Assembly Regular - February 17, 2026 - 2026-02-17 17:00:00

Can all be found. And the midnight sun is gone away with the fall colors to show. A time to think on memories of a time I used to know.

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

Um, so I'm doing a phone check-in. Uh, who do we have on the phone? Members? Oh, okay, the phone line's not open. Members, anybody on the phone?

Right now.

Zach Johnson, I'm here. Who is that, Scott? Zach Johnson. Zach.

Felix Rivera. Felix.

Um, okay, there's Yaro.

We'll get started in just a couple minutes.

All right. Hello, everybody.

Good evening and welcome to the February 17, 2026 regular meeting of the Anchorage Assembly. It is now 5:03 PM. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Member Myers.

Member McCormick. Here. Member Martinez. Present. Member Baldwin-Day.

Member Johnson. Here. Chair Constant. Here. Vice Chair Brawley.

Here. Member Voland. Happy to be here. Member Silvers. Here.

Member Rivera. Present. Member Gerker. Here. Member Perez Verdia.

Here. Youth Representative Bowser. Here.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Mr. Gerker, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Presutti, would you please read us the land acknowledgement? Yes, Chair. A land acknowledgment is a formal statement recognizing the Indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present Indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity.

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

Thank you, Mr. Presverdia. Next up on the agenda is number 4, minutes of previous meetings. We do have minutes from the meeting of January 13, 2026. Is there a motion? Approve.

Move to approve. Second by Miss Brawley. Seconded by Mr. McCormick. Is that you, um, Miss Baldwin-Day? Yes, it is, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, we'll note that you're here and we're taking up item 4A, minutes of previous meetings. So we have a motion to approve by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. McCormick. Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing here no discussion, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion? Seeing, hearing no objection, the motion passes. Next we have the mayor's report. Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening, everyone. Before we get into the agenda, I want to take a moment to reflect on the history and the people who have shaped our community. February is Black History Month. It is a time for us to honor the immense contributions, resilience, and leadership of Black Americans, such as the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who passed away today.

I want to express condolences to his family. We honor the Black Alaskans who have built our businesses, led our schools, and strengthened our neighborhoods. Anchorage is stronger because of their vision and their persistence. Also yesterday, we celebrated Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. We remember her courageous testimony before the Territorial Senate 81 years ago, which led to the passage of the first anti-discrimination law in the United States.

Her legacy reminds us that progress is not accidental. It is the result of brave individuals standing up for dignity and civil rights. As we conduct the business of the municipality tonight, let us carry that spirit of justice into our work on behalf of all Anchorage residents. Turning to the future of our community, on the agenda for introduction tonight is our proposal to transfer the former Nordstrom Building to the Anchorage Community Development Authority, or ACDA. Since taking office, I have been clear that revitalizing downtown is a top priority for my team.

This building was once a landmark of retail growth. Today, this vacant property represents a critical opportunity to reinvest in Anchorage's urban core. This transfer is an important step toward advancing a project to reimagine an iconic building and encouraging further economic development. It will allow ACDA to lead redevelopment efforts. We envision a project that anchors the downtown district and supports local businesses by increasing foot traffic and activity near the museum and Fifth Avenue Mall, aligns with local planning documents to create a vibrant mixed-use destination.

This isn't just about one building, it's about strengthening the heart of our community and showing that downtown Anchorage is open for investment and innovation. We have lots of economic opportunities on the horizon. There's more cargo coming through Anchorage, more cruise ship passengers, construction on the ports. Terminal 1 will start this spring. Projects on Jay Bear, a waste-to-energy facility, a natural gas pipeline.

So many reasons for optimism, and I'm excited about our future. Finally, I want to give an update on the ongoing work within our assessor's office. Since assessment notices were mailed, our property appraisal team has been working around the clock, literally nights and weekends, to engage with the public. Here are some numbers that show the scale of this effort. Between January 12th and February 11th, the team received 2,451 calls on the single-family hotline alone.

Less than 400 calls remain in the callback queue and staff are continuing to return every message. Staff have already issued 1,224 corrected assessments through the informal review process. We have received about 1,800 formal appeals, which is substantially more than last year. Those property owners who appealed may be wondering when they will hear from us. Currently, our staff is finishing informal reviews and issuing any needed corrections.

We expect to shift our main focus to formal appeals in late February or early March. At that time, staff will begin contacting property owners who filed appeals and working through the next steps. Because of the high volume, this process will take longer than a typical year. But we are committed to a process that is both efficient and above all fair. So thank you all, and I look forward to a productive and respectful meeting.

Happy Chinese New Year and go Team USA, especially our hometown athletes. Thank you.

Thank you. So, um, next is the chair's report. And I have a few things to report on tonight. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to our regular business meeting.

I would like to follow on with what the mayor had just discussed about the Nordstrom building. We're going to ask that that item be set for public hearing at the second meeting in March so that there can be a more open and formal discussion with the Downtown Community Council at their meeting on March 4th. And so if any members of the public are hearing more in detail about that, please attend the Downtown Community Council, having been briefed already by parties on both sides of the conversation. I'm pretty excited to hear about the, the housing proposals that are being put together, the commercial proposals that are being worked out right now. And so this is a foot forward into revitalization of the downtown.

And I want to make sure that anybody who has concerns, what they think it might be, will show up in person so they can hear what it will really be when that briefing happens or when the discussion comes back before us in March. Next, I'd like to thank— or I'd like to note that Allie Hartman, our Assembly Communications Director, has been selected as a Top 40 Under 40 for 2026. The Assembly is lucky to have her on our team.

Congratulations, Allie. And the Assembly's efforts to communicate the hard work of what the body does on an ongoing basis is really complemented by the work that that office does. They've been putting together briefings on how the budget works, how a assessments work, how tax levies work, and helping to get out sponsor messages relating to important legislative projects. We're definitely lucky to have so many great young leaders in our community, and I congratulate Allie and all of the top 40 awardees this year. We have an alumni or two on this dais.

You'll also notice that a few members are not in person tonight. Everybody is participating telephonically— excuse me, everybody who is participating telephonically Um, not everybody. Two of the members who are participating telephonically are down in Juneau right now at the Alaska Municipal League meeting in the capital. We're grateful for their participation in our meeting tonight when they've been working really hard down in Juneau to get the message of our local governments across to the legislature. The conference gathers local government officials from across the state to learn about and advocate for local government issues.

Anchorage was a founding member of the Alaska Municipal League and works closely with the league to advocate for Anchorage and local control issues. Members will also be meeting with legislators to discuss the Anchorage legislative program and Anchorage priorities. And to those members, we wish you safe travels and productive meetings, and thank you for your participation tonight. I'd also like to speak briefly about our 49th anniversary of the Office of the Ombudsman. This weekend marks 49th anniversary of the Office of the Ombudsman.

For those of you unfamiliar, they are responsible for resolving conflicts and complaints between constituents and local government, including the Municipality of Anchorage and the Anchorage School District. With their 49th anniversary, the office has a goal this year to build more connections and share how the office works so they can improve their services to the community. I encourage everybody to learn more about the Ombudsman's Office and see how they may be of service to you. And happy anniversary to the Office of the Ombudsman. And if you have an opportunity to review the charter minutes, the charter convention minutes, there's a lot of discussion about how and why the ombudsman is in existence, where it's at, and why.

It's a very interesting piece of Anchorage history. As we near the spring municipal election, I wanted to share some reminders about.

Deadlines and voting. March 8th is the last day to register to vote for the April 7th election. Ballots will be mailed out on March 17th. If you're traveling during the election, there are several options available so that you can vote. You can apply to vote at a temporary address.

The form must be turned in by March 31st. You can also apply to vote by email, fax, or by secure document portal, but we'd prefer, of course, to have you drop your ballot off in one of our drop boxes that'll be strategically placed across town just before the 17th. Once you voted, Anchorage offers a way to track your ballot. It's called Ballot Tracks. We'd love to have you sign up for that as well.

You sign up at anchoragevotes.com. You'll get a text, voicemail, or email alert on the status of your ballot, including when it's mailed from the mail shop, when it's delivered, and when it's received at the election center, and when it's counted across the machine. It's a great tool. That's anchoragevotes.com. All of the forms and other election information can be found at muni.org/elections, or you can call the voter hotline at 907-243-VOTE.

City Nerd Night is coming up again. It will be held this— on Thursday, February 26th, from 6 to 9 PM at the Seed Lab downtown. It's part of Anchorage Design Week festivities, and the theme this year is Imagining Our Winter City. 7 Locals will each have 7 minutes to share their bright ideas and warm takes on Anchorage's future as a city. As a winter city.

Tickets are available and they will sell out, so visit muni.org/assembly to get yours. So I'd like to actually note that at our last meeting something very unusual happened. We had a breakdown of our system in which the recording stopped. The whole system seized, and for the first time I can recall in the 9 years I've served on this body, we lost approximately 1 minute of our record. And so that is regrettable and it's something we don't want to repeat.

So we've established a new recording system here which is separated from our online streaming system. So we'll at least always have the full audio of the recording. So we're implementing a new backup so the public doesn't lose important public records that they have a right to. So again, we lost, I think it was 1 minute and 10 seconds of total video feed. And, um, we've come up with a solution to ensure that doesn't happen again in the next 9 years.

And finally, on a personal note, I am of Cajun descent. My father was 100% Cajun. My family has lived in Louisiana for hundreds of years, and they came down from Acadia up in the northwest of the continent. And today is Mardi Gras, it's Fat Tuesday, so I would tell everybody to celebrate. Laissez-les bon temps rouler, because Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday and we all got to get back in serious, so we're going to have fun here tonight.

With that, then I'll go ahead and conclude with my standard notes that this is a business meeting. I appreciate your help in moving us forward with tonight's agenda so we may conclude at the most reasonable time possible. As a business meeting, we're here to do the work of the municipality. Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers and refrain from personal attacks or speaking out of turn or shouting and clapping and pacing, unless of course clapping is in order for that item. Keep signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size or smaller.

Smaller. Please keep the aisles clear unless you're lined up to testify. Please don't approach the dais, but if you have something to share, please hand it to our clerk up at the front for distribution. If a point of order is called, please stop speaking so the chair may rule on the point of order and the record is clear. If the rules aren't followed, the chair may interrupt speakers to call for compliance.

If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then the chair may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption, the chair will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave.

Which now moves us to our committee and liaison reports. So I'll start with you, Mr. Presidio. Actually, I'm sorry, I'll start with you, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Myers. Okay, we'll move on to Mr. McCormick. Nothing to report, Chair. Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. At the last meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee, I just wanted to thank the members of the departments and the staff who offered feedback to the discussion around the wildfire interface service area. More discussion to continue and a project to emerge. The next meeting of the Community and Economic Development Committee will be held on Thursday, March 5th at 9:00 AM at the Permit Center. And I encourage everyone to look at the website for any information that the committee discusses.

It goes back quite a ways, and there's lots of useful and interesting information that we often discuss at that committee. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Municipal Audit Committee will be Thursday, February 26th, from 1 to 2 PM. In our regular conference room at City Hall, and we will be discussing grants management processes. We got a report on that, I believe, goodness, last summer. And so we'll be following up to see what has happened with our grants process and understand what changes have been made.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

This month's meeting of the Infrastructure Enterprise Utility Oversight Committee has been canceled, but we'll be back again in March. And then for the Assembly Legislative Committee, our next meeting will be on February 25th at 10:50 AM in City Hall. Uh, business includes an update from state lobbyists, legislative consultants, and then also we will have an after-action review on the AML conference and legislative visits that are taking place this week. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Um, Vice Chair Raleigh. Thanks, um, and thanks to my colleagues for giving AML reports. I will leave an additional report to our AML board member, Mr. Rivera, but I will I would note that in the Budget and Finance Committee realm, the committee will be meeting on this Thursday, February 19th, from 10 to 11 AM and will be chaired by my co-chair, Mr. Voland. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Riley.

Mr. Voland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're going to be having a meeting of the Transportation Committee tomorrow, Wednesday the 18th, at 1 PM, City Hall Conference Room 155, discussion around highway safety improvement program projects and also Vision Zero efforts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Voland. Uh, Miss Silvers, nothing to report. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Silvers. Mr. Rivera.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as some of my colleagues have stated, I am one of the two assembly members currently in Juneau for the Alaska Municipal League Winter Legislative Conference. This is actually going to be my final AML conference before my time is up in April. The conference started today and runs through Thursday.

Besides attending the conference, several of us on the Assembly will be here having visits with our Anchorage delegation and other legislators. So looking forward to that and for advocating for our priorities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Kirker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing to report.

Thank you, Mr. Kirker. Mr. Presverdia. Thank you, Chair. Two updates tonight. On February 4th, we had a meeting of the Anchorage Public Health and Safety Committee.

It was a pretty packed agenda. We got an update from the Anchorage Police Department, a progress report from them, as well as an update on the recommendations made in 2025 particularly around the, the evaluation, internal and external evaluation that was done. There's been significant progress on updating policies and training within that, that department. We also had an update on their technology policy update as well as retail theft update. If you didn't have a chance to see the meeting, certainly I would encourage looking at it, listening to it online.

Just a few more updates on that one. The— there was also an update on increasing access to medicated assistant treatment. Which is a, a really exciting, uh, new, uh, project we're looking at to, uh, combat our fentanyl crisis, as well as an update from the Office of Emergency Management on our 2025 West Coast storm recovery. Um, and then the other update I have is, uh, there is a meeting tomorrow of the Assembly Housing and Homeless Committee, um, that will involve, uh, an update, um, from our shelter system update on how that's going. As well as an update from the Community Safety and Development, uh, specifically on residential rehab program, the RFP for supportive housing services, and AHFC voucher priority program for homelessness to housing.

Um, so I encourage, uh, those who can to attend or to listen in. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Presverde. And Youth Member Bowser. No report.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. All right, that takes us now to the addendum to these agenda. So the addendum to the agenda includes items to be added to the agenda and prepared regularly by Friday. Before we get to the addendum to the agenda, we're going to go ahead and address the late on the table items, which will incorporate any late on the table items.

I think we have two. Both items are subject to some additional procedure. So first we have item 10B1, Resolution AR-2026, unnumbered, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly declaring its support of the Upper DeArmond Road and Canyon Road improvements capital projects in the Chugach Access Service area, requesting they be included in the municipality's 2027 to 2032 6-year capital improvement program. Miss Barley, move to land.

Table. Second. Move to lay on the table by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. McCormick. Third. This one is not one that requires 3.

That's the ordinance that's below. This one will actually require us to go through our late on the table procedure and will require 8 votes to lay on the table. The motion has been made to lay on the table by Miss Brawley. Miss Brawley. Thanks.

Yeah, I'll save content discussion for if we get to that point. The timeliness argument for this, and apologies to my colleagues, we intended to get this on the addendum. This is related both to the local project but also state funding. And so it was intended to coincide with our visit down in Juneau to speak to a couple legislators who have secured the state funding we already have and to, and to basically continue to assert our support for that in the space that they have a limited budget. Thanks.

Any further discussion on the motion to lay on the table? Seeing and hearing none, members, may I proceed to vote?

Member Myers.

Member Baldwin-Day.

Yes. Member Johnson. Yes. Member Rivera.

Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes yes. Yes, uh, the unnumbered AR item 10B1 is laid on the table. That takes us now to item 10G7, which is an ordinance for introduction, AO-2026, unnumbered, an ordinance, Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 21.05, 21.40 Old Code, and 21.50 Old Code, and Sections 21.09-050, 21.10-050, and 21.35-020 Old Code, to clarify The land use review process for data centers and similar energy-intensive facilities and requesting the Planning Department develop use-specific criteria for energy-intensive uses and waiving Planning and Zoning Commission review. Um, this item was set on the table by you, Miss Brawley. Move to introduce.

Second. Third. Moved by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Voland, third by Member Silvers. That item will be back before us On the meeting of March 3rd. All right, so now we've gone through that.

Like to go ahead and ask for a motion to incorporate the addendum as printed, distributed, and the laid on the table items. So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Wallin, seconded by Mr.— Ms. Brawley, Vice Chair Brawley. Any discussion?

I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection? Seeing, hearing no objection, the addendum to the agenda and laid on the table items have been incorporated. Next, we will move on to our audience participation— excuse me, our appearance requests. Um, are both of our requesters— one of them, 9A, has asked to appear at the end in audience participation because he can't be here in person tonight, so that 9A will not be happening.

And 9B The individual who filed the appearance request has asked to withdraw, so we won't be hearing from them. So that then takes us to the consent agenda. The consent agenda are items number 10A through 10G and are typically routine or non-controversial items, though our last meeting showed us sometimes those are the big business. They're generally bid awards, new business information reports, ordinances and resolutions for introduction. Items on the consent agenda may be accepted or adopted or approved by the assembly by a single vote on a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Prior to approval, items may be pulled by an assembly member for discussion and separate vote on any of the items. Under the assembly rules of procedure, all ordinances and some resolutions will have an opportunity for public hearing on a future date. So we'll start with you to pull items, Mr. Presverdia. Thank you, Chair. No items tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Gerker. No items. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Rivera.

Thank you, no items. Thank you, Miss Silvers. No items, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Walland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 10A1.

Mr. Walland has pulled 10A1. Is that it? Miss Brawley. Thank you. 10D10, the administration, and then 10E2, and then not an item I'm pulling, but for 10G3, I'd like to request that the public hearing on that be set for March 24th.

I'm directing that the public hearing be set for March 24th for item 10G3. That's the Nordstrom item, and that's it for me. All right, so I have pulled by you, Ms. Braly, 10D, 10 on behalf of the administration, and 10E2.

And yeah, okay, Mr. Johnson? No items, Chair. All right, thank you. And, um, Ms. Baldwin-Day?

Nothing for me. Thank you, Chair. All right, thank you. Um, Mr. Martinez? No additional items.

Thank you. Mr. McCormick? No items. Thank you. And Mr. Myers, uh, told me he'll be joining us in just a couple minutes.

Okay, so currently pulled items, I have 10A1, Mr. Voland. 10D10, Ms. Brawley. 10E2, Ms. Brawley. And that's it.

If there's nothing else, then I'd like to ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items. Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by Miss Brawley, second by Mr. Voland. Any discussion?

Seeing, hearing no discussion, like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion?

Seeing and hearing no objection, the consent agenda minus the pulled items has been approved, which takes us now to item 10A.1. 10A.1 is Resolution AR2026-36, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating February 17, 2026, as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. This item was pulled by you, Mr. Walland. Yes, Mr. Chair, move to approve.

Second. Motion approved by Mr. Walland, seconded by Member Silvers. Any discussion? Seeing here none, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection to the adoption of the motion?

Seeing here no objection, the motion is approved. I have— who's reading and who's presenting? Mr. Chair, I am reading and Member Silvers will be presenting. The family and friends of Ms. Peratrovich want to come forward?

Good. All right, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing and celebrating February 17th, 2026 as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Whereas Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand President Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich was born July 4th, 1911 in Petersburg, Alaska, as a member of the Klukahutti Clan in the Raven Moiety of the Tlingit Nation, with the Tlingit name of Kaagaa'at, person who packs for themselves, and whereas after being orphaned Elizabeth was adopted by Andrew and Jean Wanamaker, graduated from Ketchikan High School, attended Sheldon Jackson College and Western College of Education, and married Roy Pratrovich on December 15, 1931. And whereas seeking greater opportunities, the Peratrovich family moved to Juneau, where Elizabeth and Roy encountered discrimination against Alaska Natives in their attempts to secure housing and gain access to public facilities, spurring them to become leaders in the battle for Native rights in Alaska. And whereas leveraging their positions as leaders with the Alaska Native Sisterhood and Alaska Native Brotherhood, Elizabeth and Roy worked to bring attention to the issue of discrimination lobbying the territorial legislature and Governor Gruning for passage of anti-discrimination legislation.

And whereas Elizabeth's compelling testimony before the Alaska Territorial Senate was instrumental to the passage of the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945, which provided equal access to public accommodations in the Territory of Alaska, foreshadowing and helping to inspire the national civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. And whereas in 1988 the Alaska Legislature designated February 16th as Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, and in 2020 the United States Mint issued a $1 coin bearing the image of Elizabeth Peratrovich in honor of her legacy of civil rights activism, making her the first Alaska Native to be honored on United States currency, and whereas the Alaska Native Sisterhood and Alaska Native Brotherhood continue to carry on the legacy of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich and other Alaska Native civil rights pioneers by advocating for social justice, equity, and inclusion. Now therefore, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly resolved that February 16, 2026 is Elizabeth Peratrovich Day in the Municipality of Anchorage and encourages the community to celebrate the life and legacy of civil rights and social justice champion Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly the 17th day of February 2026.

Welcome. The microphone's off. There's a green button.

Can you hear me? You're on. Well, this is an honor. I'll give a little bit of a story and then turn it over to these wonderful ladies next to me because I am also Camp Two Alaska Native Brotherhood out of Juneau. My name is Curtis McQueen.

My Tlingit name is Cháh. I'm Eagle, Kilawal, Klukahudi with a little bit of Dakhlo'etee, we say. From our families from Haines, Alaska. In the late 1800s, there was a village, ancient village called Yondastucky, quite bigger than Klukwan as we know it now. The then chief was my great-great-grandfather, Chief Donowak.

He was called Silver Dollar Eyes. By the New Presbyterians that had tried to move up to Southeast Alaska and barely survived their first winter. And it was the Tlingit people under my great-great-great-grandfather who got them through their first winter. He had two daughters. One of his daughters is my great-grandmother, Kajent, who married William Paddock and had six boys and one daughter.

And my grandfather was Raymond Paddock, Sr. Uh, he had another daughter which was the mother of Elizabeth. Um, great family, uh, different times, uh, things we wouldn't or couldn't talk about back in the day. Now it's history that Elizabeth, uh, was given up for adoption. Of course, amazing woman, married, uh, Roy, and we know the rest of the history.

There's a big family, some Peradovich family here in Anchorage, um, and some of the Paddocks. I represent the Paddocks. She would have been my great-aunt or my grandfather's first cousin. I'm very thankful to the Assembly and the mayor and some of the mayor's staff that I have worked with over the years, Suzanne and Becky and Fawzi, can't forget Fawzi. I have been at least over 21 years in the different hats here in front of the Assembly, and it's always an honor to be here.

I was raised by Tim Potter. Most of you remember Tim Potter and all that. But on behalf of our family, on behalf of the Alaska Native community, she is our Martin Luther King. And I was sad to hear the passing of Jesse Jackson today as well. Again, thank you for honoring our Native people on this incredible day.

And I'll turn it over to the ladies next to me if they want to say anything and introduce yourself.

Welcome.

Good evening. Thank you for welcoming us to this special event for Elizabeth Peradovich. Although the state— the city, the state, and the nation honor her and recognize her February 16th, we realize that it was closed yesterday And we did have a very special event February 15th at the Wilda Marston Theater, and we showed the film For the Rights of All: Ending Jim Crow in Alaska. And it was very informative. It was very, very delightful to be able to present that to the public.

Thank you, the mayor of Anchorage, for proclaiming this special day for Elizabeth Peradovich. And Mayor Wirsch, back in 2003, dedicated the Peradovich Park named for Roy and Elizabeth down on 4th and East Street. I was there, my mother was there, and Shirley Kendall was there, and some others of our organization. We are the Alaska Native Sisterhood Camp 87. We're a local camp and we are open to everybody.

We meet the first Thursdays of every month at the Alaska Native Medical Center Conference Room Number 1 from 6 until 7. We have very short meetings. And so with that, because we realize that Elizabeth fought for such a special special right, and that was for human beings to be able to live freely in housing, education, in jobs, and to bring up our children to be able to walk side by side with everybody else and not be discriminated against. And so we're very pleased that this has happened because it opened the doors for many, many Native people and families Native corporations and villages were able to prosper.

And I just brought up a couple of the dolls, Native dolls, and then also there is a Tlingit Barbie doll.

And years ago, Mattel made this, this doll. They also have a fish camp doll, [Speaker] Well, I'm from Sitka, Alaska, and I was brought up here at age 11. At age 8, I went to a store right before Christmas. My girl cousin, she told me to sign up for a Barbie doll. That's what the prize was.

When I went there, the store owner told me, he said, "What are you doing?" You can't sign up for that. Don't you know you're not a white girl? And I was like, what's that? And my girl cousin was a half-breed, and so she didn't look Native, but she was. And so she told me, Cynthia said, no, Lynette, sign up anyway.

I signed up, and then when the drawing came, My girl cousin won the Barbie doll and she was so happy. They were very, very poor. They had a big family. And I was so happy for her because a Native girl did win the Barbie doll. Thank you.

We struggle and we still struggle. My granddaughter just won the Ferrandevue Sweetheart and Princess Award. So her name is Madison Suits. Thank you. And now there is my vice president and my sergeant at arms here.

They can introduce them real quick themselves. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Susan Burlett, Sergeant at Arms, Alaska Native Sisterhood.

My name is Cecilia Tavallaro. I am a past Grand President of Alaska Native Sisterhood. I'm currently Vice President with the local Camp 87 here. I just wanted to say on behalf of Grand Camp, our Grand President Sandy Churchill of Wrangell, we wish to say thank you for the recognition. Gnaaxiiizh.

It means a lot. Thank you.

And just in closing, I forgot to mention too that Governor Steve Cooper, we thank him too. It was his leadership at the time back in the late '80s with my mom, who was Carol Paddock Jorgensen, who was also a Grand Camp president, who saw the vision of creating Elizabeth Perattavich Day. So he sometimes gets forgotten. To be mentioned as the governor at the time. So I just want to make sure I did that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Can I be added as a co-sponsor?

Mr. McCormick, can I be added as a co-sponsor? All right. Anyone else? Okay. Both.

Mr. McCormick, hold on. The microphone is off. Can we turn the microphone on if you want to speak?

[Speaker] We have a coin replica of Elizabeth Pratovich. It will be in the back. The Alaska Mint commemorated it years ago, and it's hard to find now, but it's pretty neat. [Speaker] Thank you, everybody, for coming tonight.

Okay, that, uh, I think that the intent of item 10D.10 is not to move it. We heard from the administration that there was an error and they're going to resubmit at our next meeting, so there's no action needed on item 10D.10. So next we have 10E. Information, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

I, I didn't— yeah, so for item 10D.10 that was pulled by Miss Brawley, the administration had asked us to pull us because there was an error in the document and it will come back reintroduced as a new item at the next meeting. Okay, so the same nominee will come back the next meeting, but for a different commission. They, they got the commission slightly wrong, so. Okay, yeah, okay, so it'll be coming up in the future, so, but not tonight. Next we have item 10E2.

10E2 is Resolution R2026-38, resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating a grant when tendered for $86,000.

$1,080 As a reimbursable grant from the State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, and appropriating $1,893 as a transfer to the Anchorage Metropolitan Police Service Area Fund 151000, 2026 Anchorage Police Department operating budget, all to the State Grants Fund 231, Anchorage Police Department for the Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Use Program. Uh, this item was pulled by you, Miss Barley. Move to approve. Second. Motion approved by Miss Brawley, second by Miss Folland.

Miss Brawley. Thanks. Well, first I will say this seems great, so I urge support. The reason I pulled it is because there's just a technical correction to make, um, and I don't even know if we have— let me double check if we have it. It's not.

Okay, um, so I'm going to make an amendment, uh, move an amendment to strike the words 'and social services' in the Department of Health The name of— so it should say State of Alaska Department of Health. OK, and actually, I'm sorry, I'm going to move. We just found it. I'm moving Brawley Amendment 1 to— no, that's a different one. Sorry, let me start over.

But this is the misuse. Oh, the wrong one. Gotcha. Sorry, sorry, let me start over. Yeah, sorry, just to be clear.

So I'm going to move a verbal amendment to strike the phrase and social services anywhere it appears in the resolution or the memo for the purpose of of correcting the name of the department. Second. Motion to amend by Ms. Fraley, seconded by Mr. Buland. Ms. Fraley. Uh, yeah, should be self-explanatory.

The State Department of Health and Social Services was split into two departments, and so this is just the current name of that department, which is State of Alaska Department of Health.

All right, so, um, any further discussion on the— or any discussion on the amendment? Seeing hearing none, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection to the amendment? Seeing hearing no objection, the amendment is adopted. Next, we have the main motion as amended.

Any discussion? Okay, seeing hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers.

Member Baldwin-Day.

Yes. Member Johnson. Yes. Member Rivera.

Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AR 2026-38 as amended has passed the body. So, um, that— I will just note that for item 10F4, we scheduled a work session that will be happening on the 27th at, I think, 10:30 AM. Otherwise, that concludes our consent agenda. We'll take our regularly scheduled dinner break and we'll be back just after the top of the hour to proceed through our agenda.

So, Mr. Myers.

Let him go!

Out you'll be in warm in your own bed and from the storm.

Home is calling when you feel adrift. It'll always be there and never miss. Life is It's got you all around. You never feel you got your feet on the ground. Home sweet home is where I wanna be.

Home sweet home.

Place to find some peace. You are worried of what's to come, but you never know until it's all said and done. You can stay home all night and day, resting your mind, keeping all bad thoughts away. Home sweet home is where I want to be.

Home sweet home, a place to find some peace.

Home is where I want to be. Home sweet home, a place to find some peace. Nothing's better than being home with your loved ones. You won't be alone when it's cold out. You'll be in warm in your own bed and in front Under the storm.

The world moves too quickly, and I know it's not like the Earth is turning slow. I'm already gone, but we both know I can't sleep alone, or at least I won't.

Boy, I really hope it doesn't hurt me.

Even though I know where I'm gonna go, I hope that you take me serious.

I hope that nobody stays mad at me!

Oh oh oh— which way is up? In your eyes... I will be there for you forever.

But don't come down, 'cause we're dancing on the words we didn't get to say. I know that you take me seriously. I know that no one hurt these things more than me.

And now that you take me seriously.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Sometimes the world moves too quickly, and I know it's Not like the earth is turning. So I'm already gone, but we both know I can't sleep.

Hello, let down. Let you take me seriously.

And now I know about these days, man.

That's you. Take me seriously.

Oh, too good. It'll do good. It'll do good.

Do good, it'll do good. It'll all do good. Do good, it'll do good. It'll all do good.

It'll do good.

Skip this bit. It's not the lack of your judgment that makes you a kid. It's the lack of your substance that keeps you locked in. Oh, and keeps them talking.

Oh, oh, oh.

Find out a way to spend your life holding hands with empty faces that you'll never see again. Search out a way to find a version of you you Why aren't you getting tired of me? Why don't you talk to me yet? Yeah! Why aren't you talking to me yet?!

Why won't you tell her— why don't you talk to me again?

Of everything! Why aren't you tired of me yet?

Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why aren't you tired of me yet? Why don't you talk to— why aren't you talking about it? Yeah... Yeah!

Is it just me?

Oh, all of my life, waited for a sign.

Round her eyes, her eyes.

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

Do we have folks on the phone?

Zach is here. Felix here. I heard Mr. Rivera, heard Miss Baldwin-Day. Who was the first one?

Was it Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

All right.

Mr. Myers, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Thanks, Chair. Ah, we can hear you that time. Perfect.

Okay, we'll go ahead and go back on the record since we have everyone.

Next up on the agenda, we have No unfinished business, no continued public hearings. That brings us to item 14A. Item 14A is AR 2026-7, a resolution approving the Heritage Land Bank 2026 annual work program and 2027 to 2031 5-year management plan. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard, please come forward.

Welcome. Please state your name. Are you speaking on your behalf or the council?

Okay, the microphone's off. Miss Gleason, you want to turn the microphone on? Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 5 minutes.

Thank you. Uh, this is Kathy Gleason. I'm currently serving as president of Turnagain Community Council, and we approved comments, uh, that we have submitted to, um, the municipality on November 6th, 2025. So we appreciate the opportunity to continue to provide input on this important document. Uh, we have for many, many years, and we've been pretty consistent on the input that we have provided.

Uh, one of the first thing— and so we'll be focusing on HLB parcels with within the West Anchorage area. So one of the things that we commented on was—. Could you pull the microphone up? Certainly. Is that better?

Yeah. Okay. Is acquiring municipal entitlement lands that in 1986 they were chosen to be transferred to the Municipality of Anchorage. So I think we've probably waited long enough. These include really high-value recreational and wildlife habitat areas, including areas where Point Warnsorf Overlook and sections of the Coastal Trail are located, Little Campbell Lake Park, land adjacent to Kincaid Park, DeLong Lake Park, and a northern section of Conners Bog Park.

So we hope that, um, we really go ahead and get this finalized hopefully this year. I think this would be a good year to go ahead and get that finished and anything Turnagain Community Council can do to help that process, we would happy to do so. Uh, with regard to under the 2026 potential projects, um, the draft plan said that the former Cluthrow Center became vacated in 2024, and we knew that, and staff is working with other departments to determine municipal need. Uh, and so the 2040 Anchorage land use plan designates this area as community facility and institution, and the HLB land adjacent to us is designated park or natural area. The Muni in 1983, the Coastal Trail Route Study, identifies this area generally located near the Clitheroe Center at the end of the Point Warrensorf Drive to the coastal trails, a potential coastal park, and it's an idea that, um, TCC members have come up with.

It would provide an area to actually enjoy between Point Warren's Off Overlook and Kincaid Park. And I know HLB's response to that was we'd have to coordinate with the DOT on that, and we acknowledge that. So we hope maybe that can be further investigated and discussed. Sometime this year. With regard to parcels 4-032, 4-33033A through F, and 4-034, we have consistently advocated for the transfer of these parcels to the municipality parks department.

So let's see, to ensure permanent protection of the coastal trail. And associated natural open space buffer within these parcels. Um, at the January 26th, 2024 Advisory Commission meeting, staff announced that the 2-year lease, um, renewal of FAA portions of that were not renewed. And so, um, that just kind of opens the door for that process to go ahead and continue. And this effort would be compliant with The 2001 Anchorage Comprehensive Plan identifying this area as community preference for natural open space, important wildlife habitat.

The West Anchorage District Plan classifies these parcel areas as parks and natural habitats, and the 2040 Land Use Plan designates these parcels as park or natural area. So this is the highest and best use that we submitted. Thank you so much. Thank you.

I don't see any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard, please come forward.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hello, I am Amanda Tuttle. I ask you, the assembly this evening, to not approve the Heritage Land Bank's 2026 annual and 5-year work program until several major corrections are made to this plan. Issue number 1: Municipal Code cannot supersede Alaska statutes. As municipal code, comprehensive plans cannot supersede State of Alaska area plans. This is known as preemption and protected under Alaska Statute Title 29.

HLB's formal response to my comment number 80 is incorrect, and it must be updated to reflect that the new Girdwood comprehensive plan is an amendment to the 1995 Girdwood Area Plan. Which covers the entirety of the Glacier Creek Valley. The Girdwood Comprehensive Plan does not supersede the 1995 state plan, as comment number 80 incorrectly states. I've submitted two pieces of documentation to each of you through the assembly's email address that supports us. I've also brought some copies of these documents this evening.

Um, as the 1995 plan, uh, Girdwood Area Plan's name is indicative of, it is a state-issued policy document On page 2 of the policy, under Plan Development Process, it states, because of the need to establish compatible and complementary management plans and policies between the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the municipality, the development of the Girdwood Area Plan was undertaken as a part of a jointly coordinated planning effort between the two governments. HLB did not work with the Department of Natural Resources in the planning process of the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. Nor does HLB have jurisdiction of governance over U.S. Forest Service lands or state public lands within the Glacier Creek Valley. The second document attached is HLB's request to the MOA Planning Department on May 6th to initiate the current, the current Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. As the document clearly states within the header, it is a request for an amendment, not to supersede.

Please update HLB's formal response and references throughout the plan to clearly state the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan is an amendment to the 1995 Girdwood Area Plan.

Issue number 2, excluded from this plan is HLB's ownership and responsibility pertaining to the funding, repair, maintenance, and routine inspections of the federally listed Old Girdwood Levee. HLB is known for 3 years of their ownership and responsibility of this levee. But has continuously disregarded its inclusion in their annual and 5-year work plans and have refused to put it on any monthly meeting agenda to date. This is gross negligence. Discussion of responsibilities of HLB for the federally regulated Old Girdwood Levee must be included within this year's plan, not only for the sake of lives, property, and businesses you're putting at significant risk, but for our state's economy.

It would be a shame if a man-made catastrophe cut off Alaska's transportation corridor to our deep sea ports. It must be included.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the room wish to be heard? All right, we do have one person on the call list. Can we go ahead and call?

Hello, this is a call from Mr. Brown. This is the Anchorage Assembly regarding AR 2026-7, Heritage Land Bank 2026 Annual Work Program. Um, would you— yes, okay, please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Yes, I saw my name is Nathan.

I'm from New York. I would like to just deliver the speech that I prepared. Just let me know when my time is starting.

Can you hear me? Yeah, your time is going. You have 2 minutes and 42 seconds left. Okay. Hi, so my name is Nathan Brown.

I'm the managing director of Maracas Group. For the record, I submitted a project memorandum and a technical memorandum on the submission ID.

1432763662 Regarding HLB Parcel 6-251. I'm here tonight in support of AR 2026-7. It formally requests an ENA, Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, for long-term ground lease on the politically zoned portion of this parcel. We are not asking for a land sale. We're asking for a fee simple title.

We're asking for this opportunity to negotiate and invest. Glacier Creek Resort and Spa represents approximately a $90 million private investment with the Girdwood year-round economy. But more important than the number is the intention behind it. This project is designed to expand Girdwood's economy, not to compete with what already exists. It brings a new segment of higher-end travelers who may not currently consider Alaska as a primary destination.

Those guests stay longer, spend more locally, and support year-round jobs. Workforce housing is Phase 1 priority, not a future idea. If we're serious about long-term hospitality investment, Ingridwood must support the people who work there. We also recognize how important the trail systems are to this community. Under AO 2009-51, the Nordic East and Tech across portions of Parcel 6-251 was established as relocatable.

If development requires relocation, we will fund it, and more than that, we're prepared to expand the existing system into a full 10K loop At our expressed goal is simple: no loss of recreational opportunity, only, only improvement. That wetland on the parcel will be respected and incorporated as a permanent greenbelt within the master plan. We are not trying to erase what makes Bridget special. We're trying to build something that belongs here. The city's position to move forward: server controls are established, parcel is commercially zoned, infrastructure is adjacent along Auberg.

The project can take years or it can move forward with momentum. This depends on alignment. We're asking the opportunity to work with another municipality through an EMA to refine the footprint, address community concerns, and advise detailed planning. If we work together, this becomes a workforce housing, expands trails, long-term tax base, and sustained tourism growth. I respectfully ask for your support of AR 2026-7 and the opportunity to move forward with this.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. We had a very difficult time hearing you in the room, but I know you submitted an email communication by our portal, and that communication has been shared with the administration. So just, uh, if anyone's wondering, please check in your emails that they came in last week. So thank you.

Of the municipality and supersedes the 1995 Girdwood Area Plan. So if that's incorrect, we took that directly from the Girdwood Comprehensive Plan. Okay, great. I appreciate that. Um, and I know I— you, you were in the email that I sent, so that's good.

I think we're all set there. Um, maybe throwing it over to Bill and Becky or Eva, do any of you have concerns? Did you have a chance to review that? I just want to make sure that if we move forward tonight, everything's all squared away.

On this particular issue, I would say I would defer to the judgment of our real estate director on this particular issue. Then if you all are comfortable, I'm comfortable. Nope.

Um, did you want to address the topic of the levy?

Sure, through the chair to Member Voland.

We have— we did a memo to our file. We did a lot of research on the levy when it was brought to our attention.

We have talked with the Corps, the state, the DOT, our— the Muni Watershed, the Muni Flood Hazard Manager, and, um, GVSA staff. We have done site visits. Just because that levee is now listed on a federal database, that is just a database of structures. That list does not come with any additional requirements for maintenance or management. We have been in constant contact with the Corps levee program, and they have told us that we don't have any additional responsibilities.

We do get out there and do annual site inspections. We've done a site inspection with the Watershed Group, also with GAVSA staff, so it's, it's not something that's not going unnoticed. Okay, thank you, Ms. Briggs. And I think with that, um, I'm prepared to move forward. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And I would note that we did receive an email kind of update memo from the HLB today on the question of the lift. Be. So it's— there is some communication for you. Miss Brawley.

Thanks. I have a couple questions and then I intend to move an amendment. Um, so the question— well, I guess one is just a statement to follow up on the plan. I think it, uh, yeah, it is a question for you, Miss Briggs, but the statement is simply to confirm. Um, it's my understanding it's typical in planning practice that when you adopt a new plan, it does supersede the old plan, and typically it says in the plan something like the most recent plan governs.

That's a general principle, so it's not surprising that that's your answer. Um, my question is Different topic related to the testimony from Ms. Gleason at Turnagain Community Council. What is the status of those municipal entitlement lands and that she mentioned? And just kind of in general, what would be the process to complete that? Like, are there known barriers right now, or kind of what would that look like?

Through the chair to Member Brawley, it's a great question on the municipal entitlement lands. We will dig into that and see who we need to start the conversation with at the state, and if we have any barriers, we will certainly bring that forward. Yeah, thank you. And I, I know in theory what those are, but I don't know how that affects the muni, so I'm happy to work with you on that in the future. And then lastly, I don't have additional questions, but I'm going to move Constant Amendment 1.

Second.

Motion to amend by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Volland. Miss Brawley. Yeah, thank you. And I can turn it to the sponsor. Sure.

So I was reading through the plan, and in our work session I asked the question Where does the mayor's 10,000 homes aspiration and goal find itself in the plan? And the answer was, it's all over the plan. It's here and it's there. But it wasn't anywhere very literally and directly and explicitly. And so I decided to move forward in discussions with the mayor's deputy chief of staff that we add just a little bit of preamble language that expresses that the policy is in support of 10,000 homes in 10 years.

And so that's the gist of the amendment, and I would urge your support.

Also on the amendment, hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes.

Member Johnson? Yes. Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Rivera? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0 on the youth member votes, yes, yes, the amendment has passed. We're back on the main motion as amended. I don't see any further amendments, um, any further discussion.

I just want to say thank you to the Heritage Land Bank, the team, for getting this before us and continuing to keep the ball moving forward on helping, uh, ensure that the municipality as a primary landholder is doing its due diligence to get the land into the proper function to support the housing and other initiatives. And I do recommend, if you haven't seen it, the email from the testifier that we couldn't really hear. Please look into that. It was quite interesting. If there's no one else, then members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day?

Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera? Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0 on the youth member votes, yes, yes, AR 2026-7 as amended has passed the body.

Next, we're on to item 14B, Resolution 2026-11, resolution approving an administrative agreement, IFFAA number 2026-01, between Between the Municipality of Anchorage and the International Association of Firefighters Local 1264 regarding a change to collective bargaining agreement language. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard, please come forward.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. The mic is off, so the little green button. You'll have 3 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Justin Mack, resident of Assembly District 4, but here representing the Anchorage firefighters. I'm the president of the Anchorage Firefighters Union, IFF Local 1264, representing 400 fire and EMS personnel across the city. This agreement is— was a long process to get here. The assembly approved in 2024 AO number 2024-68, which allowed our current unrepresented battalion chiefs to collectively bargain.

The only pending question was an administrative agreement that actually brought— formally brought the battalion chiefs into the bargaining unit. And so that's what's sitting in front of you today. I'm available to answer any questions. We also have 2 current battalion chiefs who are here available to answer any questions that you might have. And I want to extend a thank you to, to this body for their support in 2024 in passing this, and to the administration for their support in coming to this agreement.

The main points of this agreement are trying to find a way to bring the battalion chiefs into the bargaining unit But also recognizing that much like any part of our contract, there's going to be work to be done along the way. Whether that get— that work gets done between bargaining agreements or during the next collective bargaining, those are things that we have yet to be seen. But in general, just want to say thank you to the administration and to the assembly, and I'll be available for any questions. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard on this item?

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

Motion to approve, Miss Spraulley, second by Mr. Wallant.

I can speak to it briefly. Go ahead. Um, yeah, just very briefly, then I can turn it to, uh, Mr. Constant. Um, I think this is an item that was stated just now, uh, this was a policy decision made in 2024, so it's really enacting that in this bargaining agreement, and I appreciated the opportunity to learn that this is actually common in, in a lot of other states, and in fact it was actually the previous practice in the municipality, and so it's really returning to historical practice in the city.

Thanks. Mr. Constantine. Oh, if there's no one else, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera? Rivera?

Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AR 2026-11 has passed the body. Next we have item 14C. Item 14C is AO 2026-18, an ordinance, the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 3 20.70.190 to remove outdated classification codes from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services bargaining unit and return fire battalion chiefs to represented status. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

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

Moved by Miss Brawley, second by Mr. Voland.

Mr. Constant. Thank you. And I just want to say thank you to the union for their patience, the firefighters. I would like to say thank you to the chief for the ongoing work in this challenging conversation that has gone on for a number of years, um, too long, um, but hopefully we're at a point.

And to the administration for being part of the process to get us here. This project started in the previous administration, and here we are putting it to bed. So I just want to say thank you to everybody who's been party to it. If there's no one else, then members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers.

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day.

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, AO 2026-18 has passed the body. Thank you all. Next we have item 14D, AO 2026-20, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the application of acceptance and borrowing an aggregate amount not to exceed $5,132,720 and appropriating $1,798,720 from the State of Alaska Drinking Water Fund Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Emerging Contaminants funding for the purpose of financing a portion of the Tanaina Hill Subdivision Water Project and providing for related matters to the Anchorage Water Utility Capital Improvement Budget Fund 540200 and amending the 2026 Capital Improvement Budget programs. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. Would swell the body. Move to approve.

Second. Moved by Miss Brawley, second by Mr. Vollen. Miss Brawley. Um, yeah, this one I urge support. This is really a step in a much longer process that I— we've gotten emails about from folks that live in the Tanana Hills subdivision.

So again, I would just urge support. Thanks.

Any further discussion?

Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes. Member Baldwin-Day? Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes. Member Rivera? Member Rivera? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2026-20 has passed the body. That brings us to Item 14E, AO 2026-17, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 4.3 acres from R4SL Multifamily Residential District with Special Limitations to R4 Multifamily Residential District for Seward Towers Tract 1, Northway Business Park PLAT 96-59. Public hearing on this item is now open. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes.

The mic is off. There you go. Good evening. Tyler Robinson, Cook Inlet Housing Authority chair. Members of the assembly, mayor, and staff, I'm here to ask for your support of this rezoning.

The primary reason we're here is we recently purchased a property that the zoning was R4SL. It's never been developed on. The original ordinance was made in 1982. You can imagine a little bit different time in 1982 where we were as a community as well, where what we had in code to guide development. And so one of the things that the special limitation did is it required any multifamily use to come forward and to go through a conditional use permit process.

That would be unusual today. I don't know of any sort of by-right residential development that requires a conditional use permit. We've substituted that process with lots of other things. In code, from landscaping to just administrative reviews and a whole bunch of other things. And so what this would do is eliminate a reason for us to go forward with the CUP now or importantly at any point in the future if we amend what our current plan is.

So our current plan is to build 72 units of senior— affordable senior housing in 3 different phases. So it's possible we get to the— we hope to build the first one this summer, but it's possible we get to a subsequent phase, and if it was a little bit out of sync with whatever conditional use permit process we went through. We might have to go through that process again. A CUP process costs between $20,000 and $30,000, and it probably takes, you know, generally speaking, about 4 to 6 months. To find this, I think you all know that you've recently outlawed the ability to put special limitations on.

So this is— we're just asking you to remove what is there and to render us back to the R-4 zoning. In this case, we believe that we're consistent with the comprehensive plan. That's one of the criteria that you all have to find to approve this zoning. That generally is done through colors on the map that, that in this case is a medium intensity land use classification. It calls for density between, I think, 15 and 35 dwelling units an acre.

We're somewhere between 15 and 20 by the time we add everything we need to on site. So we're squarely within there. We have 3-story buildings, which you see both in medium and high density areas. So there's a—. I guess my point is there's a lot of overlap.

We could be kind of partly high, partly medium on a 4-acre site. That would be normal. And finally, what I would say is the R-4 zoning is needed. We bought this parcel with R-4 zoning. We need it from a height standpoint, even though you can build 3-story buildings in the R-3 zoning.

35 Feet is often too short to build a modern-day elevated 3-story building. So we, we both meet the, I think, the classification of medium intensity, but also need that R-4 zoning and are just asking your help to streamline the process and allow us to move forward with this development. Thank you.

I have a quick question.

—For you. Did you see the amendment? I was just recently shared the amendment. I think the spirit of the amendment, and staff can speak to it, is I believe it provides flexibility. I believe that when you look at the comprehensive plan, we should not read that document like zoning code.

That is a policy guidance document. There has to be some flexibility. I believe staff's amendment just clarifies that. That doesn't mean it's all flush, but it means—. It's not staff's amendment, it's my amendment.

I like it. Mr. Voland's amendment. Yeah, came from us. Thank you. Okay, but it works.

I think, I think you're giving yourselves the rationale and the justification to move forward with this, and with that, I really appreciate it. I think there should be a little more flexibility with how we interpret these. Like, I can build an R4-style development in R3 just by altering a few things. Nobody knows the difference when you look at R3 or R4, I guarantee you that. And we often are not really hitting the highest levels of density because of everything else.

I like the flexibility that you're granting yourselves this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

Anyone at all? I don't see anyone else. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Again, anyone else seeing here?

None. Public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion to approve, Mr. Walland, second by Ms. Brawley. Mr. Walland.

Oh, okay. Miss Silver seconds. I didn't hear— gotta be louder. Mr. Voland moves, Miss Silver seconds. Mr. Voland.

Thank you. I'll move Constant Voland Amendment Number 1. Second. Motion to amend by Mr. Voland, second by Miss Brawley. Mr. Voland.

Thank you. So what this does is puts into the record our concurrence as a body with the Planning and Zoning Commission with their finding in support of rezoning zoning to R-4. This was, I think, a rare instance of differing recommendations. I won't say disagreement, but I will say differing recommendations between the Planning Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission.

And I think that the commission laid out some good rationale for their findings, as we heard in testimony tonight. I also feel that having this as part of the record is consistent with our prior policy as a body to remove the ability for special limitations to be applied to properties. And some folks will remember that ordinance that we passed, but I believe we have some newer members. And, and for me, you know, when we have a special limitation getting, getting in the way of multi-family residential development, that's a problem. This will be a project in my district that I'm really excited about— senior housing.

We need more housing for our seniors, and so I appreciate that this is being worked on. And Member Constant, or rather Chair Constant, and I did work with Assembly Council to verify that, you know, we can agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. And looking at code, you know, our finding as the Assembly is that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Would not result in an objective risk to health or safety and does not conflict with other laws or regulations. So, just having that as part of this, I think, strengthens, um, the criteria for this free zone, and I hope you all will support it.

Thank you. So, I have Mr. Johnson next in the queue.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I have a question to, uh, somebody either from the administration or the planning department, depending on who wants to field it. I, I, having read through, um, Amendment as well as PCC's comments and the Planning Department's original recommendation. I'm just curious if somebody could, you know, maybe elaborate a little bit more on if Planning continues to have concerns either with this amendment, if it's adopted, if this is somehow a precedent-setting action that we should be mindful of, or if the inclusion of this amendment necessarily would affect their recommendation for the underlying ordinance that we're contemplating here.

Through the chair to Member Johnson, um, Mili Sabab, Planning Director, for the record. Um, in my mind, this is an example of the system working the way it is supposed to work. We took a conservative approach to the interpretation of the plan and probably will continue to take a more conservative approach to interpretations when it comes to the removal of SLs. Uh, we made a recommendation at the Planning and Zoning Commission. We had a great discussion at that commission about, um, this particular case.

And, um, in the end, I believe that I feel comfortable with the findings, and the Planning Department feels comfortable with the findings that the Planning and Zoning Commission made. And, um, it is here before you to decide whether or not you agree with their findings as well.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you.

All right, is that it, Mr. Johnson?

Yes, Chair. All right, thanks. Miss Brawley. Yeah, thank you. Um, I also intend to support this, and I appreciate the amendment.

And then I'll just say here, rather than on the main item, I think, um, uh, this is exactly the kind of thing that really speaks to the need to, uh, to update our plan overall. Obviously, that is a much bigger project than this one project And so this is not a place to hold it up, but I think again, with planning, the general principle is that the goals are the most important, and then the policies and all of the level below that is really the detail of how to get there, and the endpoint of it is to reach those goals. And so when we have a disconnect between our individual policies and the actual goals, especially in the area of housing, I think there's more we can do there. And then I also say this is another great example. I know some folks were not on the body when we discussed special limitations in detail.

I, for one, am glad that they are behind us as a policy, but we have hundreds of them still to deal with. And often they are going to get dealt with in this manner, where an individual project applicant is trying to do something and then finding something that in this case was from, I believe, 1982 that said you have to go through a certain public hearing process, which we already have in our code now since that time, and saying that basically we're using a different zoning district to achieve some of the goals that are in that zoning district and also modifying it so that we create these weird frankensteinian Einstein districts that only apply to one parcel or a set of parcels. So anyway, just to say, for those who are really interested in digging in the weeds on special limitations, there is a lot more that you can uncover there. But for now, I am glad that this one is proposed to be removed and again, that we are sticking true to our goals, which is to build more housing and to make sure that that housing fits in the neighborhoods that it is. Thanks.

Myself, thank you. Mr. Constant, thanks. I'll be very brief. I just want to restate what Mr. Voland said.

This amendment does two things, really. It concurs with the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then it makes an official finding of this body on this dais when we're convened that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, period, full stop. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Voland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did want to follow up just really briefly, um, maybe with Director Babb.

Um, I remember when we passed the ordinance, um, removing special limitations as a future tool, there was some conversation around could the planning department go through and potentially identify other special limitations that are sort of getting in the way of housing. Is that something that you guys are looking at, or is that a future project that could be done? We have done a comprehensive examination of the special limitations in existence in the bowl. They are so varied and unique, each one is its own little zoning district, that we couldn't really find a comprehensive approach to removing any— to removing them en masse, really. So I can answer your question in general, or in you know, specific detail according to each special limitation.

But unfortunately, there wasn't any identified pattern or trend that we could just maybe overturn. I'm not sure if that answers your question. No, I think it does. And yeah, it's just— it is interesting to think about how unique these have been applied to— uniquely, they've been applied to various properties throughout Anchorage. And I also remember when we discussed them, you know, whether or not they should be, uh, continue to be a policy tool.

You know, the issue of spot zoning came up. And, um, you know, I, I think that there's been a lot of work on the assembly too to sort of try to simplify, um, our zoning districts. And then, yeah, so Yeah, more broadly, I guess I feel like this is consistent with the— our Assembly's Housing Action Plan, with the mayor's 10,000 Homes in 10 Years plan, and also our Comp Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan. So definitely looking forward to supporting this tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, anyone else on the amendment? Seeing here none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes. Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes— oh wait, that's just the amendment. How does the youth member vote? A vote of 12 to 0. The youth member votes yes. Yes.

So we're now back on the main motion as amended. Any further discussion? Hearing and seeing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera?

Yes. On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes. Yes. AO 2026-17, as amended, has passed the body. Next we have item 14F, which is AO 2026-19, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.90, Access to Public Records, and AMC Section 3.30.016, Personnel Records, to update the public records request and response procedures, making corresponding change to repealing Regulation 3.90, the Anchorage Municipal Code regulations, and amending AMC Section 2.30.

08-5 To update procedures for assembly access to information. Public hearing on this item is now open. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is off.

There you go. My name is Miranda Walso, and I'm from Chugiak/Eagle River. Chair Constant and members of the assembly, I appreciate the work that's gone into modernizing the public records ordinance, and I support the goals of improving timelines and clarifying procedures. Procedures. I want to flag several areas where the language may unintentionally weaken transparency and undermine the access the public has to critical information on municipal operations.

First, the definition of municipal agency should be clarified regarding the status of publicly owned corporations like the ACDA. These entities manage public assets and public funds. If they're not explicitly covered, significant records related to public financing and development could fall outside disclosure requirements. Corporate structure should not determine alone whether the public has access to such critical information. Second, the exclusion of proprietary software programs is overly broad.

Almost all of the financial records of the municipality are maintained in SAP, which is a proprietary software. The public does not need access to the source code. In fact, the city does not have access to the source code, but they absolutely need access to the financial data stored in those systems. The ordinance should clearly state that data and standard reports generated from proprietary systems remain public records. The provision stating that the municipality does not have to compile or create new records could severely limit access to meaningful financial information for most individuals.

In modern government, many records exist as structured data alone. Producing expenditure summaries, vendor payment histories, or departmental— excuse me— department-level financial breakdowns requires running reports and the creation of a new record. That should not be considered creating a new record when comes to eligibility for public access, it should be considered simply extracting the existing data. Finally, a municipal business exception in the personnel section seems misplaced. Internal access by employees or business agents is not necessarily the same as public disclosure, and public record laws govern what the public can access, not the internal workflow needed for conducting municipal operations.

I urge the Assembly to clarify these provisions and ensure that modernization of our public records law does not inadvertently narrow transparency. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

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

Moved by Miss Silver, seconded by Miss Brawley. Miss Silver. Transparency in local government is, um, one of the main issues, core issues that I campaigned on I believe it's very important. It, you know, keeps your government honest, and it keeps it working for the people. So I was really excited to work on this ordinance, which I believe will greatly facilitate public access to public records.

And some of the main ways that this ordinance does that by is by minimizing the fees for requests that take under 3 hours.

It adds timelines to requests so that you can't just be delayed forever and ever. And it makes the exemptions to public records pretty narrow so that they can't be abused to withhold records from the public that actually are and should be public records. So I'm pretty excited to have this before us tonight, and I ask that you please support it. Thank you. I have myself in the queue.

Mr. Constant. Thank you. And I would offer just a little bit more on the minimizing of fees. We do have an amendment that we're talking about moving that will address kind of one of the fees.

We set up a baseline fee that an individual would pay to file, which is de minimis, like the 10-cent bag on the fee, just to make sure that they're going to come back for their records and we are going to do the work on their behalf. And also on the topic of setting timelines, it's really One of the fundamental changes here is that it requires the regular production of records. If the request is very complex and it goes over months and months and months, it's not that you're going to be told when you get your notice that it's going to take months and months, and then you don't hear anything, and then at the end of that time they tell you, "Oh, it's going to take months and months more." Instead, there's a regular production schedule required, meaning as they start to gather the records, they provide the records. If they don't meet the deadlines, they continue to produce the records as they go. It also creates a streamlined appeals process to either whichever is the steward of the records, the mayor over the executive branch, and the assembly maintains its position in the assembly branch for appeals.

I would also note, and I would love a nod of heads over from the administration, that when we talk about a municipal agency that includes our subordinate and subsidiary organizations, including our friends, the Anchorage Community Development Authority, or the Port of Alaska, or our other enterprises and utilities. Yeah, they're nodding. So for my purposes, agency includes all of those. It does not create a loophole for them not to be incorporated. The one thing that we didn't do is dive into the Anchorage School District's policies.

What we did instead was set the policy within this ordinance that the Anchorage School District must have a reasonable policy. And the reason we didn't do that is this project took 2 and a half years to get to you in the form that it's in right now, and that was before we even met with the school district, who operates on a different cycle and a different timeline of records. When a teacher is the possessor of the primary record and the teacher doesn't work for the school district from May through August, there's no way for the school district to provide the record. And so what we've done instead is request that the school district provide some meaningful process, and I'm going to be corrected, I bet. Ms. McPherson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, Mr. Musa is the one who will be the one to most appropriately comment on this. But while what you said is correct with respect to AWU and the Port of Alaska as instrumentalities of the municipality, it is not expressly correct with respect to ACDA because of a carve-out within the code that addresses ACDA. So I would defer to Joe, who has been our subject matter expert on this.

Specific issue for further questions on that matter. But I just want to make sure that that's very clear on the record and that our nod was a nod with a— with an exception, and that that's clear before we go forward on that issue. Fair enough. And though if the body has concerns about the nature of ACPA, then I think in the future after April 28th you should take that up. And, um, so lastly, I would offer that the— all right, actually there's two sections, um, more just in relationship to the testimony we heard that we kept software and other proprietary elements of the software in this as exemptions.

It does not include, um, reports generated from the software. Those are public records. Using SAP, as was testified, we get a monthly report from the budget and management and budget team that are all exports out of SAP. All of those reports are in fact producible. And so it's just the software that we're talking about, those kind of things.

We don't generate software for the public to be able to read the source code and do all of that stuff. And then finally, the internal access piece, which is the end— it's a discussion about how the Assembly has the authority as individual members to review records within certain constraints. It's not just broad and unfettered access, because personnel records, for example, or other confidential records they are inherently protected by the municipality. And so it might seem like a non sequitur to the question of the public records. We are not saying that those records become public records when an assembly member seeks to access them in the course of their legislative business.

And so, um, that isn't at all what's going on here. We are not creating them as public records. Instead, we're just making it explicitly clear the assembly does have the right, with certain caveats, to review Files. So again, this is a project that started with Ms. Zalatel and myself during the previous administration, and it just grew and grew and grew and grew. And it's complex because.

The number one producer of records for the municipality is Anchorage Police Department, and so they had a lot of input in the process. Also, um, with the expansion of the kind of real-time policing and the license plate readers and all the cameras on all the intersections, there's a lot of conversation about, um, are those public records, and if so, what's the potential of producing them, because they're on pretty rigorous deletion schedules. And it's a deep and involved conversation. The product that you see here is introduced by Miss Silvers, myself, and the mayor. It is a compromised project.

It is a good product. It is not a perfect product in anybody's perspective, but we will not let the good be a victim of the perfect. So I urge your support in this, and, um, boy, it is quite a project. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair.

Uh, you raised two points that were identified by the public testimony that I think are important to just get a little additional clarification from either the sponsors or the administration with respect to the ACDA question and the, the generation of the reports. It seems that there are— these are simple amendments potentially, unless you're— unless I'm misreading it. To add additional language to clarify those particular spaces so that we don't have any misinterpretations. We're not waiting for head nods, and we kind of have the clarity that who's covered, even if they are subordinates to us, and the clarity of it. What does it take to do that?

Is that an amendment?

Is it a simple thing? Chair, you refer to after your departure date. Does that mean that you perceive this as to be a difficult amendment? That would be the first part. So, Joe, can come on up.

I would offer that this took 2 and a half years, and every little turn of the conversation took more time and more time. And so I would hesitate greatly to do anything quickly and lightly on the dais, and I would recommend any broad kind of looks and changes other than what's here, unless for something that really is offending, uh, to take another project where people sit down and think it through, because like I said, every single time we had a slight change, it was another week of conversation. Week, week, week, month, month, month, year, year, year. And so I hesitate to have any changes on the dais that are substantial. But Mr. Musa, uh, through the chair to Member Martinez, AMC 25.35.060C—.

This is ACDAs own section of code— says that they're not subject to Title III unless otherwise provided. In that section of code. So in my understanding, that's been true since ACDA was established. So my understanding is that currently ACDA is not subject to Chapter 3.90, our public records law, and so this AO would not change that status quo. And then as to proprietary software, that was copied wholesale from the longstanding Alaska Public Records Act, and the administration of, of that act in this context is very well established.

I don't think there should be any ambiguity as to meaning of proprietary software in that definition. So following— thank you, stay with me. But we can get clearer in terms of more specific language to eliminate any potential ambiguity, is that correct? You can always seek to amend a piece of legislation if the body wills it. I don't think it's necessary.

I think the definition from state law that we're drawing on, that's been the definition for a long time, is clear enough. And just respectfully to my colleagues, if this project took 2 years to get this far and we still have a gap with respect to ACDA being outside of a reporting requirement, I think that's a problem. Um, and, and so what I would hope is that there's a clarity to closing that gap, a commitment to closing that gap, and I just don't know of how we confirm a commitment to closing a gap when we vote on an item already. And so I would love to hear how we approach this. I don't want to do a floor amendment because I believe what Mr. Constance said.

I think these are more thoughtful and deliberative processes that should be taken slowly, but that, that may require a postponement from my vantage point, um, unless Someone can give me a real clear understanding of the reason that ACDA should be excluded in the first place as originally identified in the code, or is that an area of code that just needs to be updated with a different project?

So—. Yeah. Through the chair to Member Martinez, the section of code I'm looking at actually says that ACDA is exempted from Titles 3, 6, and 7. And I think the intent there is to make ACDA leaner, meaner, and able to engage in sort of commercial activities that a typical government organization would not be.

So from my vantage point, I think there's a deeper project with respect to the transparency question that was raised from the public testimony. I don't necessarily see that as a pause tonight. I think that there's a distinction between the further investigation of that question, because you identified more sections of code, of title, that they are exempt from. And there may be some other questions around transparency. And I think you've identified even the commercial aspect of their operations, and there's some privacy to that, that are maybe more thoughtful and sensitive types of questions.

So I do want to respect that. I appreciate it for being raised because I think that transparency, especially with respect to financial records and, and, you know, economic development, are important. And then from the other vantage point, The proprietary stuff, is it a hard amendment to get clearer tonight? Is it one sentence? I think it would depend on the legislative will that you're trying to effectuate.

I think that there's a longstanding definition in Alaska statute that says that, look, if we produce our own proprietary software, then that software is not a record subject to disclosure. I think that's pretty clear. I think if you think it needs additional clarity, you are of course free to offer an amendment. I just don't see the ambiguity to be resolved. I take your word for it tonight, and I thank you for approaching this.

I will keep my eyes on this conversation with you as well, just to get a— if there's any future bump in the road around any proprietary software that we are paying for, that we are subscribing to, and the retrieval of any data that we are entitled to, that's, that's going to be the, the flashpoint for a project. Thank you, I appreciate you. Quick clarification, we're not talking about the data that comes out of those proprietary softwares, right? Because reports are generated, it's public, correct? If there's a report that's generated using proprietary software, the report itself is a record under the plain meaning of the definition of record.

It's literally talking about software built and developed, which is— it's just an oddity of the code. So, Miss Win Pearson, you put yourself in Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to layer onto what Mr. Musa said. I don't know the full legislative history of where the reference came from to Title III, Title VI, and Title VII, but I have spent quite a bit of time looking at the use of community development authorities and public authorities in other states, and it's not uncommon for this type of exception specifically from public disclosure— I mean, public records acts— and also from procurement requirements, the Title VII requirements, to be something that is rolled into the creation of a public authority or a, you know, community development authority to allow that kind of entity to have the kind of operational flexibility to do more elaborate business deals with some degree of kind of be— to be able to handle more commercially sensitive information and do those kind of business deals.

So I just wanted to say that I think it does underscore the point that you made, Member Martinez, about this being potentially a different conversation than the conversations that might pertain to other instrumentalities of the municipality. So just wanted to add that to the conversation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, Ms. Brawley.

Thank you. Um, yeah, first, uh, I do have a minor amendment, but also, uh, say I really appreciate all of the work that went into this, just having seen it from the outside. Um, and, and yeah, I know, um, this, this is one that does affect a lot of workload. And so really making sure that we, um, that we get it right, or as best we can, um, and that whatever we do is workable. And, um, I guess I'll say the one thing that I, uh, contemplated an amendment on, but I want to express appreciation that it's already in there, is dealing with records requests regarding large amounts of video that is used for commercial purposes.

I've had conversations with two different police chiefs on this item. I know there's certainly, you know, TV shows, streaming, all of those things, no shade on those folks, but want to make sure that we are intentional to the extent that we can about how basically public records, but also really someone's worst day often when they're interacting with police for various reasons, is not basically someone else's entertainment. I think that is a line that this community should consider. That said, they are public records, and so we don't control what happens with them. So I will say there's a section in there that addresses that.

I'm interested in a separate project that would have to do with potential contractual relationships with the muni, with third parties like that who would utilize the footage on a larger basis. But that is for another day. So.

I will instead move a much smaller amendment, which is Brawley Amendment 1. Second. Motion to amend by Member Brawley, seconded by Mr. Vohland. Ms. Brawley. Thanks.

This just changes one word, straightforward, has nothing to do with what I just said, and that is referring to substance misuse instead of substance abuse. Both of those terms certainly are used in, in the field, but there was a prior AO referenced here that made that change, and so this is mostly for consistency with existing policy. Thanks. Any discussion on the amendment? Any objection to the amendment?

I'm seeing here no objection. We'll consider the amendment as adopted. Um, back on the main, Ms. Silvers.

Um, yeah, I would like to move, uh, Constance Silvers Amendment Number 2. Second. Motion to amend by Ms. Silvers. Vice Chair Brawley. Ms. Silvers.

Um, so there's two parts to this amendment. Um, I will, uh, see if Chris wants to speak to the first part after I speak to the second part, which is changing the fee that an agency may charge from $10 to $6. And that is currently what APD is charging. And so with this ordinance, one of the things that we put in here that I was very excited about is that for Records requests that take under 3 hours, you are not paying the hourly fees. The only thing in there is the administrative filing fee.

And I think that is important, because that does help prevent requests where people are just putting in requests, but they don't really want the information. So anyhow, it kind of helps prevent that. I don't think that you need to charge $10 to accomplish that, though. Just stick with the $6 that APD is currently charging. That is sufficient.

Thanks. And I'll speak to the second part of the amendment. Mr. Constantine. Thank you. Or the first part, in reverse.

So we spent a lot of time going over the topic of what happens with municipal security cameras, in particular inside of buildings where we don't necessarily want those records to be producible, monitoring people's movements within the building and things of that nature. But then there came the conversation, well, what if I wanted myself. Can I have a right to that? But then more so, it was along the lines of— and this amendment tackles the question of one's property. If we make security cameras not subject to disclosure, what happens in the parking lot if somebody hits a car and then we have security cameras trained on it, but we have a very black and white policy that it shall not be produced?

This provides an opportunity that that footage could be produced if it's your property or your Or another scenario would be we're in a committee meeting and somebody has a bag stolen from them and there's a camera trained on the place where the bag was. Why wouldn't we want to provide at least a minimum of production of— if the record exists? The second half of that first part there is if they'll make reasonable efforts, because we have different tools with different retention schedules, some that retain for 2 days, some for 14 days, some that are on the machine, some that are on a server. And so it's tricky to come up with a one-size-fits-all approach.

So that is the nature of the amendment. Those two parts— reduction in the fee is proposed to make it more de minimis, and allowing the person to seek footage of their own property if it's on a muni security cam. Any further discussion on the amendment? Yes, sure. Oh, sorry, Mr. Johnson, you were in the queue.

Yeah, thank you. I think there might be two parts to this, but looking at the, the change in the administrative filing fee, Just to make sure I'm following this correctly, if you're saying the current fee is $6, then when I look at kind of the fiscal impact of this loss of $36,000 in revenue, that wouldn't be a loss of $36,000 from what we're currently collecting if $6 is what the fee is already, right? It would be $36,000 in potential additional revenue. Am I following this correctly? Correct.

Want to speak to the microphone, Ms. Source? Yes, that is correct. And I mean, I think that, that number probably isn't really accurate either, because I think how many public records requests that you have received doesn't necessarily mean how many people have followed through and paid for those. So it's, you know, it's what you could possibly lose, but I don't believe there's a lot of accuracy in that.

Thank you. And I will offer— sorry, go ahead, Chair. I would offer the purpose of the fee was never about revenue, right? That's a secondary impact of the fee for where we are as the sponsors in the conversation about applying this across the board. We did two things.

We provided that the first 3 hours are free minus the small upfront fee. That's new. So there's a reduction in revenue based on the shift in the policy from you get 1 hour free, and if it's more than an hour, you pay $40 an hour. So there's where the main shift in revenues comes from. The purpose of the fee is it's like that 10-cent fee on a bag, just to dissuade people from making nuisance requests.

They better mean it. If they want it, they should come in. It's just along those lines of skin in the game, I think was the term that had been circulating a little bit. And so anyhow, so the revenue piece is secondary and sidebar in my opinion. Now I know you want to hear from the admin, so you have the floor.

Uh, yes, Chair. Yeah, I think my question would be to the administration. As you mentioned, this was a collaborative project between the assembly members and the administration. Um, so I would just like to hear if they have any comments on this proposed amendment and if that, you know, $10 was an amount that they sort of intentionally settled on and whether or not there are any concerns about possibly adopting this amendment.

Thank you. So I think that it is fair what Member Silver said, that it is difficult to estimate the actual amount of extra revenue that would be foregone by ratcheting down that $10 filing fee to the $6 level. If you look at 2024 numbers, my best understanding is there might have been 9,000, give or take, public records requests across the municipality. If every single one of those people had been charged a minimum filing fee of $10, we would get a certain amount of revenue. If you ratchet that down to $6, then it's a potential loss of up to $36,000.

But as Member Silver has mentioned, there's inherent uncertainty in that estimate. Right, for any number of different reasons. I'm sorry. It's not a potential loss, right? It's a potential decrease of the amount we would have gained otherwise, right, from going down from 10 to 6.

It's important, little discernment there. It's not a loss of revenue, it's a, it's something slightly different. And the other thing just to point out is that APD has, as a matter of practice, been charging at least $6 to process any public records request for quite some time. So the $6 level would track current practice at the agency that receives by far the lion's share of all public records requests.

Mr. Johnson.

Oh, okay. Well, just to make sure I'm following this correctly, it does not sound like the administration is concerned about this, this amendment, and I'm following it correctly, would generally be supportive.

Or neutral. Sorry, through the chair to Member Johnson, I was just walking back up to the podium. I apologize. Um, the administration doesn't object to the amendment. Thank you.

Um, that's all, Chair. Thank you.

I would just offer that nothing came easy in this conversation. Every single word was stretched to its thinnest possible element to get to where we are today. This is a true compromise, exceptionally well done project from that perspective. Anyone else on the amendment?

All right, yeah, if you could tease the word really, really, really, really thin, this project did it. Members may proceed to vote on the amendment.

Member Myers?

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day? Yes. Member Johnson? Yes.

Member Rivera? Yes.

On the amendment, on a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, the amendment has passed. We're now back on the main motion as amended. Ms. Silver, any last words? No. Um, I will speak then.

Is anyone else— I don't see or hear anyone else. Um, I want to thank a lot of people I want to thank the mayor for the leadership on the question on the other side. I want to thank the attorneys who work for the assembly who sat through this project iteration after iteration after iteration. I want to thank the attorneys on the 7th floor who came to the project well underway when they came into office and the project was working and the challenge that it had to keep the fire burning as all kinds of priorities were happening across the municipality. I want to thank our outside counsel from LBP, who spent a lot of time working and drafting and kind of teasing out the various nuances to the question.

And, um, Ms. Zalatel, who I started this project with in 2024. Um, this— she was a key initiator of the project.

Project, and the work that we did back then helped us to get here tonight. Now, I think to Mr. Martinez's question about how do we get it better in the future, members have the right to bring it forward, and this is the first major, major update of this code section in a very long time, and hopefully a major, major update isn't necessary anytime in the near future, but you should always keep your eye on the process of producing records for the public, because inherently these records are theirs, ours, all of ours as a community. And so in the spirit of producing to the public that which they are owed and doing it in a manner that is as much, as efficient as possible with the municipal resources that we have, which mostly are staff who get stretched real thin, this is a really good product, and I urge your support. If there's no one else, then members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? No.

Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera? Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 1, and the youth member votes yes. Yes, AO 2026-19 as amended has passed the body, which brings us to our last item of the night.

Tonight is— it's Item 14G, AO 2026-16, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 11, Section 14.60.030, and Code of Regulations Chapter 11.10 regarding vehicle-for-hire requirements to conform code with best practice state law and remove obsolete requirements to encourage compliance and increase safety and to lower costs. There is also an S version. Public hearing on this item is now open. Welcome. Please come forward, state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes.

It's on. Hi, good evening. My name is William Burke. I live in Assembly District 4. Uh, I'm also the chair for the Anchorage Transportation Commission, uh, here to testify on behalf of the commission.

Uh, the Anchorage Transportation Commission has been working on updating Anchorage Municipal Code Title 11. In this process, the commission has worked with, uh, the TI Division as well as numerous stakeholders in the industry. These stakeholders include the Municipal Attorney's Office, permit owners, business owners, dispatch companies, vehicles for hire, chauffeur drivers, and the general public. We've actually held 6 public meetings here at the Lusak Library. Over the course of these multiple public meetings, we gathered input and had extensive discussions which were held, uh, through this process.

This ordinance was drafted. As a result, there was a majority support for the changes and additions in the ordinance by the stakeholders and unanimous approval by the Anchorage Transportation Commission. We believe these updates will help the efficiency of the industry and improve safety for all involved. Some of the highlights include updating the smart taxi meters, which is projected to reduce costs at all levels as well as provide enhanced operational features, aligning code to the industry and TI Division needs, updating and clarifying the code, increasing fare rates, which haven't been done in a long time.

And they're at their current maximum of $3, and then swifter enforcement to encourage better compliance. The only major request that was not approved was the request to deregulate the vehicle-for-hire tourism subgroup and transfer oversight to the USDOT. After research and public testimony, it was determined that would not provide the public safety and security necessary. Uh, one of the reasons why is USDOT supervision is not focused on this size vehicle. It does not ensure annual vehicle inspections, chauffeur criminal history, background and driving record checks, and vehicle accident repair tracking.

Since the DOT is focused on larger vehicles, it could be many years before they encounter one of these 15-passenger or less vans. AMC Title 11 offers safety and oversight to these size vehicles. One thing we wanted to look at was the DOT annual inspections. There's a couple different things that vary from the DOT annual inspection to the one that's in Title 11. Some of those are accessible and operational seat belts.

That's not in a DOT inspection. Doors latching and easily closing. The interior of the vehicle to be clean, of good repair, and free from broken seats. All wire connections located out of the way of the passengers. A functioning horn.

Defrosting and heating systems operational. Um, sorry. Thank you, sir. I don't see any questions for you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

You can leave it on. Yeah, anyone at all, please come forward if you're going to testify. Please come forward. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes.

Mark Marion, District 5, East Anchorage. I have known this, this especially the taxi industry, for over 20 years, first as a dispatcher and then also been advocating for the cab drivers. One of the things that has been lacking that I've noticed has been the regulation of the dispatch companies. Like, for instance, a dispatch company could easily tell the cab owners, "Well, we're gonna raise your stand rent," and there's no oversight on that sort of thing. And there's no whether they had performed a quality of service to deserve that stat rent increase or not.

And the other issue, and I noticed it was in here, in 2015 we tried to regulate, I believe it was the TNCs, the Ubers and the Lyfts, and then the state went in and said, no, you can't do that. So, and I noticed that was back in here again. And is there a way that we can somehow get the, the state and the muni to agree? The other thing that needs to happen is with the, the chauffeur's license, uh, um, renewals. They should be at the same time as the driver's license renewals, so therefore It should be like on the date of birth of the chauffeur, which is how the DMV does it, instead of just any date out there.

And for that, the other thing that also needs to happen is the dispatch staff should also be able to in a way cooperate with the drivers and not have the dispatch be the god of the drivers. And that was what the problem— some of the problem was in the past, is the dispatch needs to work with the drivers.

All right, anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all?

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Carl Johnson, live in Sand Lake, District 3. So, um, I am one of those tour company owners that operates under the vehicle-for-hire permits in Title 11. We first introduced the memo to the assembly back in October of 2024, which actually had 2 recommendations, not a complete deregulation of tourism and handing it over to USDOT. And actually an acknowledgement that some of us are in fact currently regulated by USDOT, which mandates, uh, USDOT compliance for any vehicles that are 9 to 15 seats for passengers and operate in interstate commerce, which here, if you're a tour operator, is going to include picking up at the Port of Alaska, Whittier, Seward, and also at the airport. So already regulated.

But also recognizing that some tour companies aren't so regulated, we recommended a separate kind of a carve-out within Title XI to set aside tour operators while still being regulated, but recognizing that they aren't providing a direct passenger service like other vehicle-for-hire permittees are.

So those two were both presented to the Commission. The only one that the Commission discussed in full was the USDOT exemption. Now, just to make it clear for the record, though, that proposal also suggested that in order to gain the exemption, we would have to add a form of whatever the transportation inspection would create, provide an annual show of compliance with USDOT in order to gain the exemption, which would show that we're complying with certain provisions of the USDOT requirements, which.

Include marking the vehicles with commercial numbering, maintaining an accident register for up to 3 years, and/or reporting accidents depending on the severity of the accident, complying with prohibitions against texting while driving and handheld use of a cell phone, maintaining auto insurance, and conducting an annual inspection.

That was rejected. Uh, the other parts of the proposal included things that are very important to tour operators, which is reduction of the permit fees. Right now, based on 2022 numbers provided by Transportation Inspection, the average cost per run of a taxi is $0.26 per permit, whereas taking my company as an average, it's $27— or excuse me, $0.26 per run of a taxi compared to $27 per run of a tour op, tour vehicle. So it's 100 times more expensive per run. So our goal was also to reduce not only the permit fee but how the permits are assigned— one permit per company and then decals for each vehicle.

$300 Per year, $100 for a 6-month fee. And I see that my time is concluded, so thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to be heard, please come forward.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Thank you. Michelle Turner, I'm in Sand Lake, District 3.

I want to talk— I'm also a tour operator owner, and I wanted to talk a little bit about the new requirements for maintaining records. A lot of these requirements are inconsistent with how tour operator manages or operates their business. We do not maintain information via vehicle. It's more per tour or operation. It's very difficult for us to do things like identify exactly who— what passengers or customers we pick up at a particular spot and when we drop them off, the specific dates or the specific times, because we might have, you know, 10 people, 5 or 6 different parties that we're picking up at multiple different locations and then dropping them back off at those same locations, but maybe not in the same order.

Another requirement would be to identify specific people who took the, who took the reservation or who checked in to who made the reservation. That's difficult to do when you're using a system like Viator, GetYourGuide, a website, or if you're using a secondary provider like Salmonberry Tours to book your— to book the tours. My recommendation is that because so much of this is inconsistent with how— so much of this proposal is inconsistent with how tour operators actually manage their businesses, that this portion be pulled out and be reviewed for— and have some sort of working group or discussion with tour operators to make sure that the ordinance as adopted is consistent with how operations are performed and something that we can legitimately comply with. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. Let's poll the body. Move to approve.

Second. Moved by Miss Spraulley, second by Mr. Vohland. Miss Spraulley. Thanks. Um, yeah, and I appreciate the— there's been a lot of discussion about this ordinance.

Um, I have a couple amendments that I'd like to move, and I know they just got passed out. Um, but I can speak to them, so I'm going to move Brawley Amendment 1. Second. Motion to amend by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Wall. Miss Brawley.

Yeah, thank you. So this one is essentially, I guess, so what we've heard, and I appreciate the Commission's, you know, taking up this discussion, and I know there was— we could spend a lot of time really talking about it, but the idea is that there seems to still be something within this vehicle for hire category where there's a lot of different businesses. We heard from tourism operators, we know non-emergency medical transport, there's a number of, of different ones. But specifically for tourism operators, I think they've raised some valid points. I also think in order to really dig into that and to look at that broad category, what's in it, and come up with maybe subcategories or some other kind of regulation scheme versus just deregulating, I think would take more time.

So this would essentially require the divisions of the staff to produce a report, not meaning a lengthy report, but really an accounting of the current vehicle for hire permit holders. So business name, it lists off, not individual drivers. The intent is not to publish a bunch of employees or individual names, but really to say who is operating in this space, what do they look like, and what are the variety of actual operations that we're talking about, because it is a broad category. I will also note that there's been discussion And I know we have some information from our attorneys regarding courtesy vehicles, which are carved out. So also wanting to understand that.

Those aren't currently regulated, so they're not mentioned here. But there's another kind of category of folks that are driving vans around, or people in vans for various reasons. So anyway, all that to say, I think this is really a future project because I do believe that most of the other changes in here are valid and timely. And so this would essentially require that reporting and then at that time would serve really as the basis for a future project to dig into this further. So that's simply what this does.

And then I will also note it mentions relevant information such as violations. As for example, if we see a number of providers getting violations commonly for the same thing, that's one thing. If we see one or two violator, or, you know, operators who are constantly violating, that's also useful information. Types of things that this contemplates. Thanks.

Member Silvers on the amendment.

Do we require this kind of report or information on any other, um, business category?

I, I can offer that we do get regular reports on any number of different licensed operations, mostly marijuana and alcohol.

I would note there's a bit of a Scrivener's error. I think the word "by" after the word "AIM" is probably extraneous.

Yes, thank you. That is a Scrivener's error that we had identified. Correct that in the amendment. Ms. Gerker. Oh, sorry, specifically the one that's after the— by this—.

After, yeah, yeah, after the word "AIM." Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Member Brawley, you just, you mentioned in your, when you were just speaking that this might be a future project to look at carve-outs. Is there a rush that I'm missing for why we have to pass this like right now?

Is there some sort of timeline that why we can't maybe postpone this and then really fully explore potential tourism carve-outs before we pass this tonight? Yeah, and I can briefly speak and then I would turn to the administration. My intent would be, of course, well, one, I don't know if I'm here after April or not. I can't speak to the underlying item's urgency or what that timeline should be. The reason that I would propose to look at it here, regardless of whether it's me or someone else, it's getting published on the agenda, so it'd be public information, um, is that by the middle of August, I would presume all seasonal operators have applied for that year, so it's a more fulsome list.

Um, and then in terms of, uh, holding the rest of the ordinance, I believe personally that a bunch of the other changes seem to be timely. You know, we're out of step with state law, etc., and so That's why I would look at this as a separate project, but I would ask the administration to speak to it because it's really their ordinance.

Thank you to the chair, to Vice Chair Brawley. That's correct. There are a number of pieces in this that are things that we've— changes we've needed to make to align with state law. There are some changes we'd like to make to, again, push for modernization in the industry. Purely practically speaking, This is a big, complex title rewrite, and it's hard to do those straddling the, you know, onboarding of a significant number of new members of the body.

So this will, if we, if this conversation extends past the election, it will inevitably be delayed by another month or so. So our hope had been to be able to get through the full rewrite and conversation with this body prior to the seating of the new assembly. It's not the end of the world if that doesn't happen, but we had timed the introduction of this ordinance hoping that there was enough time to discuss the bulk of the issues that were in this Title XI rewrite with this body as currently comprised, because we know that when there's a resitting of new members, it takes some time for new members to get up to speed on things like this is, I mean, there's new, we're about the work session, there's complexity to what is a taximeter and what is a smart taximeter and why does it matter? And so that was simply, again, not the end of the world, but our hope had been that we could get through the bulk of the many changes that are in this complex title rewrite. So I think we would respectfully ask that if there's a single issue that requires a time horizon that stretches out until August or September and merits that.

Kind of deep dive into data, it would be preferable to address that separately from the large number of other issues that are contained in the comprehensive rewrite of the chapter. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to clarify then, really the real big thing here is just a practical matter of we're going to have a bunch— or might not have a bunch of new people in April, and so we just want to have it done before then, which as a relatively new member myself, I can certainly agree with that assessment that it's a bit of a— you're drinking from a fire hydrant. But if we waited on the overall package here until closer to the election, that'd buy us maybe like 6 weeks to explore the tourism aspects a little bit more fully. Would that be enough time to do that?

Or we could take it all up at once so that way we don't have the sector of the industry kind of in a maybe a little bit of a weird spot waiting for us to, you know, come back to them. Uh, to Chairman Berger, I think it depends on what the body is looking for by way of additional information to further consider the issue. Um, if— so it depends on kind of the extent of the data, the information about permit holders. I know that, um, uh, Vice Chair Brawley's request includes things like, uh, number of violations over a period of time. Like, it depends— it depends on what you're looking for in order to be able to make that policy choice.

Practically speaking, taking another month to get through The approval of the ordinance is, is, is feasible, absolutely, from where we sit. Again, our preference is just hopefully to get through this before we have it with this current body as comprised. Um, but, uh, it depends in terms of whether that's sufficient time to adequately consider the question of whether changes to the regulatory structure governing tourism operators are merited at this time. That's really a question for all of you in terms of what kind of information you need or want to consider before thinking about that kind of change. Okay, so, so the administration wouldn't be opposed if, if it were to be postponed a little bit longer up here?

No, we, we would not be opposed to, uh, to an extension of a meeting or two, or potentially, I don't know, to the beginning of April. Okay, thank you. And Mr. Chair, just maybe a point of information, um, would I make that motion when we get back to the Bain motion off of this? Okay, yeah, thank you.

So I have myself in the queue. Mr. Constantine. Thanks. And I just want to speak briefly to that. The issue that is brought up by the Mr. Johnson and their team and the tourist industry is important, but it's like the smallest sliver of this overall project.

It is something that I do believe warrants close review and analysis, but I think that the elements within this project that are, um, at the core of it, which are the shift to the new meters, the allowance more importantly of the dispatch companies to work with the fee structures that are important to the drivers is probably even more paramount and time-sensitive because every day you're not making the money you could be earning, you're making less because we're waiting. It keeps them down in a way that is pretty meaningful and concrete of a harm, right? And so I think that, um, for myself in contemplating whether to move forward, I think what Ms. Brawley is proposing here by this amendment is to, um, do some data gathering which provides policymakers meaningful data by which you make that decision, which won't be available in April or March. There's just no way to get meaningful data. We have a very clear position that's stated, and I think logically it makes sense.

The folks who are going on photo tours are not the same as people who are being picked up from the airport and taken to their hotel or to Alyeska to stay for the weekend on a short-term drive. And so it just feels like if we delay, all of the good things that the commission and all the parties worked on gets held back and it pushes out that scenario to a much further down time because it takes time to implement these things. It doesn't go into effect until 120 days after. And so the entire tourist season is over by the time the folks who are driving cabs get the benefit of the elements that are within this if we wait. But nothing we're going to do is going to change the scenario for Mr. Johnson or the tour drivers, even if we pass this now, because the end of the season is going to be here before— I mean, they're already doing all their bookings for the year.

So in some ways it's a lost question for 2026. And so, but it's not for the drivers on a daily who are making their fares, which are paying their mortgages. And so there's a lot that argues to proceed, to take this amendment that is here before us and work with it, and the second one that kind of gives the inspector some flexibility working with the folks who are doing this work where they can find places that don't make sense. And so I would suggest that the most sensible plan is to adopt the item and then do pick up a new project, and the new project looks at that very carefully. And I think in the work session we had on Friday, there was another kind of area that I think this body needs to contemplate, which again is going to take quite an amount of time which is looking closely at the surge pricing question and why we have restricted, because of consumer protection, the cab drivers from participating in the market that has shifted.

And why are we not allowing them to have more flexibility? But again, when it came to revelation on Friday that this was a scenario that is kind of boxed out for them, there's no way we're fixing this in this project because that requires a whole other set of analyses that really should be done meaningfully and thoughtfully and reviewed by all the committees and go through all those processes, not just us make up our mind. And so if I were to summarize all that into a simple sentence, this amendment provides the data which you'll be able to make a meaningfully educated decision on in sometime in the not too distant future after the summer tourist season when we have real tracked information. So I am supportive of the amendment. I I don't think I'll be supportive of a postponement, and I believe members really should pick up this question as a project.

Thank you. Miss Sprawley. Thanks. Yeah, and just to add one more point. So when I spoke to actually Mr. Johnson earlier today, one of the desires that he mentioned, at least for his company and probably others as well, is really more engagement with that sector.

And I think that cannot— just realistically, it's not going to be accomplished in 3 to 4 weeks with the time to draft an ordinance and to really hash these things out, because clearly there's been a lot of discussion about this, and there's nuance, and there's other pieces in wanting to involve staff as well. So I just think, like, for, for what my understanding, at least the folks who have been represented in the communications we've gotten, their intent is to discuss and have more process and have more involvement, because I think they're not just simply looking to be carved out with no discussion. And so that's again why I think, um, having that information and then building in the time to do this project. And we've done other, I guess, code rewrites, maybe not since some members have joined, but we changed the alcohol codes and then we still separately took up the question of brunch hour, just as an example. And so it is certainly possible, and it's actually sometimes preferable, to set aside a large policy item that needs a lot of discussion from what in most cases here is really cleanup and modernization for the industry.

Thanks. Anyone else on the amendment? Amendment 7. Forest members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes. Member Baldwin-Day? Yes. Member Johnson?

Yes. Member Rivera? Yes.

A vote of 11 to 1 And the youth member votes? Yes. Yes, the amendment has passed. Miss Brawley, the clerk wanted me to clarify. I believe it was your intent to move the S version.

Yes, thank you. Move the S version, and these amendments are to the S version. Thank you. Miss Brawley, you have the floor. Thank you.

I'll move my second amendment, uh, Amendment Number 2. Second. Motion to amend by Miss Brawley, seconded by Mr. Voland. Miss Brawley. Thank you.

Um, this one actually, um, I believe Miss Turner spoke to this earlier, really the question about record-keeping requirements. So there's, as we said, a number of businesses that are considered vehicle for hire, but they have very different business models, and they do not neatly fit in what you would think of as a limousine or a taxi or something where you have someone being picked up at point A, dropped off at point B, usually a single individual or one party. So this is something that would allow for the transportation inspector to have some flexibility. I modeled this somewhat on zoning, which is not always a good idea, but in this case was the idea of alternative equivalent compliance, where if something is not practical to be done exactly to the letter of the law, there should be other ways to achieve that same— that same goal without, again, just saying you're not subject to those requirements. So this allows for— and that's really not a decision that we have time to make here today, and I think it should be considered for different sectors of vehicle for hire.

So this would allow staff to basically develop guidance. Here is the requirements that you are— that you should meet for your business model. And if they are somewhat separate from those that taxis and similar are subject to, but still in the same ballpark, that that would be allowed. So there's a couple examples described in the amendment, but essentially non-emergency medical transport looks different than a taxi. So does a tourism operator.

So does a number of these other businesses that that, again, involve vehicles but are very different business models.

Anyone else on the amendment? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes. Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, that amendment— and the youth member votes yes. Yes. And that amendment has passed. We're back on the main motion as amended.

Anyone else?

No. No. Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote. Member Myers? Yes.

Member Baldwin-Day?

Yes. Member Johnson? Yes. Member Rivera? Yes.

On a vote of 12 to 0, and the youth member votes yes, yes, AO 2026-16S as amended has passed the body. Which concludes our business agenda tonight. We'll now move on to audience participation. We have a couple of folks who have signed up to speak on the phone, and we start with Miss Pennington.

We're gonna call him. Yeah, he's the second call. Yeah, it seems like we're gonna just— he just sent us like Can we try one more time?

XUV1. All right, can we go ahead and call the second individual?

Your call has been forwarded to an automatic voice message system. Can we try the first one again, one more time?

XUV1, the number you have—. Can we try the second one one more time? Just— we did our due diligence.

Your call has been forwarded to—. Okay, that's it. Anyone else in the room wish to be heard? Audience participation welcome. Please come state your name, what part of town you're from.

You'll have 3 minutes.

My name is Mary Sanchez and I work for Goodwill, and I work for the Job Connections program. Goodwill's mission is to provide vocational opportunities to individuals with barriers to employment. At the heart of our organization are the individuals we employ and serve, and we believe that meaningful training and employment have the power to change lives, expand opportunities, and create lasting community impact. Our job connection services are open to the public and include job search assistance, employment workforce workshops, job leads, computer access, job fairs, and referrals to Goodwill programs and community partners. As an employment specialist, I work closely with job seekers to provide encouragement, connect them with community resources, and support them throughout their employment journey.

One of the most significant barriers our clients face is transportation. To address this, we currently provide bus passes at no cost to individuals who need reliable transportation to attend job fairs interviews, training, and work. However, we are required to purchase these passes at full price, which places a substantial strain on our operating budget and limits the number of individuals we can support. I am here to advocate for the availability of free or reduced cost bus passes for nonprofit organizations such as ours. Access to affordable transportation is critical for job seekers to obtain and maintain employment and reduce transit costs would allow us to serve more individuals while ensuring that transportation is not the deciding factor between employment and continued hardship.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. I appreciate your commitment to supporting workforce development and removing barriers to employment in our community. Thank you.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

I'm William Baxter. I'm from Fairview, and I went out to the, uh, to, uh, Massou, uh, uh, Career Tech for FFA, and, uh, it was really good, and they have a really good FFA program chapter there. And then I went to the A couple weeks ago I went out to a high school and junior high rodeo. They have rodeos and they do, and I went there. And I really like FFA.

One of the things is when I was, I was in multi-level marketing, and one of the problems I didn't do in one of the multi-level marketing is I didn't sell books and tapes to them, like motivational tapes. Stuff like that. And Amway is really big on it. On Amway, they have their different organizations like Network 21 and World Wide Dream Builders and stuff like that. And FFA is kind of like the same way.

They really work on leadership.

But one of the things I always listen to, I never really Stop, I mean, I've stopped and have, but now I'm back on listen to like, like John Maxwell, Zig Ziglar, and all these motivational speakers. A lot of them are Christians and, or Christian background and stuff like that. And I, and for when you get into big leadership and that, most of your big leaders listen to tapes like that. They, I mean, they, uh, Zig Ziglar said when he was, uh, uh, but he would listen to tape all the time. And like a lot of times in your, uh, Amway and, uh, uh, Mary Kay, they teach you to learn some things.

But a lot of, a lot of good, uh, leaders come out of Amway and stuff like that in these multi-level marketing companies. And I think sometimes the multi-level, multi-level marketing companies had some of the best leadership programs for even for Multi-level marketing for leaders. A lot of people were in Amway and that multi-level came out of it. And I really like FFA and I like 4-H a lot, but I'm just doing my best to try to get into more schools. Right now we have, we're getting, we got a couple more, I think we got about 4 chapters here in Anchorage.

Thank you. All right, thank you. Welcome. Please come forward, state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. So, um, mostly unprepared remarks today, uh, going 36 hours pretty much without sleep. So, uh, there are endless things I could talk about, but my mind is not here. So, uh, yeah, where do we go from here? No good deed goes unpunished.

Uh, yesterday I was taking out 5 cases of food in the middle of Mountain View, 11:30 AM— or excuse me, 11:30 PM— and I'm leaving an area and literally take a left-hand turn and, uh, police stop me for, uh, illegal walking on a road in the middle of a neighborhood. Uh, you know, I don't think they do that on the South Side to people that are walking their dogs or kids playing in the road. But, uh, they did it to me, and then they did it to other people. And, uh, clearly the sidewalks were full of snow, but, you know, they still wrote the ticket. Uh, you want to know why people don't like police?

It's because of things like this. So where else do we go from here? Apparently I know more than some of you guys, and even some within the industry. Apparently Alex Hotel has shrewd— uh, they are not passing out bus passes there. They're not passing out bus passes over at the shelters.

They're out of them. People with jobs can't get to places, so they're losing their jobs, and then they're, you know, anyways, I have to save something for tomorrow. And so, uh, where do I go from here? Uh, I don't know. Uh, hopefully I'm keeping you entertained.

I know you're not, uh, acknowledging certain things, but, uh, you know, um, there's other things too. Oh shoot, where am I going with this? I don't know. I'll save for tomorrow. My mind is not here today.

I need to get sleep. And so the one thing I will say is there is somebody in West Mountain View right now that I tried to bring to the attention of somebody last month. They have a spouse with seizures, and literally.

Nobody has reached them in a month, and you wonder why people check out of the system. It's because they're not getting help. So thank you very much for your time. All right, anyone else wish to be heard? Welcome.

Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Thanks for hustling. Hello, I'm Miss Sophia O'Neill, and I reside in Eagle River. There's 2 things I'd like to comment on.

I'm not gonna speak for a long time. One, it was brought up about police video, law enforcement video, and it being a television show or— anyway, sorry, I'm having trouble breathing a little bit. Here's the thing. It may be someone's worst moment, but when it's done in that genre— it's not solely television, it's also done on the internet, it's also done by people's personal cameras— but the show and sometimes news feeds that enable the public to see what law enforcement has to deal with The point is deterrence. The point is to educate.

The point is to say, "You do this, these are the consequences." I just wanted to say that. The other thing that I hope all of you might take a genuine interest to perhaps look into is that the Real ID, The REAL ID requires, you know, multiple forms of identification. I wholly agree with that.

But why does the PFD not just accept the REAL ID as a legitimate form of identification? They want your Social Security card, birth certificate copies, well, originals to make copies. And I'm just a bit curious about that because the Real ID is both, for many, is both federal and state, and it's not cheap. And there's a number of people— this is, can be kind of an impediment for people moving forward. Can definitely see see that.

Um, I just wanted to state that I have other meetings I'll be attending, but these are just thoughts and things to think about and perhaps look a bit into. Uh, thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

Seeing none, we'll start with Member comments? Mr. Presverde. No comments, thank you. Have a good night, everyone. Mr. Kirker.

No comments, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Rivera. Thank you, no comment. Thank you.

Ms. Silvers. No comments, thank you. Mr. Walland. No comments, thank you. Mr. Raulston.

No comments. Mr. Johnson. No comments, Chair. Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Have a great night, everybody. Ms. Martinez. Rest in power, Brother Jesse Jackson. Mr. McCormick? No comments, thank you.

And Mr. Myers?

No additional comments, thanks, Chair. All right, thank you everybody. Um, we paid our dues last meeting. Um, we are now adjourned. Thank you all.

Following The Tide never was assigned to align To ceiling on moon my stride Low G's low weight lo everything cheap These lights these streaks My guy too bright can't vision need mine lenses Blue ball In sky keep turnin' On &nOn &on&on And nOhN AnD oNoH an&D ohNhAn DhAhnhAhnghOanhahnghEeuhhhnnGHHhhh—.