Assembly Special - April 22, 2026 - 2026-04-22 18:00:00

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

Why aren't you tired— [MUSIC] —of me yet?

Why aren't you tired of me yet?

Why don't you tire— why don't you try to be it?

Why won't you talk about my name again? [FOREIGN] Time's chasing after me. I need a little substance. Not sure where it's headed, but I know it's going somewhere. Take a cab and don't look back.

I'll move through all the silence. Now I'm colder than the weather. Steady going under pressure. I'm finally over being lowkey under these old covers. Now I'm back and I'm better.

Steady going Under pressure, sit back and watch the paint dry. Take time and watch the dope rise. In another world, I'd have control of my mind. Can't seem to get it through that things I do, but on my own time. People waiting, slowly fading.

The mirror is telling me I got to grip it right in front of It's passing hours dancing. How the hell am I still standing? Keys are rusting. I'm not playing. Maddies are infiltrating.

Now I'm colder than a weather paper. Steady going under pressure. I'm finally over being lowkey under these oak cups.

Like messing up around my friends, or losing my mom, or going out after dark just to walk my dog. Well, my crypt in my head is glowing green like from outer space. It's just feeling like I'm screwing up and living out of place. Well, it's feeling like I'm still just a mini mini kid. Oh, be Feeling like I grew up knowing I never did.

It's all these things that I tell myself while I keep acting like nobody else has felt the same things in their heart. Well, I'm not a hero, but I better start.

About the same things, and they are. I'm not a hero, but I better start.

Well, I know I ain't a superhero. My eyes aren't laser beams, and I can't jump over buildings, and I'm afraid of everything.

Let the rain fall from my eyes. I've lived a thousand lives. You can't have my heart. You can't hold my mind. I won't stay.

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

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

So full of love, so full of pride, while I sift through all my vices.

I'm running out of time. You're scorching my mind. Propane to the fire. Ignite my desire. I can't ignore the flame.

You can't have my heart. You can't hold my mind. I won't stay. I won't change. Where's the ground?

I keep falling off the edge.

Lost my ground. Now you're heavy on my head. Yeah. Where is the ground? Feels like I'm falling.

I lost my crown. Feels like I'm falling. Where's the grassland? I keep falling off the edge.

Scott. Oh, Mr. Myers, are you there?

And sorry I'm late, folks. Uh, we just had a couple matters. We'll get started in just a couple minutes.

Good evening, everybody. I now call to order the special meeting of the Anchorage Assembly. Tonight is April 22nd, 2026. We're on the calendar tonight from 6:00 PM until 10:00 PM. It's now 6:03 PM.

Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Member Myers.

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

Present. Member Johnson. Here. Chair Constantine. Here.

Member Rivera. Present. It's my understanding that Member Boland is excused. Yes. Member Silvers.

Here. Member Gerker. Happy to be here. Member Perez-Fordilla. He'll be here shortly.

Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you. I'm telling on you.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yeah, and Vice Chair Brawley is also excused.

Mr. Myers, can you try to speak again one more time?

Okay, we'll work out this technical bug.

All right, he can hear us, we just can't hear him, so I'm not sure. Uh, Mr. Myers, one more time.

Okay, we're still working it out.

Mr. Myers, can you try again?

It's not on your end, it's on our end.

Would you hang up and try to call back in, Mr. Myers?

Oh, we heard something. Now can you try, Mr. Mars?

Are you there?

Who do we have on the phone?

Chris, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, we're good to go now. Sorry about that.

Okay, um, we will mark you as present. Next, we're going to have the the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Gerker.

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.

And Mr. Rivera, would you please read the land acknowledgment? Yes, Mr. 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 land that we now occupy.

It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity. The aggregate 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.

Next on the agenda, we have Items of business. We don't really have reports tonight, but if you'd like to, Madam Mayor, you may, but I don't have a report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a report either. Just, uh, thanks everybody for being here and looking forward to a productive meeting. Same.

And I'll just note that the purpose of this special meeting was to take care of all these items of business before next meeting, which is next Tuesday, which is a meeting dedicated to the final budget approval for the year, the first quarter budget revision, the tax levy, and elections certification. So we try to keep that agenda as clear as possible. So tonight then, we're going to just dive right into the business. The first item is item 4A1, Resolution R2026-105, Resolution of the Anchorage Assembly Recognizing and Honoring the Anchorage Responsible Beverage Retailers Association for Its Ongoing Contributions to Community Cleanliness, Public Safety, and Collaborative Outreach. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Mr. Martinez. I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion?

Seeing and hearing no objection, the motion is adopted. I have Mr. Rivera reading, and I will present. Mr. Rivera. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A resolution of the Anchorage Assembly recognizing and honoring the Anchorage Responsible Beverage Retailers Association, ARBRA, for its ongoing contributions to community cleanliness, public safety, and collaborative outreach. Whereas the Anchorage Responsible Beverage Retailers Association, ARBRA, established in 2001 under the leadership of its founder Ed O'Neill, has demonstrated sustained commitment to improving the Anchorage community through proactive cleanup efforts, cross-sector collaboration, and engagement with individuals experiencing homelessness. And whereas ARBRA has continued— contributed to the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of Anchorage's public spaces, including municipal parks, trails, bus stops, areas surrounding package stores, and locations impacted by illegal camping in coordination with local businesses, the Municipality of Anchorage, and public safety partners. And whereas in 2025, ARBRA collected more than 20 tons of trash from public and private spaces across Anchorage, materially improving conditions of residents and visitors and supporting broader public safety and livability goals. And whereas ARBRA has engaged individuals experiencing homelessness, including those facing substance use challenges in cleanup activities, providing opportunities for constructive participation and community contribution.

And whereas ARBRA has built and maintained partnerships with municipal departments, local businesses, enforcement agencies, and community-based organizations contributing to coordinated responses to illegal camping and public conduct concerns. And whereas ARBRA's work reflects an understanding of the complex factors contributing to homelessness, including housing instability, economic hardship, and behavioral health challenges, and has been carried out in coordination with service providers and community partners. And whereas the Anchorage Assembly recognizes the value of community-based partnerships that improve public spaces, support public safety, and create pathways for engagement and stability for vulnerable populations. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly resolves that the, that the Anchorage Assembly hereby recognizes and honors the Anchorage Responsible Beverage Retailers Association, ARBRA, for its longstanding service and measurable contribution— contributions to the Anchorage community, expresses its appreciation to ARBRA staff, volunteers, partners, and participating community members for their efforts to improve the cleanliness, safety, and livability of Anchorage, and encourages continued collaboration among community organizations, businesses, service providers, and government partners to address public space impacts and homelessness in a coordinated, compassionate, and effective manner. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 22nd day of April, 2026.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. For those of you who don't know, my name is Jay. I'm the program director for ARBRA. On behalf of myself and my team, I want to say thank you for everybody for this recognition.

Thank you. I have Mr. Martinez.

Chair, just a request to be added as a sponsor. All right, you will be added as a sponsor. Anyone else? Any objection to being added? I see no objection, including the mayor.

Please. Thank you.

Next we have item 4A2. Resolution AR2026-106, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing the 2026 Anchorage regional winners of the National Civics Bee.

What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Who, who is the mover? Me.

Oh, okay. Mr. Gerker has moved and seconded. Ms. Baldwin-Day. All right, um I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion?

Seeing and hearing no objection, the motion is adopted. I have Mr. Gerker reading and Ms. Baldwin-Day presenting. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Whereas the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce hosted the South Central Alaska Regional Qualifying Competition of the National Civics Bee, an annual nonpartisan civics competition for middle schoolers drawing contestants from across all 50 states the District of Columbia, and American Samoa to test their knowledge of citizens' rights and duties.

And whereas civic education plays a vital role in preparing young people to be informed, engaged members of their communities, equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in local government, understand public process, and contribute meaningfully to civic life in Anchorage and beyond. And whereas the top 20 Anchorage area middle school students were selected to compete in an in-person live quiz event moderated by the Anchorage Chamber Board Member Skye Nevada, featuring two rounds of civic questions followed by a Q&A in which the top five finalists discuss their essay proposals for improving their communities. And whereas an esteemed panel of local judges, including Dr. Terry Nelson of the University of Alaska, Colonel.

Steven Polasek and Assemblymember Felix Rivera evaluated the finalists and determined the winners based on their performance in the live question and answer portion with the top finalist. And whereas William Cutress of Romig Middle School earned first place, followed by Elara Bradley of Greening Middle School, Middle School in second place, and Catherine Dumas of Romig Middle School in third. And whereas These students, these outstanding students, along with 2 additional Anchorage finalists, will advance to the Alaska State Civics Bee with the opportunity to progress to the National Civics Bee competition. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly recognizes and commends William Cutress, Alara Bradley, and Katherine Dumas as student civic advocates and finalists for the Alaska State Competition of the 2026 National Civics Bee, passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 22nd day of April, 2026.

The microphone's off. Hit the button, the green button. There's— there you go. Please tell us your name and what part of town you're from and what are your thoughts. Oh, my name is William Cutress.

I was born in D.C. and I currently live in Alaska. On behalf of everyone that participated in Civics Bee, thank you for presenting me with this award. Thank you. Hello, I'm Kathleen McCardle. I'm a resident of West Anchorage and the Turnagain area, but I'm the president and CEO at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.

Um, our mission is to advance a successful business climate, um, through the civic, economic, and cultural betterment of our community. We've been delighted to host the National Civic SpEASE regional competition in Alaska for the last 2 years, um, seeing increased, um, engagement by middle school school students, uh, the applicants have doubled in the last 2 years. These kids really are astounding. We're so excited to advance these finalists to the state competition that will be held in June along with some students from Southeast Alaska as well. So thank you again for this honor and recognition because it's really important work and we're grateful to be a part of it.

Mr. Rivera.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. The microphone is off. Press the green button. Welcome.

Please tell us your name, what part of town you're from, and your thoughts about this. My name is Elora Bradley, and I just want to say that I'm so thankful for this opportunity. It's really helped me learn to appreciate our country and how it was built. And I just— it's a cause. The cause I'm fighting for is really personal to me, and I really care about the people of Alaska, and it's such an amazing opportunity to be able to fight for this cause.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi again. Welcome. Please tell us your name and what part of town you're from. My name is Catherine Dumas.

I was born in Seattle and I now live here.

On behalf of everybody in the Civics Bee and everybody that supported me through this, I want to say thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Griff.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. It was a pleasure to be one of those esteemed judges, and, um, you know, I left very impressed by everyone, but not surprised that we have this level of caliber from our students here in Anchorage. Best of luck to you all in the state competition, and then I am sure several of you will be heading to the national competition and very excited for that. Thank you.

All right, thank you and congratulations. So next we have item 4A3, Resolution AR2026-108, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing young Alaskans engaged in climate justice and civic engagement in honor of Earth Day. What is the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. I have— I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion? Seeing no objection. Hey, Mr.

Chair. Mr. Myers. I didn't ask to be added as a sponsor. Can you take me off of that? Sure, go ahead.

We'll do that.

Any other changes? I'd like to be added if I could. Okay, added. The scales have balanced. Any further discussion?

I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion? Seeing and hearing no objection, the motion is adopted. I have Mr. Johnson reading. Mr. Martinez presenting.

Are you here to receive this, folks, from— yeah, please come forward.

A resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing young Alaskans engaged in climate justice and civic engagement in honor of Earth Day. And water. Whereas Alaskans have greatly benefited from a way of life sustained by Alaska's lands and waters. And whereas protecting our lands and waters is critical to sustain our current way of life and ensure a livable future for the next generations of Alaskans. And whereas Earth Day has been celebrated for decades worldwide as an opportunity to celebrate our lands and waters.

And whereas youth voices have rung clear on protection of our lands, animals, waters, and fellow citizens, and have been a driving force behind climate action in Alaska and globally for decades. And whereas young Alaskans are the future stewards of these lands and waters, and whereas since 1998, Alaska Youth for Environmental Action, AYE— AYE, has empowered over 5,000 young people across Alaska to advocate for their communities and the environment. Founded by 6 teens from Kodiak and Anchorage, AYEA develops future climate leaders through hands-on programs, community campaigns, and youth-led advocacy. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly honors and recognizes the young Alaskans advocating for their community and future generations on issues of climate justice and civic engagement, and recognizes April 22nd, 2026 as Earth Day. Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 14th day of April, 2026.

Hi there, welcome. Please tell us your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes and you just turn the mic off. There you go. Hi, my name is Sadie Cooper and I live in South Anchorage, and I'd like to say I'm so thankful to be able to work with this organization.

And on behalf of our whole organization, we're very, very grateful for this recognition. Thank you. All right, thank you. All right, so next we have item 4B1. 4B1 is assembly— 4B1 is assembly memorandum AM 277-2026 Recommendation of award to South Central Construction for Mary Avenue Road and storm drainage improvements.

There's no public hearing on this item. Um, what's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Any discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers. Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 0, AM 277-2026 has passed the body. Next we have Item 4C.1, Information Memorandum AIM 59-2026, Report on 2026 Assessment and Appeal Cycle Pursuant to AR 2026-34S as Amended. The motion on this item is to accept. What's the will of the body? Move to accept.

Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion? Ms. Baldwin-Day. I just want to express my appreciation to the Municipal Assessor's Office for putting this report together.

I think just getting to dive into some of the data that they've seen and what's actually happening in terms of appeals status was, I think, very illuminating, and I hope the public takes the time to review this document. I think I think it's, it's very, very well done, and the explanation for why the assessment process looks a little different this year is quite comprehensive, and I think very easy to access. The explanation was very well done, so kudos to Mr. Gadames and his team. Thank you. Any further discussion?

Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote. The motion is to accept. Member Myers.

Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 0, AIM 59-2026 has been accepted. Next we have item 4D1.

So item 4D1 is Resolution AR 2026-107, Resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage Appropriating Opioid Settlement Proceeds in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,150,000. $15,621.12 To the Opioid Settlement Fund 207000 Anchorage Health Department, all for allowable opioid remediation.

So the motion we need right now is motion to introduce and set for public hearing the meeting of May 12th. So moved. Second. Motion to introduce and set for public hearing by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Is there any discussion?

I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the motion? Seeing, hearing no objection, the motion is approved. We will have— the assembly will have AR 2026-107 back before it for public hearing on the 12th of May. Next, we have item 5A.

5A is AO 2026-28, an ordinance of Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning approximately 0.20 acres from RO, Residential Office District, to R3, Mixed Residential District, for Lot 64, Block 2, Geneva Woods Subdivision, Plat 67-35. Reading. Thank you. This one is a continued public hearing, so the public hearing is open again. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

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

Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion on this item?

Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote. Member Myers. Yes.

On a vote of 9-0, AO-2026-28 has passed the body. Next we have Item 5B, AO-2026-29, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 2.25 acres from R-2M Mixed Residential District to R-4 Multifamily Residential District for T13N R3W Section 28 Lot 1, Seward Meridian. Waived reading. Thank you. The public hearing— this item was carried over from the 3/24 meeting.

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

Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Is there any discussion? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers. Yes.

On a vote of 9-0, AO 2026-29 has passed the body. Next we have Item 5C. Item 5C is AO 2026-30, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 1.58 acres from R-5 Low Density Residential District to R-3 Mixed Residential District for Lot 14, Moorhead Subdivision, Addition Number 2, Plat 70-202. Lots 33, 12, 14, 6, and 9, Moorhead Subdivision, Additional Number 4, Plat 72-122. Lot 7, Track 3A, Moorhead Subdivision, Plat 69-220.

Lots 2 and 4, Track 3B, Moorhead Subdivision, Plat 74-43. We're reading Thank you, Mr. Rivera. This item was carried over from the meeting of 3/24/26. Um, there's no motion. What's the will of the body?

I'm sorry, this public hearing item— public hearing on this item is now open. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed.

Now, what's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Rivera. Again, thank you for catching that, Mr. Rivera.

Um, any discussion? Seeing, hearing none, then members may proceed to vote. Member Myers?

Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 0, AO 2026-30 has passed the body. Next, we have item 5D, AO 2026-31, an ordinance, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 0.19 acres from R-5 low-density residential district to R-3 mixed residential district for Lot 2, Block 6, Hillcrest Subdivision, Plat 71-118. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. This item was carried over from 324. Public hearing is now open.

Anyone wish to be heard on this item? All seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Moved by Mr. Rivera, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Is there any discussion on this item? Yes, Chair, there is. Miss Baldende. Thank you.

I just wanted to note for the record that items 5B, C, and D are all rezones that would not be necessary if we had a transit supportive development overlay in place, and I think that is worth noting. Thank you. Thank you. Also note that it is on Calamity Court, which I think is a great name. Sounds like a TV show.

Okay. Anyone else? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote. Member Myers.

Yes. On a vote of— thank you. On a vote of— let's get that recorded right— 9 to 0, AO 2026-31 has passed the body.

Next we have item 5F, another continued public hearing. Oh wait, I'm sorry, 5E.

And I'm going to go ahead and read a supplemental item into the record now. It's Information Memorandum, Unnumbered, Letter from Anchorage Community Land Trust in Support of Ordinance Number AO-2026-32, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapters 2105, Use Regulations, and 2115, Rules of Construction and Definitions, to ease restrictions on agricultural uses and food production in the Anchorage Bowl. So that item is supplemental to Item 5E, which is AO-2026-32, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 21.05, Use Regulations, and 21.15, Rules of Construction and Definitions, to ease restrictions on agricultural uses and food production in the Anchorage Bowl. This item is carried over from 3/24. The public hearing is open again.

Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Martinez.

Any discussion on the motion? I would—. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you. Um, I would like to move Baldwin-Day-Brawley Amendment Number 1, please.

Second. So there is a motion to amend By Ms. Baldwin-Day, seconded by Mr. Rivera. Do you want to speak to the motion? Yes, please. So, um, there— we've received a lot of questions about whether processing or producing alcoholic beverages as part of this accessory use exempts a person essentially from other laws at both the municipal and the state level regarding manufacturer production, storage, etc.

So this is just clarifying that nothing about this code change preempts any of those other requirements. Just so that it's very, very clear to the public. Thank you. I urge my colleagues' support. Member Silvers.

This feels a little bit like extraneous language, a little unnecessary to me, so I'm going to be a no vote on this. Thanks.

All right, and I will offer that I too find it extraneous and Yeah, we had this discussion last week. What did the Supreme Court decide? Oh wait, no, it's the Fifth Circuit. So anyhow, anyone else on the amendment? Seeing, hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers.

No.

On a vote of 4 to 5, the amendment has not passed. We're back on the main motion. Originally drafted. Mayor LaFrance. Thank you, Chair Constant.

I want to thank the agricultural community for their support and their feedback, and the planning department for their work on this project. It's been in the making for a while. And also, yeah, I saw that, Mr. Martinez. And also the assembly co-sponsors. Did also want to give a special thanks to Mike Mosesian and all his advocacy and his work, and for the really great tomatoes and cucumbers he grows.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Anyone else in the queue? Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 0, AO 2026-32 has passed the body. That brings us next to item 5F, AO 2026 -35, an ordinance, Anchorage Municipal Assembly, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 3.30.142 and 3.30.144 regarding holiday pay. This item was carried over from 3/24/26 as well. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard?

Hi there, welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Thank you, Chair. Constantine Paul Hatcher, Eastside.

Anchorage Municipal Employees Association president. I'm grateful that Chair Constance and Vice Chair Brawley brought this forward. This was kind of what we discussed in our contract negotiations.

Negotiations almost 8 months ago that you guys ratified in December. There will be most likely a change needed in AA that I'm sure Mr. Falzy is probably working on right now, but I won't put him on the spot to make this part of our contract. We're allowed to flex time as it is now, but our contract still says we have to have a full pay period, full— in full pay period status, you know, the Friday before, the Tuesday after on a Monday holiday. But I'm sure we'll get that taken care of. I appreciate you guys doing this for us.

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

Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Constantine. Thank you. So, um, the genesis of this project, for my part, was, um, I don't have to spend too much time on this, but the clerk and their team has to spend a ton of time every single pay period doing this ridiculous make-work that shouldn't have to happen, where they have to correct pay positions on every employee who was either traveling or on leave or any number of different things. And it's just like a baked-in step that we're probably spending in the course of a year hundreds of labor hours managing a process that doesn't serve any true value.

And so what this does is it just allows for more flexible scheduling. It allows for those pay correction processes to be streamlined, I think, down to about 1 out of 10. And so I think that just in the context of running an efficient government, it's best to get bureaucracy out of the way. So that's the why on this. And even really heard from any of the bargaining units on the question.

It was mostly from my poor beleaguered clerk who has too many things to do. So anyone else? Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I do have an amendment. Mr. Rivera, would you move it please? Yeah, I move a constant amendment number 1.

So there's a motion to amend by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and it's pretty straightforward. It just pushes out the implementation date to give time for the bargaining units to go through the processes and to not break SAP. Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

So SAP is famously easy. To work with and super pliable. Is September— did the administration say September? Okay, thank you. Yeah, they said, "Uncle," is what they said, and I said, "You tell me." And so, and they came back with that date.

So we actually had a slider in there, and they're like, "We don't know how to deal with a slider." So, okay, anyone else on the amendment? Seeing and hearing none, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Any objection? Seeing and hearing no objection to the amendment, we're back on the main motion as amended. Any further discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 0, AO 2026-35 as amended has passed the body.

So next we have Item 5G, which is AR-2026-61, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly authorizing the disbursement of an amount not to exceed $5,200,000 from the Anchorage Regional Landfill Closure and Postclosure Investment Fund and depositing such funds in the Solid Waste Service Disposal Utility Operating Fund 56200. Public hearing is continued from 4:14. Public hearing is now open again. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

Anyone at all? Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed.

Um, is the administration prepared to move on this item? There were some questions about some underlying details that were not quite square.

I'll ask either Mr. Spafford or Ms. Toth to come up and explain if there are any further questions, but I understand that we are prepared to move ahead with this after the— previously we'd asked for this to be continued so we could discuss it at the IEOC committee. That meeting has happened, that briefing has happened, so at this point I believe we're prepared to move ahead with this, but I'll let Ms. Toth speak directly to it. Yeah, so we'll go ahead and start with a motion to approve, but I there are some questions that are, I think, more related to the trust and where the money is originating and where it's going to. And so, but yeah, we'll go ahead and take a motion to approve. Move to approve.

Second. So a motion to approve made by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Now we'll have Ms. Toth. Welcome.

I turned it off. Uh, Mr. Chairman, Kelly Toth, Director of Soloway Services, members of the assembly. What questions did you have? There were some questions about the underlying accounts, where the money is coming from and where it's going to, and if they were accurate in the document itself.

It appeared to our financial analyst that the monies were being appropriated to a non-appropriating account and not a cash account. And so with all the work being done on the ACFFR, there were a number of questions that I don't know that they were meaningfully resolved. Mr. Chairman, members of the assembly, the account just underwent a— as I also serve on the post-closure and closure care fund for the municipal landfill, and as a member of that body, we utilized a third-party financial auditor who helped us, who actually helped to set up the model from the very beginning. So this is the first 5-year look back to see did we need to make any adjustments to that fund and to the glide path of the investment. And the result was that there was a— there was an excess of funding, and $5.2 million of it was attributed to Operational Excellence.

So they chose to move forward with this recommendation that this funding be transferred over to Solid Waste Services. So, um, okay, I think that that's a fine answer. I have a feeling the body approves it, it's fine. And I think this is part of the Q1 meeting next week as well, that, um, it may come back before you with some correction because I don't think any harm will be done if it goes into the wrong account, or if it kind of— it just might need some additional action is all. And so I don't have a close beat on what the concerns were, so Um, okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Miss Balbundé. So, so is that—. Is the question around the receiving fund or the dispersing fund? Again, I, I can't really speak to the details.

It was fairly cryptical, but, um, I just was told that it looks like the money was going to an account that isn't a spending account, and so it might need additional action, which is the rub. So that will all be clarified. And these conversations I think were happening with the controller's office, but I don't know.

May I, Mr. Chair? I do think there is a second step to this that's coming in the Q1 budget revisions. That is the move of these funds. This is the move of the funds out of the real estate closure fund and into basically solid waste services to allow them to be appropriated for purposes.

The next step is the appropriation for the intended purpose of the funds, and that is part of Q1. Q1 budget revision, so that may be what you're thinking. That item will come—. No, that's not. Okay, but I don't know what the issue is.

I did mention that earlier. This will be back for part 2 with the Q1 next week, and so there may be an opportunity to fix it if there is in earnest a problem. I, again, I'm just speaking to a concern that was raised to me without enough details, and I'm confident moving forward because it will be corrected if it's not right. So, because, and again, the real move is next week, so All right, so if there's no one else, members may proceed to vote. Member Myers?

Yes.

On a vote of 9 to 0, AR 2026-61 has passed the body. That takes us now to our new public hearings.

Next public hearing is item 6A. 6A is AO-2026-45, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage amending the conditions of disposal placed on former Heritage Land Bank Parcel 5-003, legally described as Lot 4, ASLS 97-10 Raspberry Road, Municipal Land Selection Site Plat 99-102, PID 012-131-87, to extend the development period granted within the imposed reversionary clause. Public hearing on this item is now open. If you're here to testify in on this item, please come forward. Now is your opportunity.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from, and lift that microphone up. You'll have 3 minutes. Good evening. My name is Sean Debenham from South Anchorage, Southwest Anchorage.

I appreciate your willingness to consider the extension of the reversionary clause tied to the purchase of a piece of property my company owns just off the corner of Raspberry Road and Northwood Street. I feel that I can show substantive reason for a 4-year extension, and I hope that you will vote in support of a badly needed workforce housing that it will provide. Let me briefly describe, uh, the workforce housing development Raspberry Townhomes that we are breaking ground on in 2 weeks.

Raspberry Townhomes is a 58-unit townhome development to be constructed on the subject property. We plan to break ground May 7th, in 2 weeks, and finish construction in the fall of 2027. We are excited about Raspberry Townhomes because it is bringing housing type that hasn't been traditionally seen in Anchorage—market rate rented townhomes. Townhomes are highly desirable because they provide private entrances, individual heated garages, greater isolation from other tenants, and they tend to attract more families, which many times shy away from typical apartments. With a 4-year extension of the reversionary clause, this allows us to move forward with our groundbreaking in 2 weeks.

There has been a lot of time, effort, and money to get the development to this point in the process. I provide the following information to show that we have been diligently working towards a housing development ever since we purchased the land 4 years ago. In the last 4 years, we have rezoned the land from R1 to R3, extracted 8 to 10 feet of peat across the site, and then backfilled the site with fill. The cost of this was $907,000. We created our construction drawings at a cost of $400,000.

We obtained a full construction permit in February this year. We obtained a commitment for construction financing in March of this year. We obtained a commitment for investment for the project in March of this year. And finally, we have a signed general contractor agreement that we obtained in March of this year. The purpose of the reversionary clause was to ensure that the property would not be land banked.

Our efforts of time and money, as previously discussed, show that this property is not being land banked and in fact is moving towards construction of 58 desperately needed housing units.

This is an exciting time not only for us, but it is for Anchorage and its residents as well. As you're aware, there have been minimal market-rate workforce housing constructed over the last 20 years. The purpose of Raspberry Townhomes is to provide workforce housing that looks great and enhances the community in which it is found. I hope that I could have clearly shown that we are not land banking this land, that we have made real meaningful progress over the last 4 years towards development, and finally, that with the 4-year extension in place, we plan to break ground in 2 weeks. I humbly ask that you extend our reversionary clause.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Devenaugh.

There will probably be questions for you after the public hearing closes, so yeah. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

Good evening, Assemblymembers. My name is Corey Hill, and I'm a resident of South Park Estates Manufactured Home.

We have developed an organization called South Park Homeowners Association, to which 90% of the remaining spaces have signed on earlier this year. We became a member of JOIN, the Justice Organization Interfaith Network. I'm one of several neighbors speaking tonight on behalf of our homeowners association. We represent families who speak English, Spanish, Tagalog, Lao, Thai, and Arabic. Working families who chose South Park Estates because it was one of the last places in Midtown where a working family could actually own a home.

We understand that we have 3 minutes per person, which could take the whole night. Out of respect for the body, we've elected a few representatives and limited our collective testimony to 15 minutes. Does that work for you, Mr. Chair?

We don't really answer questions. You have 3 minutes. Everyone has 3 minutes. And so, um, uh, we're here tonight to, to oppose Ordinance Number AO-206— excuse me, AO-2026-45, which would extend the development period granted Sean Debenham within the revisionary clause on the piece of land of the city-owned land that Shawn bought at a steep discount to build housing on. We're calling on the assembly to table that extension until Mr. Debenham reaches a fair relocation agreement with the residents he is displacing from South Park Estates.

In 2020, our park had 66 owner-occupied homes. Today, after partial demolition, fire, and evictions carried out in phase 1, only 35 homes remain occupied. Evictions are scheduled to continue in phases through 2026, 2027, and 2028. This is not a distant problem. Families in this room are losing their homes.

We are not here to stop development. We understand that Mr. David Hemm has the legal right to develop this land. We are asking— what we're asking is simply that the assembly not extend courtesies to this developer while he refuses to negotiate a fair deal with the people whose homes and livelihoods are being erased in the process. I would never have bought my home— I would never have bought my home in South Park Estates if I'd known that this was going to happen. When we bought our home in 2021, my wife and I had just been displaced from Widener Property Management after the roof had collapsed and there was black mold found throughout.

When we were considering buying our home, we spoke with park management about rumors that the park would be closed. They assured us that there was no plans to do so. 14 Days later, we received a notice that the park would close within 2 to 10 years. We've already been displaced before. I can't believe this is happening again.

In the—. Oh, all right, sir, I'm sorry, but your time has expired. Thank you.

Please, no clapping. So clapping is not allowed in the chambers as it makes it hard for us to hear and it slows down the process. So we understand, um, you're standing and that pretty clearly communicates to us, so please no clapping or noise making so we can get through this. Thank you. Welcome.

Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. You just turn it off.

Good evening. My name is Dana Santana. I have lived at the South Park States for 15 years. What I want this assembly to understand tonight is the financial reality behind our situation. Each family in our park has invested approximately $70,000 into our homes.

That breaks down roughly $30,000 to purchase the home, $20,000 in materials for repairs and improvements, and $20,000 in labor in our own sweat and equity. Sweat equity. These homes are not temporary shelters. They are our biggest financial assets. For many of us, they represent a lifetime of work.

For example, Mr. Debenham is offering residents $6,000 to move out early. That is not relocation package. That is 2 months' rent at one of his own downtown properties. Meanwhile, Anchorage Development Services has estimated the true cost of relocating a manufactured home is about $40,000. Despite our attempts, we have not yet been able to get a quote from a mover, but that estimate reflects the real world.

$6,000 Does not.

Even if we could afford to move our home, we still run into hard truths. There are very few available spaces in other manufactured home parks in Anchorage, and most of them won't accept homes our age. There's only one viable home mover in the area. Many of our homes, due to their age and layout, are likely not movable at all. If we are forced without a fair compensation, we do not lose a place to live, we lose all of our money.

For me, that means the possibility of my son not attending college.

We have raised our kids in this home. They're doing well in school. My son is taking Advanced Placement courses so he can be the first member of our family to go to college. Moving means throwing our kids' lives into chaos. It also means taking the money we have saved for our son's tuition.

He only has 2 more years of high school to go and— 2 more years of high school, and that means using our son's money that we have saved up for relocation. We have asked for a realistic negotiation for $35,000 per household, half of our average investment. It is reasonable, documented figure. It will not make us rich. It is the cost of a dignified move.

Thank you.

Please, no clapping.

Please, no clapping. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. And yeah, it's on.

You're good. Hi, my name is Verena Fabric. I want to speak tonight about what life has actually looked like at South Park Estates while Mr. Debbaham has been collecting rent from us and preparing to redevelop our land. The park's infrastructure has serious long-standing problems. The water system still runs on its original pipes, which means regular boil water notices and frozen lines in the winter.

The ground beneath our home is apparently contaminated from a leaking Denali Fuel Company heating system, an environmental issue that has been monitored by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation since 2005. Mr. DeBeham frequently points to the cost of remediation, but during the rezoning, he told the city he had already reached a settlement with Denali Fuel Company to cover it. Management failures have compounded these hazards. Slow responses to vague.

And squatting brought drugs, violence, and danger to our doors. In December of 2025, our neighbor's home caught fire when property management ignored squatters in a shed next door. Despite our warnings, it started a fire. He lost his home and had to leave in the dead of winter. Since the rezone, we have noticed conditions getting worse.

Right out my window, I can see abandoned cars and trash, including needles and fentanyl, being left unaddressed, poorly boarded up homes that have attracted dozens of squatters into each. Drugs are being sold and done in the open. Almost 2 months ago, one of our neighbors' homes was broken into and robbed by some of these people. Despite all of this, our rent has climbed steadily from $460 per month to— in 2021 to $710 per month in 2025. That is a 48% increase.

Every single one of those increases came after the property was rezoned and park closure was confirmed. Since then, our rent increases about $6,000 over this period. The same amount were being offered to leave. There were no visible improvements to justify them. We now also pay separately for trash and frequently plow our own streets.

The most recent rent increase came in May of 2025, just 3 months before the first eviction notices were issued. We've also heard rumors that Mr. Debehan could extend closure of phases 2 and 3 an extra year. While we appreciate more— while we appreciate more time, it also means we will be investing an additional $300K into his development budget through raised rent, assuming he doesn't raise it again. We have reached a painful but unavoidable conclusion: we have been paying for our own displacement. That's all.

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

Uh, good evening. My name is Cliff Whited. This is my son Sebastian. I'm here to talk about commitments. The ones Mr. Debenham made to this assembly and to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the ones he's failed to keep.

During the zoning process for South Park Estates, Mr. Debenham committed to working closely with residents and to developing a relocation assistance package that, in his own words, works out for everybody. He made those representations to this assembly, he made them to the Planning and Zoning Commission. On the strength of those commitments, the assembly approved the rezone. Today he's told us directly that he is unwilling to negotiate or even meet with us as an entity, and that he has no obligation to offer us anything. Phase 1 residents like myself received eviction notice in August 2025, 270 days notice, 3 months short of the 1-year notice Mr. Debenham specifically promised the city on record he would provide.

Uh, our families were offered early compliance incentives, $4,000 to $12,000. To vacate within 2 to 5 months. The higher amounts are reserved for the people who would be able to move their homes. 15 Of 16 families are already gone. Their homes are boarded up and demolished.

The only way any home has left the park has been in a dumpster. Uh, you know, we're not dumb. We understand the stereotypes people have about mobile homes. Um, our homes are nice. Feel free to come over and have a cup of coffee.

They're not abandoned vehicles being lived in by homeless inebriates. They're homes with power, gas, running water usually, wives, children, husbands, dogs, cats, the nuclear family. Phase 2 and 3 residents received notice just before Christmas. The flat offer of $6,000. No negotiation, no process, no acknowledgement of what we have invested.

Mr. Dabbenham would tell you he included references to other assistance programs that compensate for his low offer. The list includes programs where many of us make just enough money to be disqualified for, uh, requires our homes be moved first, or isn't even an active program. We haven't been offered a solution. It's a maze of programs, deadlines, and conditions that leaves us scrambling while our homes are slated for demolition. We also ask this assembly to consider the public investment that has supported Mr. Devinstam's work.

His Block 96 downtown was built with $1.8 million from the Anchorage Community Development Authority, a favorable public land lease valued at $1.4 million below market rate over 20 years, an EPA Brownfield grant, a 12-year property tax exemption we estimate to be worth $1.8 million. In total, we estimate that we the public will contribute about $5 million over the life of this project. Anchorage has paid so handsomely for Sean's project that ACEDA won't recap— won't recoup its investment until the year 2062.

Our officials bend over backwards to make sure Sean does not see a financial loss. Thank you, sir. Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes.

It's on. It's on. Okay. Hi, I'm Catherine Gerson. I'm a single mother of 4 and the last of 5 to speak.

Excuse me, would you pull the mic down? Yeah, thank you. We are asking the assembly to table the ordinance number 2026-45, the extension of Sean Denham's development deadline until he reaches a fair relocation agreement with the remaining residents of the South Park Estate. We are not asking Mr. Dunham to abandon his development. We're asking for a fair process, one that does not allow a developer to collect public assistance— subsidized to get rezoning approval on the strata strength of the promises made to this assembly than to turn to the families he is displacing and say he has no obligation to help us.

Mr. Dunham says we may not— he says he has no close relations with us residents, but he refuses to work with us on a fair deal. He refused to reschedule the information meeting about our park closing even though we asked him to because our neighbors still are out of town for Christmas and the rest of us work in the middle of the day. Mr. Dunham may say that we are just a small group that doesn't represent the whole. We got 90% of our neighbors to sign on and organize for a fair deal for all of us. Mr. Dunham says we're not— Mr. says we all knew about the park closing plenty of time.

That's not true. Many of our neighbors, certainly not me. I bought my home in 2021 after I was displaced in the Butte. I bought my home and I I bought my home to try to save money for college for my daughter to become a nurse. I will never have bought this place if I knew the park was closing.

I just want stability. We are a community of working families. We come from South Park East State because one of the few places left in Anchorage for a family. With something we could own. We have paid our rent and paid by the rules.

We have done everything right, and we are being offered only $6,000 to— and walk away from a $70,000 worth investment.

Mester. Thank you, ma'am. Welcome, sir. The microphone is off. Just hit that green button.

Welcome. Please state your name, what part of town you're from. You'll have 3 minutes. Greg Eubank. I am a member of Alaska Manufactured Homeowners and Renters Association, and I see a distressing trend occurring this day.

Under the State of Alaska Landlord Tenant Handbook, Mobile homeowners are not protected. They're not at all. This is an opportunity for the Anchorage Assembly to establish the rights and responsibilities of mobile homeowners in mobile home parks.

And by doing so, you'll protect— and one of the things that needs to be incorporated is the first right of refusal. When a person— when a company, a big huge investment bank buys a mobile home park only to break it up for its assets, much like what happened to Wien Airlines years and years ago. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard?

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

I'd like to ask for a motion to continue the item to the meeting of May the 12th. So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Um, I can speak, or you can, Mr. Rivera.

Go ahead. Yeah, I just think that there's only 8 of us here. We don't have a full body. Uh, the meeting of the 28th is not feasible.

The—. I could feel the blowing of the trade winds in this room, and I don't see a yes vote crossing the threshold with the item as drafted today. And the public has made a very heartfelt appeal. And for all of those reasons, it argues that the parties should figure out more between themselves, and the Assembly should be briefed more fully on the various details of this project and the other project, I would offer that this is about a project not related to the mobile home, but the folks who are here have an argument that's made and is made before us properly. And so with that, I just think that the members would serve themselves and the public interest best in giving themselves a little bit of time.

Mr. Rivera. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Dimahan, can you please come up to the mic?

Great, thank you. Um, so I am in support of this motion to postpone, and unfortunately I won't be on the body, but as I understand, some of the intent here is to allow you, Mr. Jemingham, to work with the residents. So I guess I would like to hear on the record, are you committed to doing that between now and May 12th?

So just so I understand, are we now linking the two together? Like, is it— I'm unclear on— it seems like the reversionary clause is based on, you know, the idea of being— the land being land banked. We've made substantial improvement on it. We're trying to break ground here in like 2 weeks. Like, if this gets pushed off to May 12th, obviously we can push off the, the breaking, the breaking, but, um, I, I, it doesn't seem like the two developments should be connected, if that makes sense.

And I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that, and I'm also prepared to read a statement about South Park Estate's closure if you think that would be useful. It's a 4-minute quick read, it's an update, it might be good information for them. Um, but it— the linking of these two, sure, things is a little concerning. Thank you, Mr. Demenham. So I, I hear your argument.

I would like an answer to the question that I asked though, and if another assembly member wants to, um, ask for your, for your statement to be read, I think that's appropriate.

So we have a lease with individuals. I have repeatedly asked our— the tenants that have associated with JOIN So outside of the tenants association, we have met with many of our tenants. We have met with 40% of our tenants and come to agreements with them. The ones that have joined joined, I have said come in individually and talk to us. Our leases are with individuals, and therefore we talk to them as individuals.

We continue to do that. We will certainly do that. We will continue to ask them to do that. What they have asked is that we meet with the entire group and negotiate an entire settlement with all all of them in one group setting, which that's— but our lease isn't with a group, it's with individuals.

Thank you. I appreciate that response. I also appreciate what the tenants are trying to do, which is to use their collective power, and I'm sure that puts you in an awkward position. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of folks in the queue. Ms. Orr, I want to go for her. Yeah, I guess I have a couple questions, or a question. Um, so first off, I want to say I don't know that this is necessarily— I'm not interested necessarily linking the two items, but I am interested in seeing how commitments are followed. And so I guess my question is, did the rezone come with some kind of agreement or statement or requirement for fair compensation for the people of South Park?

So I think it's important to realize that since this is about something other than South Park Estates, that it's hard to bring all the information into literally one—. I guess I'm just looking for a yes or no answer on the question. So during my testimony, I did say that I would work with our tenants, and I— and I, in my statement that I have here, I can also show that I, that I have sincerely worked with them. And not everything that you're hearing from from this body is necessarily entirely full of all the information that's there. Okay, I was just looking for a yes or no question.

During the rezone, was there any type of statement or agreement made to give fair compensation? And again, I'm not looking to link the two items together, but I am looking to get some kind of idea on the following of commitments. Absolutely. So during my testimony that I had right here, I said I would work with the tenants. On something for them to either sell their units to us or to move them off.

And I have done that. I would love to read this and show that we have actually done something. And that if I just listened to all the, to the words that they were saying, I wouldn't like me either. But there's a lot going on here than just, just that, right? And so I haven't been able to defend myself or say anything.

I guess my next question will be, go ahead and read your statement and then I will follow up with my questions. Awesome, thank you so much, I really appreciate that. I'm happy to give a brief update on South Park Estates and the future closing of the park. Prior to the meeting, I sent out a more complete update on the status of the park closure, and I refer you to that document for greater detail. Three things should be clearly understood before I share what we are doing to assist our tenants at the South Park Estates.

First, even if I don't close the park, the park is already closing itself. The park is over 60 years old, and the infrastructure of the park and the mobile, mobile homes themselves are falling apart. I spend over $60,000 each year on water and sewer maintenance. The park originally started with 83 mobile homes, and last year before we closed Block 1, we were down to 54 mobile homes. Every year we lose mobile homes due to obsolescence, mold, and fire.

In recent years, the number continues to accelerate. Second, the environmental contamination that covers almost a third of the park needs to be cleaned up, which necessitates the move of mobile homes in the area and the cost of cleanup to Debenham of over $500,000. Third, each mobile home owner personally signed a lease with us that stated that they would— that they owned the mobile home and I owned the land, and they were only renting the land with no understanding that this would be in perpetuity. However, and I think this is important, we would never just abandon our tenants. That's not the Debenham way.

That's not the way we have ever acted in anything we've ever done with any of our tenants. On the contrary, we have worked hard with our tenants to either arrange for the move of their mobile home or for the sell their mobile home to us that we can demo it. To date, we have successfully worked with 23 of our tenants, or 40% of the park, to come to mutually agreeable terms. There are 3 principal ways that we are striving to assist our tenants. Number 1, notice.

We have been proactive to inform our tenants of the impending closure, and when we have given notice, we have given more than the required time. Indeed, on Friday we are notifying tenants on Blocks 2 and 3 that they will have until June 1st, 2028, or 2.5 years notice for Blocks 2, and June 1st, 2029, 3.5 years notice for Blocks 3. Number 2, assistance. I have instructed my team at Debenham to assist our tenants in any capacity to help them to either move their mobile home and take advantage of covered moving expenses and free rent, or to sell them. This assistance could help with applications, help with coordinating the mover, help with finding the park to move to, or even labor to chop off a porch in preparation for a move.

We are willing and have been providing on an ongoing basis assistance to our tenants with the use of labor resources, our knowledge, our experience, and our expertise. Number 3, financial assistance. Debenham has made a commitment of up to $534,000 for tenants that want to either move or sell their mobile homes. Indeed, this Friday, tenants at Blocks 2 and 3 will be informed that if they move their mobile home, Debenham will give them $9,000 plus 3 months of free rent if they elect to move the mobile home. When this is combined with the free moving assistance and free rent at the new park, this is a package deal over $19,000.

I recognize, I recognize that even with this additional context, time, and money, for some tenants this may still feel like it's not enough, and I understand that. We don't take that lightly, but I hope it is clear that the decision to close the park is driven by unavoidable environmental, infrastructure, and economic realities. And that we are making a sincere and substantial effort to support our residents through this unavoidable, uh, transition. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I still don't think that quite answered my question, uh, which is when the park was rezoned, was there any type of commitment made to work with the residents for a fair compensation? So when I gave my testimony right here, as I said prior, I committed that I work with our tenants on something. Yes.

So the verbiage that you exactly used wasn't the verbiage that I exactly used, but it was along— but yes, it was along that line. Okay, thank you.

I have no further questions. Thanks. Mr. Gerger. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So what I believe I just heard—. Mr. Gerger, hold on just one sec. I would note for the record that Mr. Presverde will join us in person at 7:12 PM. Mr. Gerger. Okay, thank you.

I believe what I just heard was that this AO has zero impact on this other property closure, correct? Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah, they're two different developers. They're two separate— they have different investors, they have different— right, right. Like, and so, you know, I've got $1.5 million in on this.

Uh, if this doesn't go through, then not only are we not doing 58 units, but I won't have any money for, for South Park Estates for anything that they're trying to do. So, uh, I guess in some ways it is linked, but—. Yeah. So it seems like this other parcel that you were working with right now, which is what we're actually— you know, we actually have on the agenda, is being used as leverage for a separate landlord-tenant dispute. Is that a fair characterization?

Yeah. And it's a little unfair to link two very different developments. It's unfair for me because it doesn't give me the ability to really defend myself on the separate issue because I haven't prepared for that. Right, right. And so it's not that I don't want to work with them.

I am working with them. I continue to invite them to— we are on an ongoing basis working with them, but it's a separate issue from the issue that's in front of us now, which is a reversionary clause. Yeah, okay. Um, yeah, I mean, I guess I don't have any more questions. Just a comment.

I appreciate you trying to invest in this community and trying to build more housing. I know It's a priority of the mayor, it's a priority of this body to add more housing. So I thank you for your efforts there, sir. Thank you. Thanks.

Mr. Constantine. Yeah, thanks. You know, I want to see housing built and I want to see these folks protected. And I also know how to read the room. And I see a couple scenarios here.

One is the motion fails, right? And then one is a little bit more time to have more conversation and figure out if there's a bridge to be built and educate the assembly. Or allow the assembly to be more educated. I don't want to presume that you're not educated, but there's a lot of details to this. And so, um, the link between the projects is the municipal subsidy question, right?

That is a true link. That's at least as far as I can see the piece that, other than the financial piece you referenced yourself, I think that that's the key link. And it's hard to, um take at face value that you haven't prepared for this conversation because you had a page, 4 minutes of typed notes. And so the record before us shows that if this is top of mind for you, which I think is actually in your benefit, that you're not just kind of, um, sleeping your way through the question and hoping and wishing, but you've done the work. And so for my part, I just think that, um, And I can't predict what they'll do, but I don't think you have the votes right now.

And for me, that is significant because if it fails, I'm not sure what happens. Um, is it forever? Do you— can you come back? I don't know. And so, um, I just hope members think a lot through that.

I have a couple more people in the queue. Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. And I'm going to support the motion to postpone to a time certain May 12th, as you have Chair put forward a motion. A comment and maybe some words.

They may be words of wisdom. They may not be. But it was mentioned today, and it rubbed me absolutely the wrong way, so I'm just going to be real clear about that, that you were going to read a statement and that some of that information that you were going to read in a 4-minute statement may be new or useful to the folks behind you.

The silence of that moment is filled with the laughter in my heart because on the one hand, you're making— I'm really making a point to say I'm working with folks, but on the other hand, they may find new information here tonight. I just think that is a laughable moment. But on the other hand, I think just to my colleagues, the question is public good. A reversionary clause because we have in our code the idea that we don't want folks to sit on properties that we make available for development. So that's what the issue is about public good with respect to the reversionary clause.

So it seems like it would be in the best interest to make sure that this body has more information, that the urgency that you would probably be communicating to us is how to make sure that we have more information in the next short time period. But it would also seem to your advantage— again, words of a savage sovereign, as I describe us on this body— but perhaps when we think about the question of the public good, and perhaps when we think about as 12 savage sovereigns, our district and our constituents and our taxpayers who fit the bill of these public good investment opportunities? Perhaps then you may see a link between what this body has done with respect to displacement of people in the community. You may also see a link and may be able to help us as a canary in the mine with what you heard with testimony about other future problems that this sector of housing will have. Because on the one hand, you're removing— or the development calls for, and even as you described, without a development on the South Park Estate, there's obsolescence happening.

That is a common thing across A lot of spaces where folks find mobile homes and mobile home parks, I'm sorry, but you're a property owner. You bought that problem. Right on. But on the other hand, we are also part of the public good to figure out both from the commitment perspective, do you keep your word? That's one thing.

Yes, I do. No, no, no. I absolutely do. No, that's what I tried to show. It's not tough, you bro.

Sir, it's time— what I described was that's a question that was raised. I'm reiterating the question. It's a fair question. Do you keep your commitment? The demonstration of that is going to be to us, I think, with some ample time, in the way that you described it, maybe more holistically, maybe more holistically thinking about the number of— on the one hand, the number of units being displaced meets we're bringing on new units.

There's a— by my numbers, we've lost more units than we are gaining overall, just by the sheer number of units to be displaced from one property to the prospect of another. And we wouldn't be involved at all if there wasn't a public request for an extension of a publicly disposed property. And so that's the rub, that you as a private property owner have that threat of an obligation, and that's why we're here. And that's the only reason why a bunch of us salvage savants are all up in this conversation. But the other side of it, in my mind, would be if you weren't here about a a reversionary clause, you might be here about the displacement conversation that's still happening.

And so they are linked, unfortunately, in this reality of a very small city with a lot of pressures and dynamics, with very few developers in the first place. So I've, I've been supportive of the development community, supportive of a lot of things, but at this time I just encourage you to Breathe, think about the public good, and perhaps you may, you may find something remarkable before we even come back here that just does magic in a small town of people who can meet with each other, find a way forward. Because my other challenge to you is your degree of flexibility in describing your defensive posture of how you've interacted with folks is also off-putting. And the openness that we are being asked to provide at a taxpayer level, I believe, is important for folks who take that obligation on to also carry that practice forward. Because if we have to also deal with the displacement of folks from properties that have a tune that— and those folks are getting displaced while there's also getting a public benefit.

I just think that it is linked, it is a rub, and my encouragement is ask us for this time, ask us for the pause, and do some work. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair.

Um, yeah, I, um, I, I absolutely appreciate the, um.

The request for the extension of the reversionary clause so that you can continue the work that you've started at Raspberry. And you and I have had a separate conversation, Mr. Devinham, which I really appreciated your time in that. And I, I think what, what feels important in this moment is just to, to revisit some of the things that you mentioned in the testimony that you just offered to us in terms of the, the ways that you are they are willing to support your tenants at South Park. Even as we are contemplating the, the future of the land in which you've made an investment, we're also contemplating the future of the land on which they've made an investment. And I think what I heard you say is that you are willing to facilitate connection with movers for folks who are interested in moving their trailers from South Park to another mobile home— is it a mobile home park?

Is, is that correct? Is that what I heard from you? Absolutely. Like, so one of the questions was my commitment to them, and I, I, I give you that. We've— I've met the commitment.

We've been more than willing to meet with them. Like, that's one of the things that's being misunderstood is like we are actually encouraging it. Let me ask a couple more questions. Um, and, and I hear that. Um, I also heard you express a willingness to offer labor that would support the move of trailers that can be moved if there are, um, if there are porches that need to be locked off or something of that nature that you would be willing to support that labor with the park management that you already have in place.

Is that also what I heard? Absolutely. And we have been doing that. Not only will we do it, we have been doing that with tenants. And I appreciate that.

I also— we have some separate communication from you in our email inboxes which suggests that you are planning to defer all movement out of South Park until 2021. $1,328. Is that also an accurate statement? It is. Okay.

Excellent. I think my— and then the last thing that you and I discussed was whether you would be willing to be flexible on the payment of rent during a time period preceding when someone might be moving out of the park. So you would be willing to offer rental relief. Is that also something that you are willing to do? Absolutely.

I mentioned it in the testimony here. So yes, great. I just wanted to be sure, like, we're very, very clear about what, what's on offer. And then there's also the, um, the $6,000, which I, as I understand correctly, is either a, a payment directly to a tenant who might be vacating their property, or alternatively, a mechanism for them to partially pay for a move of a trailer. Is that also correct?

Almost. So, uh, we're We have since changed and offer an additional $3,000, so $9,000 for somebody who is moving their trailer and $6,000 for somebody who's just simply selling their trailer so that we can demo it. Okay, that's helpful clarification. Um, so I, I think, um, I think my, my encouragement to you would be to potentially concede that meeting with all of your tenants collectively who wish to do so and to have a more open conversation about what might be a path forward would be an additional way for you to ensure that everyone is receiving the same information, because it does sound like there's been, you know, some, some folks who maybe weren't clear on what was going on or timelines and things like that, that, that collective conversation might actually be quite productive. It might be very fruitful.

And that, that gesture of being willing to meet— I would posit that this is potentially slightly different than just a tenant-to-landlord relationship where your lease is with individuals. While that is legally true, I think there might be a difference in the circumstance such that all of these tenants are Eventually they are being asked to do the same thing, which is to vacate. And I think that that might merit a different quality of conversation. And if that needs to be a facilitated conversation, I think that could— that's well within the realm of what's possible and maybe even necessary. But that strikes me as a really important piece of this, that having conversations with the collective would be helpful in moving this conversation forward.

And you can take that for what it's worth. That's just my two cents as one person out of 12 on this dais. But I think that those actions, those commitments made in such a way that is very clear to the public and to your tenants, the lengths to which you're willing to go, would be very productive. And thank you for being willing to be here and answer questions.

Mr. Kerker.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Debenham, can you tell me the implications on your business and your operation if this is postponed, uh, a few more weeks?

You said you're getting ready to break ground. $50 Grand, maybe. $50 Grand. Okay, $50,000. You know, that's out of your pocket, fair enough?

Yeah, I mean, ultimately, or investors, bank, which then probably gets put back into when you guys eventually do develop. Yeah, it'll go, so that'll actually increase the cost of housing. Is that fair? Ultimately, yeah. Okay.

Um, and then I believe I heard maybe a question for the attorneys. Um, what happens if this fails? Like, is this, is this thing dead for good if this fails tonight? I believe that's what I heard, uh, that maybe that was a possibility.

Through the chair, uh, that is not our current opinion. I think that the reversionary clause looks like it doesn't kick in for another year, and so I believe this item could be brought back.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't think we heard that. Oh, I apologize. Uh, through the chair, no, the attorneys off the cuff don't think this would be dead if it passes tonight. The reversionary clause doesn't take effect for until, I think, June 8th, 2027, based on looking at the quitclaim deed in the 5-year term. The quitclaim deed was dated June 8th, 2022, so I believe that there would be some time to bring back a new item.

Thank you. So I guess I'll just, I'll just say this. I, I'm certainly sympathetic to the, the situation with the, with the mobile park. I understand, uh, landlord-tenant relations are complicated. I've worked in the industry myself for a number of years.

I get it. Um, so I, I hear you, I do. I don't like that we're holding up a separate, potentially holding up a separate development that's going to bring additional housing to this town from somebody who's investing in our town to bring more housing for people in this town. They were trying— they were holding it up over a separate landlord-tenant issue. I really don't like that at all.

I think that's— that's personally, I think that's bad public policy. So I will not be voting to postpone. I will be voting— so let's, let's do this tonight. Let's move this along. And then I wish you all the best in your continue negotiations on the separate issue that does not involve us.

Thank you, sir. Thanks.

Mr. Martinez again. Oh, wait, Mr. Johnson hasn't spoken. We'll let him go first. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you.

I will say briefly for my part, you know, this question of whether or not the two projects are linked frankly remains unresolved in my mind, and I hear my colleagues' arguments both for and against why we should adopt that framework. And so I just want to put that down, that while I made the motion to postpone and support the motion to postpone, I would not take that as an indication of where my ultimate decision on whether or not to grant the extension, where I land on that issue. That is something that I wish to contemplate further. I recognize that I think we have two goals here. One is to see this housing project, you know, on— that's addressed by these coordinates move forward.

And we also want to make sure that these people are given a fair shake in their homes. And I do worry that, you know, if, if in the interest of moving quickly tonight, if we risk putting potentially both of those at risk. So I understand the downsides to taking more time with this, but frankly, it is a risk that feels more manageable in my mind than forcing us to, to draw conclusions at this moment. I will say that the information you presented tonight, Mr. Devenham, about, you know, your efforts to assist tenants is helpful. I also say this is new information to me, right?

And so it doesn't give us a lot of time to sort of consider whether or not we think that meets our individual concepts of being adequate and fair to your tenants. I'll ask that you take sort of what you stated here verbally or in your notes there and perhaps email it to the Assembly so we can have that as a reference to contemplate. So—. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER BRYANT] Absolutely. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER STEINGASSER] Anyways, yeah, I'll leave it to that.

I think time is beneficial to us, and I believe ultimately may be beneficial to you as well in these projects. And I certainly intend to engage with both of these groups.

Conversations thoughtfully, and whether or not one rides with the other is, is something that will continue to, to consider.

Now, Mr. Martinez— oh, the attorney, Ms. Gardner. Thank you. Through the chair, I just want to volunteer to members, uh, if this item is postponed and you do want to have further conversations about what legal rights may or may not exist, uh, in various areas of this issue, we're available to talk. On that note, since you grabbed the floor, I'm going to offer and ask the chairs, or the chair and vice chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, if they would consider hosting a special meeting before the 12th to tackle this conversation, um, so that it has a venue and kind of it can be briefed in a way that is methodical but also in the housing space. I heard from the chair, sure, and so I see a thumbs up, and I think that working with the attorneys would be really wise to get the framework of the conversation kind of really dialed in.

Um, date and time to be determined by the chairs. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. To the administration, um, how common is it that we run into this issue that the assembly has to take action on, on a disposed property that needs to be extended? Is that— how common does that happen? All the time? We seem to dispose of lots of properties, but how common is that?

That's a question maybe somebody can get to. Chairman Martinez, um, we do have, uh, our real estate director here in the audience, but she's indicating that we— this is pretty rare that we do this. This is not a tremendously common occurrence. Not tremendously common, relatively rare, relatively kind of. Yes.

All right, so let's just deal with the merits of the question today. Um, we're being asked to extend, but it was just reported— unless, unless I misunderstood what the municipal attorney said— the reversionary clause would actually hit next year. Was that what was communicated a few minutes ago to the municipal attorney?

Through the chair, yes. I, I understand from listening to the conversation tonight and Mr. Debenham that the issue is not necessarily that the reversionary clause is imminently about to kick in, but that that has collateral effects on construction schedules and financing. So it is— I think Mr. Debenham could explain, but we have not spoken before tonight, but he could explain what the practical issue is with that, but it's not a legal one at this point. It would become one in a little over a year. So this is a preemptive action for financing, Mr. Devine?

Yes, I'm not able to get investor, uh, to invest in the project, nor can I get construction financing from a local bank without an extension because they're putting $16 million of their own money at risk. Of being reverted back to the MOA if they, if they were to give it to me. I think you've pretty much explained why a few more days is not actually a problem. I think it's pretty self-evident with respect to the ability to have that much money on the table is not going to run away for 2 weeks of a conversation that requires us to take an action on it, right? So I think that that's a fair— it's a fair read from my vantage point that I do respect that you're in front of that curve, but it's being applied tonight like it's an all or nothing now, and it's being applied in that way, unfortunately, on the backdrop of the other issue that's semi-linked, at least through the lens of public good, right?

And so I just think that that's an unfortunate moment, but I think it's been pretty clear that there really isn't the house burning down, if you will, tonight if this doesn't pass. It seems like that was pretty self-evident, and, and we actually have more time than even this particular deadline. Um, I think that you're probably well equipped to make sure that, um, if there was a municipal process advancing, that you'd be able to probably aggressively communicate that to the rest of your team and the development folks, and they'll probably be waiting on you, but they'll probably want to know that you got it in the bag. They're probably going to want to know that you're going to make the case to us, whatever day, that we're going to say, "Yes, that's in the best interest of the public good to extend that outward to you," which really requires that we're going to believe projects are going to get done. That's the point of the reversionary clause not being there and being asked for it, so that projects get done.

So there's a lot of trust from the public's perspective once we say yes or no. So the more information earlier on, the more the noise behind the backdrop of this particular question maybe dissipates. I think it probably creates a better opportunity for us to see the public investment. Thank you, Mr. Debonair. Ms. Baldende.

Yeah, just one final thought to my colleagues. Um, I think it's important for us to recognize that, um, that mobile homes are the most permanently affordable housing available in Anchorage. And I would direct my colleagues' attention to several of the rezones that we approved tonight, which, if you looked at the photographs, very clearly include mobile homes that are on properties that have just been rezoned and will ostensibly be redeveloped. And the, the tenants of those mobile homes, if they are not in fact the owner of the property itself, will be displaced. And this is something we are— this is not a comment on Mr. Devenham's due diligence as a landlord.

This is a comment on what is happening in our city as we redevelop parcels, as we rezone, as we contemplate future development. And I think it is incumbent upon us as the assembly who will be tasked in some ways alongside the mayor's office with resolving the question of what do we do with folks who have been able to pay $710 per month in lot rent and will not find that— they will not find that option in another place here in Anchorage unless we do something to make such property available. This is not something the market is going to produce on its own. And so I want to be very clear to my colleagues that this is a question of our engagement on permanently affordable housing and where people go when they are displaced, whether that displacement is due to redevelopment or whether that displacement is due to a natural disaster— Typhoon Halong— there are plenty of reasons that we need to take responsibility as the city leadership for what happens in these circumstances. And we are— we, we continue to approve rezones that will generate more displacement, and we need to— we, we need to reckon with that, and we need to do it quickly now.

And again, this is no comment on Mr. Devenham's— on, on this particular item, but since we're here, I think that this is worth noting. This is not the last time we are going to be faced with this question. And as people who are entrusted with the public good, I think we, we, we must not delay this conversation. It has to happen and it has to happen now. Thank you.

All right, um, there's no one else in the queue at this time. The motion is to postpone to the meeting of the 12th with a visit to the Housing and Homelessness Committee. Members may proceed to vote.

Not a formal referral, just an agreement by the chairs. Member Myers?

No.

On a vote of 7 to 3, the motion to postpone has been carried by the slimmest of margins. So there'll be notice to the various folks that this— when the meeting is scheduled, so you can have an opportunity. Um, yeah, should we take 5 minutes? Go ahead and take 5 minutes. Don't go too far.

All right, I think we're all here. We got a couple more interesting debates and we'll get through this agenda. Fell. Next we have item 6B. 6B is AO 2026-49.

An ordinance, the municipality of Anchorage, authorizing the sale of properties foreclosed on for delinquent taxes and, and/or special assessments. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion to.

Approved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion? Seeing and hearing no discussion, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers?

Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO 2026-49 has passed the body. Next we have, um, AO 2026-54, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 7.20.020 to increase public access to invitations to bid on municipal contracts posted online. Did we have an S version? So, um, yeah, okay, it is here. I'll go and read the S version title.

An ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 7.10.010 and 7.10.030 and 7.20.020 to increase public Access to invitations to bid on municipal contracts posted online. That's 2026-54-S. So, and the printed item is up here for any member of the public who wishes to have it. The public hearing is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

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

So there's a motion to approve the S version, moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Member Constantine. Thank you. So, um, we worked closely with our friends in purchasing— thank you, Mr. Marquis— with our friends in the Chief Administrative Office and Council to kind of encode that the public has a right to read any bid documents without having to sign up for the the software package that bids are taken into. And so we kind of went through this a year and a half, 2 years ago, and it was a bit of a struggle, but we got there. But still, the certain items aren't showing up easily.

And in fact, I myself last week had to go in and instead of being able to just read a solicitation, had to get an account and go in, and the process wasn't as streamlined as I had hoped. And so this intends to solve that problem and I think we've come to a pretty good point where everyone agrees what we've proposed is doable. What they're just going to do essentially is mirror all the bids onto the public portal. You won't be able to apply onto the website, but you won't be able to apply from there. You'll still have to go into the bid viewer process to make your applications.

And so I think that's generally the case. Um, so with that, I'll yield the floor. Miss Baldeday.

Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yes, thank you. I'm—. So I have a question about location. Where do we expect that these beds will be warehoused?

On the purchasing website. On the purchasing website. So if a member of the public or a member of the assembly were to go to the purchasing website, they would see like a list of PDFs of open solicitations? Yes. Excellent, thank you.

All right, so apparently I have an amendment which I can't remember. There were so many moving parts, um, in the last minute. So go ahead, Mr. Rivera. Yeah, I move constant amendment number 1.

Second. There's a motion to amend and a second. Mr. Rivera has moved, Ms. Baldende seconds. And I think this just, uh I actually can't even speak to what exactly this says. It just moves where the references for, um, not requiring registration through an online account or submitting personal information, but, um, it moves it from I to J essentially.

It doesn't really change the outcome. Any objection? I'd like to ask unanimous consent to the amendment. Seeing none, the amendment is adopted. Any further discussion on the motion?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers? Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO 2026-54 as amended has passed the body. Next we have 68, Resolution R2026-95, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, approving the issuance of port revenue bonds for the the municipality in one or more series in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $400 million for the purpose of providing funds to refinance certain outstanding debt and to provide for additional funds for capital improvements and related financial financing expenses of the Don Young Port of Alaska.

Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item?

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

Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any discussion?

Seeing and hearing none, members may proceed to vote. Member Myers.

Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AR 2026-95 has passed the body.

Item 6E, AO 2026-57, an ordinance authorizing and approving adoption of Port of Alaska Terminal Tariff Number 10.3. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Moved by Mr. Rivera, seconded by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Any discussion on the motion? Hearing and seeing no discussion, members may proceed to vote.

Member Myers.

Yes.

On a vote of 10 to 0, AO 2026-57 has passed the body. Next is item 6F, AO 2026-56, an ordinance of Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 3.20.070 to remove certain public reporting requirements from the Municipal Attorney's Office. The public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all?

Seeing, hearing none, public hearing is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Are we trading? Move to approve. Motion to approve by Ms. Baldwin-Diaz. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Rivera.

Okay, so some decisions to be made on this item. Debate? Postpone? Um, there's been some discussions about, um, an S version. There's actually been a lot of work going on an S version that would somewhat modify the thing, but it's not quite ready for prime time.

Um, so the question really before us is, if we kick it out, do we kick it out to next week, which would be this body deciding on this item, or would we kick it out past that, which would be a new body deciding the question. And, um, I think that's really the fundamental landscape of the question. Ms. Solvers.

I'll move to postpone, um, till the 28th or the 12th. I think the 28th. 28Th. I'll move, uh, to postpone till the 28th. Second.

So there's a motion to postpone the item to April 28th by Member Silver, seconded by Mr. Martinez.

Um, do you want to speak to that at all?

No, no. Okay, Mr. Johnson. So just to clarify, if we, if we take this up at the meeting the 28th, it will be, uh, it will take place before the new body is sworn in? Is that our intent?

I'm getting a nod, so thanks, Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thanks. And I'm just curious if the administration has any thoughts on postponing or doing this now.

Through the chair, to clarify, this was a recommendation directly from my office, not from the administration, but I'm happy to answer. I think very comfortable postponing. I want the assembly and every member to have a chance to think about this, consider any S version that may be brought forward, which hopefully is soon, and also have a chance to speak confidentially with my office, uh, me or Joe Busa, if you have any questions or concerns in advance of the meeting.

Anything further, Miss Kirker? Mr. Presverdia? My question was answered, thank you. All right, so Mr.

Rivera? Yeah, thanks. I guess to Assembly Council, how— because I imagine the person who is doing the AS version isn't here today, right? So how soon do we think we will have that S version? [Speaker:DR. BOLL] I anticipate being able to get it on the addendum for the next meeting.

So the deadline is noon tomorrow. It will be published Friday. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Perfect. Thank you. [Speaker:DR. BOLL] Also, the mover of that S version said that she would prefer it to be on the 28th, the next meeting.

And so there was some discussion about how members would like to be briefed on the why and the matter that it is, how it's drafted, and et cetera. And there are really two paths to.

Do that. One is individuals reaching out to our excellent attorneys at the Department of Law and asking for a specific briefing on the, the item. And that is, to me, the most preferable route. But members have to be active to do that if they want to understand more on why this was put forward. Another path is an executive session, but next meeting is not the time for an executive session, and so it would be tonight only.

Or you could avail yourself for details from the municipal attorney and their office. And so I strongly recommend members who might have questions or thoughts to reach out to the municipal attorney. Don't wait, get your questions in and answered, and then be ready for the question. So, and I love the idea of not convening into an executive session right now. So I would support the motion.

Seeing no one else in the queue, I'd like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the motion? I'm hearing no objection, so the motion will be back before us in the meeting of April 12th— April 28th, I'm sorry. I'm screwing up May and April now. So that concludes our business agenda.

Next we have audience participation. Welcome, please come forward.

And please hand the information to the clerk up here. She will distribute it.

All right, welcome. Please state your name and what part of town you're from. Pull the mic down, it's on. You got 3 minutes, so speak speedily. Is it working?

You're on, go. Um, Madam Mayor, members of the assembly, United Hatzalah, an intended beneficiary of my father's charity, is an Israeli-based NGO that equips emergency medical technicians on motor scooters, allowing them to navigate heavy traffic in cities, shedding life-saving minutes on delivering emergency care in Israel and around the world. That is why I'm here with you today. It is my North Star to restore my father's charity and to stop the unnecessary deaths that are taking place. So what I am speaking to you about today is a matter of life and death.

In May of 2015, at age 90, my father Barney, after a major head injury and multiple incapacity diagnosis, was a victim of elder fraud. All control of his estate, his charity, and our family business allegedly has been taken over and milked of more than $40 million by a multi-state, well-oiled organized crime elder fraud ring operating in Alaska in Washington State. There is at least an additional $100 million of intended charity missing. My father's charity, the Gottstein Family Foundation, was supposed to have received as much as $150 million upon his death but received nothing as a result of the elder fraud. I am providing you today with the incriminating evidence of these massive crimes ignored so far by all law enforcement other than now, thank God, our own Anchorage Police Department.

So I thank Mayor, the mayor, Police Chief Case, and Bill Pawlsley for their courageous and moral leadership on this issue. A half billion dollars of intended charity over the next 50 years has been compromised. We are losing more than $100,000 a week in charitable giving from what was supposed to be the second largest Alaska-based charity behind the Rasmussen Foundation. Why is this disgusting crime of massive theft from charity happening still and nothing has been done about it? Because an arbitrator allegedly acted on behalf of organized crime in his rulings by ruling it was frivolous of me to challenge management's right to hide $20 million in compensation, to commit extortion, bribery, defamation, minority shareholder oppression, and theft from charity, and therefore ruled I must pay $6 million penalty for whistleblowing it.

Because both a Superior Court judge and the Supreme Court Deputy Chief Clerk allegedly, through obstruction of justice, have engaged in massive judicial misconduct by denying me all due process rights to a fair trial in my attempts to reverse the arbitrator's pro-organized crime rulings, the reason I filed a criminal complaint with the Anchorage Police Department, and because under the Dunleavy administration, not the Attorney General, the Department of Law, the Division of Banking and Securities, or the state troopers have done anything other than look the other way, even though they are all in possession of the same under oath confessions and other incriminating evidence that I am providing you with today. Any one of them could stop the thievery all on a dime if they ordered a books and records inspection to find out where the missing $100 million went. Why haven't they done so? Mr. Godstein, you got a lot of words in, in 3 minutes. I know, I'm sorry, I have 3 minutes.

So I provided you all with all the evidence, and I've asked to come back next week. I'm happy to answer whatever questions, and, and it really is incumbent upon the police department. We're gonna— just so you know, next week isn't gonna work, but the next meeting would work. Okay, so we're gonna send you an email that says We can't do it next week, but we can do it on the 24th. Thank you very much.

My father and Larry Carr built this town, and my father wanted to give back. All right. And this is a tragedy. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard, please come forward. Welcome.

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

It's on. Jamie Lopez, Seaside Anchorage, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. Sorry, just got out of handcuffs. Wrong place, wrong time. So, massive crimes.

I've just seen massive crimes against humanity. Fortunately, some people in this room are semi-responsible for them. So I want to tell a tale. I'll try to do it in about 2 minutes and 40 seconds. So basically, it used to be you could pitch a tent outside, but because of optics, now you can't.

And so literally, you're forced to walk around this town like gypsy nomads and caravans, and everything is strapped to your back. And the alternative is you go into an apartment, somebody shows you kindness, you're there. You go into an abandoned building or into a trap house, which are getting ridiculous, They've gone after the primary targets, the tents, and now, now they're going out after everybody else. And so there was a property in Mountain View, and more or less, uh, they did an enforcement action against that property a few weeks ago. And as a result of that, uh, some of the undesirable things ended up going over to another property in another area.

And there were people in that building that were paying, uh, rent. And more or less what happened is, uh, on Friday There was a notice to vacate, notice placed on 838 Irwin. And so what had transpired is there were some good people in that building. One of them I knew who I met years ago when she was homeless in a car along with her partner. And she was in a Dodge Ram and I brought her food and then she ended up over at Davis.

And so struggling to survive in a form of poverty, you go where you can. Well, she ended up in that building. She was paying $300 a month. Try to find a 1-bedroom studio efficiency in this town for that price. No, you're paying $900 to $1,300.

And so more or less what ends up happening is on Friday I learn of this when I'm walking up to a pantry and I lay into somebody who may or may not be in this room because of it. And then you get to Tuesday, and Tuesday they do essentially show up with cops at 9 AM, and more or less she's in the shower. The notice to vacate says there's no water. Well, the landlord turned the water off apparently and then turned it back on after the vacate notice was posted. So she says, "Sorry, I'll be out in a minute.

I'm trying to get ready. I'm trying to get dressed." The police threatened to throw her in handcuffs when she answers the door. Then basically she tries to get her kitten. They won't—. Try not to let her get her kitten.

Then a community service officer says, "Well, we can let somebody adopt your kitten." "No, I'm— er, cat." And then, you know, she's got her cat and she takes it. Well, there was somebody, Kathleen apparently, who she'd approached for housing, and she said, "No, I'll get back to you in 3 days." Didn't offer to put her in a hotel with Good Neighbor Funds. No. So then she was on the street. There was another man named Blake in Unit 2 who apparently been there for 35 years.

Uh, there were other people that were paying, but they didn't have lease agreements. So did they get the first month's and last month's rent and their security deposit? No. And then as a result of her being on the streets, essentially what ended up happening is she went wherever she went. And I was trying to get her to this meeting today, but apparently she got charged with a crime yesterday as a result of being put on the streets, and then she was in jail.

And then Yeah, so, uh, sorry, sir, uh, you're not doing a good job. You're putting people on the streets, and you really need to think your strategy. All right, thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? Anyone at all?

All right, we'll move on to the last part of our agenda, which is member comments. We'll start with Mr. Presverdia.

No comments, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kirker. No comments, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Um, Miss Silvers?

No comments. Mr. Rivera, no comments. Mr. Johnson, no comment. Ms. Baldonday, we're gonna go for 3 straight weeks, aren't we? Hey, see you guys next week.

Mr. Martinez, no additional comments. Mr. Cormack, no comments. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Yes, thanks, Chair. Excited for next Tuesday to come and go.

Yeah, we'll see you then, sir. Uh, with that then, thank you everybody. This was a very important use of our time tonight. Thank you for making it so we could get through next week more efficiently. So with that, we'll be adjourned.

Thank you.