14th, and so we will do that now, and then it will become effective, and we'll take that up after the other consent agenda items this evening. So in the meantime, we will move on. Next is 10D5. I will read that in the record, my paperwork in order. Um, 10D5 AM446-2026, recommendation of award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, IDIQ contract to provide GIS utility professional services with HDR Engineering and Streamline AM LLC.

Um, this item was pulled by Mr. Handeland. Madam Chair, I have the same conflict, uh, as last time.

Okay, thank you. Can you just state in a few words what that is, just for the record? I used to work for HDR Engineering, and I'm currently a shareholder of HDR Engineering as a minority shareholder. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, that previously I ruled that you did have a personal interest in this item that constitutes a conflict.

So if you can step out of the room for a few minutes. I will also note when members have conflicts that are determined— well, actually, I should also say, pending any motion to overrule from the body, not seeing any, it's pretty straightforward. But I'll also note that for members who do have a conflict, often you'll see members walk out of the room and hang out in the hallway. But members do have the ability to sit in the agenda and listen, so they just cannot participate on the dais. So just to be clear, because I know our typical practice is folks walk out of the room, but that's not, that's not, that's not specifically required.

So turning back to this item, we are looking for a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Boland.

Any further discussion on this item?

Okay, uh, then members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 10 to 0, uh, with one person recused, uh, this item, you know, mostly unanimously passes the body. Next, we'll move on to 10D7. So that is— page—.

Yeah, this is AM448-2026, recommendation of award of a grant agreement with True North Recovery Inc., or True North, for Community Development Block Grant, CDBG funding to acquire a public facility. This item was pulled by Mr. Voland, but I'm actually going to turn to Mr. Gerker for a disclosure. Go ahead, Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, as Mr. Handlin also said, I also disclosed an interest, uh, last meeting as well.

My brother-in-law still works for True North, and so I believe I may have a conflict. Thank you, Mr. Gerker. Um, so, so, and there was a prior item, a separate grant or contract to this entity. Um, so the prior ruling that I made is that you did have a conflict based on the advice of counsel at the time, but since then we revisited that item and realized that there is a material difference between a member of your household or immediate family, such as a sibling, in this case a brother, versus a brother-in-law. The code treats them differently.

And so, so we are not going to revisit that prior item. It already passed. This would not have changed the result. But for this item, I'm going to rule that you do not have a conflict. And, and after discussion with counsel about about this item.

So again, members can, can move to overrule this, this ruling, but I will rule that you are able to vote on this.

Okay, not hearing any objection to that, then we'll move on. So this item was pulled by Mr. Voland. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Voland to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Voland, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move Voland Scout Amendment Number 1.

Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Voland to move Voland-Scout Amendment Number 1 to this item, seconded by Ms. Scout. Mr. Voland. Thank you.

So, uh, Member Scout and I have had the opportunity to, uh, discuss this matter at length, um, with our constituents, members of the Fairview Community Council, and other neighborhood residents, as well as with the folks from True North Recovery Our understanding, as they've represented to us, is that they have changed the model, what they're looking to do in this location, in response to the feedback they have received from the community. And so I want to thank True North, who I know we have some folks here tonight. I want to thank you for your enhanced efforts to interface with our constituents, with the neighborhood, and ultimately, I believe, arrive at a, a solution that I think can be a good fit in the neighborhood, even within proximity to the Neighborhood Rec Center. And what that is, is essentially a model where this location will be not used for acute crisis care. Instead, it can be used for administration, for telehealth, and for scheduled behavioral health outpatient care.

So timing-wise though, this has presented quite a challenge, even from the very origin of this first grant coming before us on a prior agenda. I do appreciate the, uh, the mayor pulling that item at the time.

And there have been efforts to, to expand this public process. Still, it has felt a little stunted. Originally, in preparing for this meeting, Member Scout and I, what we wanted to do was to postpone this item until our next meeting, July 21st. What that would have allowed is for the Community Council to vote on a resolution that is on their agenda this Thursday the 9th.

It has been represented to me by the administration that True North— there are some reasons where they don't feel comfortable with extending it to that timeline.

As I know my colleagues are aware, many community councils have a practice where they bring forward a resolution at one meeting and then take it up at a subsequent meeting. That's part of their bylaws, and so Fairview falls within that. So what we're trying to bring forward here is sort of a compromise. We are looking for two things in order to support this new model that's being proposed going forward and to award this grant. Number one, we would like to see execution of a good neighbor agreement between True North and the Fairview Community Council.

Number 2, we would like to see an execution of a memorandum of understanding between True North and the health department, essentially ensuring that what they have represented to the neighborhood, that model, is what they're going to abide by. Because frankly, what I would hate to see happen in this situation is a promise is made to the neighborhood and then not kept. The grant is awarded. 2 Weeks down the road, oh, actually we need these, these services. We are going to do crisis care.

So I'd feel a lot more comfortable with moving this forward and awarding these funds if we had something in writing guaranteeing that this is the model of care and that we will not be providing walk-in behavioral healthcare services or onsite crisis care intervention at this property., and I am hopeful that that is consistent with True North's position after the meetings and discussions that we have had. I am going to make an amendment to this amendment at the request of the administration, and that is in Section 1 there pertaining to the execution of the Good Neighbor Agreement. After the word council, I'd like to insert the words on or before Friday, July 10th, and then semicolon, and if I could get a second. Second. Motion by Mr. Bullen to add the, the words on or before Friday, July 10th, um, in that first section.

Second by Ms. Scout. Mr. Bullen. Thank you, Madam Chair. What this does is, uh, it creates a timeline for this discussion, um, and I am optimistic that an agreement can be arrived and signed by the council, the full council, not just the executive board or a certain individual, and True North, this can be then taken up and discussed at their meeting on Thursday with a little bit of buffer time extending into Friday, July 10th.

And that is all from me on that amendment to the amendment. Thank you. Miss Scout on the amendment to the amendment.

No, no comments. Miss Silvers on the amendment to the amendment. Uh, Mr. Handlin on the amendment to the amendment. Yeah, just a question for the sponsor.

So would that, uh, still allow the community council to have the two meetings required for that, or as I guess, has this good neighbor agreement, has that already been discussed at a previous meeting? My understanding is that they may have to table— well, they can take action on the resolution which has already been introduced. This good neighbor agreement necessarily would not have to be via the resolution process, so they could take action on it on Thursday. Yes. Okay, thank you.

I will also, if I could add to that, there has been a drafted— actually multiple drafts now of a good neighbor agreement. It just needs to be executed.

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

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, the amendment to the amendment passes. We're back on the amendment. I'll run through the queue again, Ms. Scout, on the amendment itself. Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I think Vice Chair Vohland did a great job describing the history of these conversations so far, and I want to restate that I believe this amendment is a good middle path in a really difficult and challenging situation, but I think gets us to a win where everybody is as happy as we can be. I also pulled, um, an item from the consent agenda, item 10F2, that I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to. That's an audit of CDBG funds, which is what we are discussing here. I'll talk about this a little later, but I do believe what we have read and been presented with in this audit is really motivating to me to put some very specific guardrails on this funding to ensure that the intentions of this funding, which I believe are extremely good and necessary in our community, are actually followed through with, and that the community, the community of Fairview, is a real part of this conversation, not just tonight, but moving forward if the grant is approved. So I want to express, obviously, my support support for the amendment and my gratitude to all of the stakeholders here, the administration, True North Recovery, and Fairview Community Council for helping us to get to this compromise.

Thanks. Next, Ms. Silvers on the amendment.

I have a couple questions. For the administration, when does the grant need to be finalized by?

Through the chair, Member Silvers, we will have Director Rash respond to that question.

Kimberly Rash through the chair. So we do need the grant agreement executed before the closure of the property. And the funds need to be invoiced and drawn from the HUD system IDIS by no later than end of September because it is a part of our draw. We have to meet a certain percentage. HUD requires it on an annual basis.

And then my next question is on Part 2 there. How long do those prohibitions last, or how long does that agreement last if True North accepts the $750,000 grant?

If I might, Madam Chair, or is the question for the sponsors or for the administration? For the sponsors? Whoever can answer that, yeah. I guess, could I speak to my legislative intent? Or, okay.

Yes, go ahead. As the mover here.— for me, that would be indefinite in this location. Yeah, thanks. Thanks. And I don't know if the administration has additional information on that.

I guess that's all for my questions. I guess I do have some concerns with kind of putting a lifelong expectation when the situation, you know, 10 years from now could be very different. So to me, that's a little concerning. I, I kind of understand what you're trying to do with this amendment, but I think I'm going to be a no vote on it. Thank you.

Thanks. Next, I have Madam Mayor in the queue.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. We do have representatives from True North here, and I would like to ask them to provide comment on the proposed amendment. Yeah, and if I can ask if anybody from True North is here. Sounds like you are. If you'd like to come forward, um, whoever would like to speak on behalf of the organization, uh, to the podium, and then, um, you have the opportunity to answer questions.

And then as you're coming up, I'll note the microphone is off, so please press the button in the front, and then when the light at the top turns green, it's on. Yeah, it's on. So go ahead and state your name and then respond to the questions. Thank you. Sure.

My name is Carl Soderstrom. I'm the founder and CEO of True North Recovery. Thank you very much for the opportunity and the discussion to come before you today. This has been an incredibly challenging process. For all of us.

You know, we came to Anchorage at the request of the municipality and partners to bring those services and care. And we've made every effort to be responsive, to be good neighbors, to be engaging with the community council. And unfortunately, you know, this process has continued to kind of get pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. And then there's new updates and new changes and new expectations. Unfortunately, I mean, we literally— I'm just going to speak from the heart here, but 15 minutes ago we acknowledged the ADA Act in this country, and the people that we serve fall under that same category and deserve the same services and respect as everyone else.

So to target and specify additional requirements around the care of individuals with substance use disorders and mental health issues is frankly appalling. I want to be in Anchorage. I want to be helpful. Unfortunately, that is not something that I can be agreeable to. We've made good faith efforts to show that we can serve the entire community, but for the municipality to define crisis the way it does, it really encompassed the entirety of the population that we serve, and we have every intention of serving in multiple multiple different parts of the Anchorage community.

Somebody walks up to our front door and says, I need help, I'm not turning them away. So I appreciate the opportunity. I would, I would ask that you guys vote no on this amendment and we move forward as the, the plan was originally proposed. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We have a number of folks in the queue. Um, Miss Scott has already spoken, but I'm going to go to the municipal attorney, Miss Gardner, to address this amendment. Thank you. Through the chair, I just wanted to express a couple of legal— I can call them questions about the amendment that may be viewed also as legal concerns.

My first one is about the second portion about the MOU contemplated with the Health Department, and that one is a little interesting to puzzle through. And I think if that were to happen, we would need a lot more clear direction from the assembly on what should be in it, because this This is a contract, you know, where pass-through federal grant funding to provide lump sum funding to purchase a property. And that is different from what the municipality often does, which is, you know, in other contexts, professional services contracts with ongoing performance and payment obligations. And so for this, if there's an MOU with a separate MOU with the Health Department, say, putting conditions on the use of the property, what would be the remedy if that were breached. And I understand the desire here is enforceability, but it's very difficult to imagine what kind of enforceability we could attach to that, given that it would be separate from the grant agreement.

And also, the grant agreement will have been concluded within a few months once the property purchase is completed. So just wanted to flag that that is something that would be difficult to draft, impose, and enforce. And then the other The other just flag that I wanted to raise is regarding just the mechanics of requiring a good neighbor agreement as a condition of grant approval here. Because if, you know, if it's contingent on grant approval, it means they have to enter into one in order to obtain it, which I understand is the point. But it also means that either side could then hold that funding hostage to conditions.

So it would kind of take that out of our hands. Would really take it out of either party's hands and could create an undesirable dynamic.

Oops, next I have Ms. Baldwin-Diaz on the amendment.

Yeah, I think I'd like some clarity. Um, so in, in the, in the memo that's before us, uh, page 2, line 42 It says True North will not deliver any crisis services in the facility. True North will continue to deliver mobile outreach and crisis care in current and new partnership locations throughout the municipality and by using a new mobile command center vehicle purchased separately.

So I—. Holding that up, I wonder if someone from True North would come back up to the podium and speak to that. It sounds like there is already a provision in this memo that indicates some limitations on the use of this facility.

I want to be sure that everything that we are considering here is actually factual and above board. And if that is not your understanding, True North folks, if that is not your understanding of this agreement, then I would— I would like to know that. That was in the original item that was put before us tonight. The amendment.

Thank you. And again, same direction as before, just turn on the microphone before you speak. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. So to answer your question, we have pre-established relationships throughout the city of Anchorage.

We've been working here for the last 18, 20 months, and those are our proposal in consideration of the community was to really expand upon those relationships. We even committed to purchasing a $250,000 vehicle to mobilize those, those efforts. We have potential new partnerships in Mountain View. We just did a new contract where we have a full-time employee in the Covenant House. And so our intention is to continue to move those services throughout the municipality of Anchorage It's the restrictive language and the defining language.

If I signed a contract that says that and an 18-year-old kid walked into our front door, am I out of contract? Because I've said, yeah, I can help you, right? And so it's really about intentionality of us to serve the community as a whole and to build those partnerships and provide those services in those pre-established settings. Does that answer your question? Sort of.

So So I didn't read this amendment as a limitation on the totality of your activity in Anchorage. I read it as a limitation on services provided at this specific location. And so I just want to be clear.

So there would be— So where there would be on-demand crisis care happening at this location, if let's say this 18-year-old were to arrive at the building somehow, what would your response be? It's a great question. I have 25 facilities across the state. What we originally planned to do was come to Anchor We did a feasibility study asking all of the community behavioral health providers, community members, what is the most needed service? We have an extremely innovative and successful Day One Center out in the Matsu.

We created a walk-in, drop-in crisis center. We put out, you know, word all over, literally all over the state. People fly in, people walk in, people drive in, right? What we did is we took that off the table. We're not building a crisis center in this location.

And also, people walk into locations of ours at any time. What I'm promising is that we're not going to go out and create this massive crisis center with the intention of bringing people in. We're committing to and investing in moving all of those services out, right? But when you put it in contract and define crisis, you're telling me that I have to turn somebody away at my front door. That's just not our heart, and it's not worth $750 million or $10 million.

That's just not who we are. And so, you know, ultimately we're trying to compromise. This process is supposed to be a compromise. We were promised good neighbor agreement drafts Monday morning at 8:00. Yesterday afternoon I got a draft driving in the driveway, right?

And we have been at every meeting and at every opportunity saying yes, we're willing to compromise and have conversations. And I feel like we've been pushed to these maximums where I don't even have a time to respond. Instead, I get a good neighbor agreement as I drive up to this assembly meeting, and then I'm met with this, and it just doesn't feel like genuine transparency and communication is happening. And again, I don't deal in politics, I deal in helping people. I just want to come to Anchorage and help people.

So I, I really hope that all of you give me the opportunity to do so. Thank you. Thank you. May I ask you one more follow-up question? I'm sorry.

Thank you. I do want to say from the outset, I appreciate that this has been a really arduous process for you all, and that you may not have understood all that you were walking into. And so I want to affirm that, that you all have engaged in good faith in all of this. Thank you for that. So I'm wondering, because again, we're looking for compromise, right?

We're looking for the middle position.

Is there an objection in your mind to the execution of the Good Neighbor Agreement? Is there a material difference between what the community is asking for and what True North is willing to sign? No, I think that the draft that was presented that we presented to the Community Council or the Executive Committee and what they presented back to us is very much in alignment minus a few wording details. I think we're very close, but I would like the opportunity to finish that process. If you mandate it, you create an impossible scenario for us where we don't have any say in the matter.

It feels like that's what is intended to happen. But it, it needs to be an agreement and a compromise, and it needs to, to come from a place of mutuality, and this doesn't allow that to happen.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. My second follow-up would be the— with the second point here, execution of an MOU between the grantee and the director of the health department affirming that you will not provide walk-in behavioral healthcare services or on-site crisis care and intervention at the property proposed to be acquired. Would it be more agreeable to you if the language suggested that you would not, you would not advertise or actively promote or like bring people in for the purposes of crisis stabilization? Would that more accurately reflect what you've understood this agreement to be about?

I would feel very uncomfortable giving an honest answer in this context, in this moment, around the dynamics of signing a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Health with no pre-knowledge or no ability to review a contract or— Very fair, very fair. Thank you. Yeah, appreciate that.

Okay, thanks. Um, again, I'm going to folks who haven't spoken yet, so Mr. Beresford-Diaz. On the amendment. Thank you. Just hang out for just one second.

I have another question for you.

So I'm trying to get caught up a bit. You're currently in the process of working on a memorandum of agreement and a good neighbor agreement with this community. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. And the problem with this is that it sets a very specific limit or or it, it, it, it, it said something that feels impossible for you to follow through with.

If this wasn't here and this was passed, what is the next step for you to work with the community to establish an agreement? Absolutely. Okay. Um, yeah, so the problem here is that, is that this amendment sets in place a very specific requirement for that agreement. And that feels impossible for you to, at this point, follow through with.

Absolutely. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. Okay. Yeah.

Well, I just want to say also that I really appreciate you as well. I really appreciate— I mean, I have not seen an organization go above and beyond like this, go to every community council and respond to every person. I've spoken with you guys several times and move and shift and do what you can to make this work. We want you in this community. We need you in this community.

And so I hope my colleagues will join me in doing everything we can to make sure that we don't lose the opportunity to have you join this community and continue to be a part of it. So I can't support this amendment as it stands. I want us to move forward, and I believe that you and your organization and this community can find agreement without us interfering in this way. So thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Next, Mr. McCormick on the amendment. Yeah, take a little different tone as well here and thank True North for their services. You know, my— as we spoke before, my day job or my real job here is in town as a psychiatric care provider. I work at North Star where I diagnose, treat psychiatric conditions, and North Star houses Arctic Recovery, the detox rehabilitation program.

I see how important it is. Everyone up here on the dais knows how important this work is you're doing. There's probably not a week that goes by that we're not talking about this issue. And now we have a proven operator that's, as you said, housing 25 programs around the state that's doing great work in all the other communities. We finally get somebody to come to, come to Anchorage offering to help and provide services.

And blatantly being treated pretty hostilely, like we don't need the services, like we're not here talking about every week that we need providers. I'm grateful for you guys coming, for being open to compromise, and I, I hope that we as the city can be better business partners to you. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Gerker on the amendment. Yes, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just, I'd want to echo what Miss Member McCormick and, uh, Member Perez-Verdía also said as well, for years we've been saying we need more of these services here in Anchorage. We need, we desperately need more of this. And now here we are, the cavalry is on its way, and we're trying to put limitations on how they can charge down the hill and help us.

This doesn't, just doesn't make a lot of sense. So to the sponsors, if somebody walks in to this facility experiencing some sort of crisis and decides this is the moment I'm going to get some help, do you expect the provider to turn that person back out on the street? No, I expect the provider to take that person in the mobile unit that they just described to another location where they can provide crisis care because that is what they have represented to the neighborhood. Excuse me, I have the floor. And now are unwilling to put in writing.

Member Walden, I have the floor. Thank you. So you expect them to take them, they come into the facility, they experience an crisis, you expect them to take them, transport them in a van, transport them in a van, drive them off to a third-party site, and then do the services there? Correct. Because what they've represented to the community is that they are not going to provide crisis care at this location.

They told that to Member Scout and I. They told it to the Fairview Community Council. And now here we're hearing a radically different story on the floor.

Hmm, I'll be a no on this amendment. We need to not be putting more limitations on people trying to bring help and trying to bring services to our community. I appreciate— Member Voland, I appreciate where you're coming from. Member Scout, I appreciate where you're coming from. I do.

I understand you guys are listening to your constituents. I get it. But I'm also listening to my constituents. I'm listening to constituents around the city that are saying we need these services. Let's You know, a member of the public comes in, he testifies frequently at our hearings.

You all probably know who I'm referring to, Mr. Lopez. And he referred in the last one of the committee meetings we had this last month that we are on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here. Let's not do that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, everyone in the queue has spoken before except Ms. Park. Is this on the amendment, Ms. Park? Thank you, Chair. I just want to say how much I appreciate your dedication to the recovery community and that you understand how important it is that if a person reaches their moment of clarity where they are going to seek, seek assistance, that, that, that moment might be lost if they are turned away. And I want to reframe Member Baldwin-Day's question a little bit.

If, if you are not actively advertising that location as being a location to receive services, is it— how practical is it to think that people will walk from wherever other part of town and go knocking on your door?

Thank you for the question. It's certainly less than likely because we would just go to them, and that's the whole premise. And, and we would, if they walk in our front door and it's appropriate, put them in the car and bring them to the appropriate level of care. The, the context of this, you know, frames it in a way that I could maybe not even open the door to them. And so So we don't see that often.

People are going to the right places. We are setting up an ecosystem where we are going to where they are. And that I think has been effective.

Thank you. I think I will be a no on this amendment.

And then the folks remaining in the queue have all spoken before, so I will go through again. Ms. Scout on the amendment. Thank you. First of all, Carl, thank you for being here.

And if folks are familiar with the history of redlining, um, Fairview was a neighborhood where people of color were allowed to live, and people of color in our community were explicitly not allowed to live in other neighborhoods. This has resulted in a— and then a highway was built through the neighborhood, making it a public safety and public health issue in this community that we are still trying to resolve. Fairview also lost their grocery store recently within— I think it was last year. Crossroads Bar, which is a community hub, closed in the neighborhood. Meanwhile, Fairview holds an overconcentration of services already.

And that is not to imply that services are a negative part of any neighborhood, but when we consider where these services should be placed, continuing to look at a neighborhood that bears the brunt of our public health and safety issues already and continuing to concentrate this against their will is unacceptable. To me, and it's not something we can stand by. This amendment—. Thank you, folks, to refrain from clapping in the chamber. This amendment, I would like to restate, is reflective of— it's simply restating conversations that we have had already.

If a good neighbor agreement is moving forward without this amendment or not. What is the risk of approving the amendment if a memorandum, memorandum of understanding is moving forward that simply restates line 42 of item 10D7, that crisis care will not be offered at this facility? What is the risk of approving an amendment that simply restates what has already been committed to? It is very concerning. To be put in this position where we, the representatives of the neighborhood— we have a letter as well from the senator and representative who represent this neighborhood as well, asking us to wait to approve this item until the Fairview Community Council is able to meet, which is Thursday.

It is 48 hours. From today. We have made a compromise and said, okay, we don't need to wait to approve this grant funding. We want True North Recovery, who we trust based on the interactions we've had. I, I do trust them.

However, we know through the audits that are in the same binder, it's not personal. It— there are realities that emerge the landscape changes, and then justifications are made to change grant funding. We want to put some guardrails on that to ensure that these providers who we believe are good faith actually follow through on just these bare minimum expectations. Good Neighbor Agreements are also required of other HUD funding if they include shelter services. We would have had to wait for this if the shelter services continued to be included in this grant.

Thankfully, they were taken out because of responses and feedback from the community during the public process that we demanded after this item was prematurely, I think due to administrative error and no bad intention, brought forward. A public process ensued. That was responded to. We got a new proposal. We're very grateful for that.

It is workable. I believe that's what, what's being asked for in this amendment is the bare minimum to ensure that Fairview is not put in this position of bearing the brunt of the services in our community. Once again, we need— and I'll just say Speaking from my personal perspective, I've been reflecting a lot. When I was first— before I was sworn in, I reached out to the Fairview Community Council and said, I would love to have some time to sit down with you to hear about your dreams and visions for the future of your community. How can we work together?

I'd love to hear what you want. We have not had an opportunity to have that conversation because we have been on defense and we have been fighting a project that they didn't invite, even if it was something— it's not about the fact that it is services. It is simply that Fairview is a community of dreams and of visions and who continues to be put in this position where services in Anchorage exist or not based on their willingness to bend over here. And so I just, I really resent being put in this position. I'm very disappointed that the amendment is not amenable.

To me, it was completely written in good faith. I've been extremely grateful to True North Recovery for the time and energy you all have put into having conversations with us, into the relationships we've built throughout this. I look forward to working with you in the future. And yeah, just really regret that this is the position we're being put in tonight.

Next on the amendment, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just say I am flabbergasted and offended, and the trust that Member Scout mentions, I do not share anymore. We had multiple conversations where you intimated to us as the representatives of this neighborhood that you would not provide crisis care at this location You described the model that you described here tonight, but now you're saying, oh no, we will provide crisis care. You also made those same overtures to the neighborhood that we represent.

And so now I don't know what to believe. I came in here tonight with this amendment prepared to support this grant, even knowing that you, you described that we've had this prolonged process. No, sir. And I understand that you may not be as familiar with some of these processes and how long they take, and I I will say, and I did not want to come in here and do this tonight, but I will say that you were put at a disadvantage and done a disservice by this administration. It is not fair to treat the community that I represent this way.

We did the same thing with Linda's Place when we opened a homeless shelter in East Downtown, Fairview, Mountain View, that nexus. Point of information: with 2 weeks of location, please pause. Uh, what is your point of information? I'm, I'm wondering about the chair's ruling on on a member directing these comments to a member of the public as opposed to you or members of the body. I'm trying to understand our role in that.

It feels like an attack. I'll be happy to direct my comments to the chair. Thank you. Madam Chair, we have seen this scenario before. We have seen how Fairview is repeatedly treated by by former administrations and by this administration.

The process with Linda's Place, we had 2.5 weeks between the awardee, the RFP, and go-live of that location. There was no formal outreach done to the Mountain View Community Council, to the Fairview Community Council, to the Downtown Community Council. There was one hastily arranged meeting meeting with individuals that happen to be able to make it that day. So when these things happen and they have a potential impact on the neighborhood, it is not necessarily that we don't support these services. We've had conversations, Madam Chair, about how Member Scout and I realize the need for these services, but we have to be able to give our constituents the opportunity for input, and that was not done here on a timeline that a community council can realistically do that.

Member Scout talked about the history of Fairview. Wow, it is so easy to make promises to Fairview, but then when we ask for those promises to be put in writing, the story changes. We have a 2018 adopted policy guidance calling for a dispersed, scattered site model that says we're not going to put things in East Anchorage and Fairview anymore. And that was co-sponsored by then Assemblymember LaFrance.

So at this point, I'm going to be a no on this grant because I thought we were having good faith conversations, Madam Chair, and what I'm hearing tonight is an entirely different story. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, next I'm going to go in the queue, uh, first to, uh, the mayor. She's been in the queue, uh, has spoken before, but in light of the ability to respond to some prior comments. And then next I'll go to Mr. Handlin, who has not spoken on the amendment.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. And I do want to clarify that shelter services have never, ever, ever been a part of the proposal. Unfortunately, that was some— that was a misunderstanding with the use of the term navigation. So I do want to be really clear about that part. I want to acknowledge, too, this has been a really unusual process.

At the one hand— and Member Scout alluded to the audit concerning the action plan for HUD funds. So on the one hand, we have the HUD grant and the action plan, which has been in the works for the last year with public meetings, briefings to the assembly, However, it's only been recently where a location came to light, and so we had that convergence of processes where for the RFP process, as it went through, it wasn't flagged for community concerns or behavioral health, um, services because that's just not something that had been done. We have changed that process so that now in the future If there is a potential grant award that has behavioral health services or something of community concern, we'll flag it. We've already done that with a proposed grant award to take that time to make sure that it gets that public engagement. But Carl, you've been a really good sport standing here, and I don't know that you need to remain, except I do want to confirm something to make sure that in our conversations I've understood correctly.

And what I've heard you to say is that if someone would come to this facility, if they would be in crisis, I know that you can't and won't turn away a person in crisis, a person in need. That is, that is who you are. That is the business you are in. But that doesn't mean that the facility would become a business to provide crisis care. Am I— do I understand that correctly?

Yes, ma'am. You understand that perfectly correctly. The other piece, too, is in all our conversations, you have said that relationship is what is most important. It is at the center of recovery. It is at the center of connection and health.

It is what we need here. And I have seen you all engage with the intent of coming up with an amenable good neighbor agreement. I think you're very close, and I can, um, understand how having a time frame on that puts a little imbalance in there. Um, but is— do I understand correctly that yes, your intent is to have that Good Neighbor Agreement— I said policy— in place?

Absolutely. We were hoping to have it done before tonight so we could have it completed for this meeting, but that did not come to fruition at no fault— no part of are. We were ready. Okay, um, but I also understand the, the MOU piece, which as our municipal attorney has noted, um, poses some challenges, is not something that you've seen earlier to be able to provide feedback on. This is new, correct?

I didn't know about it until it was up on the screen, right? Okay, well, um, thank you so much for being here to continue to engage, and I appreciate the conversations we have, and I appreciate our community working through these issues, and, and the representatives in the district wanting to look out and make sure that concerns of Fairview residents are addressed. And that's so important in all this. And thank you again for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, next I have two members who have not spoken yet, so I'll turn next to Mr. Handeland on the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I mean, I've been kind of going back and forth on this, but I mean, I'm gonna be a yes on this amendment. I mean, hearing the passion from the members from downtown— I mean, when I first got elected in went around and met with members, I told them that it would be very hard for me to sit there and support something in that only impacted their district that, um, the two members from that, uh, that area did not support. And so I'm going to honor that, and I will be supporting this amendment.

Okay, next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple questions. I appreciate you being here. And first I wanted to say, I think the idea of there should be no wrong door for a person who's looking for help should be the model.

But I think there's a little difference between that being the model and the question about the, the usage of this particular facility and this particular item that has some degree of language restriction. About that usage, but it's still essentially a restriction that is in alignment to what your programming vision is in the first place. Is that fair to say?

I, I think so. I don't know if I fully understood your questions. That happens often. It's okay. Let me try that again.

Essentially, what's being requested here is the model that you're saying you'll be using anyways way without the language of this amendment. You are saying this amendment locks you into something that essentially you programmatically are going to be doing anyway, not having crisis care at this location. Is that fair to say? I feel like I'm on the spot to interpret the language of that in real time in front of the assembly and make a decision about what's best for for all the people that we serve and the programs that we're trying to build. Okay, let me step back and say, is the program— is the vision of what we're getting as a result of this potential grant a program that does not have crisis stabilization as its core function at this particular location, that is mostly mobile?

That is accurate, yes, Mr. Mayor. Okay? So as I look at this particular amendment, it said— from my understanding, this amendment is codifying that. That essentially says that that's true, that you agree this is not where crisis stabilization is, but I think Mr. Volden's point was essentially to the starting point of the value set that I've offered, which is there should be no wrong door for persons looking for help. Now I hold that against both the historic trauma of, in terms of the community, the development patterns, the history of redlining, and so I just want to hold that there as well.

But then I think of the nature of how do we ensure that we don't have people who find help thinking that that's the normal. See, 'cause the concern of the community is not that someone would find help. The concern is that that becomes the normal operating procedure, that it slides back into an on-site space, that past the rec center where young people are, with new investments into the playground, past the facilities of churches, past the facilities of local organizations, that they're thinking, "Are we now a new target, a new destination?" And so that concern is not a crystal ball. I don't think anyone can really see that except maybe through the language of this sort of compromise. So I don't necessarily see it as a fight, because I think you're all saying the same thing, but the community's concern is how can they have some degree of counting on that without this language.

So I hope that narrows it, because I don't think there's a challenge to the services as much as— it's impossible to stop folks from getting help. And we know that there is very little— there is very little experience in our community where people get help at one location one time and it doesn't invite a follow-up. So I just wanted to highlight that with respect to the administration. A follow-up question as well. It's been presented to me that if we do not approve the grant, essentially True North can still go ahead and do its own thing, and you would?

Is— where does that land with respect to what this grant means to you all in fact? And is this grant our leverage into these sorts of conversations, or are you going to go it alone without us? And can you do that?

You know, we were awarded this grant or this opportunity in May of 2025. We went and pursued opportunities with the Rural Health Transformation Funds, with the Alaska Mental Health Trust. We've made a lot of promises and have already been awarded significantly more funding than what is on the table today. And so we as an organization intend to come and be a part of Anchorage as a whole. You know, where we go from tonight is kind of still, you know, we'll know after tonight where we're headed and what exactly that looks But our grant is critical to you being able to move forward.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a significant amount of funding and it'll have a huge impact on our organization and our ability to move forward and bring good services to all of Anchorage.

There are some additional questions. And just for reflection to the administration, I just wanted to highlight that that one of the challenges in this conversation, and this is not a reflection on you all, but as you started earlier on, the idea that we invite, we invite folks to come into work, and so you're accepting that invitation, and it doesn't feel right that there's so much pushback from an invitation. But I just wanted, for the administration's consideration, the nature of building capacity in our community with folks that do work parallel or complementary or similar versus inviting others, right, into the community. I think it's not an either/or, but there is some degree of consternation around that as well. And I am speaking to the administration.

They've just— we're having eye contact, but I'm not speaking to you because it's really not your burden. I appreciate that you received and accepted the invitation, that we're having this conversation. I think my point about the amendment and to your operating essentially says I'm going to be supporting this amendment. I'd like to see you all get to work, but I'd also like to make sure that the larger conversations that people that somehow feel like, uh, we need these services and they should go here, the heck with the historical trauma— I think that's a problem too. I think that if I look at a city map and I think of where things are and, and the equity questions about the where services should go, um, I think that there are there are some clear, obvious things that are wrong, and this is not your burden, but it all smashes at the same time.

I hope we can move forward with a good neighbor agreement aligned to some of the commitments that are embedded in here that you verbally said yes to. Essentially, I, I would just prefer that we get this amendment forward and say yes to a program and, and continue to build capacity in our community while we see this operation happen. But thank you for being here. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, next I have Miss Silvers, second time on the amendment.

Yeah, um, yeah, I, I understand, um, some of the concerns, a lot of the concerns. I had, uh, some of the same concerns, particularly around, um, the Fairview Recreation Center. Um, I think what I have seen since then is, uh, True North True North acting in good faith where they have not had to. Um, I believe that True North could have, because of the zoning, um, quietly opened this facility up, uh, and pretty much done whatever they wanted. Um, they have not done that.

They have changed their entire model., to, um, show a sense of responsibility towards the, uh, neighborhood and their neighbors as a whole. Um, and so I think that they have really acted in good faith here. Uh, I think I would really like to see True North in Anchorage. We really need their services here. Um, These services, by the way, are going to be coming to Anchorage at no cost to the municipal taxpayer.

So I think it's time that we offer a little bit of good faith back towards them. I think that what we're doing here tonight, kind of with this last-minute amendment that was sprung on them. And I think what we are doing is we are making it so that organizations don't necessarily want to come and do business with us. And so it is concerning to me.

Yeah. And so I guess I am still going to be a no vote on this amendment.

And, you know, I believe that True North is working on this good neighbor agreement, and so I guess I don't see the need to bend them over the barrel on it.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks. Before I turn to the next person, I'll do a brief brief procedural interlude. So we are about 8 minutes out from an hour on debate on this item. So members can move to extend debate, and that does include amendments.

So we're certainly still on the amendment. There are folks in the queue. I believe everybody in the queue has spoken once or twice at this point. And so I would suggest to the members that it may— one, that it may be advantageous for us to take a vote on the amendment, and then the clock essentially resets for debate in the main item. Because no one's spoken to that.

And also that if there is intent to, um, continue discussion on this, uh, we can certainly do that, and it just requires moving to extend the debate as well. Um, so next I'll turn to Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Sodestrom, just a couple of clarifying questions. So can you fill us in on the actual status of the property purchase itself?

Where are you in the purchase process? We are under contract and finalizing the acquisition of the property currently. Okay, thank you. And then the, the grant that you received from the Alaska Mental Health Trust, it was a million and change. That grant, as I understand it, was awarded on the basis of you opening a crisis care facility.

Does the trust understand that your model has, for this location, has changed since that grant was awarded, sort of in, as all of this was unfolding? Yeah, it's a great question. We didn't specify a crisis center. We applied for funding for crisis staffing, which we can mobilize, which is the plan we're presenting today. Okay, that's helpful.

Yeah, the grant title that the trust lists makes that a little unclear. So I appreciate that clarification. I did not actually go dig up your grant proposal and read it. I do my homework, but not that far. So thank you.

And then my final question is, For you all, is there a timeline or an urgency around resolving this question here immediately this evening? Yeah, absolutely. Based on those other funding sources, those grant periods started July 1st. We're currently hiring. We've been gracious enough to be invited into the building to do some interviews, but we've been doing interviews in diners and in our vehicles.

We need to move forward based on the other commitments and promises that we've made. Understood, thank you. I think my final comment on this amendment is this, and that is that as assembly members, we are very frequently called upon, we are asked to bring competing priorities into balance. We do, that's what, it's part of this job. And I just, I want to hold up that, you know, we're talking about talking about neighborhood concerns and we are talking about really what is a desire for certainty from neighbors who have had their trust broken repeatedly in this community.

So I do want to say that the Fairview concerns, they are legitimate. They are longstanding. There has been a very complicated history of placing behavioral healthcare and crisis services in, in this sort of concentrated location. And the impact is, the impact is obvious, the impact is clear. And holding that up against, you know, these federal grant timelines, wanting to be good business partners with folks who want to come into the municipality, and, and then the very, very clear behavioral, behavioral health care needs— like, these are all of the things that we're trying to hold in tension here tonight.

And I recognize that you are caught in the middle of that. So, Chair, I think my final thought here is we have— I think we have an opportunity to— with the text that is already written without this amendment in place, we have text that says True North will not deliver any crisis services in the facility. We have a verbal commitment on the record from True North stating their intent to conclude a good neighbor agreement. With Fairview.

And I am really hopeful that what we are doing here tonight is not setting up another breach of trust with a community that has borne many, many, many breaches of trust over the decades, and that we, we can make good on the promises that have been made here. So thank you again for being willing to stand up and face the Inquisition, as it were. Thank you for doing that.

Okay, next, Mr. Presverdia on the amendment. We have a motion to extend debate by 10 minutes.

Okay, motion to extend debate by 10 minutes. And just a reminder, that's on the amendment in the underlying item by Mr. Presverdia, second by Miss Scout. So we are extended by 10 minutes. Thank you. A move to amend the amendment.

I'd like to move to strike item 2 In the amendment. Second. Point of information, do we need to vote to extend? Oh, I'm sorry, I was referring— I was different set of rules. So let's— okay, so back up.

Let's take up the motion to extend debate. Thank you, Ms. Silvers, for calling that. So there was a motion to extend debate by Mr. Presser-Diaz, second by Ms. Scout. So members may proceed to vote on that motion to extend debate by 10 minutes.

Okay, on a motion of 10 to 1, uh, the motion to extend debate by 10 minutes passes. I'll turn back to Mr. Perez-Fredia. Can you restate your motion? Thank you. The motion is to, um, to amend the amendment by striking, um, um, item 2 in the amendment.

Uh, motion to amend the amendment, uh, to strike item 2 in, uh, Amendment 1, and then is there a second? Okay, okay, Mr. Bowen seconds again. Okay, Mr. Persfidia. Yeah, so the majority of the conversation tonight has been around the agreement between the community and, and, um, and, uh, True North.

My understanding is that that agreement is being worked on, and, um, and if, if this were to be struck, and the only thing that we're requiring is that that agreement is, is in place, um, and it takes out the the requirement for the MOU between the Health Department and True North. I think that honors what we're trying to do is say that we want an agreement between these two organizations, the community and True North, in order to move forward. So I'm curious if that meets your needs, if you feel like that that is something that you can agree to. Before we move on. I would say that I'm optimistic, but not, um, that puts us in a position where it really depends on, on the community council.

We've presented a really reasonable draft to them. They've presented a pretty reasonable draft back to us. So I, I share optimism, but if it's mandated, their position could easily change, and it puts us in a position like what was described earlier where we don't have a choice but to comply, and you're essentially giving permission to the community council to approve or deny this grant.

That's true.

Yep, in light of that, I appreciate the feedback. I rescind my amendment to the amendment. Thank you. And I'll just finish by saying, I, you know, I, I am— you have proven yourself over the past few months as an organization to me that is going to do what you're saying you're going to do. And I have faith that that will happen.

So I feel comfortable moving forward with, with this amendment not being in place as stated earlier. Thank you.

Thank you. So we are back on the amendment. And again, everybody is 2 folks have spoken twice already on the amendment, so I'll go to Mr. McCormick. I'd like to call the question. Second.

Okay, motion to call the question, and let me get clarity, is that on the amendment or the main item? On the amendment. Okay, so there's been a motion to call the question on the amendment, first moved by Mr. McCormick, second by Mr. Gerker. Any— there's no discussion on that, so members may proceed to vote on calling the question.

Okay, on a vote of 9 to 2, the question has been called on the amendment. So members, uh, when it's up on the screen, members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Member Park.

On a vote of 4 to 7, um, the amendment fails. We're back on the main motion, um, so I will go back up to the queue. And again, we have about 8 minutes in debate, so next, Miss I'd like to propose another amendment, um, that assembly approval of this grant shall be effective upon satisfaction of the following conditions: execution of a good neighbor agreement between the grantee and the Fairview Community Council or by, let's see, Friday, July 17th.

What's your— uh, can you speak into the microphone, Miss Silvers? Didn't we just vote on that amendment? No. So the distinction between this amendment is that if a good neighbor agreement is not agreed to by July 17th, the grant would move forward anyways. So that takes the decision-making about the grant away from the Fairview Community Council, with hope that both parties are operating in good faith and arrive at a good neighbor agreement by that time.

Okay, thank you. So just to restate for the record then, your amendment is, um, assembly approval of this grant shall be effective upon satisfaction of the following condition: execution of a good neighbor agreement between the grantee and Fairview Community Council on or before Friday, July 17th, July 17th is what you said? No. Oh, please clarify. So I'll just reread it word for word.

Sorry, everybody. Assembly approval of this grant shall be effective upon satisfaction of the following condition: execution of good neighbor agreement between the grantee and the Fairview Community Council, or by Friday, July 17th.

Point of information. What is your point of information, Ms. Baldwin-Day? Would that clause need to include something like whichever is sooner?

Um, thank you. I'll ask the original mover. Do you— is there a—. Do you indicate a preference, or is it either of those conditions? Whichever is sooner.

It sounds great. Okay, so sorry. Yeah, so the motion to amend, uh, the language as stated, again including the phrase whichever is sooner. Motion by Ms. Scout, second by— who is the second?

Can you remind me?

I'll second. OK, second by Mr. Handeland. Thank you. So we have a first and a second. Then I'll turn back to Ms.

Scout if you'd like to add anything further. Yeah, so one comment I did not— believe it or not, there's a comment I did not have a chance to make in this past debate, which is why this amendment now, which has been brought up multiple times. Thursday evening, I received a call, um, informing me that True North Recovery was going to move forward with purchasing the building if we did not approve this grant tonight. And so this is the compromise we are attempting to make, is we would like to be able to get this grant out into the community. We would like to make sure that a community who has had challenges and has a real history with lack of trust has a seat and a voice at the table here.

We also, we want to get you all specifically this money and time to move forward with the purchasing process. And so the reason that this amendment is coming now is because we were informed of this update on the Thursday evening before a holiday weekend, and our staff were not working over the weekend, which we support. And so wanted to provide some additional context there and hope that you will consider this pared-down amendment that hopefully is a true compromise. Okay, next I have Mr. Bowen in the queue.

Yeah, thank you. I will support this amendment. I mean, I think it's better than nothing.

Yeah, no, I too received a call from the mayor saying, hey, this is going probably to happen. The bill— they're just going to buy the building and then they can do whatever they want. We can try to, um, move forward with this grant and have some, some language tied to it saying that we're not going to do crisis care. I'm really concerned because I actually at this point don't know what to believe. True North Recovery received a grant from the Alaska Mental Health Trust for an Anchorage Launchpad crisis walk-in center for over a million dollars.

And they've told me and my colleague they're not going to be doing crisis care. They've told the community that. And now I, I will just say, any representation that the Community Council is not operating in good faith is, in my view, patently false. They have been scrambling to edit these drafts of, of this Good Neighbor Agreement, to do a resolution, to attend special meetings It's in the afternoon. These are working people.

This timeline has been so compressed, and I don't— I actually, I don't buy into this representation that, oh, we really have dragged this out. We've had all of this extra process. These folks have tried to endeavor to as quickly as they can on their— you know, they see what's coming to their neighborhood to try to say, here's what we want to envision. And so the very least we can do is make a condition on this, which now has no teeth, but again, good faith. Faith going both ways, a two-way street.

Let's do a good neighborhood agreement. The Fairview Community Council folks want to do that, but they have to do that as a collective body, much as we have to do our business as a collective body. One person doesn't just put the stamp of approval on it. So anyway, I hope you can support this amendment. Thank you.

Next, Mr. McCormick.

Without amendment, I'm not sure what, what we're doing. I, I don't see the teeth in it if it's with the Good Neighbor Agreement or in 10 days and everybody just turns their phone off for 10 days. In 10 days it goes through. I think we have a proven operator with 25 sites around the state. They've been engaged with the community councils.

They've showed the good faith. I, I don't think we need a gesture, um, of a, of the good faith agreement if it actually has no teeth. If it doesn't do anything They have exhibited good faith. I am ready to move forward.

Currently 1 minute left in debate. Ms. LaFrance on the amendment. Mayor. Thank you, Chair Brawley. A question, Carl.

How would this timeline work for you?

I feel like we have tried to express repeatedly that we wanted to leave here today with an answer. You know, we, like I said, we, the goalposts and the expectations have changed for us, and I'm just speaking to our experience as a provider. At every step of the way, it's, if you get to this point, then we're good. Oh, nope, not good. If you get to this point, you're good.

Oh, nope, not good. So my hope is that we leave with an answer today. Thank you.

Okay, uh, we are pretty much out of time for debate. Um, there's no one left in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this amendment.

On a vote of 6 to 5, this amendment fails. Again, we need 7 votes for something to pass. This amendment has failed. So we're back on the main motion without any amendments passed, and we have exhausted our time for debate. There is no motion to extend, and some members may proceed to vote on the underlying item.

Sorry, that was an error on the screen, of course.

Uh, so first I will note, uh, the record is not a 0-0 vote. Um, second, uh, we will be doing a voice vote. The system is glitching right now. Uh, so go ahead, Madam Clerk. Uh, Member Handlin?

No. Member Martinez?

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

Yes. Chair Brawley? Yes. Vice Chair Volland? No.

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

Yes. Member Park?

On a vote of 8 to 3, AM448/2026 passes the body. Thank you, Dr. Talley. So I will note we have 3 more consent agenda items. I know we have been at this for a while. I'm going to suggest that we take up these last 3 items and then break for dinner, and then we'll move through the rest of our agenda.

But if we— if any of these items take an extended period of time, we still have the option to take up those items after dinner. So next I will move on to 10E2, that is AR 2026-182, a resolution of the municipality. Yes, Mr. Perez Verdia. I'd like to move for immediate reconsideration.

Thank you. Motion by Mr. Perez Verdia to move for immediate reconsideration of the prior item, AM448-2026. Is there a second? Second. Okay, there's a motion for immediate reconsideration, uh, moved by Mr. Perez Verdia and Second by Mr. Gerker.

And a reminder, that needs to be from someone on the prevailing side, so this isn't a motion that's in order. And I urge a no vote. Thank you. And one second, uh, I don't see anyone in the queue at the moment, so members may proceed to vote on reconsideration. And the sponsor urged a no vote.

Point of information, Madam Chair.

Uh, just— yeah, what is your point? Yeah, when this is all done, could you just give a quick explanation maybe to the public who doesn't quite understand, might not understand what just happened? Yes, thank you, happy to do that. Um, so first, on a vote of 4 to 7, um, this motion to reconsider, uh, fails the body. Assembly, and for clarity for the public, a motion to reconsider— basically there's a window of time in which the Assembly can, can revisit a vote that it's taken.

Typically it's within 24 hours. Often the motion to immediately reconsider is essentially to close the door on a time-sensitive item and allow for things like execution of a contract, because it doesn't leave the item hanging open where in theory we could reconsider it. So that's— I imagine that's probably the reason why, but I can't speak to someone else's motive, uh, likely the reason why someone moved to re— immediately reconsider on this item. Okay, thank you everyone. Uh, so next we will then move on to item 10E2, AR 2026-182, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating a reimbursable grant from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, AHFC, in the amount of $146,192— sorry, $146,192.17.

$1,316 To the state grant fund 231-900 Anchorage Health Department for case management services for clients of Chugach View and Chugach Manor. This item was pulled by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve, second by Mr. Voland. Ms. Baldwin-Day. I think in the interest of time, I will take my questions elsewhere offline, uh, and have a separate conversation with Director Rash and others. Thank you.

Um, I urge my colleagues' support.

Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AR-2026-82 passes the body unanimously. Unanimously. Uh, next we have an informational item 10F2, that is AIM 95-2026, Internal Audit Report 2026-03, Community Development Block Grant Administration and Compliance. Um, the motion, the in order for this one is a motion to accept, and it was pulled by Miss Scout. I'll move to accept.

Second. Motion by Miss Scout to accept, second by Mr. Volland. Miss Scout. Thank you. Given our previous discussion on the need for accountability in these grants that we put out to the community, I'd just like to read some of the top lines from this internal audit on Community Development Block Grant Administration and Compliance.

The findings and the recommendations, which we'll also go over at an upcoming audit meeting, I assume, are that project goals are not always met, penalties are not enforced, yearly project goals are not always updated, the agreements did not contain monitoring requirements, subrecipient procurement process has not been documented, subrecipient agreements were allowed to expire while the work continued. Public hearing requirements were not always met. Subrecipient reporting requirements not always met.

And supplemental document— documentation is not always retained. This is not a reflection on the great work that our municipal staff are attempting to do in our community It is not a reflection on the power of funding getting out to the community, being able to have an impact, but is a reflection of the capacity that we have to follow through on these grants that we are putting out into the community. I believe that municipal staff are doing their best. However, when we put grants like the one that we just double-approved into communities based on people's word, based on things we've heard tonight but not gotten written agreements to, requests from our community to commit to good neighbor agreements, to have MOUs in place reinforcing the guardrails that have not been— that have already been committed to verbally and casually. Are not out of line.

That is the purpose of me bringing up this internal report. I'm grateful to the work of our municipal staff in doing the best that they can. This is clearly a systemic issue, and the voices of our Fairview residents and constituents in this prior discussion matter, and I wish that they had been heard based on what we know about the challenges of implementing the grants that we commit to with this particular funding. Thank you.

Next, I have Ms. Baldwin. Yes, thank you, Chair. As the, as the chair of the Audit Committee, it's become our practice to take these internal audit reports reports and, and set them for consideration at audit committee meetings so that we can actually review whether or not audit recommendations are, um, are followed. And most of the recommendations that are contained in this particular audit are set for completion by August 1st of 2026.

So I just want to let folks know that they can expect to see this particular audit on the audit committee agenda for review sometime this fall, likely September or October, uh, to understand what changes we have made to our internal policies and procedures and ensure that we're shoring up our end of the, uh, of the bargain, as it were, when it comes to, um, CDBG grant funding. Um, yeah, so thank you, Miss Scout, for flagging that for all of us.

Okay, thank you. I have no further members in the queue. Some members may proceed to vote on this item. One second, we need to correct the record. Vice Chair Voland?

Yeah, yes.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, AM 95-2026 passes the body, or was accepted by the body unanimously. Our last item on the consent agenda is an item for introduction, so it was intended for introduction. It was pulled by Mr. Handlin, so I will turn to him first. Go ahead. Oh, sorry, I have to read this in the record.

Sorry. AR 2026-189, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly approving an administrative agreement, L302-AA-2026-03, between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, L302, regarding a change to the collective bargaining agreement language. This item was pulled by Mr. Handeland. Once again, potential conflict of interest.

My father His pension is through the Local 302. He has not worked for the Municipality of Anchorage, so I don't think would be impacted by this at all.

Thank you. Uh, yeah, this was an interest that you previously stated. The previous ruling is that you do not have a substantial interest that would make you conflicted out of voting on this, so you can participate in this item. Uh, so then I'm seeking for a motion to, uh, motion to introduce. Move to introduce and set the public hearing for August 18th.

Second.

Okay, a motion to introduce and set the public hearing for August 18th. Um, I have a motion from Mr. Vohlen, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day, and is there a third? Third. Third. Okay, I heard Mr.

McCormick is the third. Um, so, uh, no further action on this one. And I'll note that the agenda originally did state a hearing of August 18th, so we were adhering to the intent there.

The last thing that we need to do before our dinner break is the swearing in of Mr. Fawzy, and I think we can quickly take care of that, and then we will break for dinner, and I'll speak briefly about what we'll take up after that. So again, this was item 10D8, was already passed, swearing in Mr. Fawzy as our incoming municipal manager, and so he will Uh, our clerk will administer the oath very briefly and then move on to our next business.

I solemnly swear. I solemnly swear. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the State of Alaska.

The Constitution of the State of Alaska. And the charter of the Municipality of Anchorage, and the charter of the Municipality of Anchorage, and that I will faithfully perform the duties, and that I will faithfully perform the duties of municipal manager to the best of my ability, of municipal manager to the best of my ability. Congratulations. Thank you very much.

Okay, and before we break, let me confer very briefly with the clerk now that she's back up here.

Okay, thank you everyone. So that concludes our consent agenda. So typically we would take a dinner break. We also know that there are a couple items on our agenda, 12A and 12B, that are of great public interest that I imagine most folks sitting here today are likely interested in the discussion on. So what I'm going to propose to members at this point is that we first take a 10-minute recess, take a break, step away, and then come back to this item.

And I guess there will be multiple passes, but I will also note this is not a public hearing item. So this is something the members of the public will not be invited to speak on specifically. If you would like to speak, there's the end of the meeting audience participation— but excuse me, but I guess that's what we're proposing at this point is to take a 10-minute recess, come back and take up those items, and then if we anticipate that it will be extended debate on those items, then we may be changing the order of the day to take up our other business items first on our agenda. One second.

Okay, so I'll ask if there is any objection to taking a 10-minute recess at this point and coming back to those items, and if there is, then we will take a vote on that. Just a point of information. Yes, Mr. President. I just want to make sure that there's— you had made a statement in the beginning of the meeting in terms of your intent for those items as chair. I just would ask you to repeat that.

Yeah, thank you. As I stated before, my intent as chair is to request that the body postpone both of those items to the meeting of July 21st for the purposes of really for taking them up at a future time. However, it is up to the will of the body whether we do that. And so we are— I've conferred with the vice chair. We are mostly attempting to manage kind of the time implications for multiple outcomes here.

Here. So I will ask briefly, is there any objection to taking a 10-minute recess at this time? Okay, seeing none, we will take a recess. So it is 7:27. Let's say we will do a back by 7:37 or about 7:40 at the latest.

In a few, really a few seconds. So please, everyone, Members of the public, if you are here to watch the meeting, please stop your conversations. We need to bring the chamber back to order so that we can continue this meeting.

Okay, I'm going to bring us back to order in the meeting. So the next items on our agenda, as we said, we will take these items up, and then I will also note that the intent is to— my request to the body is to postpone both these items if we— if the members would like to engage in a more substantive debate, then we may be moving to change the order of the day to take these up afterwards, as we do have a number of other business items that I believe will not be an extended period of time. But first, before we proceed, I'm going to read two supplemental items laid on the table this evening. Both are unnumbered AIMs. Uh, hold on, let me make sure I have them.

One second.

Okay, thank you. Making sure we have the record clear. Um, so these two supplemental items, uh, the first one is, uh, an AIM unnumbered associated to AR 2026-191, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly censoring Assembly Member George Martinez based on the findings of of the Alaska Public Offices Commission and reaffirming the assembly's commitment to campaign finance integrity. And this is an attached statement. So that is the first item.

And the second item is an attached statement to AR 2026-192, unnumbered AIM, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly submitting an accusation document to the municipal clerk to initiate removal proceedings in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code Section 2.70.030. And directing the municipal attorney to retain outside counsel to conduct further investigation and represent the interests of the municipality throughout the adjudication. So both of these are read into the record as supplemental items to those respective items. Before we begin on these additional items, I need to make a— hold on, sorry, there's multiple legal guidance that I need to engage in before we proceed.

Okay, so before we take up items 12A and/or 12B, I need to make a conflict ruling. These two items relate to Member Martinez and seek respectively to, uh, for the body to censure him and the other to submit an accusation to remove him from office. I find that because these two resolutions are solely and directly about about this member. This member has a substantial private interest that creates a conflict under Municipal Code of Ethics and prevents him from participating in any official action on these items. So I will also note, this can be appealed by—.

This ruling of the chair can be appealed by the body. But I will— so I will invite that if there is interest. But before that, I will also note, as I said before earlier today, the practice of this body is that a member who has a conflict cannot participate as a member, so they are not participating in debate, they are not participating in an ultimate vote if and when one happens, and they are asked to not be on the dais at the time. However, this member or any member has the ability to either leave the room and not participate at all or to sit in the audience as a member of the public, essentially. So just to state that those are always the options available to members, and it is their discretion if they would like to.

So I will ask if there's any objection to the ruling of the chair regarding the conflict for Mr. Martinez on items 12A and 12B.

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the ruling stands. And I'll ask—. Madam Chair, I have a point of order. Yes, Mr. Handlin, go ahead.

So, um, with the two, uh, AIMS that we received, they appear to be, I guess, statements from Mr. Martinez there. Would those also not fall in under that? So I will note those were submitted by, uh, Member Silvers, but I will also turn to our attorneys because I know there was some debate on this. So I'll turn to Municipal Attorney Eva Gardner unless Assembly Council would like to answer. Thank you.

Through the chair, we did have some debate on this and determined that it acceptable for another member to put information before the body relevant to items, just as they could do with any other item coming before the body. But that, as Member Martinez was recused, or what's likely to be recused because of the conflict ruling, it would not be appropriate for him to put them in directly.

Can I do a follow-up question? Go ahead, Mr. Handlon. Yeah, so I guess, um, also, I— because we also have a quasi-judicial matter, and this, I guess, involves one member. I guess, is there a conflict with that, with that member, I guess, communicating with a number— another member of the body about something that is coming before it that he has direct interest with? That's a good question.

I will also turn to the municipal attorney or, or assembly council to clarify. Uh, we have internally had a lot of discussion about if and when the quasi-judicial, um, uh, posture is in place, which changes the rules in which we can engage. Um, and so I'll turn to them to answer if we are in that state at this time with either of those items, and/or if you have other legal advice to give us. Thank you. Through the chair, I— the quasi-judicial aspect arises solely with regard to the removal accusation, and based on our internal legal discussions, we have determined that that gate kind of drops after— if, if and when the assembly votes to submit a formal accusation.

At that At that point, you're stepping into that role. But right now, the decision about whether to submit that, you know, it's an open universe of information. Anything that's appropriate to come before the body on ordinary matters could come before you to inform your decision on how to vote on that accusation document. But once the— if, again, if and when it is submitted, then we will be giving some guidance on appropriate pathways for information to flow.

Thank you. Anything further? No, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I will just note, um, I think I've said before, we are in, um, maybe not uncharted legal territory, but certainly little to no precedent, at least within our own local, uh, procedures.

And so if you see me continually asking the attorneys to answer questions, it's because this is the conversations we've had over several hours for the last few weeks to just understand, you know, what, what the rules are, how they apply, and to make sure that we are applying them properly throughout each step of this process. So with that, I've also— so at that point, the ruling has stood. No one has appealed it. So I will ask Mr. Martinez to step down from the dais while the assembly takes up these two items. And I will also note that, Mr. Martinez, you are welcome to remain in the chamber if you prefer to be present.

You're not required. And be aware that before the body begins any substantive debate on each item, you will be offered an opportunity from the chair to make a statement from the podium in the audience if you would like to. You are not required to, but you have that opportunity. And then I will also offer the opportunity to respond at the end of the debate as well. So not to each individual comment, but at the end of the debate.

During the debate, the members may have questions for you as well. So for everybody's awareness, that is how we will proceed, and that is the, the way that we can engage with our colleague while we are in the space of these two items.

So additionally, additionally, I want to put a few additional things on the record just because of the nature of these items before we take up any potential action on them. These two items propose forms of discipline for one of our assembly member colleagues. So some things to consider, and these are all recommendations or advice from our counsel, some things to consider applicable to both of these or any item proposing any discipline of a member. Censure is provided through—. Provided for through the Assembly's adoption of Robert's Rules of Order in AMC 230.080L or I believe it's I, and it's also in Chapter 10 on discipline.

The removal procedure that has been invoked is provided for in Code AMC 270.030 with a procedure outline there. The chair has no authority to impose impose any discipline or penalty on other assembly members. Only the assembly as a body has that power. Roberts Rules of Order—. I'm sorry, that's the citation, but it's Roberts Rules of Order 6113.

The two items in Section 12 are proposed means for the assembly to take action on those items. And I am briefly— I guess there's, there's a lot of other legal guidance and items of caution that I could read out loud. It's a 6-page document. I'm going to not read that at this time, but if members would like all of that information, as I said, we have proposed a work session to go through the process in detail for Friday the 17th. So with that, I will seek a motion from the body.

Move to postpone to the regular— or both items 12A and 12B to the regular meeting of July 21st. Second.

Motion to postpone— both items. Oh, I'm sorry, I actually realized—. One second.

Sorry, uh, we will come back to that. I realized I had not formally read both of these items in the record, so let me do that before we make any— um, um, okay, so for clarity, so Item 12A, AR 2026-191, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly censoring— censoring Assembly Member George Martinez based on the findings of the Alaska Public Offices Commission and reaffirming the Assembly's commitment to campaign finance integrity and the authority of the commission. Second item, 12B, AR 2026-192, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly submitting an accusation document to the municipal clerk, municipal clerk, to initiate removal proceedings in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code Section 2.70.030 and directing the municipal attorney to retain outside counsel to conduct further investigation and represent the interest of the municipality throughout the adjudication of these allegations. Both those items have now been read into the record. I will turn back to Mr.

Volland. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you've laid out, we do have a work session scheduled for the 17th at 2:15 PM, City Hall Conference Room 155. And I'll just, um, I, I will sort of, I guess, have your back in the sense that we have had a lot of ongoing conversations as leadership. Our goal really is to best facilitate, you know, without getting into the merits of either of these items, best facilitate an unprecedented process that involves a lot of legality.

And so we've been, um, you know, asking questions to Assembly Counsel, to the Municipal Attorney's Office, I think there's a lot to unpack here that my colleagues— I know I would certainly benefit from a full briefing of what this process should look like, how much it would cost, what discussions are, are had in public versus executive session. Many different nuances to this as we move forward, and I think we can, we can best understand that process and, and move through this in a way that protects the interest of the municipality if we have that full information presented to us. So I hope my colleagues will be supportive of this postponement, and then we can go from there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, I have Ms.

Silvers. So the motion that I heard was to postpone both items. Items. May I speak on both items then? Yes, you may speak to the postponement of both of them.

Okay. I will be a no vote on the motion to postpone because I believe that we have all the information that we need to make a decision tonight. Most importantly, I believe that the people of East Anchorage, which I see very many of out here in the audience tonight, deserve clarity and transparency from this body. They should not be left in prolonged uncertainty, nor should their representation become proxy for a drawn-out partisan battle. They deserve a timely decision so they can determine for themselves what, if any, further remedy they wish to pursue through the democratic process, including at the ballot box.

I'd like to start by being clear that I do not condone, excuse, or defend I do not defend Member Martinez's campaign violations in any way. I believe that he should take responsibility for his actions and apologize to his constituents. But I believe that we owe it to each other and to the public to be honest about what the authority— authority this body actually has when addressing campaign violations that have already been investigated and penalized by APOC. And the sooner we are honest about the limits of our authority, the better.

I do not believe we need to postpone this item for legal explanation when the applicable provisions are already plainly stated in our municipal code. For the benefit of the public, I want to read the portions of the code that apply. AMC 2.70.030G states wrongful acts or omissions occurring while the officer was acting in a private capacity as opposed to his or her capacity as an officer. In their official capacity as a public officer shall not constitute a breach of public trust. Our ethics code, AMC 1.15.110, likewise requires that campaigning be conducted in a candidate's private capacity.

It prohibits elected officials from campaigning in their official capacity, stating that officials may use their titles when engaging in political or partisan activity, but shall not state or imply that they are acting on the behalf of the assembly or the municipality, and also expressly prohibits the use of municipal resources for political or partisan activity.

Furthermore, our code specifically separates municipal ethics enforcement from APOC enforcement. It states that compliance with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, APOC, requirements under state statute is outside outside of the scope of this chapter and that elected officials have an independent duty to comply with APOC. Based on the plain language of our code, I believe this matter calls—. I'd like to call a point of order. I just feel like, Madam Chair, we're getting a little far afield of the merits of postponement versus the merits of the underlying items.

I'm talking about why we don't need to postpone it. It's because we have the information that we need before us in our code.

I think I will ask Member Silvers if you can really try to stick to postponement for this purpose.

Continuing to postpone this decision only prolongs uncertainty for the public and risks creating the impression that this body possesses authority that our code does not grant. Furthermore, my constituents in East Anchorage deserve a clear and timely clear, timely answer from their elected representatives, not a drawn-out process fueled by speculation on social media. They deserve to know whether this assembly has the legal authority to remove one of its members under these circumstances. They are out here tonight. They deserve to know this tonight.

If under our code the answer is no, then we should say so plainly and vote accordingly without delay. This clarity allows the public to pursue whatever remedies are actually available to them, including the ultimate remedy in a representative democracy, the ballot box.

Our responsibility tonight is not to substitute our judgment for that of the voters or trying to claim authority that we do not have. I believe the law is clear, and for that reason, I will be voting no on the motion to postpone. I ask for your support in respecting the voters of East Anchorage by bringing this matter to a decision tonight. Tonight. My constituents deserve clarity about the limits of this body's authority so that they can determine for themselves what, if any, further action they wish to take.

They should not be left in prolonged uncertainty or subjected to a drawn-out partisan process because we choose to delay a decision that the law already makes clear. Thank you. Next, I have Mr. McCormick. I will be in favor of the postponement.

In the 50 years that we've been united as a municipality, this body has not removed a member. This body has not censured a member before. Going to have a work session with legal counsel, understanding the full options, is something that would be prudent to do in the, in this unprecedented times. People, the people of Anchorage deserve an answer. If we allow unruly conduct to go on or we are silent in it, that is this body giving its tacit consent.

I'll be in support of the postponement. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Came into this meeting fully ready to rumble if that's— if that was the will of the body, and still am. Today, now. But I understand there's a request from leadership for more time.

This is an extraordinary moment in time that we're in, and we need to make sure that we get this right. So I'm okay with postponing, giving ourselves a little bit more time, postponing this bipartisan-introduced legislation for both of these measures, and giving ourselves a little more time, and that clarity that the member from East Anchorage was speaking to. There are questions about this process that I think are not exactly clear to every member of this body where a work session would be helpful to make sure everybody's on the same page and understands what exactly we are looking at and how exactly this process works. We need to make sure that we get this right because this is important. So I will be in, I am in agreement to postponing.

Mr. Handeland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not necessarily opposed to postponing this. I was ready to go forward, but I do understand and empathize, empathize with my colleagues here because this is something where we started looking at this and it has taken a long time to kind of delve some of the facts out. And that is really what ultimately we want is to get this information out and have it clear process.

It started with APOC, but then additional items have been raised that are clearly within the municipal authority, and we believe that light is the best disinfectant and that the people of Anchorage deserve answers on this. And so that's really what we're looking for. Thank you. Mr. Voland.

Um, no, nothing further. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Miss Scobb. I have a question. Perhaps this is for our legal counsel.

Um, is there anything preventing members of East Anchorage from circulating a recall petition while we on the assembly deliberate these two, um, proposals. Thanks. I will turn to Assembly Council or the Municipal Attorney.

Um, uh, thank you. This is, uh, on the fly, but as I understand our recall statutes, um, in AS 2926-4310, I think it is, or 3410, legally, you cannot commence a recall petition until 180 days after a member's been elected. And so that's 180 days from our recent April election, and I believe that time is mid-August or so. So no, it can't be commenced before that time. And then additionally, I think you asked about members from East Anchorage circulating, but a recall petition requires 10 qualified voters signatures to sign on to sponsor the petition application.

And there's a procedure where it first gets a legal sufficiency review by the municipal attorney's office, and then if it passes that, they can get the petition to collect signatures. Um, but again, it's premature at this point in time, and, um, I invite Attorney to add if she'd like.

Okay, point, point of information. Question, Attorney Gates. I believe you got the timeline correct of around August, but I believe it's 120 days, not 180. Not that I would ever question. Yes, I stand corrected for the record.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is that the ability of East Anchorage to take their own action on this is unrelated to our process. And I will ask, uh, please, members of the public, please refrain from speaking during this time. This is not a public hearing item. Go ahead, Ms. Scout.

Just restating that, um, the procedure for recall is unrelated to the procedure for these two items. Thank you.

Next, Ms. Baldende. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I see, um, these items as somewhat distinct from each other. One of them is a recitation of facts that are already in the public view, which I don't think there's question about. The second is something that's far more complex and, and I think merits a significant amount of our time and attention.

It is no small thing to ask an elected body to overturn the will of the voters. That is a serious, serious thing. And that is— that gets at the foundations of our democracy and our democratic process. And so I want the public to understand that this is not something that we ought to undertake lightly, particularly the second item that's before us, 12B. So I for one want to be very, very well informed about what that process looks like, what it entails, what the legal ramifications are, uh, where, where we must tread carefully.

Because again, this is not a process that has ever been undertaken before by this body. In fact, it didn't even exist in code until 2022, even though it existed in charter. So we are absolutely in untested waters, and I think that that merits really careful deliberation. The people of Anchorage, and in particular East Anchorage, absolutely deserve a timely decision from us, but they also deserve an accurate and an informed decision, which I think takes more time than we have this evening to really dig into in a substantive way. So I, I am in support of postponement.

I am in support of us taking this very deliberately Assembly, and I want to be clear that the Assembly has the authority to censure one of its own members. What is not clear is what the second piece of this process looks like, which is the question of the Assembly taking action to remove one of its own members. So I encourage my colleagues to support postponement so that we can get a really full picture of what it is that we might be embarking upon if we actually undertake this action. And I understand that members of the public might feel that it is our job to do the removing, but I want to ask you, is this a tool that you believe should be undertaken when you are on the opposite side of the question?

This cuts two ways. So let us be very, very careful about what we expect from our elected officials and what we expect from ourselves as citizens. As participants in democracy. Thank you, Chair.

Next, I have myself in the queue. Member Brawley.

Thank you. I've spoken as Chair and provided some guidance on procedure, so I'm going to continue to mostly engage in this process in that vein because part of my job is to manage this process with the clerk and the council, as I said earlier tonight. So I will say, as the chair, and speaking to the public who are here present and to all members present, my goal in this process is to ensure that we follow a fair process, that we do not use the process to unnecessarily delay or to abdicate our— I guess authority is not the right word— to not take up this item and dispatch with it in one way or another. This is not— a tactic of avoidance or delay or dilatory, I think is the term that Robert's Rules typically uses. So I want to state that clearly as a member and as the chair, that is not why I'm doing— why I'm proposing this action.

I think other members have said this is a serious thing. I have spent probably triple-digit hours talking about this, maybe double-digit, but it feels like a long time. And I'm not offering that to say that you should pity me for my time management or time priorities. But to say that, that the more that one digs into this, the more legal questions it raises, the more process questions it raises. And at the end of the day, we want to be fair and we want to make sure that the process we follow can be upheld, because whatever happens and, and is in the record, uh, is there forever and will be the precedent for if and when anything like this happens again.

So this is the responsibility we have as members. It's not just about this item, for the chair, and really for the whole body. It's about protecting the branch. It's about protecting the institution. And I want to separate those questions and considerations from individual feelings or opinions about this matter and from the individual— I guess the broader questions that I will characterize as the court of public opinion.

That is not the realm that we need to operate in. That is certainly the realm that the rest of the public can operate in. In, um, but that is not the standard. And so other members have spoken to this reason. So again, I will urge postponement.

And then I will also again say, uh, for those interested in really understanding the process, especially if we have the additional benefit of having this work session, um, the work session is, is right now scheduled for Friday, July 17th. It will not talk about the merits of these items. It will talk about the process. It will give members and give members the opportunity to ask questions to get their legal clarifications that they need. We will have some additional materials outlining what we understand this process would look like, including any unknowns that we have not yet resolved.

And also it will— for the public, there will not be obviously an opportunity to speak or participate, but an opportunity to also understand the implications of this process. And lastly, I will say again what I said said 2 weeks ago is if anyone is interested in what the removal process looks like, the most recent discussion on that item was AO 2022-60, simply about the process. It was an ordinance not relating to any action against an individual person, and there was at least 5, at least 5, maybe 6 hours of public testimony questioning whether the assembly should have this power. Questioning when and how it should be used and stated over and over that the assembly should not have the power to undo the will of voters. And so, and some of these, some of the folks here may have been present in that room, I don't know, but I would encourage if anyone is interested in digging into this to go back and listen to maybe not the entire public testimony but listen to the debate to get a flavor of the gravity of this question, why I believe postponement is very much in order and why I both as a member and a chair welcome the opportunity to get better— or not better, I should say, we've had great legal guidance—.

To get more full legal guidance and the opportunity to really understand what we may embark on if we pursue either of these items. Thank you. Next, I have Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair.

My concern overall is that the rule of law be followed. We have no authority to remove a member for cause. That is, that is not in code. What we can do is provide some time to fully complete an investigation, to gather all the facts, and to ensure that due process is followed. Due process process is, is a basic tenet of the rule of law, and we deserve, and the public deserves, all the pertinent information, whether mitigating or whether aggravating.

And so I will be voting to postpone. Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Gates.

Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make a slight Correction to a statement earlier. Our charter, when it was adopted, when the municipality unified, included a section on removal in Charter 701, but it directed the assembly to implement by adopting procedures. That was not done until 1993. 1993, An ordinance adopted the section for removal of assembly member and section for removal in Title 29 for removal of the school board member.

So we did have these procedures in place since 1993 for those two bodies. But again, I don't think any of us have ever found an instance where it was ever used. The 2022 ordinance recognized at the time that there was an omission in that there was no removal for the mayor, also elective office, which Charter provided for. So that was the 2022 ordinance. It filled that remaining gap to the charter for removal proceedings and added that new section for removal of mayor and made amendments to the sections for removal of an assembly member and school board member.

And it also added a procedure for removal of the other elected officials in municipality which are members of elected service area boards. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much for the clarification, Mr. Perezverdia. Thank you. I think most of my points have already been shared by other members.

Just, um, one other. I am concerned about the, the coupling of these two items, and I realized that that was done, uh, in order to, to do the postponement. But as we move forward and look at this work session and how we are receiving information from legal and others in terms of our process and, and that sort of thing, I really want to make a very clear distinction between these between these two. They're very, very different. And so I don't know if that means two work sessions, or it means the work sessions is clearly split between two very different set of processes.

So I just want to make that, that point really, really clear. And I do support postponement for all the reasons that I've already heard, and look forward to getting more counsel from, from legal as we proceed. And I would just repeat what's been said. We need to be very cautious and very thoughtful about how we proceed. Forward with these items.

Thank you.

Mr. Voland. Okay, sorry, both members in the queue have already spoken, so I will go first to Ms. Silvers.

Yes, so I guess I have a question. Kind of, Member Perez-Fredia kind of hit the nail on the head with why are we pairing these two items together. And I guess— so I have a question for the chair. Do we have questions about our process or our authority to issue a censure? I'm going to turn to the attorneys.

We have a running list of questions, and maybe they could clarify which ones would apply to the censure process.

I think while they're talking, I can offer, uh, our clerk, um, they are also converting, uh, our clerk who is out of the office today, um, and we have our fill-in deputy clerk Our clerk Jamie Hines has been really involved in this, so she did offer a couple of questions, uh, specifically on the censure. I'll just read it out because it's in an email to me. The assembly is bound to Robert's Rules of Order, which does not specifically spell out the censure procedures. It spells out disciplinary procedures. So the clerk at that time was unsure if Robert's Rules, uh, was the intent or if there's another process.

And so the question is really, what is the process for a censure if approved. What is the, the way that that is put into action was one of them.

I think the clerk is also out of the office and notes that they're working on policies and procedures. I believe that may relate more to record gathering.

Another question was if the censure is approved, it states Section 4, the Assembly intends this censure as it is complete and proportionate response to this matter, and essentially it says that the assembly considers the matter closed and contemplates no further action. So if, if that is passed as an example, uh, and then there is a motion to approve the other one, then how does that affect— so, so I— to Mr. Presverdia's point, these certainly are separate actions, and the intent is not that they are debated in a set or that they are conflated, or they're, they're two separate things. But for the really a lot of the questions that they raise, there's separate questions about how each of these processes work There's questions about how they may or may not interact with each other, and all of them really— there's also kind of some degree of resource questions associated with both of them too. So there are certainly fewer questions around the censure process, but because it's not in our code, then we really have to dig more into Robert's Rules and figure out how that interacts with the processes we have. One example that I was given as well is censures are often verbal statements in a meeting by motion.

They are not in a necessarily written items. And so again, we do our business by written resolution or by written items, but the Robert's Rules process does not necessarily contemplate that. So again, there's— it's not that there isn't a process we can use, but we have to be very clear about what we're doing and why. And I'll turn back to the attorneys if you have additional information to add. No, that was pretty much what we wanted to say, that there, with the absence of the clerk and the question regarding Robert's Rules, to the extent to which they may govern this process, we're not 100% on the same page as to providing you a clear answer as to the extent to which they may govern.

So, absent her ability to give input on that, yeah, we, we, we would prefer wait until we can confer with her and also, um, determine amongst the three of us the, the proper procedure.

Uh, Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I guess I'll just piggyback onto that and say that, you know, there's some interpretation with Robert's Rules that a censure is a, uh, essentially a verbal threat from the body to expel a member from the meeting. So censure has different definitions based on, you know, whether you're talking Roberts Rules or whether you're talking something that would be part of a jurisdiction's code or federal, a federal meaning. So there are still questions about that piece.

To Member Perez Verdia's point, I think the reason that we postponed these together was because we are intending to have the work session on, on both pieces. But I certainly hear that feedback, and we can structure that in a way, I think, that takes, you know, here's, here's the information presented on one item, and here's the information presented on the other, and make sure we're not commingling them. Again, the intent is not to debate any of the merits of the items. And that's a typical work session process. We don't normally debate the merits of an item.

It's more just information gathering in work sessions. And, um, going forward, I mean, this would really be, I think, the only motion that we are moving forward to take these items together, and that's just so we can have that full meeting I think leadership intends to keep them separate from there on out after that work session. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. McCormick, I think, uh, Mayor Perez Verdia, for your question on keeping them separate, obviously these were written very separately, both put on the addendum.

Um, I know for, for our part in co-sponsoring, uh, the censure, we wrote that without knowing or seeing if documentation was coming regarding the removal process, we wanted to say a response. Seeing now the removal process resolution come forward, we would obviously like to see these separate. I appreciate the work session and being included in that so we can all learn more about the process. But going forward, my intent would be that we address the removal process before the, the censure for the reasons that Chair Brawley read through with regards to, to our forwarding. So thank you.

Miss Paulunde. Yeah, I just wanted to offer an explanatory note to the public who is listening to us have this conversation in real time. And if you're wondering why we are talking about this in this fashion and it seems like we've not discussed this at all with one another, that's because we haven't. So there's something called the Open Meetings Act that governs our processes here on the assembly, and we are legally prohibited from speaking to any other member or more than 2 other members members about any given item. And so because, for example, myself, Member Scout, and Member McCormick collaborated to bring forward one of these resolutions, we have not discussed this matter with anybody else who is sitting on this dais.

And that is why we are having this conversation here tonight the way that we are and working things out together in real time, because this is the first time we've actually had the opportunity to speak about this as a whole body. And so if you're wondering why it seems like we're hashing things out in front of you, that's exactly what's happening, and that is always the rule, that is always the law that governs our operations here on the assembly. So just for the public's awareness, the Open Meetings Act is the thing that forces us to have these conversations right here out in public in front of you, and that is one of the ways that we guarantee transparent governance and leadership. Nothing happens in back rooms, things don't happen behind closed doors, everything happens right here on the bias, and it lives forever on YouTube. So, um, that is why this is unfolding this way.

Okay, um, the only member in the queue has already spoken twice on this item, and so there's no one further in the queue. Members may proceed to vote. Again, the motion on the floor is, uh, to postpone both items 12A and 12B to the regular meeting of July 21st.

On a vote of 10 to 0, uh, both of these items, AR 2026-191 and AR 2026-192 have been postponed to our next regular meeting on July 21st. With that, we are for real going to take our dinner break. I will note that we know it is relatively later than, than typical, and so I will ask members to, if you can, eat quickly. We will be back at 8:40. licenses in case any of these other ones go along. So with that, I'll move into AR— or sorry, AO-2026-81-14A, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 5.23 acres from R-5 low-density residential district to R-2M mixed residential district for Township 12 North, Range 3 West, Section 5, Northwest 4, Southeast 4, Southeast 4, Southeast 4, PTN, Township 12 North Range 3 West Section 5 Southwest 4 Northeast 4 Southeast 4 Southeast 4 Seward Marinette.

Public hearing on this item is now open. Would anyone wish to come forward and testify?

Thank you. And I'll remind you to please use the button on the front to turn on the microphone. State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes unless you're speaking for the community Council. Thank you and good evening.

My name is Roberta Bear and I live adjacent to this property. I'm requesting that you not pass the zoning amendment from R-5 to R-2M. And in May, the Abbott Loop Community Council passed Resolution 2026-03 also to not support this change. Hopefully, I think it's in your packet. I live on Zion Court off O'Brien and 74th, which is adjacent to the property described in this ordinance.

With the R2M zone and the potential for 3 or 4 plexes being built on the 10 lots along O'Brien, I'm concerned that the street O'Brien will become overloaded with traffic and vehicles. Currently, O'Brien is a narrow street with vehicles passing between Lure and 72nd, both to homes along O'Brien but also as pass-through thoroughfare. There are also pedestrians and dog walkers that use the roadway, as there are no sidewalks or other places to walk along this unlit street. During the winter, with snow piled up along the edges of O'Brien, it becomes essentially a 1.5-lane road with no lighting. When neighbors park along O'Brien, it becomes a single-lane road.

This is difficult and unsafe to navigate with the cars, pedestrians, dog walkers, and slick surfaces. With the potential of up to 10, uh, fourplexes along O'Brien, each with 8 cars, that's a lot of potential new traffic and street parking. In 2025, this subdivision was platted R-5, allowing construction on 20 lots. Several requests for variance were made. Requested variances granted removed the requirement to upgrade surrounding streets to include adequate width, drainage, and sidewalk for the increased density.

My understanding is that these waivers will hold if this requested zoning change takes place. Early June, excavation began in and along this property. One of the changes was a steep ditch made along the southeast edge of the property along O'Brien. I'm concerned that the ditch makes an already narrow roadway unforgiving and unsafe. I would like to see the developer move the ditch further onto their property and leave a wider level surface adjacent adjacent to O'Brien so the roadway stays as wide as possible using some of the 30 feet of easement along that east side of the property.

This will allow more space for pedestrians and drivers to use the road as safely as possible. In closing, I understand that rezoning to R2M fits into the proposed missing middle housing opportunity plan. However, as a result of the potential maximum increase in homes along O'Brien, I do not believe the zone change from R5 to R2M is in the best interest in the overall compatibility with the existing neighborhoods and will create unsafe conditions along the adjacent roadways. What I hope you will consider is if the potential of adding 80 homes with families and vehicles to this 5-acre parcel is in the best interest of this location and the infrastructure in existence. Unless the developer is required to upgrade the west side of the O'Brien along this development, I believe it would be in the best interest for all to keep the impact of the increase in traffic along O'Brien to the amount afforded by the R-5 zoning.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Good job.

Okay, uh, any additional members of the public wish to testify, please come forward.

And if multiple folks do intend to testify, um, I'd also encourage you to line up., you can do that in a line in the center as well. Thank you. So next person, microphone is off, so please turn it on. State your name, uh, what part of town you're in. You have 3 minutes.

Okay, my name is Patricia Anderson. One second while we make sure the timer is working. Go ahead. Okay, my name is Patricia Anderson. I live on the corner of East 74th and Byrne, adjacent to this parcel.

I oppose the rezone from R-5 to R-2M. Any multi-unit dwellings in this area would add too much density and traffic on Zurich, O'Brien, and East 74th, and back up cars accessing East 72nd and Lower Road. There are no other roads from Basil to Lake Otis between East 72nd and Lower Road to relieve congestion. Case S12825 requested a variance to improve adjacent roads Roads, which was granted per Planning Board Resolution 2025-011 for the R-5 lots in June of 2025. Triad Engineering report supporting the request for another variance from establishing East 74th as a right-of-way based on their assessment of 17 single-family residential lots and one tract.

This assessment opponents cited the cost of doing the upgrade, increased traffic volume, noise, and potential safety concerns as reason to put two more single-family homes in place of the right-of-way for East 74th. That variance request was not approved, but now with any multi-unit structures, all those problems would occur. I recently sent an email to Triad querying if they had been asked to revise their engineering part per this rezone request. Would their opinion be the same as a year and a half ago about what would ensue now if there were 20 multi-unit dwellings? A reply stated that Triad has not been involved with the rezone application for that property.

As I said, last year's report was based on 17 single-family lots and one tract. The traffic on O'Brien, Zurich, and E74 would, would be amplified tremendously by the density of multi-units that do not have to have on-site parking. With the Anchorage average of 2.3 vehicles per housing unit, multi-units present a nightmare for our neighborhood as there will be parking on our narrow streets. I have not heard any discussion about the impact on us neighbors in our quiet neighborhood with the density of people and vehicles this rezoning would bring. Already the R-5 relaxed zoning allowed duplex and ADU on these approximately 7,500-square-foot lots.

That is already too dense. This new subdivision was introduced January 30th, 2025 to the Abbott Loop Community Council by S4 Group. S4 stated then that AWWU didn't support water in the area and that wells would be used for private water. Awwu does have water mains in the area. Alpine Village subdivision is on wells, and we need to protect our well water.

I believe any new dwelling should be on city water. We should not have to worry about our private water source with new construction. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Uh, next person, please come forward.

Again, uh, turn the microphone on with the green button, state your name what part of town you're in. You have 3 minutes.

Yes, go ahead. Um, I'm Louise Leaf, owner of a home as well as a mother and grandmother of residents living on Zurich. Across from the parcel, the builder is trying to rezone from R-5 to R-2M. Per MOA descriptions, a rezone change to R-2M would allow single, duplex, triplex, also density of up to 30 units units per acre. The two parcels we're talking about are 5.22 acres together.

The builder says he wants to build single-family units, so why rezone? For a few neighbors he has spoken with, he says he needs to be able to increase each building's footprint. Currently, he's only allowed to use 30% of each lot, and he needs 40% footprint. Even if the builder now says he will only build single-family dwellings on the 20 lots, who's to say he won't change his mind? He has mentioned that he may sell some of the lots off to other builders.

With R-2M, new builders could build multi-unit buildings. So I urge you to decline the rezone request for two main reasons. The first is roads, the second's water.

The roads are Class B or lower. They are narrow, strip paved, no sidewalks, no walkways, no lighting, no curbs. In April July last year, the builder requested variance from the MOA Planning Board so he wouldn't have to improve the roads to Class A and keep them at Class B. The variance was granted, most probably because the lots are zoned R-5, low density, not R-2M. Interestingly, per Municipal Traffic Engineering Department, with 1 to 2 family units on 22 lots, a subdivision could generate between 200 to 450 additional annual average daily trips for two-family units.

Water—. All the homes on the surrounding streets, with maybe a few exceptions on Lower and East 72nd, get their water from wells. My understanding is the builder is planning to use wells for the 20 lots rather than tie into the city water mains on Lower and East 72nd. If the 20 lots are rezoned to R2M and somehow multiple units are built, this could affect the water table, affect the wells, the amount of water, and quality. Decisions with the planning board last year regarding use of well water for the 20 lots reviewed by AWWU were made with the knowledge that the lots were zoned at R-5, not R-2M.

So I wonder why the builder is requesting rezone now instead of just asking for a variance from the planning board, as he did last year successfully— a variance to increase increase the footprint size of the units. I'm suspicious of the builder requesting such a drastic rezone change instead. We all agree more housing is needed, but please build correctly and safely. Please do not allow the rezone to R-2M. Allowing this would leave many openings for unsafe traffic conditions and well water problems, and who knows whether— what other problems not yet realized.

Why take chances with the health and safety of the current residents and neighborhood. Please leave the parcels same— the same zoning as they are now, R-5. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Uh, yeah, you can leave the microphone on.

Uh, microphone's already on. Again, please state your name, uh, what part of town you're in, and you have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Kate Sauve. That's S-A-U-V-E. I am the petitioner's representative for this case.

This is an abbreviated rezone that implements the comprehensive plan. The site has been been designated as compact mixed residential medium in the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan since it was published in 2017. This case seeks to enact that land designation through the regular process. No reviewing agencies, including traffic, DOT, private development, or right-of-way, had any comments in objection to this rezone. A water availability study has been conducted for the site, which concluded that additional wells would not impact the surrounding area.

That study has been reviewed and approved by the municipality's on-site water and wastewater department. I would also like to mention that this site lies within the proposed missing middle housing opportunity overlay map per proposed AO number 2026-85, and that if that AO was in effect, this rezone may have been superfluous. I ask that you vote in favor of this action and would be happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Would anyone else wish to testify? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed. What is the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Volland to approve, second by Ms. Scout. Currently I have no one in the queue.

Okay, first Mr. Presverdia.

Thanks, I would just like to— I think that we know some of this, like to hear from the administration in terms of what we understand the intent for this property to be used for.

Yeah, and I believe we have members of planning staff, and then also note it sounds like we have a representative for the petitioner as well. So if there's questions to direct to her, I think she's also available. And but we'll have comments from our planning director. So, and the microphone needs to be turned on.

Through the chair to Member Perez Verdea, as far as we are aware, the plan was for duplexes. We have not heard anything more from the petitioner regarding the development plan beyond the rezoning. And we heard earlier that the studies, the water studies and traffic, those have all been complete at this point? The, um, reviewing agencies, which include, um, water, um, on-site, um, and traffic and, um, various other agencies— those reviews for this rezone have been completed. If there is a permit that comes in for development, that would all be reviewed again as well by the same agencies.

Thank you.

Next, Ms. Baldwin-Day. I think Member Perez-Verdía just articulated my question, which, you know, was just to verify that the rezone evaluation is a general evaluation, and then there's a sort of a second round of review that happens when there is a specific plan or proposal on the table. And at that point, there's a more granular assessment. I just want to be sure that I'm correct in that assumption, that fire, traffic, right-of-way, all of those folks would weigh in again on the specifics of an actual set of plans. Yes, through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, um, when permits come in for review, um, for approval, there is a whole checklist of items that each development has to meet, and then we may request additional information from the applicant for that permit to make sure that they actually meet requirements such as, you know, will this— the well support the number of dwellings they're proposing, things like that.

And one, one follow-on question to that. So, um, I appreciate the fact that neighbors are concerned about things like lighting, like pedestrian facilities, those sorts of things. Um, at what— can you comment on it— what threshold something like that would actually be required of a private developer versus the municipality coming in to, to install those kinds of amenities. Through the chair to Member Baldwin-Day, that's a tiny bit outside of my wheelhouse. I wish traffic were here, or I was going to say that's, that's fair, Mr. Coy is not here.

Um, but my understanding that it is that as part of the subdivision, um, process, uh, the approval for the plat that was approved, um, just a little while ago, they are required to upgrade the surrounding roads roads, maybe not 74th, but the surrounding roads to Class B standards. And I'm not sure about the lighting, but I do know that there was a request from the municipality for them to improve the 74th right-of-way for a pedestrian pathway through that area. Great, thank you, very helpful.

Next I have Mr. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, to Member Baldwin-Day's line of questioning, I do want to highlight that we passed Assembly policy guidance via resolution saying that we should prioritize investment, uh, essentially following housing density. That should be one of our considerations. Decisions when we decide where are we going to invest in infrastructure or our parks.

One of the things that, that we should look at when we're putting our capital improvement program together is housing density. So I just think that's maybe something to, to point out. We should be looking at these, at these things holistically.

I want to read just an excerpt from the packet bit on this. Um, the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan classifies these parcels with the land use designation of Compact Mixed Residential Medium and Transit Supported Development Growth Supporting Features. Two tracts are currently zoned R-5, which is not an implementing zoning district for Compact Mixed Residential Medium land use classification. The proposed rezoning from R-5 to R-2M for the subject properties would bring these parcels into compliance with the Anchorage 2040 Land Use So currently, uh, the, the zoning is actually not in compliance with what the community has said. Okay, this is our plan.

This is what we're going— where we're going to move forward. This is how we envision, um, our land use. Um, and to that point, I, I want to, um, ask the planning director. Um, another member asked a question about, you know, what is going to be maybe built on this property. Um, and I think, you know, sitting in these seats, we can all have our own individual rationales for the decisions we make and why.

Um, but in terms of planning practice and rezones, is that, um, a consideration that is looked at, or is it more this follows the land use plan and the classifications? Or do we ask a petitioner, well, what are you going what do you want to do with the property? And I guess, what is your insight into best planning practices around that type of questioning?

Through the chair to Member Voland, um, the department has changed its practices recently to not ask that question on a rezone application because we believe it puts the applicant in a position where they may give us information that they think we want to hear, and until we actually see a building permit, we, we don't actually know if they're telling us what they're doing, you know, actually going to do with the property. So we're removing that question from our applications. But in addition to that, even though it was on our applications, it was not used as a criteria for approving the rezone or not. It was just a matter of information.

Yeah, thanks. I think that's helpful, helpful, because the way that I look at this is the zoning sets the condition for what types of uses would be allowed. What sets the condition for the zoning is our adopted plans, 2020 Comp Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan, and that's how I feel we should be making this decision. Um, Um, I, I think with that being, you know, the one thing I guess I will add on is that I think we need more duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes. Um, and that is consistent with the work that the assembly has been doing over the past few years, um, is to support missing middle housing.

But that being said, my decision for this rezone is predicated upon wanting a certain use type or not. It's really, is this consistent with our adopted plans? And so for that reason, I hope my colleagues will also support this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, no further members in the queue on this item, so members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 11 to 0, that item AO-2026-81 unanimously passes the body. Next we have item AO-2026-83, an ordinance amending the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan Map designation of one lot containing approximately 0.019 acres— or sorry, 0.19 acres— from Compact Mixed Residential Medium to Town Center for lot 21 Moorhans Subdivision Edition Number 4, Plot 72-122. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify on this item.

Hello again, Kate Sauve, S-A-U-V-E. I am the petitioner's representative. This comprehensive plan and the related zoning amendment following it will expand the budding B-3 zoning district and is recommended for approval by both the Planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. No reviewing agencies have any objections to the case. I would also like to point out that this site also lies in within the proposed Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Overlay Map per proposed AO number 2026-85, and if that AO was in effect, this rezone may be unnecessary.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Uh, would anyone further like to testify on this item? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Mr. Voland to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Voland. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do have a question for the representative of the petitioner, if you don't mind coming back to the podium there. And will you state your name for me one more time? Kate Sov. Sov? Yes.

How I pronounce it? Okay, thank you, Ms. Tsove. Um, you mentioned on this item and the prior item that had the missing middle housing overlay or the transit supportive development corridor, um, had that overlay been in effect, you wouldn't have necessarily had to go through this rezone process. For my own curiosity, can you describe sort of what is entailed in terms of time, cost on this rezone process? That may have been avoided.

Uh, so for these two cases, it would have been very different. For the case we just voted on, that was an abbreviated rezone. That process takes about 6 months. They have lowered the planning fees for that, so the fee per the MOA for that is only $200. For this case, since it is a— involves a comprehensive plan amendment, and we have to go to community councils.

It usually takes about 9 months, and the fees for— are about $8,000 to $9,000 depending. So it is a lengthy process to go through. It is an expensive process to go through. And yeah, they may have not been necessary if the current AO for the missing middle housing opportunity district wasn't Okay, thank you. That's very interesting.

I will be supporting this item. I think this one is, as we've heard, you know, a little bit more of a decision point for us than the prior because it's not sort of already adopted land use designation. We're making an amendment. So still, I will— yeah, I hope my colleagues will be supportive of this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you. Um, I just wanted to note that this particular site is actually one that, um, the community council is quite excited about because it does implement the town center that was originally envisioned for this area. So I would encourage my colleagues' support here, and I, I hope that there are similar rezones coming forward that will do, um, that will also implement the town center here. Thank you.

Seeing no one else in the queue, members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO-2026-83 unanimously passes the body. Next we have items—. Chair, I was in the wrong screen. Oh, I'm sorry, I vote to approve.

Oh, sorry, can the clerk reflect that Member Parks' vote is a yes? Yeah, we're doing that right now. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. 10 Is not 11, so thank you for speaking up.

OK, next is item 14C, AO 2026. 682, An ordinance amending the zoning map, uh, and approving the rezone of 2 lots containing approximately 0.45 acres from R-5 low density residential district and ROSL residential with special limitations district, uh, to B-3 general business district for lot 20 and 21, Moorhand Subdivision Addition Number 4, plat 72-122. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve, seconded by Mr. Vohland. Ms. Baldwin-Day, do you want to speak to it? No, self-explanatory. Thank you.

Um, I have myself in the queue, just very briefly. Member Raleigh. Thank you. Um, I'm going to make my one zoning comment for tonight. Committing to.

Um, but I will know if, if the name Moorhand Subdivision looks familiar. Um, I would— but back at least since I've been on the body for the last 3 years, um, this is the 4th, um, rezone of this particular lots in this particular subdivision down off Abbott Loop. So we're up to including this about over 3 acres, and some of them included land use designation changes the way that the prior item enabled. Others were just rezones. But just to note that clearly there's— clearly we missed the mark collectively as a community on the land use plan map for this area.

And so I appreciate that, that there is motion toward developing this area, but I think the disconnect between what was put on the plan originally and what is there now, or what is anticipated by the market, there's a disconnect there. So I just want to note this is not the So this is the fourth time that we're seeing this particular subdivision being rezoned. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member Park? Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AO-2026-82 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 14D, AO-2026-84, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 10.02 acres from CEB3SL Chugiak Eagle River General Business with Special Limitations District per AO-8565 as amended Granted to CERC Chugiak River Rural Commercial District for 4 parcels of land. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

And as you're coming up, I'll remind you the button on the front turns the microphone on to green. You can adjust the height if you like. There you go. And then state your name and what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes.

Good evening. I'm Joyce O'Connor, and I own this property. I bought it about about 4 years ago, and I thank you for taking up this consideration of changing it from special limitations to rural commercial. It also has— I've renovated the oldest log cabin in the municipality, built in 1947, and we're very proud of that, and I thank you for taking up this consideration.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Uh, would anyone else wish to come forward? Oh, I'm sorry, uh, so there's, uh, two members in the queue actually, so I'll first go to Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you so much, ma'am, for coming out. Just wanted to thank you, uh, for coming out, and, um, you know, I had a good conversation with John about this, uh, this proposal, so I'm excited to support it and support you, and thank you for everything you do in the community.

I will add I'm excited that the planning department supported it and the entire planning commission supported it, so I'm very excited about this prospect. Thank you. Thank you. And if you don't mind staying around for a minute, ma'am, if— ma'am, if you want to come back up for a minute, there's a question from Ms. Baldwin-Day.

I just have one question for you, if you don't mind answering, or a member of planning staff. I'm curious what the special limitations were that were placed on this parcel? You'd have to ask the Planning Commission. There were pages of them. Okay, no, no need to run.

Don't run, don't run. Sure.

Yeah, just want to make a note for my colleagues that special limitations in our zoning designations are notoriously challenging and create really so much confusion about what can and can't be built on a property. And so I was just curious what flavor of special limitations we were talking about this time around. It was built in 1985. I mean, it was, I think, zoned in 1985, and it was an old zoning, but most of the SL limitations that were around it are now eliminated. And mine was like the last piece of property Thank you.

It's okay. Francis, if you want to— or no, that's not Francis, that's Elizabeth. Um, if you want to drop me an email, that's fine too. Don't, don't feel like you have to dig through a massive folder to find it. Yeah, yeah.

Thank you. Um, so I don't believe there's any further questions, um, so you may, uh, sit down if you would like. Thank you for testifying. Um, and then also note Note for members, page what's labeled as 15 in our packet of 14D does include the ordinance AO2565 as amended, which outlines those limitations that was in the packet.

So public hearing on this item is still open. Would anyone else wish to testify? Kate, seeing and hearing no one, no one signed up on the phone. Public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Handeland to approve, seconded by Mr. Voland. Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Handeland? No other comments.

Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 11 to 0, 8-0 AR 2026-84 passes the body unanimously. Next we have item 14E. I will note that the request of the administration is to postpone this item to the next regular meeting and continue the hearing. So I will open the public hearing. Public hearing.

Oh, sorry, I need to read it actually. So AR 2026-166, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage adopting the 2026 Housing and Community Development Annual Action Plan 2026 Action Plan, which constitutes application to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Community Development Block Grant, the Home Investment Partnerships Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant, and appropriates the 2026 program year reimbursable grants from HUD in the amounts not to exceed $1,788,314 in CDBG entitlement when tendered, $616,173 in home entitlement. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward, and I'll remind you that we— if we continue the public hearing, that you would not be able to testify next time. Thank you. Uh, is this enough? It's on. Yeah, go ahead.

We have 3 minutes. Uh, Jamie Lopez, formerly Coalition for Loma. So this is my first time reading this thing. And I'm basically scanning through it, so it sort of went under the radar for me, as it does with most people who are outside. Uh, they lack access to the internet, they're not in offices all day long, uh, basically looking at things and doing Teams calls and all that, and so the people outside have absolutely no sort of idea of what is going on with this.

But, in general, uh, I'll skip the honey and the pork conversation for another day, And so just looking at this thing, I'm on page 61. AP65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities, 91.220. And so basically talks about outreach and reaching out to homeless persons, especially unsheltered persons, and assessing their individual needs. Municipality significantly increased its funding and coordination efforts directed towards unsheltered individuals. Individuals in addition to funding ACH, who leads a continuum of care to coordinate unsheltered outreach efforts, it only, not only increased the number of outreach workers connecting clients to resources and referrals, but also started funding those workers with flexible housing funds to move unsheltered, newly sheltered individuals into housing.

I have not really seen that. There are any number of people that I've come across on any given day, they're not getting help. And so the policy policies that have taken place within the past year, 2 years, uh, people are being displaced endlessly, driven like cattle to the point people cannot be found. And so say you sign up for an AHFC voucher and you don't check in within 2 weeks when your number is up, uh, and you don't— you missed the email— bam, they move on to the next one. Uh, say basically somebody's trying to find somebody, put them in the Alex Hotel, or get them into shelter, literally they cannot find people now, and they're losing opportunities all the time to be housed or just to get things to survive the day.

There are 4 things you sort of need, you know, with any given day: food, water, shelter, a place to go to the bathroom. And they don't have that right now. And so all the problems are just going everywhere, all over town. And those are the negative externalities of decentralization. People cannot get supportive services.

They cannot stable. And this right here, you know, as far as outreach, they're just not getting help. And so you do have, you know, Ruth Adolph and Tonya, and they go out. And Ruth is a nice lady, but she is law enforcement, and any number of people are not going to accept services from her. And then the alternative to that is Kathleen and Emily, and some people are not even getting calls back.

And so besides that, you've got the core team. It's based on telephone response model. And most of the people are not getting help from that either. And so you need to sort of step things up a bit, try getting people with lived experience doing the job. We're going out at all times, at all hours, going into trap houses, any number of places, because they are going all over the place now.

And that is what happens when you hunt the poor. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Anyone, anyone else wish to testify at this time, please come forward. Microphone is already on. State your name, what part of town you're in. You have 3 minutes.

My name is Sarah Short, and I am a resident of Anchorage, Alaska. I've been asking you guys for a treatment center for a long, long time. My comment on the money that the man was asking for is simply this: What would the community be like without those people there? It's like the liquor store. If it's not there, they don't have a place to go to.

I understand the concerns of the two representatives from downtown, but it's also extremely important to have the services where the services are needed, and the services are needed downtown. For 5 years I have walked these homeless camps, and we need help. We also need our potholes fixed. They're not getting fixed, but we got bike signs. And I'm sorry, the other thing I want to talk about is Mr. Martinez.

You guys expect us— it's public testimony. I can speak. Freedom of speech. You just need to wait. There is a limited public forum.

The item before us is a public hearing item related to this HUD action plan. You need to keep your testimony to that item. There's audience participation at the end of the meeting when you can speak on any topic you like. Oh, well then I'll come back and speak on that because that's 3 minutes. Minutes.

But I will say that urban and develop— the housing urban development, these grants that are going out, we should be using our tax money for that, not unacceptable travel. Thank you for your testimony. Um, would anyone else wish to testify at this time? Okay, Mr. Voland. Thank you.

I will move to postpone— excuse me, continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 21st. Second. Motion to continue the public hearing on this item to the meeting of July 21st. Motion by Mr. Folland, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. And as you said, Madam Chair, this is at the request of the administration.

Thanks. Thank you. And I'll note, um, in our code, um, when we have the public hearing continued, um, we do not debate on items. We only have a statement from the sponsor. So just a note for other members.

So, um, any objection to, uh, postponing this item to the meeting of July 20th?

Um, yeah, any objection to, uh, postponement of this item? Seeing and hearing none, uh, this item will be postponed to the meeting— uh, the— sorry, the public hearing will be continued to the meeting of July July 21st.

Next, we have Item 14F, AO-2026-90, and that is an ordinance authorizing the disposal of Heritage Land Bank parcels 5-010, 5-011, and 5-012, legally described as Lots 3, 4, and 5, Track 3, Maui Industrial Park subdivision, Plat 77131. Located in South Anchorage on Olive Lane at a negotiated price. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Uh, sorry, uh, motion by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Uh, Voland. Miss Ms. Baldwin-Day, do you want to speak to it?

No, but I believe if the administration or real estate would like to comment, I would welcome that if they would like. Okay. I will take that as a question if there is any comments from the administration on this item. Bob Dole, Director for Community and Economic Development. This property was disposed of as part of a— basically a silent auction.

The highest bid that came in for it. The intended use of it is compatible with the uses on each side of it. It's in an industrial area, and we feel it's in the best interest to accept the— what's basically the fair market value price for this parcel.

Okay, I see no further members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AO-2026-90 passes the body unanimously. Next we have Item 14G, that is AO-2026-91, an ordinance approving proposed levy upon connection rate by the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility for submission to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Public hearing on Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you would like to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by, um, Ms. Scout to approve, second by Mr. Bullen. Scout, would you like to speak to it? No, I welcome any comments from the administration or staff.

Okay, uh, not seeing any further comments, uh, no one in the queue, then members may proceed to vote.

On a vote of 11 to 0, item AO-2026-91 passes the body unanimously. Next we have item 14H, AO-2026-92, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code 4.60.090 to approve or to provide that all material modifications to park, recreation, or open space facilities within the Parks and Recreation Service Area must be reviewed publicly by the Anchorage Parks and Recreation Service Area Commission prior to approval. Public hearing— excuse me— public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you want to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, the public test—. Or the public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Volland to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Mr. Volland, would you like to speak to it? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so we do have an amendment.

Um, I would like to move proposed amendment number 1. Second.

Okay, motion to amend, um, sorry, it's a typo, motion to amend, um, With proposed Amendment Number 1 by Mr. Bullen, second by Ms. Baldwin-David. Would you like to speak to it, Mr. Bullen? No, that's okay. This is at the request of the mayor, so I'll turn to the administration to explain this amendment to us.

Thank you. Yeah, I believe we have meeting manager— or acting meeting manager, soon-to-be meeting manager, Mr. Fawzy. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the members of the assembly. This was an attempt in this ordinance generally to open the aperture of things that go to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

The animating example was the installation of the diving boards at Bartlett that normally would have gone to the Commission except that it was grant funded. And so there was nothing that really triggered it to go to the Commission. The first pitch that we sent across the transom, we opened the aperture, but then as we thought about it, we thought maybe we opened it a little too far. And so the language that was there in the first version said any new use or change of use of a park. We sort of thought that could spiral out of control if we just have a bloody path, we want to put some boards down, that changes the use of the path.

And that really wasn't the kind of thing that we were trying to get at. So this amendment hopefully has better targeted the goal, which is to still say in the language of the original item that if we are installing a new physical feature in a park which is at the competitive thresholds, that will go to the Commission. So something that was expensive and is a physical feature, or really anything that will elicit significant public interest. So we're hoping the assembly will support us in this, and then we'll live with it for a while and see if there are other changes that may need to be made down the road.

Thank you. Miss Baldwin-Day. Yeah, I'm curious, for, for purposes of this amendment and the ordinance as a whole, would this also pertain to bike paths, or are are those, are those considered recreation facilities? And I'm thinking specifically about the bridge collapse that happened on a bike trail. And would we really— if that would be sort of included under the terms of this AO, I don't think we would want to wait for the Parks Commission to weigh in before we initiated repairs on a collapsed bridge on a bike trail.

So, um, curious if that is sort of included in the umbrella. That is a great question, and the way the language is crafted now, it would apply to a material modification of a park, recreation, or open space facility. And I will look to the park director to say if parks have— if bike paths have traditionally been thought to be recreation facilities, and I'm getting a yes. So I think that would come into this, um, all of which does say, as we continue to workshop this, there may need to be sort of emergency escape hatches for those kinds of things. But the Parks Commission does meet monthly, and so it— for something like a bridge collapse, probably could be accommodated on that kind of timeline because we're not likely to replace place an entire bridge faster than 5 weeks.

But I think we are experimenting here. And so if in real world we are encountering problems, we will not be shy about bringing a further iteration to you.

Okay. Any other further questions, Ms. Baldwin-Day, or comments? No, I'm just thinking on the fly right now. I think I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment, and that is simply to add a sentence that states something like, in the case of emergency repairs, the parks director has discretion to move ahead, uh, has discretion to— sorry, I'm thinking in— I'm talking in first draft right now.

The parks director has the discretion to— I don't want to use the word circumvent, but that's the only word I'm coming up anybody? Help, friends! Obstruct! Um, so, uh, one suggestion I have, because we do have to keep order with our queue, is, uh, we could set this item aside, take up the other items, and come back to it, which would give time for a member who would like to make an amendment, uh, time to workshop with attorneys. So very wise of you, Chair Brawley.

Thank you very much. Thank you. So if there's no objection from the body, um, we will basically pause where we are, which is possibly an amendment to the amendment. But right now we're in the amendment for item 14H, and so we would move through our last 3 remaining items and come back to that one. So any objection to that?

Okay, I'm not quite sure of the technical name for that, but we will set this aside and, and take up our remaining public hearing items, and then we'll come back to it. Okay, so, so again, that is set aside for the time being, so we are moving on to our next public hearing item, which is AR 2026-169-14i, uh, and that is a resolution of the municipality of Anchorage amending the 2026 capital improvement budget, approving one or more master lease purchase agreement schedules, and appropriating an amount not to exceed $1,400,000 from the proceeds of one or more master lease purchase agreement schedules to the information technology operating Fund 607000 and the appropriation of said funds to the IT Capital Improvement Projects Fund 607800 for life cycle improvements within the IT department. Public hearing on this item is now open. What is the will of the body? Or sorry, public hearing is now open.

Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one. No one signed up on the phone. Public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the the will of the body.

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Voland to approve, second by Ms. Park. Any further discussion on this item, Mr. Voland?

None from me. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, seeing no one in the queue, then members may proceed to vote on this item, AR 2026-169. Member Baldwin-Day, we are voting on item 14-I. Are you a yes vote or a no vote?

Yes. Okay, uh, as reflected here, uh, Member Baldonday was a yes, so the vote is 11 to 0. Uh, the item AR 2026-169 passes the body unanimously. Uh, so that concludes, uh, for the time being, our new public hearing items pending, uh, resolution of— or pending a vote on, uh, 14H. So next we'll move on to our, uh, two, uh, public hearing items that are potentially, um,, or that involve applications for a liquor or marijuana license or a special land use permit for alcohol marijuana.

And so we sometimes are in a different posture with these. So the first one, I will open the public hearing. AR-2026-184, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating conditional protest regarding the renewal of restaurant eating place license 16087 for Driftwood Restaurant Concepts LLC, DBA Stock Steakhouse, located at 12110 Business Boulevard, Suite 2, Eagle River, uh, 99577. Public hearing on this item is now open. Would anyone wish to testify?

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

Second. Motion by Mr. Bolland to approve, second by Mr. Handeland. Any further discussion on this item? Uh, not seeing anyone in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AR 2026-184 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to Item 15B, Resolution AR 2026-185, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating its conditional protest regarding the renewal of package store licenses 4108 3906-4160 and 4186 for Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., DBA Fred Meyer. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the— move to approve. Second. Second.

Uh, motion by, um, Mr. Vohland to approve, second by, uh, uh, Miss Scout. I heard in stereo. Um, any further discussion on this item?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote on this item, AR 2026-185.

Member Silvers.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, um, AR 2026-185 passes the body unanimously. Uh, so we will move back up to item 14H, AO 2026-92. Um, and then I will note we were in the middle of a discussion about, uh, Amendment Number 1.

And I'll turn to Miss Baldwin-Day. I think you have the floor. Thank you. Um, I believe I have crafted an amendment to the amendment. So in the second to the last line, contract or management services, comma, insert the phrase to exclude emergency repairs as determined by the Parks and Recreation Director.

Okay, yeah, one moment. If, if you can provide the clerk a copy of that just so she has a— thank you. So I'll note in the meantime, uh, there was a motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to amend the amendment, uh, with the language as described that will be transcribed momentarily, seconded by Mr. Mullins. And so we'll give the clerk just a minute to type that in so we can have it up on the screen, then we We'll proceed.

Okay, and I'll ask the sponsor to double-check. Does that reflect your intent? Yes, this reflects my intent, and this was not a hypothetical, by the way. This is actually something that happened in my district, and there was a pretty immediate response from the community about when the bridge will— when will the bridge be repaired. I want to give credit where credit is due, Parks and Rec did a phenomenal job of creating a really stable workaround.

And so this is, this is not a theoretical, this is the thing that's actually happened. And I would, I would hate for folks, especially folks who use our trails for commuting purposes, to be held up by something needing to go to the Parks and Rec Service Area Commission prior to something like like a bridge repair being initiated.

Thank you. Any further discussion on this amendment to the amendment?

Seeing no in the queue, then members may proceed to vote again on the amendment to the amendment as stated on the screen.

On a vote of 11 to 0, uh, the Amendment, uh, Number 1 is now amended. We're back on the amendment Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Don't see anyone in the queue. Okay, members may proceed to vote on the amendment as amended.

Vice Chair Voland.

We know it's getting late.

On a vote of 11 to 0, the Amendment Number 1 passed. We're back on the main motion. Is there any further discussion on this item?

Member Brawley. Thank you. This is just very briefly. Well, I guess two things. I don't remember when exactly the explosion of emails about the diving boards happened.

It might have been when most of the folks up here were not on the body, so please consider yourselves lucky that you avoided that incident. But I'm glad that there is a corrective action being brought forward. The one thing that I had considered an amendment to this, so I'm putting this on the record instead after some conversations earlier today with the administration. The potential concern that I had was around the order of operations for accepting private grants or other money. The idea being that if, you know, if the order of operations is the assembly accepts money, the project moves forward, and then really what's being discussed by the Parks and Rec Commission is the details of that project, I worried that the expectation might be set early on to say if we accept funding for Project A and Project A is described by the funder to include XYZ or to look a certain way, right, to have a lot of detail, it could set up a public expectation that things work out out exactly like that.

So the question was, would something like an acceptance of a grant or a donation, things like that, would that become something that goes to this commission? Because it would need to come to the commission in theory before, before it goes to the assembly. So, so we went back and forth and didn't decide on specific language. But I just want to put on the record that the intent should be that ideally in situations like that where there are substantial grants that would impact public facilities or modify them, that even before going into the details of the project, it may be wise to bring it to the Commission, again, partly to make sure that we are compliant with code, but also to really manage or make best use to public expectations about what that could look like. So that was the concern.

I just want to put that on the record. And I will yield I yield back the floor. Thank you. Miss Silvers.

Yeah, I have a question, um, of the administration. How would this affect something like painting a mural in the park or on public property? For example, the Stream Middle School students are planning to paint a mural in a tunnel. How would this affect something like that?

Through the Chair to Members Sailors, let's see if I'm on the same page with the Parks Director, but I don't think it is likely that this would go there unless there was some reason to think it was going to elicit significant public interest, which is a little bit of a judgment call. So the, the two settings that we have now are first whether it's a physical improvement that is being competitively solicited, which is not the scenario that we're talking about here, and then the last is that catch-all that if we feel like this is going to be a big public conversation, we would send it to the Commission. I would think that murals generally would not fall in that category. Maybe we would take the temperature of the assembly too to help inform that decision.

Thank you.

Okay, any further discussion on this item?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, no one in the queue, uh, members may proceed to vote on AO 2026-92 as amended.

On a vote of 10 to 1, uh, this item, uh, AO 2026-92 passes the body. Uh, that takes care of all of our public hearing items, so the remaining pieces of our agenda we will move to now. The next one is audience participation. Anyone who would like to participate, please come forward and you will have 3 minutes to speak. So again, the reminder, the microphone is already on.

State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. And again, this is not on a specific topic, it's topic of your choice. Please proceed. Again, my name is Sarah Short and I'm just going to read to you Anchorage Municipal Code AMC 2.70.030.

Vacancies— oh, sorry. Key provisions relevant to your query. Grounds for removal. A member may be removed from office for a breach of public trust, willful knowing breach of duty, or culpable indifference to duties. The code lists examples.

Perjury directly covers lying under oath. Violations of Chapter 1.15, falsification of records or filing false reports. Reports. I would believe that filing a false APOC report not listing other businesses would qualify. Substantial breach of statutory code or charter-imposed duty.

You all, not just George Martinez, but all of you, have a duty to this community to make sure that our tax dollars are spent the way it's supposed to be spent. I'm a disabled veteran. I'm a mother of 7, and I have a budget that I live upon. I have walked for 5 years the homeless camps. I have helped put people away that are distributing drugs in this town and robbing our community of family trust and money.

What you guys potentially could be doing is robbing the Eastside and Anchorage. I don't live in Eastside, but it matters to me. You know why? Because that money came from me too. I don't have the ability like the Eastside to go do a recall, and I don't have the time or the money.

You all have an obligation to make sure each other is ethical, and any assembly person that does not not see that as part of their duty is wrong, and I'm going to be questioning everyone. I'm going to go through your APOC files. I'm going to go through yours. I'm going to go through yours, and I'm definitely going through yours. I've already been looking at them.

I want each one of you to call these people on the carpet, and no more travel for Mr. Martinez to go visit his mother in Puerto Rico. That is a bunch of bullshit. The state of Alaska depends on our communities and our families, and they depend on you guys as elected officials to act like you're supposed to, with ethics. I'm on a budget. That woman over there said that we are under fiscal crisis.

So you tell me how going to Puerto Rico or traveling to and from Fort Lauderdale for a 63-minute layover so I can collect my Emerald miles is okay. It's not okay. So whoever approves this— Chris Constant approved it. Thank you. He needs to be looked at as well.

Once you're out of office, thank you for— then we can sue you without— next person, municipal attorney.

Next person, please come forward. Um, you have, uh, 3 minutes to testify. Microphone's already on. Please state your name, what part of town you're and you can speak. My name is Frances Seder.

I'm the planning and zoning chair for U Med Tudor Community Council. And now for something completely different, um, I wanted to make a comment on making room for winter on Denali Street, and I'm basing this on projects I was involved with surrounding Piper and 42nd Avenue. And mistakes we made. Frankly, I learn a lot from my mistakes. So, um, one thing— and Mr. Koi forwarded me this, uh, particular project— there's no site distance study.

So when you build snow up at the side of Denali Street, which I commend the administration for trying to save money, but But the snow will be higher and lower at different times. And one of the mistakes we've made on 42nd is we pile snow at the corners and people get into accidents. So that really concerns me. And the snow height will vary at the edge of the street. Then it's pretty commonly held that we should not block the storm drains.

Because when the snow melts, that presents a particular problem. And I thought I had a brilliant idea about where to put the snow, and I found out I was completely wrong.

We don't have a comprehensive traffic study done on this. And when I was involved with 40th Avenue, I got used to looking at those studies, and there just isn't one. So we don't know how emergency vehicles are going to travel down Denali Street, and that worries me Mr. McCormick, I'm sure you're familiar with red bed status, which means in acute care we need to change hospitals and very, very quickly. And every minute counts when we're dealing with brain injury survivors and stroke survivors. And we have primary care stroke facilities right in that area where people will need to be moved.

So— but my final comment is really the most important I had an idea to pile all the snow up in the park, which I'm— oh, I'm sorry, the park person may not be here. But that's an incredibly bad idea, and I thought it was brilliant, but it isn't.

Snow load from streets contains, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water, it contains cadmium, lead, zinc, mercury, those are heavy metals. The snow is actually toxic off of our roadbeds, and we're talking about Benson, Northern Lights, and 36, and we're going to be piling the snow up. I don't know how high, the study doesn't say, but that snow is toxic. So that's very concerning, especially because it will be near Cuddy Park, and any pile of snow is like a magnet to children. They're going to want to, um, thank you for participating.

Oh, do I get a little bit longer since I'm— no, I'm sorry, everyone gets 3 minutes. Um, but if you do have additional comments or you'd like to share, you can email us or provide documents. I would love to, um, email. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

Would anyone wish to testify? Um, so, so you've already— okay, you're describing something. Thank you. Uh, anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. Microphone is already on.

State your name, what part of town you're in, you'll have You have 3 minutes.

All right, so one second.

All right, uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition Formerly Homeless. So, uh, let's see, another convening of the George Martinez OnlyFans fan club. Uh, Mr. Goker, you are a subscriber. Mr. Hanlon, you are a subscriber. Uh, no refunds, guys.

OnlyFans, OnlyFans. So, uh, anyways, In the spirit of George's Pennies for Progress, I am going to propose Pennies for George. You know, basically whether it pays the APOC fines or, you know, for the jet-setting lifestyle, the pennies, they are out there. Mr. Fawzi, you make 20 million pennies, and Mr. Dole, Ms. Gardner, will you donate to George? George is really in need of it.

So I had more to the improv routine. This is the first time I'm doing it, so I kind of messed it up. But maybe I'll refine the process. So in all seriousness though, yeah, this is semi-difficult to watch. And the sad nature of the beast is I do like George as a person.

He's got a really bright personality. But it's like Russian Jack Community Council, well, he showed up once pretty much in person since last October. And then, you know, pretty much, you know, George missed a number of meetings and I nudged somebody and then it was like, damn it, not again. And so there's that. And then, you know, I start to look at what was taking place with either what was reported or then the whole Somos thing.

And that was when the Russian Jack community council meetings where he should have been there. And so obviously, Somos is sort of a getaway from home for the New York influential, you know, and they go party and then they talk business. And, you know, you start to wonder what is really going on. And so while people are public officials and yes, they go to conferences, they talk shop in any number of ways, and then you start to wonder on that one. And so I did have more more to sort of discuss, but I think I'll save it for the next time, and I would ask and advise you to please consider what is going on, and I think you'll make the right decision.

But yeah, I'll leave it at that. So, two pennies for George. I have a few cents to my name. Some people say I have little cents. And they're right there, sir.

Mr. Martinez, I'm making my donation. Uh, hopefully won't get in trouble with APAC. All right, there you go. Thank you for participating. Next person, please come forward.

Microphone is already on. State your name, what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes.

Roger Branson, a longtime advocate out of District 3. Um, I just wanted to thank you all for your continued attention to the homeless issues, to the behavioral health issues and the mental health issues that we're addressing in our community. We have an awesome team of volunteer and paid professionals and advocates that has never existed in this town in my lifetime. And the good work is getting done. I thank you for allowing True North into the market.

I really believe they will be a game changer. And I just thank you for your continued attention to the needs of the folks that truly need our assistance. So thank you.

Thank you for participating. Would anyone else wish to participate? Please come forward.

Okay, seeing no one coming forward and no one signed up on the phone, then we will move to our Last item. Sorry, just making sure I'm not missing anything. Assembly comments. So we will move through the dais. I will start tonight with Ms. Park.

No comments, Chair. Thank you. Mr. McCormick. No comments. Thank you.

Ms. Scout. The fight for fairness for Fairview continues. Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Nothing from me, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Voland. Yeah, I'll just say ditto to Member Scout. Fairness for Fairview.

Mr. Perisverdia. Tonight is my 19th wedding anniversary, and I have not—. Yeah, yay! I have not seen my wife today, so I'm looking forward to going home and seeing her and wishing her happy anniversary. So thank you.

Have a good night, everyone. Miss Silvers. No comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Happy anniversary. Mr. Gerker. I can't think of a more romantic way for you to spend your anniversary than with us. Happy anniversary. No further comments.

Mr. Martinez. No additional comments. Mr. Handeland. Yeah, thanks. I just want to appreciate my colleagues here with, you know, we've been touching on some pretty heavy topics here, and I just want to appreciate the, the professionalism that everyone is.

I think everyone realizes how serious of an issue that the, um, we've brought forward here. And so I do really appreciate that. And just kind of, I mean, don't want to belabor the point so that Cameron can get to his wedding anniversary, but, um, did have an opportunity to kind of read through, um, kind of the comments that Mr. Martinez has put forward here. And it, it is a little disappointing because because we have seen it. I mean, just reading through this, it is I am committed to strengthening campaign compliance practice by engaging with APOC.

That was not, I guess, what was said by them. They were saying this was egregious and strikes to the heart of campaign finance law. There is not a single apology in here. We have had members from your district— Mr. Miller, I apologize for interrupting.

We usually give members broad latitude, but given this is an item before us. I can turn to the attorneys if you would like a legal opinion, but I advise caution speaking on it at this time. Okay, no, uh, no additional comments then. Thank you. Um, I will add 3 brief comments.

I know I'm standing between you and the door at this moment. First is, uh, happy anniversary, Mr. Perez-Fredia. Thank you for your service. This is the assembly life. The second is, um, thank you to all my colleagues for your work on this.

And I know this—. When you get into the real items, the real fights or difficult things, this is where you start to really understand your job. So I appreciate you all continuing to show up and doing that work. And lastly, I will just note one scheduling item is that our next meeting, the 21st regular meeting, may involve an executive session. So we will communicate in advance when we might do the timing of that, and if that's appropriate, we'll talk more about it at the work session.

But just for timing purposes, um, we do sometimes do those at regular meetings, sometimes during dinner, uh, or at the end of the meeting. So just to prepare for that, um, I believe that's all we have at the moment. Um, so I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Okay everyone, we are adjourned.

Have a good evening and a good week.