We're going to go. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. Welcome. I'm going to now call to order this special meeting of the anchor assembly. It is 1 p.m. on the record today from 1 to 4 target. Today is April 16, 2025. I'll go ahead and ask the clerk to call the roll. Member Myers here. Member Martinez present. Member Littlefield here. Member Rivera present. Member Johnson here. Chair constant here. Vice chair here. Member Brona here. Member Boland have here. Member Broly here. Member Salt here. Member Presfordia here. Chair, you have a quum. Now ask Mr. Is this I pledge algiance 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. Yes. A land acknowledgement is a formal statement recognizing the indigenous people of a place. is a public gesture of appreciation for past and present indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movements toward decolonization and equity. The English assembly would like to acknowledge that we've gathered today on the traditional lands of the Dina Aabaskans. For thousands of years, the Dina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. It is with gratefulness and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the upper Cookin Dina. Thank you, member. All right, so a few starting comments. Um, we have 16 items to accomplish today. We are on the record for 3 hours. I'm hopeful we can get through them in that amount of time, but if not, I'm also hopeful we will continue the work until the work is done. With that said, then the challenge of course in this room between chambers is every divided vote has to be um recorded by a voice vote. And so I'm going to lean heavily on unanimous consent requests in today's meeting. Um, obviously that doesn't foreclose any member from having objection and speaking to an item in whatever manner that they want or within the rules or um that the um members can't fully and robustly debate the items on the agenda. It's just going to be challenging to get their work. We have to take tons and tons of votes. Some of these items were required. So that is just my credit to the conversation and with that then we have a request change over the day. Thank you Mr. Chair. I move to change the order of the day to take up item 5 A 4 B 4 E 5 B 4 D 5 C then the remainder of the agenda ending with item 4 A. Can you state that one more time? There's a motion by the silence section by district one. I got 5 A, 4 B, and then 4 E as an echo. 5B is in Bravo, 4 D, 5 C. The remainder of the agenda and take up 4 A after 5 L. All right. So, ML, did you get that? There's a motion to change the order of the day by LSL in order to reorganize some items um so they can be taken up properly into the right order. Um second was there any objection motion change over I don't want to object but I want to know so this lets us take up the report um items in the proper order ensuring that we take up the revenue question before the contract question then there are two items where the action requested is to postpone them indefinitely um and then it moves through um to take up um the uh waste to energy just before. So it's just basically putting the waste to energy at the end of basically the enterprise and utility section of our agenda today and then down the rest of the row um with for a one I have a conflict on. So putting it towards the end of the agenda. Okay, that's a why. Is there any objection to that motion? Hearing see no objection the agenda order has been changed. I would also note the premier is with us manager chief officer and municipal attorney who's also here at the table with a room full of people. Okay. So next up we will take up item 5 A. Item 5 A is AO 2025-47 an ordinance of municipality bank for providing or authorizing approving the issue of support revenue bonds and note to the municipality one or more series the aggregate principal amount outstanding anytime not to exceed 1 bill12735,000 for the purpose of providing funds to refinance certain outstanding debt and to provide for additional funds for capital future capital improvements and related finance expenses port of Alaska and appropriating the proceeds of such bonds or earned to the port of Alaska capital improvement fund 57080 public hear items now open anyone wish to be heard you do wish please come forward to lectern meanwhile mic public close what's body move to approve. Second motion to approve by Salat second by Mr. Myers. Thank you. Um so I heard the chair side when he read that number. Um it is a big number. Um but it is necessary. Um this is a necessary move for us as a municipality in order to move on with the next item which is looking at terminal one cargo replacement. If you've been on the journey of the board um for the past decade or so, you will know that these act these two actions today actually um represent significant milestones and we've had a number of significant milestones over the past couple of years. There's real momentum behind this project. Um and so while this is a large amount of revenue bonds, I want to point out a few things. One, these are not bonds like our traditional bonds that go on the valley. These are bonds that are paid with something called a sir charge um on our tariff. Yes, if these bonds are ultimately authorized by the assembly in the future to be sold on the market, those tariff search charges do pass on to consumers. Um but this does not preclude what the mun has been very successful at to date with the port modernization project or program which is getting other funding. Um, we have already replaced one of the terminals in the port modernization program called the petroleum cement terminal. That was an expensive terminal, but to the tune of just over, I believe, $12 million to the municipality. Um, it was a very small contribution by residents of the state of Alaska to the overall program. I have high expectations for this as well. There are some grant funds we continue to expend. But the real piece to this is and the reason there is that big number is to assure our contractor that we are walking in partnership that we are going to see the terminal one construction through to the end. Um this number also gives us room to remain agile and pivot in that construction process. I think everyone can understand that there's um a little uncertainty in the world, but we are prepared and we have lots of um opportunities to move um with whatever those circumstances may be. I also want to reinforce we have a really great relationship with our federal delegation and continue to talk about the importance of the port modernization program, not just to Anchorage, but to the entire state. We also continue to have a really great relationship with the Anchorage Caucus of the Alaska Legislature going to bat for this program. Um, so what I uh want to let the public know is you should absolutely be paying attention to the port. If you've ever been at one of my community council meetings, you hear me talk about the port. It is one of the most significant pieces of infrastructure we have in our town. Um, and it is one of the most significant pieces of infrastructure for the state. Um, so I am very proud today to cast my vote in favor of this and the next item knowing that the municipality is stepping up to make sure that infrastructure works, it is futurep proofed and it is resilient um for whatever the future may bring. So I would ask my colleagues support. Thank you. The clerk reminds me that there is an AIM associated with this item 41. Wait, I'm sorry. There is there is there an IM to associate this one? It's not listed on my list through the chair. It's the bond market um okay it's not on my list so I didn't catch it. Um okay so it is um on number from the mayor bond market volatility is the title that will be associated with this item. All right. So, so um next does the administration wish to chime in on this item now at all before we move into more deliberation to the chair. I'll say that our comments align with vice chair. I think this is a very significant development, but it is also one that is not wholly new. This is very similar to an action the Senate took last February to authorize bonds which effectively creates budget. This new item aligns with the plan of finance that we published in January for the whole of cargo terminal one and the whole of cargo terminal 2. One thing that I would also add to give the members of the public and any other interested party some perspective is that while this creates the budget for us, this itself, despite having a big number on the first title page, doesn't have some of economic effects because it doesn't actually authorize the issuance of any bonds until the assembly comes back and says he specifically authorized a particular issuance of bonds. And for those who are playing along with the written materials, that's at the very top of page 10, assembly approval bonds. So this creates the ability for us to move forward, but does not immediately result in whole new. Can I add one further thing for the record? I received questions from the public about this and like to say it publicly regarding the order of the day. Just to make clear that this passage of this ordinance is a prerequisite to award of the terminal one contract. And the reason for the timing of those items being introduced last week and coming before the body this week and the ordering today having this ordinance go first is because a portion of this additional bonding authority is a prerequisite to being able to award the term construction and that was interest. Okay. Anyone else wish to discuss this? Okay, I'll just note that um this has been an ongoing project for generations and um the Bwoods administration members of the assembly including the now mayor set the task and hired a contractor um our friends broki who really helped us to look at this process holistically at the the prospects of this effort and I think that that moment was a true turning point in moving us where we are today and that has been steady until by both the assembly and the administration but for a little bit of a window previous administration questions. So this work is not the conclusion of a rapid finish to get things done really quickly. This is literally like an 8-year effort that is landing today. And so for those who feel that this might have some kind of time pressure, the time pressure is not about getting something done uh for anything other than we've been working on this trajectory for years and here we are now ready to proceed to the next phase and this gives certainty to the plan of finance basic plan of finance. To that end there's no one else members I would like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to this motion? Anyone on the phone objections? No objections are heard by unanimous vote of the [Music] assembly. AO 2025-47 has passed. Next, we'll take up item 4 B. Item 4B is Senate memorandum 327-2025 recommendation award micro venture MJ construction services one replacement under the port of Alaska modernization program this item is not a public hearing item so I will go ahead and turn to the body what's the body move by second Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, my prior comments really do apply to this. This is a really important piece uh to the park modernization pro program um porta modernization program and I want to just take a moment and pause and u there's some thanks that needed to get to this. Um previous court leadership uh Sharon um we had a good partnership with the last administration. Thank you to Mr. Falsy, Miss Pearson, and Mayor Lance for keeping this on target in a clear priority. Um, again, and thank you to to Jacobs for being a good partner in this and explaining the technical aspects of this to us as policy makers so we understand the decision points. Also want to thank to Matson and the rest of the operators at the port. This has really been a collaborative um conversation. Um, Mr. alluded to it earlier, but the design advisory board has played an integral role in moving decisions through um and it was really through lessons learned from when we did the control terminal. So, I look forward um with the revamp design advisory board as we move through um and any questions come up. Feel like we're in a really solid position to um be agile with anything that may come up through this process. Um and then with that um I in the jelly I would like to go ahead and move amendment number one there's a motion to amend and a second thank you. Um so what this does is it increases the change order to $26 million or 3.2%. Um this is still within the uh revenue bond amount we just previously approved. Um I feel more comfortable putting this project on a trajectory so it can be agile. Um we do not 100% know what you know various markets are going to do as we procure go through procurement. Um and we have a lot of pieces moving here and the idea is with this change order authority um this project has been really good at briefing the assembly but it leads them to be agile to respond to those conditions that may arise. So I would uh request your support in this. Um this is a big contract and this change order authority should be uh similarly situated. Thank you. Is there any discussion? Yeah. Question. So I see this game from the municipal manager. So I'll question one person. Um the change order 31.5% had been the amount in there. Is that our standard practice? Are we deviating from it or is that um number that varies depending on um from contract to contract? Min um my understanding from all of our contract for all of our construction experts is that the 3.2% number that is included in the amendment is more typical and particularly more typical for the first few years of a project in which there's more likelihood of uh needing to be agile and having some pricing volatility. um the initial number presented was lower than that to try and keep a tighter leash on the contract. The question here of this amendment is really if the um body is immunable to having us take a more traditional path of having something closer to that 3.2% rather than the 1.5% included in the authority from the outset. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. And then follow question. If this amendment is adopted as written, can you just kind of walk us through a little bit when if uh the administration would have to come back to the assembly for approval and changes to the the contract contract? Uh to share member Thompson, we would um if we were to receive the contract, the the change order authority, then we would come back for a request for an increase and we would anticipate this was a projection that we would anticipate would take us soon for the contract. Okay. Thank you. discussion on the amendment. So I would know my impression of this if you follow the conversations and email about the um the you call the bond for construction bond or the amount that the contractor has to put on the table just to be able to bid. It was in this range of magnitude. It's $22 million. And so the reality is this project is so big while these numbers look giant. These numbers are actually like standard. So that 5% nothing standard but any further discussion on that I would like to ask unanimous consent. Is there any objections you on the phone? Any objection? Oh Mr. Salt I actually I am hearing see no objection. Therefore, I also told by the clerk reminded that there is also an AIM associated with this item. Now, it's 41 information last modernization program and construction contract response to inquiry from somebody. I want to thank the court. I want to thank the manager and administration officer for giving very detailed answers to lots and lots of questions please. Okay. So now we have the main motion as amended before us Mr. Salt. Thank you chair. Appreciate that uh lead in. So obviously we've seen that there's protests from another bidder and I know that Delta is roughly 72 million which I think is is worth a few questions which the administration has done a very good job of answering mine as well as the others. But I just wanted to offer I guess two options right here. one is for the administration uh just to speak to the protest uh kind of the cost or uncertainty if not all the work today their attempts to cure uh the mayor's response as well as Mr. follow his response and then if the other bidder or or Bur Horton is in the room um just to me it seems I I'm just curious as to why the other bidder didn't put in a bid bond which I believe has very low cost to even for large amounts such as this um which was one of the which was the reason for that bid being rejected. Thank you. So I'll start by asking is there a representative here from that organization? I'm not seeing any later on response. Absolutely. Chair members I'll start by talking a little bit about the time pressure that what happens if we delay question um and then turn Mr. calls you to talk about the substantive response from the administration to the actual bid protest requests that we have received um from the competing bidder. In terms of the time question, um this is outlined in the written response as well. Um we run into a couple different things if we delay award of this contract. Um none of which are perfectly quantifiable. And the first thing we bump into is the fact that when we put out the RFP, we indicated that the limited notice to receive date for this contract would be May 6th of 2025. and that is to allow the contractor sufficient time to procure long lead time items before commencing construction activity uh in the summer of 2026. And so as if we are to pass that date, if we're to not make the contract award prior to that date, um the world will end. But we end up potentially in a renegotiation situation because that date was something that the bidding contractors took into account in considering whether they were able to agree to the liquidated damages provisions in the contract which are triggered by a delay in construction start time and delivery of certain um key items under the contract. And so that starts to become a risk. we run into our second very concrete risk point at May 26th because that is when um the bid the validity of the initial bid um concludes the bid the contractor is bound to their bid for 90 days from the date of submission and we hit that point at May 26th after that date um we would potentially have to go out to rebid the contract start the process over again and for reference I'd say we've now taken 8 months approximately between um the date when we were to receive responses to our initial ITV and did not receive those. We, you know, went out for a rebid process and it's taken us 8 months to get through it again. So, it's not an insignificant amount of time that we would take um and delay we would experience if we were to restart the bidding process at this point. Now, I'll turn it to Mr. Pauly to speak specifically to the protest items and our thoughts. Thank you, Merson, and to the chair. Um to member Soul, yes, it is true that we received correspondence from a rival proponent. Um the first letter which we've circulated to the assembly along with our response focused in the main on the bid bond requirement. There are several requirements for bonding that are associated with this project. The bid bond as we discussed in RFP itself was required for the project to prevent to protect the municipality from financial risk and as we described there it ensured project continuity in the event of an unsuccessful negotiation. the way this project was structured. Um, proponents could submit marked up versions of the contract that we would ultimately like to enter into. And the bid bond, as we said in the addendum, was intended to ensure that proposers submit serious and financially capable offers serve as a guarantee that the selected proposer will enter into negotiations with the MOA in good faith. It is a relatively common practice in construction projects to have a bid bond. There was back and forth with um potentially with the proponent who ultimately submitted the pro the protest letter itself about the propriy of using the bid bond here. We landed on the fact that we did indeed want one. What we ultimately received from them um was a check which turned out to be an uncertified company check. You know went to the bank to confirm that it was not a certified check. gave the proposer the opportunity to cure that to either provide us with a certified check or with a bidon. There was additional back and forth. Ultimately, they chose not to do that. Um, at that point, we were really unable to move forward with that because it was a hard requirement of the request for proposals that proposers submit a bond to us. Um, I'll say uh at that point our hands are somewhat tied. Um, and that was critical because of course we would love to consider a proposal as well. But I'm happy to answer further questions on that if there are further questions. Otherwise, we have tried to do this in a full and forthright way by showing you all the cards as we're producing them. So, we have sent our responses to all these letters to the Appreciate it, Mr. Foley. I do have one follow-up question. In a secondary letter from their legal repres representatives, they called out several deficiencies or concerns with MFJB's bid. I just don't know if any of those are material. In our opinion, they are not. And so here too, we sent our response to the first letter on Monday and at about the same time received the second letter from their legal counsel. Uh we have just submitted our response to that letter from their legal council just ahead of this meeting and CC obviously you can see our full response there. Um but in the main the short version is that the response that we received from Manson Michaels was in our estimation in all aspects responsive the concerns that were being raised by the byping criteria type question. So the requirement in the RP for example may say um demonstrate to us how you will construct this project uh and they probably said we take issue with some of the ways that they propose to construct the project. Well that doesn't make the recommended award proposal nonresponsive but might go to how you evaluate that. Um but certainly the evaluation committee uh concluded after its more technical and extensive review that the Nich joint venture proposal would result in a project that will get us mutual. Thank you Mr. FY and thank you chair. That's all. Thanks the bid bond requirement. So I'm just not sure you're not going to construct till 2026. So, is that money held by the municipality or are you just seeing if they actually have these funds available and then I'm I'm wondering if potentially they could show you some money and then next year they wouldn't have that money. Um, how do you ensure that they actually have these funds or maybe that's what the bid bond does? Sorry, I just don't understand it. uh through the chair to the member of Brang, I can hazard at least a partial response to that. Yes, the initial bid bond is to demonstrate seriousness in the initial negotiations. It's a little bit I think of it as a little bit like an earnest money payment in a real estate transaction. There are at least three ways that you comply with that. One is to get an actual bid bond. Another was to send us a certified check. I'm forgetting as I try to pull up what the third way was. certified check of course actually freezes the note getting amount of money required by the bid box. So in this instance if someone had sent us a check for $22 million the bank would have to certify there was $22 million in the bank would not be moved until uh either that check was released or we cashed that check. The bid bond performs a similar function but really doesn't require you to tie up the money in the same way. And then if you were to just Google bid bonds, typically the bid bond cost is much less than the face value of the bond itself. We cannot say from our side of the table why this respondent was not able to submit it. We know that they didn't believe that this was the right tool to use. We were pretty well convinced from our experience and from the recommendation from our JS contractor and from expertise of the first part that it was a standard necessary tool for us to use. We also know that the recommended already had no problem complying with it. Appreciate that. So I have myself in Q. Um I would take a little bit of a different read of what one thing you just said is not that they cannot. It's my read of the communication that was in response will not I didn't get to cannot. They said they can. And so I think it's more clear to say they say they will not leave thiswhere. And so um now I read your letter that you sent out this morning and I think it addressed every concern that was on the list except one maybe you did and I just didn't read it closely enough was that there are concern about community work and do we have a response to that said similarly those are qualitative concerns not relative to whether or not the qualify and um to the chair um the project is subject to committee workforce agreement which I know you're aware of. And so that negotiation will happen afterwards with the contractor concerning um the um the project. And so I think their assertion was that there were somehow less local contractors available who would then be covered by the CWA. And the challenge is that's not been a requirement. The project is required to have a CWA that expended decided before we came into the into office. And so I think it's sort of in some ways a challenging item to respond to because it's the requirement is clear. they will comply with the requirement. But ultimately it's again not it seems to just wasn't addressed into the category of that is not a disqualifying element that is not an element of responsible bid that's more of the subjective analysis of the bid and how it is to absolutely it's certainly not a qualifying requirement and additionally the CWA requirement will be met. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and I will also say thank you um to for all the work that's been prepared specifically. Um, I had some uh questions and was able to meet with the new manager yesterday and appreciate the the information in writing. Um, I also appreciate that we were given um guidance on what the assembly's ability to send things to the bid review board is. Um and so I contemplated that um looking at this particular case and just knowing the scope of that board and I'll just say briefly my understanding of that board is it is a narrow scope in which it is looking at was um essentially was the procurement process uh met. So there's not discretion there. that's really evaluating the process and I may be messing up the technical terms but um but essentially and I've also been um a contractor certainly not anything of this magnitude not building anything um but I have I have seen you know nonresponsive bids and I know that generally speaking in a procurement process that is a hard rule I mean there are responsive or you're not and even if you meant to be if you were not then that is not a discretionary item and so um so I just wanted to put on the record at least that I had considered whether we should take that action or whether I should initiate that action and concluded that um it seems very unlikely that that board would come to a different conclusion or even come to different findings of fact. Um in which case it would really be an exercise of additional time and process but not change the outcome and not necessarily um yeah just not change the outcome. And so and so at this point I would recommend to my colleagues if anybody was contemplating that to um to consider the the time cost of that and whether it would produce a different result. And so I have no intention at this point to u to make that nor have I been asked by any of your parties to do any other discussion or motion any seeing hearing none on this item. I'm going to again ask unanimous consent to members. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion? Anyone on the phone seeing any motion has passed. Immediately I would move to immediately reconsider. Second. So there's a motion to reconsider Sel Myers. You have proposal. No. And no vote is urged. No vote is urged. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing hearing discussion, I'm going to ask again. I don't know how to say unanimous descent unanimous descenting objection motion first time I ever asked here we are I am hearing a no dension therefore motion consider we need to do that for the financial item 5A. So there is a motion to reconsider item 5A under there's a second. Um in the same vein I'd like to ask for this. Is there any objection to that motion on the phone hearing? Therefore the motion to reconsile Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of this body, not only for your unanimous approval and unanimous descent, but for the way in which you have engaged in this project, for the way in which you have shephered Miss Ellel, Mr. constant and uh to our team as well and those here in this room who have also played a really big part in what I believe to be uh this just feels like a historic move forward and so thank you all so very much. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with all of you on this critical project, this critical program, series of projects. Thank you. never before voting on industrial infrastructure and next we have item 4 C. Item 4 C is a 339 of 2025 authorization state terms and conditions brewery cranes located. Thank you. I have manager answer the question of why Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. um so these this agreement this item and the next one that will come up are both tied to a paradigm of crane purchase and operation which may be shifting slightly um only in the sense that Maxim is now looking at um different options for procuring cranes. The original intent was to procure them from Japan. And uh there's now they're now exploring options for utilizing used cranes from somewhere else um some somewhere else in the NASA network. And so as a result our par the contract terms may shift slightly because again the paradigm for how those cranes will arrive um and be installed may change slightly. So as a result we would like to ask that these two items be postponed indefinitely. At this time we will resubmit. We will anticipate that we're going to resubmit two very similar items because the idea is not that the ongoing operating paradigm shifts in any way. The idea is that the timeline does not shift in any way. Um but the idea is that the location and type of sourcing that may be used to identify the cranes um is intended to shift and as a result they may have some impact on contract terms. Um and so again, as a result, our request is to postpone indefinitely and um for us to reintroduce parallel items when Madison has determined how they'd like to proceed. And I know representative the ask them to speak directly to this item. It's essentially the same testimony for item 5B. Any discussion on motion? Nancy members go ahead and ask consent for motion to post. Is there any objection to the motion to postpone? I am hearing objection. So 339-25 has definitely 525-51 approving the crane use agreement between South America. That's a navigation [Music] company special motion previous I'd like to ask unanimous consent for the motion definitely. Is there any objection to the motion? Seeing there no objection there four 2025 postponed definitely brings us back up to item 4D and 4D is AR 2025-126 resolution miss out of Anchorage supporting establishing new way project led by services supported by wast utility enterprise utilities miss out of Anchorage there motion move to approve second move by Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. Just quickly, I'll speak to to um why I'm excited for this prospect. There are if we find that this is feasible. I mean, a lot of upsides to consider with with the concept of waste energy facility. There are health benefits there environmental benefits. There is adding to our overall sources of energy which is a very timely subject for misders as we contemplate um not the same availability of natural gases we relied on years past. Uh this extends has the potential to extend the life of our land which we know is a major liability for the city. Uh it is beneficial in terms of our ability to dispose of of waste water and the sledge associated with that. So there is a litany of potential upsides to this. Now understanding that the feasibility of the project is it is a large project. It is a complex project. So this is not ultimately green lighting the construction of anything. This is just simply um laying a path forward to go forward and then do more to determine the the scope and the probability of success here. Our monies for this um the project which is provides all services in AU um are from their funds. So it does not have an impact to our general government spending. from their budgets. They have capacity and they have expressed their support for this project. So with that, I would just encourage my colleagues to uh to support this. Thanks. So I um share Mr. Johnson's enthusiasm with the exploration of waste energy um especially given um the energy issues in South Central Alaska. Um I do want to raise a few things um as I'll be leaving but I would love to impart to my members to uh pay attention and watch for. Um I look at wasting energy not unlike our modernization program. It is a multi-phase project that will take lots of steps and it is one where um you'll have to dig in um and from time to time and really understand sequentially where the effort is um in order to be able to um do the go no-go decisions. Um, and what I've learned through the port project and other significant infrastructure projects is that we typically have a member who who does dig in deep um, and can be relied on. Um, and I know Mr. Johnson is in on that, but um, I encourage you all to uh, find a passion for waste energy um, to dig in on this project. Um, and I know Miss U and Mr. Staffford are ready to uh walk you through all of it. Um the $8 million that will come up in first quarter budget revisions. Um that's a lot for preliminary investigation of a project. It you know we have a feasibility study. Um I think if I were you um you know maybe at the next enterprise utilities oversight committee meeting or um shortly thereafter kind of start to get a product timeline of what steps you can expect to see when so you can track it. And then the last thing I would say is um whenever you're amassing a pot of money is to have someone keep track of where you're at in that pot of money. Um I had Mr. Robo during the core modernization program bring me a sheet of paper at the start of every enterprise and utilities meeting telling me kind of where we were in the plan of finance. So um I think this is exciting. I think it's big. Um, and I think it takes a lot of work, but um, I'm confident that the municipality and this body um, can see it um, through to some really great decision points and then really communicate with the public about what this is. Waste energy will be an education process with the public and how it can benefit them, what the potential drawbacks could be, um, and ultimately what it might mean on their uh, bills. Um, because as we know, if we have to um, approve a rate increase on those bills, we hear about it. Thank you, Mr. Michelle. Yeah. Thank you. Um and thank you for the um the words of wisdom. Um I would also want to say thank you to Mr. Spatford and Miss To. I know we have a lot of questions um and we're able to get those answered. Um and just again making sure that we are u being thoughtful and intentional about this because I know it's picking up something that was started several years ago and then is getting back going. So it's helpful to make sure we have continuity. Um and uh yeah and I think um one kind of thing to note in terms of difference uh whereas the port modernization project it was very clear we have to we have to do this we have to figure out how to do it because we're replacing an asset. I think this one is is um different and will take a um kind of slightly different type of um shephering through which is we're we're looking at whether something this new idea not new to the rest of the world but new to us idea is um feasible and something that we should do. And so I think that's um that's maybe just one nuance to put there. But I look forward to um continuing to see how this project evolves and um hopefully we can bring it to fruition because it seems like it would have a lot of evidence. Thank you. I would just offer then on the queue that um oh there's a lot of interesting conversations happening around the concept of what's possible what's feasible and what are we going to do and uh the context is is it possible that's a broad question that can get pretty quickly is it feasible starts to analyze the cost benefits various funding sources how can be done and then the question of then should we do it is an action item that will eventually come before you or us on any number of these items and I would point out that we have acronym soon here we have the camp for the last modernization we have this waste energy cover station we have this storm water utility SWU and we have pump storage factor so we have camp fu wt the point I'm making though is that there are a number of complex and potentially large projects extend. We in some ways I think just put forward the port of Alaska modernization and to extend our ground very soon and these other three will continue to v for your attention and um I'm hopeful that all three of those priorities find ground in this administration meaningful ground. So with that then anyone else hearing anything would like to go ahead and ask for unanimous consent to approve AR 2035-126 objection hearing objection items item 5C so um IFC is AO 2025 5-25 assembly codes. 256 vote to expand parents guardians of minor possessing the weapon of school ground school functions. The clerk note it's the intended response. Definitely this item is substituted with 2025-116. We looked closely at our procedures and determined that the last time the first time we did this, we went ahead and read the items. So I'll go ahead and read the additional items into the record and then a motion was accepted to approve the resolution that was the substitute for the ordinance. Then the action after that would be postponed definitely the ordinance. So um I will go ahead and read the rest of the items that are in there. Um we have IC2 information memorandum 67-5 letter support assembly section 825 to expand principal liability parents miners possessing weapons school virtual function then we have a 5C3 AIM 68-205 support association of color people anchorage branch 2025 and 2025-18 5C4 resolution AR 2025-116 resolution anchorage municipal assembly calling greater partnership to the state of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage school district anchorage police department park and our community at large students our school safe and violence then we have 57-256 resolution 2025-116s resolution of the increment Municipal Assembly call on a greater partnership for the state of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage School District and Police Department and our community at large to keep students in our schools and neighborhoods safe through favorable community based solutions to violence. Then we have item 567 resolution 2025-116 S1 resolution municipal assembly calling a greater partnership between the state of Alask and our communities to employ proven solutions to keep students in our schools and neighborhoods safe from violence. And on this item, I believe there is no motion pending. What's the role of S1? Second. Motion to approve the S1 is uh AR 2025-116 S1 by second byel. Thank you. I um I wanted to start out by um I never really got to speak on AO 202525 holistically, but I really do feel like schools are in a scary crisis right now wondering what's going to happen with guns. And I um was so excited that um Mr. hurt, but he had found a pathway forward and um even though it felt like it wouldn't pass muster um with the courts, I think it would have been an interesting test case for communities that are in situations like ours. Um to start off with also is I am not an anti-gun family. We hunt um we did bialon. We had guns in our home. I bought my first gun when I was 21, even though I didn't know what I was doing with it. I thought I was going to hike with a big old Mossberg. Um, anyway, so I'm not an anti-gun, but I do know that when you look at the numbers of firearm tragedies in Alaska and Anchorage, um, something has to be done. And as a career educator, I saw firsthand the differences in what the climate in schools were from when I started teaching to when I ended. And those tensions, those problems have only compounded with the lack of state support. um when we're looking at possible h cuts in counseling, when we're looking at cuts to nursing, when we're looking at higher classes, it gives less opportunities to have that touch point with a student that might be lifech changing, might be saving lives in a school. you um cannot um you cannot catch somebody who is in crisis without having the ability to sit down. And I know in busy classrooms with many children wanting to have you listen to their latest story, things get things get set aside, things get lost. And um so I'm disappointed that our state is not stepping up. Um, another thing that I wanted to go on record with is there was some question if if we went forward with the metal detector helping to supplement those, was this in some way um, looking to penalize a certain group of students? And um, so I want on record that the pilot program for our metal detectors that's currently being employed is random. They've been to Wendler, they've been to SA, they've been to Golden View, they've been to Eagle River High, they have not even hit the big three schools. Um, if they were able to extend it, they would like to just randomly show up with metal detectors. And it would be one of these things where there'd be this no one knows when it's going to be at your school. Everyone walks through it. Um but the head of security for ASD made it clear he doesn't really like them. You know it's feels very institutional. It's not something that he wants to see but it has been a great tool. One of the things that he found interesting about the pilot program is some of the weapons that they've caught um were clearly kids coming to school feeling unsafe. They weren't coming to school to do something to someone else. they just felt they needed to protect themselves. So, we have to put a a pin in that. Um I um in this process since February when it was introduced um I presented at Chester Park and the senior center and six sitter community councils, had meetings with Moms Demand Action, Every Town, U the OCS, Alaska Children's Trust. Um, it was something that I worked pretty hard to get some type of comments on what could be done. Um, neither ordinance asked for weapons to be taken away. Um, I feel like from this process, I've learned a lot. And one of the things I've learned, and I'm hoping that someone from Alaska Gun rights is listening, that if you want to truly have your voice be heard, write your own message. Call me. only two people from that group that actually called me. We had very lengthy conversations that were meaningful. They they don't see things the same way I do, but just to splat a a form letter around is is not really a way to um make change. Um so it is my sincere hope that in substituting this AO 202525 with AR number 2025-116S1 that um we will call on some real solutions to make our schools and community safer within the existing parameters that we can work with. um we'll have meaningful dialogue with stakeholders, more commitment from the state to care, protect, nurture, and help our youth succeed. This resolution, and I want to take a moment to thank um member Martinez for bringing forward a resolution that um added some good verbiage that I borrowed for this copy. Um, but it would ask for a public public education campaign about gun safety, parental responsibility, coordinated partnership with ASD and APD, violence interruption programming for schools with increased documented incidents of fighting or deadly weapons confiscation, training of school staff on threat assessment and inclusion of students in bullying prevention campaign. Um I spoke with uh Alaska Children's Trust Associates Awake Covenant House VA BOA and um ended up with Dr. Ashley Goss and Aiden Ceell at SD. There is only one person in ASD who is trained to be um an active uh threat assessment counselor and um they felt like the need was really in finding some sort of violence prevention train to teachers for what to spot anti-bullying campaigns campaigning with parents about how to keep weapons safe and um so that's where I'm landing currently um ASD another fact that I wanted to bring forward is five SRO short and a sergeant short. Um let's see a call for um I'd like to also call for gunets legislation at the state legislature and adequately fund schools to the level that allows counselors and nurses to be available at all schools daily. The resolution um adds some medical recommendations of counselor nurse um numbers. Um and then a call for parents to be partners in promoting a climate of safety in our schools and community. And I um talked with Britney Dunlap, which I believe um is the state prosecutor. I have lots of scribbles on paper. So, um, she said that, you know, there really is no way at this point to charge a parent who is not being safe with their weapons. There could be child neglect. There could be reckless endangerment, but with the numbers that OCS sees, um, there's likely not much could happen. So, being better partners, trying to get parents on board is where, um, I think we can make the best, um, use of time. American Journal of Preventive Medicine points to violence being the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among US youth. In 2020, 86 billion in fatal injuries by youth. And uh Journal of American Medicine says 122 billion for overall youth violence. Putting money into prevention is going to save us in the long run and it's going to make our community more attractive to businesses, homeowners, and more importantly, it's going to be the key to building a strong community with youth that are ready to work, lead, and raise their own families here. And I hope you'll support the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, chair. One of the questions that I had to the sponsor was answered with respect to what was the differences between the original resolution, the S version and to the S1 version. So I think that member responded to that. Uh and then just a flag potentially for the administration. Um, we were supposed to be a green dot city and so we signed on to a a a compact with an organization green dot violence destructive bystander training and potentially that's a great um training framework to revisit um around the green violence destruction training. And just for members to note, um there are there are community organizations working on violence disruption initiatives that are not at the level of our assembly action and discussions. They are happening at a very grassroots level. So people are interested in where those conversations are happening. I'm more than willing to point you in the direction and connect those conversations as well. And uh and then just just lastly I would note and I support this obviously I introduced an NS version but I would note that one of the challenges to families of black and brown descent are that today in our current school district we still have disproportionate rates of punishment against the children that look like the diversity that we celebrate in our community. uh we still have challenges in our school district with Alaskan Native students being able to celebrate their cultural identity at graduation. So these challenges persist at a systemic level and and I want to make sure that we provide enough capacity building the escalation training and work out some of those structural things uh before turning the relationship into just not a human development one but more into a law enforcement one especially around uh communities that have historic challenges with the institutions that we hope can help make a difference. Thank sorry. Thank you. Um Mr. Salt, thank the chair. Um all for uh less gun violence and of course education. Um I do have concerns when we start talking about gun legislation. Um I think we're generally a fairly pro gun state with a hunting and so forth. So I'd just like either member Martinez or member Baranga to explain in section three it's in both um just a little more on we further asked for gun legislation that is trauma informed focus on education calls on parental accountability. If you could just describe what you're looking for there what you see the outcome is and my concern is while it sounds like a good intention um it's out of our control and who knows what we might get back in return. Thank you. So my intention would be that um was it you wanted to do it or well just just for the record I don't think I included that in my version. So I want to make a distinction Mr. Salt that I cannot respond to that particular question. I think there was a distinction between the version that I had and member Bron. I just wanted to make sure that thank you. So I'm going to grab that. So what I was hoping is that we could do we could count on the state for funding for safe storage, for perhaps dispersing of locks um for potentially um fully funding um SRO program um to allow I I think it's it's kind of hilarious that um at the state capital they would like to have the um the metal detector for for them. yet um you know we may find that students rather than all these uh vestibules we're adding to schools that one of the things that it's pretty clear that um school shooters are oftent times from that school themselves and they would go right through the safety best wheel that um having random um metal detector program might be something that state can help us with if if we're not going to change how guns uh legislation is. That's something that the state could do to partner with us. So that's what I had intended with that. Thank you. And and then on the AR, I guess I can ask that question when I get later, but it talks about non legislation. So that's why I don't know if there's any later, but we're on this side. So next I have Miss B. Um, yeah, I support this resolution. Um, and I appreciate the explanation and the context. And then, um, I guess just to say, um, I also appreciate M. Farmer's bravery and bringing forward these original ordinances as well. You know, that's not what we're discussing right now. Um, but the reality is that, um, you know, we all say we want um, a safer community and um, in this country and in this state um, there is very little appetite to talk about actual policy to do that. And so um, and I I I know there's a cost to that. And so I appreciate um her bravery and thank you for having this discussion on record. Thank you. All right, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um I think along the lines of the results questions, um and then hearing Miss Brock's response, um which I think captured a lot of stuff, um at a more specific level, I am going to move to amend section three. Um so lines 18 and 19 to read we further ask for gun legislation that is trauma informed and focus on education period. So we're moving and calls on parental accountability because that is I think something second. There's a motion to amend the first and seconded by doing so. Yeah, I think the call rental accountability is a little bit nebulous. Um and I think we received a lot of testimony um when whenever I brought forward um these original ordinances, you know, both folks for and against, but also folks who who um were concerned about um you know, punishing a parent for the action of a child. Um and I think we could probably get pretty philosophical in that way. I I just don't know that I'm comfortable making that a direct request for that. Um but certainly, you know, that legislation for focus on education and some of the things just mentioned. Yes. So yeah, for that um I think next on our list is Mr. Johnson. amendment. Uh yeah, actually I was getting the cue that I was going to make a similar amendment for similar reasons. I was actually going to remove that sentence entirely. Um partly because as as borrow it does feel very nebulous, right? And I am just reluctant generally to say that we will support legislation without fully understanding what it is. And often candidate, even if we're talking about legislation that somehow it encourages principal accountability. That is something me personally I potentially depending on how it's done might get to, but I'm not ready to attach my name to that or or my vote for that without understanding what the actual piece of legislation looks like, uh, what its goals is and what kind of checks there are in there. So, I just that put me in an uncomfortable place. Um, terms of this amendment, yeah, I was going to go a little further to remove that sentence entirely because just saying legislation in such vague terms doesn't really sit well with me, but I would be willing to to put in support perhaps a compromised solution. Um, because I really appreciate all the effort that member has put in this law fairly pro gun rights. I also do think you need to be realistic and honest about the um the hazards they present to say previous employment I have seen more than most what guns do kids and is something you never ever want to see and so I'm grateful for for um my colleague for for um making clear um our stance on this and our call for change. Um, so with that, I I guess I'll say that I I'm I will support this amendment. Um, I need to open the idea of going a little bit further in the term that session. All right. So, um, next I have Thank you. Um, so I support this amendment because it it really goes back to I think a point that Mr. Martinez was trying to elevate. I've spent, oh my goodness, almost 20 years looking at the school district's discipline data and the disproportionality in this data has existed for 20 years. I even had a hand in a prior life of rewriting the discipline policy and co-presenting it to the school board and even that hasn't changed this data. And so I'm worried when we talk about accountability that we arop wrong word that we provide tools to pe to individuals to meet the expectation. What I see in this data is not only a disproportionality of who is suspended in school versus out of school, but overall wide disparities. Um, and it's not just based on race. It's based on your living situation. If you are economically disadvantaged, if you are a student with a disability, it seems like every category we keep track of other than gifted and white has a disproportionality in this data and it has persisted. And what I find really interesting um and this is where you have to provide people tools to meet the expectation is the number one inschool suspension uh incident type is truency or excessive tardies and we know that is because we have inequitable busing and so when we get to consequences around weapons I want to make sure we are really doing so in the eco with an acknowledgement of the ecosystem in which we are stepping into um and I am sharing here on record nothing I haven't shared directly with the leadership of the angry school district or the school board directly in fact when I saw the metal detectors being implemented I was concerned because one of the first schools they went to was a title one school that is predominantly bipok and I said why why this school why not a school in South Anchorage why you know why why Y why um so I appreciate um the amendment because if we want to talk about accountability it has to come with a concurrent investment to be able to um have those tools. So thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um yeah I really appreciate um this conversation and thank for opening the door uh to this conversation. uh specific to the amendment we have before us. Um I keep going back to the NAACP letter which um in my mind really framed uh the conversation and the goal in a succinct way. Essentially something that is not going to act as a hammer is something that we should consider. And uh as I look at the different versions of this uh resolution, look at the verbiage that I think captures that idea in the NAACP letter. The verbiage that comes to mind is nonpunitive. And so I'm wondering if the mover and seconder would be um amendable to adding that particular language in here um before gun legislation. All right. So the mover to the second have agreed to term nonative before the term legislation without objection and it is so um anything further thank you any further discussion. Thanks. I just wanted to uh I didn't mention this before, but um the NAACP um I double checked what my original AO252 was and uh comments that that it sounded like they were not interested in parental responsibility and I was given a a hard yes. We want parents to be a partner in making sure our schools are safe, making sure that students bring their homework. They they were looking um in in my conversations with adding that parental accountability without, you know, punitive measures for the parent, but you know, leaning in that this is a a community. Our schools are a community and and we're all part of it. Um the other thing that I failed to mention is a lot of the language that I added in the S1 um came from the NAACP. They they asked in that final part um uh that thank I don't have one in front of me. Um but we had a establishment of a student safety and well-being council that came from NAACP. Um, and so, you know, I am okay with non-punitive, but no, we can't say what a school will do when they see a weapon. And there are consequences at school if a gun comes to school. And so, I mean, if we change this to say non-punitive, are we telling Anchorage School District they can't do their disciplinary policy? And if so, I'm not comfortable with that. Yeah, I I don't know that we have the authority to tell the English school district what to do about that ordinance. Um, so no, anything considered a strong letter. Um, so that would be the answer. I think that I had a question from Mr. S question. Can we read back in a minute? through the chair. So it's with section 3 line 18 and 19 and the sentence is going to read we further ask for non punitive gun legislation that is trauma informed and focused on education. Okay, I assume that's thank you Mr. Chair. So, I think this has for me been one of the one of the interesting um evolutions of of this legislation and I want it to be really clear for those who may closely track the legislative history and how it's tied together um that evolution from the original ordinances and to where we are now. And I I think this amendment does get at um as Mr. Rivera pointed out more is more aligned with the letter from the NAACP. Um and I think that for me is is like one of the disconnects here between the letter of support and what the original legislation would have done which would have been punitive. would have made a parent uh was responsible for uh a student bringing a gun to school and um the penalties um would follow accordingly. And so I I think from the description of what the NAACP is advocating for that that is different than what the original legislation called for. Maybe not an intent about getting the actual language of that legislation. And so if we're saying to the legislature, you know, this doesn't do anything to um section 30 doesn't do anything to describe what the school district should or should not do regarding their disciplinary policy. Of course, they have to follow some statute. Um, but we're asking, okay, our legislators, if you're considering gun legislation in the future, we're asking that in a way that is consistent with the peace support, but maybe not the original legislation, grasping that trauma forms, grasping that focus on education. Um, and so that to me gives it the clarity and spec specificity and also the alignment with those who have written in support of this legislation and I think also um speak for me but also with her state of intent. Um, so probably we can do that first but I I hope that we can support both this amendment and also the underlying Mr. Martin. Thank you, chair. This is going to be very inadequate. Um, the title I know titles are the to or on the amendment, right? So, is your comment about title on the amendment? Well, no, just the relationship between the amendment and entitlement. um the NAACP one of those things that in a in a in a previous version to that amendment is this idea of of equitable and trauma reform. Um I think I I will bring that back to the full idea of the the full action on the item, but I just wanted to make I'm going to be looking at an amendment to the title based on this particular amendment um in the uh in the body of the action. So uh just for expediency and purpose I'm asking the members to consider amending their motion to make the parallel language in the title if that's what you're asking for. That would be ideal and chair and the reference point would be the distinction between the S version and the S1 version entitled has the difference between uh equitable community based solutions and the other version is employing employ proven solutions which is highly subjective and not aligned to the values in the amendment that I'm articulating. Is there an objection from to add the term equable based can I could take the lead and just say again our equitable community is solution based and it can still be please go ahead yes to the point that proven doesn't have to be omitted if it's framed through the lens of the other two values. But alone, proven for example could mean wallto-wall meta detectors and stop and frisk which would work but would be devastating. Right. So yeah, that will change my also include the title to employ equitable comma based comma and proven solutions amended second. All right. So now we have the amendment back still for discussing amendment. Karen respond. I'm so sorry. Um, but I realized I really should have forwarded on Rosland Gravy had helped with words for this. And here is what she says. Our education committee would like gunsense legislation. We would like to advocate for universal safe storage laws with public awareness campaigns rooted in community trust. support legislative efforts for mandatory reporting of loss to stolen weapons and push for parental accountability laws that do not disproportionately punish low-income families, but instead educate and equip them with tools and support. And that is that is after um we came out with the resolution. Those were her suggestions. All right. So all that is heard and that's your second time on the amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment? Thank you chair. Um, since we're focusing a lot on education and gun safety, I go back to section one to show commit to the student safety by requesting Anchorage Police Department and Anchorage Health Department partner with the Anchorage School District and its students to create a public education campaign about gun safety. Then we start out and kept parental and an accountability and partnership. I would move that we should say about gun safety with parental partnership to explore the expansion. It's better to include parents into this rather than to say your account. We're on the amendment. This would be an addition to the amendment. So you're moving to amend the amendment or the sponsor sponsor agrees. So we'll restate the amendment a third time. Go ahead. Well, so I think member saying um on page three section or line one remove accountability and so it's just gun safety parental partnership and to explore the expansion of I would move before parental we put to include them in the conversation. Okay. Um a comma after partnership read that gun safety comma with parental partnership comma Then right after partnership comma strike and to explore the expansion of threat assistant measures that make most I think so what I'm trying to isolate is that segment to create a public education and gun safety parental partnership in the next dot and to explore the expansion of threat assessment measures that would be great. So the amendment is now change. Did you give that to me? Chair, can you repeat that last part? Yes. Okay. So it's going to it's going to say on line one about gun safety, with parental partnership, comma, and to score Third, she has the workshop three times. Is there any further discussion? I am not hearing or seeing any. I'm going to go ahead again and ask for unanimous concerns. Is there any objection? The adoption of the motion. Hearing and seeing no objection to the motion. Amendment is adopted. Is there any further discussion on the motion to approve? Hearing and seeing no further discussion on the motion to approve. Go ahead and ask again unanimous consent for the adoption of C7 AR 2025-116 S1 as amended. Is there any objection hearing? Seeing no objection therefore K 2025 2016 as amended has passed by vote 12 to zero. Now um a motion to postpone is in order for um the AO 2025-25 and the various other that's okay by Mr. Martinez. So any discussion hearing and seeing none go ahead and ask for unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the motion to postpone exemptly 2025-25 and all the other unpassed items under item advice hearing see no objection other than they are 256 item so um okay next we have before us item 5D item 5D is 2025-28 An ordinance assembly amending municipal code section 8.25.07 to require the report firearms discovery including letter support from education chair from the national association of exam branch 2025 and 2028 clear sponsor indefinitely. What's the move indefinitely? Move by second by going to go ahead discussion on the motion post definitely hearing seeing none I'm going to ask unanous consent is there objection to the motion postpone hearing and seeing no objection the motion carries 2025 28 has been [Applause] postponed now we're back on train we're going to go ahead and take up item 5e which is 802052 ordinance authorizent of tax for with parcels for public purposes legally will be described as lot 53 block 10 and lot 23 lot 3 or acres subdivision 02-4 93-4 and 012-4-19 public hearing on this item is now open anyone wish to be heard on this item anyone at all see Move onto second to speak to this item. Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the motion to approve? Hearing seeing no objection, item 5D AO 2025-32 has passed the body 120. Next we have item 5 F. 5F is AO2025-33 an ordinance the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21 chapter 214 zoning districts in 216 dimensional standards and measurements technical corrections inconsistencies address unintended effects recently adopted 2023-13s as amended public hearing on this item now Anyone wish heard on this item anyone at all see it is now closed body second by so um we have a motion to approve and a second discussion on Oh, there's also an S with this item. Do we move the S? Yes. Are there I have two amendments before are there is there a motion to amend anybody? I'll move amendment one. Okay. Male has moved to amendment one second moves second. Yeah. Thank you. Um so I understand that this is uh the intent is to uh make some corrections and eliminate inconsistencies. Um and so um this proposed amendment if you look at the um essentially it's a change to height limits. Um and so if you look in this ordinance um it is changing the underlying ordinance is changing height limits in three areas with R2A, R2D and R2M. um in both R2A and R2-DB which are intended to be kind of lower intensity districts. Um all of these are really allow uh these duplexes and and some allow small multif family. Um or I think they're they allow small multif family. Um the idea is is changing that height limit to 30 ft. If you look in the original version, um it's it has um a number of kind of conditions on specifically in R2M um around that 30foot requirement and keeps the 2 and 1/2 stories requirement just for that. So in terms of eliminating inconsistencies, this amendment does that. Um, and the rationale is, um, and I know I brought this up on the record, uh, before, uh, for several years, the planning department has essentially gone back and forth, it seems, on whether to allow 30 ft height limits or not, and whether to remove or keep 2.5 stories as a height limit. I remember sitting in meetings in 2017 in 2018 discussing this with planning staff uh when I was at the community council's land use committee essentially giving us um a rationale for why 2.5 stories is challenging and I'm going to quote um this is from a presentation that was given in September 25th or 2018. I have a paper copy that's been on my desk for I guess seven years. Um it says uh the existing 2.5 story limitation makes it harder for larger lots of the R2M zone to fit the actual number of allowed housing units. My understanding of all of the work around the 3 to 4plex ordinances was trying to solve dimensional standards problems like that. So, this ordinance simply says, why not treat R2M the same that we are proposing to treat R2A and R2-D um and and remove all of the more complicated language around height and transition standards again with the idea that R2M is is of these three zones the the most flexible zone. So, that is what this amendment does and that is why it is removing um uh several lines of of proposed code. Thank you. Yeah, just um I think two pretty straightforward questions hopefully. Um well, first so we're taking out the the two and a half stories, but the 30 foot height requirement would would remain correct. So that would be the the height limitation in the R2 as well as the 2A and 2D. Yes. Consistent with R2A to R2D. Okay. Thanks. I feel like that makes sense to me. I'm wondering is anyone from planning perhaps as to why R2N was different as opposed to R2 A and B? Um, I mean, it seems there was a a decision made to to simplify it in these two sections, but not I'm just wondering if there's something intentional about that that I'm not picking up on the chair to member Johnson. Um, signing director for the record. Um, unfortunately since I was not around at the time, I cannot tell you exactly what the intent was behind be behind the 2.5 story um, height limit, but I do believe that it was just a um, at the time a general um, approach to limiting heights in a way that was uh, consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Um and um we found that that is a little bit difficult to um enforce. Um a 30 foot height limit is much uh more straightforward. Okay. I I appreciate that. I would think that's not consistent with the neighborhood and then that logic would apply to a as well. But um I guess I don't remember those conversations where I see like 30 ft worse for me. So good enough. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm going to support the amendment. I appreciate the simplicity that it brings. Um, I, you know, I guess I I have a question for the planning department as well. Um, so 2.5 stories, do we have to find in code how tall a story is? through the chair member ball and no we do not. So a story could be 10 feet could be 15 feet. Um so even within the existing uh code it seems like there's a lot of lack of clarity I will say. Um, and I think it brings me so I also wasn't there for those conversations. Um, when the new version of paddle 21 was adopted and 2.5 stories was put in there. If I suspected um a desired outcome, it would be to not allow for prices because if you built three stories on top of each other that could house three families much harder to do that you only have 2.5 stories whether you lose a floor potentially lose a house a family in our 2M which if we go back to our plans and we look at the definition the types of housing that are called for in our 2040 use plan it makes it very clear that low-rise apartments um town homes there's a diversity of housing types that are called for in our plan so um yeah I Th this just makes a limit more clear. Also, um is in alignment I think with the original legislation 103 2024 103 that that triggered this um cleanup ordinance. Often there are clean ordinances that have to follow um just to make sure references are cross reference appropriately and um that the original intended is further clarified. So appreciate the department bringing this forward making some these corrections. I appreciate me and I will support any further discuss on the amendment. I see no further discussion on the amendment probably ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment as proposed? I'm hearing and seeing no objection. So the amendment is adopted. I have this. Thank you. Um so I have a question um to Mr. which is are you planning to move your amendments and if not why not? Uh I have not and the main reason being is that I did I think it was a change that was intended in the initial ordinance that was passed uh uh a while ago. Thank you. Okay. Um ask a few more questions here. All right. Has the planning department reviewed sold one? Do you think it's consistent with the cleanup you're doing in this? I think it could be considered consistent with the cleanup. Yes, that section of code actually does not do much of anything. It basically reiterates what's already in the dimensional table. And um if asked about that amendment, we would have suggested to strike that entire sectional al together. Sorry, can you say that very last part one more time? I didn't. Um if asked about the amendment um if it uh were to be brought forward, we would suggest to strike that entire section that item um entitlement the no the uh the particular piece that was amended in amendment insults amendment. Um sorry let me look it up. Hold on just a second. Okay. Well, we'll leave that for another day and some other clean up, I think. Um, because I'm not tracking it. I mean, it seemed like the amendment was consistent with some other policy actions we taken, which is multiple residential structures on a single lot are permitted in and the amendment would what the amendment would do is say all residential districts. that seems consistent with both the home initiative and our ADU reforms that we've done. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And by striking that section, the section E2 C I section I then it just removes some confusing um a confusing section in code. would not actually be a substantive change because this is already um in place in the code. Okay. Yeah. This continues to make the argument that title 21 is the original plain language and not be a bunch of cross references. Um I'm I'm with Mr. So hold and I think we need keep it on for next. Thank you. Thank you for answering my questions. Okay. Anybody reading the queue or are we on the original item? We are back. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion on item five hearing and seeing no further discussion? So, I'm going to go ahead and um ask for unanimous consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of AO 2025-33 as amended? I am hearing and seeing no objections on the vote of 12 to 0 2025-33 as a pass. Next, we'll go ahead and take up item 5G. Item 5G is AO 202534, an ordinance approving proposed levy upon connection made by the Anchorage Water Wastewater Utility for submission to the regulatory commission of Alaska. Public hearing it is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing you have none of this item is now closed. Second move on Johnson. Any discussion on this hearing? Seeing none for this item, I'm going to ask for announce consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion to approve 2025? Seeing here no objection A2025-34 has passed the body. So, I'm gonna go ahead and offer members if they want five minutes to go to the bathroom. Take a quick break. Thank you. You can have a dozen eggs, but I have to limit your first 10. 10 eggs. Trump doesn't and it just seems like anything else should be like I really like having a lot of obsessive How are you? Awkward stranger. Yeah. or other [Music] think [Music] [Music] 1260. [Music] Do you like your hands? I just monument city. Yes. I might ask I mean Excellent. See you tomorrow at You know, it was nice to not have to do it. He also then most boring parts. Okay. No, I mean I would say created created for us a good paradigm every time I write about what am I putting in as teacher or the teacher I didn't I think I [Music] said, "Can another special learning $20, you know, you have to make you want to make all kinds of combinations. I had one student that if he got mad, my direction was to evacuate my entire classroom. Oh yeah. Sure. Scott's beautiful. I was thinking about how close are we to getting back together missing Next up on the agenda, we have AO 2025-35, an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly, repealing and reenacting Anchorage Municipal Code, chapter 12.60, tax incentives for housing and repealing chapter 12.70, tax incentives for affordable and workforce housing. We also have item 5H2 which is AO 2025-35S ordinance facility repealing reenacting chapter 1260 tax incentives for housing and repealing chapter 1270 tax incentives for affordable workforce housing. Thank you Mr. Chair. Just procedurally, um, the intention of myself and the administration is to put substitute versions in and continue the public hearing today to accommodate those on the meeting of the 22nd of April. Substitute version coming today. I'm aiming for the addendum and I believe the administration is as well. Okay. So, not today. Thank you. Okay. So um the public hearing on this item is now open with field to testify today. We will apparently not testify on the final version we're going to continue the public hearing. If I can just get off today, please um I'm Tyler Robinson. Um I live in New Sanchez work on the housing authority. Do work all over town. I'm here to generally support the um the orange ordinance for tax abatement. Um, I know that you all are still working on some things, but what I want to say is you will always be working on some things relative to this ordinance. So, I just want to be here to testify in favor of the general effort to fix some of the tweaks, to make it simpler, to encourage more housing, um, and to effectively what you're doing here is helping to create a program within the municipality of Anchorage. And I think that's what I want to really focus on. We've had some situations in the past where some of these tools have actually expired without people knowing it because it wasn't sure where this should live within the municipality. So, I really appreciate the mayor's office taking this on and I and I encourage mayor and the administration to really look where does this live? where do these sorts of tools in our toolkit live long term so that we can monitor them. We can manage them. We can offer tweaks to them. We can report on their effectiveness. Um if they're too liberal, we can restrict them. They're not doing enough, we can offer more. Um so I again I really um we have for years I appreciate that the ordinance talks about a 2012 housing market analysis. I was here at that time. I remember that study clearly talking about a feasibility gap that we have when you talk about market rate housing uh rental housing and we have every report and every um plan since then has sort of indicated that and so what I want to say is I appreciate you all's knowingness to do something about it. You're not going to get it perfect next Tuesday night or whenever you take action on it. That's okay. We have to do something. So, thank you for your time. Before you go, on this question. Yeah, thank you. Um, since you're here, uh, and I'm working on an amendment, I'm going to ask you a question. Um, I am contemplating what it might take to make a tax evadement go for five stories or four stories over ground. That usually requires elevators, um, non-combustible construction or, um, heavy timber construction. Um, I'm kind of in the like an additional bonus of 8 years for a total of 30 years tax abatement. What's your impression of that? I I app myself through the chair. Um I can remember when the tax statement came up um in a previous assembly and I can remember talking to assembly member Wton about where should that cuto off be? Should it be five units, eight units, whatever. And I said, well, it actually has less to do with units than it does the actual building type. Building typology drives the cost. Um, I guess all I would say to that is we we build a certain type of housing, but but we built some of most of the or good chunk of multif family housing. We would never contemplate that style of development because it is not is even less feasible than the type of development that we do here today. So if your policy intent is I'm providing a greater incentive because I know that that type of construction is even there's a even bigger gap then I think that's a that's a valid I would I would echo that that's a valid rationale okay great that that gives me a start appreciate y thank you all right welcome please state your name yeah Jason Norris South anchorage is green button. There we go. Jason Norm, apologies for any of this. Now, uh in support of this, I think it's a great idea. I would offer a couple of suggestions. I feel like we're making some strange absolute and relative value statements. uh support labor think labor is great, but the idea that we would pay five years of tax payment for one season's worth of that increment from between marketing wage uh just doesn't seem like we should be paying more for that than we are 25 years of affordable housing or 25 years of mixed use. So, uh I would just ask FBU take another look at that uh recalibrate if needed. Uh I do think that with these increments above 15 years, none of them are actually increasing the supply of housing, which seems to be the underlying thought here. So I might offer is a year per unit above 8 units and get you up to 18 for 25 years. And uh the last is we did repeal parking minimums and I thought that was a really good move because we recognize we over parking but there really is no incentive to convert that parking to housing and I think that that is something that could be really beneicial. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else here today? Move to continue the public hearing to the meeting April 22nd. Second motion to continue by multis motion. See no discussion. I'd like to ask consens 2025-35 to the meeting of April 22nd. Next we have of course I I 2025-36 assembly amending municipal code chapter 215 require initial use approval for contracts or financial institutions to operate and serve residential commercial zoning districts. Okay, very good. Now public hearing this is open for second. Thank you. Um, so I've been thinking about the issue of pawn shops and check cashing or payday loan um, operations for most of my time on the assembly and it is really hard in local governments to um, limit the interest rate charged or um, the way in which these uh, type of operations actually do their business. And the one thing we do have is our land use. And so the idea here is to use land use through the conditional use process to make sure that there can be a community conversation if a checking place or a payday loan or a pawn shop is moving into a neighborhood. It doesn't preclude it, but it spurs the community conversation and lets the community have input on the need for that service or the request maybe for any more traditional financial institutions to move into that space. We know we have a hard time getting traditional financial institutions um in place. Um and so what it does is for me this is an empowerment tool for communities that often have these um quite frankly sometimes predatory operations show up in their neighborhoods without any say. So that is the intention. Again does a precluded conditional use process would be noticed engagement and ultimately it would go to the planning and zoning commission to make the decision whether or not to grant the conditional use permit. I would appreciate your support. Thank you. Yes. So would the uh financial traditional financial institution require the same uh community involvement as the pay loan? Um I don't believe under the current land use that there is a restriction um in in the same way where these can be. We've actually carved out a different definition under financial institution to include um these payday loan operations. So they would be treated differently than um a regular bank. Thank you. Chair question. Can you give us a sense of the other ways we use conditional approval in a similar way? Um, and is it is it a helpful tool or has it been used negatively in our community as well? So, conditional use is definitely a robust public process. Um, I think it's been used to both ways. Um, it has been used to block development as well as to bring development forward. I think if I'm remembering right, and I'm going to get these back as soon as I say it, but marijuana and alcohol both have processes. And I think conditional use is with regard to one of them. Sorry, I like my brain is flicking, but it is one where you could have a business come in, it's otherwise allowable, but there could be negative community impacts or there could be community impacts. Um and so that's that's the conversation that's how I want to use this tool is because it is a pretty robust process. Um and I um it's not without effort and cost but I think that that is worthwhile because we have very few tools um around this particular type of operation. So just to follow up with the essentially the functional impact would be if that payday loan spot on East 6 in Moldune wanted wasn't there and wanted to come in walk me through they would run through the conditional use process which would trigger the public uh engagement. Yes. Mley. Yeah, thank you. I support this ordinance and um yeah, a conditional use uh permit is not a no. It really is just extra steps. And I think um the to the point about alcohol and marijuana, we don't call them conditional use permits. We call them special land use permits, but they're essentially the same thing to say if you're going to operate it in a community in this location, um there's extra um and potential extra impacts that it goes through um that process. So, and I'll I'll also note this is not something that's in the actual ordinance as a change. Um, but for example, in the R3E zone, it says that a convenience store is conditional use and for versus permitted in R3A. I think the difference is one is a mixeduse zone. So, that's a commercial activity. Um, but that's just another example where clearly at some point we have said um putting a store in this neighborhood requires extra scrutiny. And that leads me to um separate from this ordinance. I think there is some value in looking back at the use table and kind of considering where things should be allowed by right or where they need extra process. So that's not today's project, but just to say for example, maybe we do want to see more corner stores in neighborhoods and so we should change that conditional use. Again, not this ordinance. Um, but I am interested in the future in kind of stepping back and looking working with the planning department, looking at the the use table more generally and kind of asking those questions. But in the meantime, I think this is I would say this is a good um change and um again would not stop a place from operating in any neighborhood or any community. Just requires additional uh scrutiny process anyone else. Nobody and I'm [Music] um on this item we'll go ahead and I'll ask for unanimous consent then is there any objection to approval of this motion the main motion hearing seeing no objection 2025-36 been approved to zero next up we have item 5J item 5J is AO 2025-37 omnimous ordinance is summary entrance code seven purchasing contracts and professional services update definitions clarify information seeking required approvals and subsequent to contract awards and updated assembly approval threshold and requirements approve rehabilitated grants regulation code regulation 770 regulations pertain to grant proposals public hearing on this item is now open on this item. Welcome. Please state your name. Welcome to Town Farm. We'll have three minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Miranda Walso and Good afternoon. My name is Miranda Walso and I live in Shiak Eagle River. I support AO 202537 and I appreciate the assembly's work to modernize procurement practices. I urge yes vote. However, I ask that you strengthen the grant related provisions to ensure consistent, transparent, and accountable use of public funds. In 2024, the municipality distributed over 20 million in alcohol tax grants alone more than combined budgets for departments like public works, internal audit, the mayor's office, and purchasing. That's not a marginal or symbolic amount. It's a major public investment. And while many grantees are delivering critical services like access to early childhood education, preventing homelessness, and providing trauma informed care, the process to award these funds must match the importance of the outcomes they support. Recommendation one, the addition of section 7.90.010 establishing a formal RFP process for grants and code rather than regulation is a step forward. I urge you to amend the language to require competitive RFPs for all grants over 50,000. the same threshold used for formal contract component procurement and grant assembly approval. Aligning these rules reinforces the message that all major public spending deserves the same scrutiny whether distributed as a contract or a grant. Recommendation two define acceptable alternatives to competitive grant awards under section 7.90.020. Currently, this provision allows alternative procedures based on what's considered to be in the best interest of the municipality, but lacks definitions or criteria for what that entails. Contrast this with contracts where sole source and open market exceptions are clearly laid out within title 7. This gap invites inconsistent application and can erode public trust. Recommendation three add oversight provisions for grant amendments and multi-year awards. Contracts already require reapproval for funding and scope changes. Grants, by contrast, are often issued without binding deliverables or legal enforce enforcability and rely more on trust and programmatic reporting. Because grants typically lack quantifiable performance clauses, nor include recourse for non-performance, the front-end process and standards for issuing them should be especially rigorous. I'm not proposing added bureaucracy or roadblocks and asking for consistency with existing performance standards and safeguards appropriate for the scale and sensitivity sensitivity of the funding spent. These changes wouldn't limit innovation. They would protect it by ensuring that all community organizations, not just those who are connected or well established, have a fair opportunity to access and be aware of grant funding opportunities and that all recipients are held at the same expectations. In a time of heightened public scrutiny, where concerns over misuse of funds or political favoritism are growing, and when many critical public services are struggling to meet demand with limited resources, a more clearly defined and structured process for awarding and amending grants, will benefit everyone, grantees, taxpayers, and municipality alike. This will help ensure the assembly's approach to public spending, especially on non-contractual awards, remains above approach, and continues to serve a shared interest, fairness, and fiscal responsibility. Thank you for your time and consideration. question for you emailing us your comments already. I did. Okay, I'll do it again. Thank you. All right. Um so anyone else wish heard see none close to second moved by second by Molly. Um thanks. So, this has been a real collaborative effort with the chief administrative officer, purchasing director, um Claire from legislative services, um myself and Mr. Rivera. Um, what I really appreciated about this conversation isn't just the words on the page, but a lot of conversation from the assembly's perspective on how pieces move and where we feel jammed up or we think there can be clarity as well as from purchasing and the administration's perspective about what makes things move smoothly through that side of the house. It's been a long time since we've had that kind of collaboration where we really want to make sure a piece of code is functional on for everyone involved. Um, this does modern modernize the purchasing code. It um brings things um to a level not quite um up with inflation, but something that at least the three assembly sponsors felt comfortable with. Um, and I think it really will provide more clarity as we move forward um, in how we kind of the information we're receiving and um, how we get to the decisions that we make. Um, not too long ago, the emergency code was really um, at the heart of a lot of um, angst and work slowdowns um, here in the municipality. And so I think this is one of those shared priorities to uh steal the phrase from the mayor of making sure we have good. Thank you. That's we all go on that. Um, anyone else wish to speak to this? Thanks. I just um wonder in light of what the speaker shared um is this particular would that come into this if we were to hold off, could we add um an inclusion of a dollar amount that must go through the RFP process even for alcohol tax? Yes, it could be delayed or what I think would be preferable to the people who spent the last many many years, year and a half, two years working on this is bring that back as a new project the proposal but I think the sponsors who have spent just endless time working with multiple administrations here. So yes could be done. Yes, there will be debate against that idea for the purpose of if you want it but bringing back is other members. Yeah, thanks. Um, and I don't have an intent to postpone this. Thank you for all the work on this. I know it's um, rewriting a whole section or a whole chapter is hard. Um, and uh, just two things I wanted to comment on. One is I appreciate the suggestion to have a a low threshold or lower threshold for um, competitive grant awards. I think one challenge that I would mention in the way that this body practices and really what our legislative powers are is that we um, occasionally do directed grants. Um and so you know many of the things in alcohol tax for better or worse um were things put in the budget directed to that organization. And so um that would be something that would need to be worked out or at least um considered um because as I also appreciate the process but um but I think there's reasons why uh grants are are different uh in in some material ways. The other thing is I just want to say thank you for clarifying what our assembly aids are because I know that's been a point of um confusion, contention. Are they employees? Are they contractors? Do they need to have business licenses? My former college student got a business license. Um uh you know, for the probably the first maybe only time in his life unless he goes into uh um his own business in the future. Um so thank you for clarifying that because I know it's it's a little bit of an unusual area since we don't have full-time staff and that's not what these folks are, but I know they serve a variety of roles. So thank you for putting that in code. Right. Anyone else? Miss Alone. Thank you, Miss Alone. one. Sorry. So there's a motion to amend second by Mr. Thank you. This was the effective date to take 30 days after passage and this is to give purchasing and folks back to So any discussion seek amendments. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection. Amendments adopted. Any further discussion on the orders? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and ask for unanimous consent and adoption motion. Motion is to approve 37 as amended. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection 2025-37 as amended has passed the body 12 to zero. Next we have item 5K. Item 5K is scale 2025-22 an ordinance in the municipal assembly amending municipal code chapter 12.05 5 Finance Department not displayable. The property owner's name if the owner's requests if the owner requests such limitation. There's also a substitute version which reading now version is 2025-42 municipal code chapter 125 request such commentation. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone wish to be heard on this item? Anyone at all? Seeing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the body? Move to approve the S version. Second. Motion to approve the S version by Mr. Littlefield. Second by Mr. W. I do. Thank you, chair. Um, a couple months ago I had an individual come up to me who was working on and he asked if there was any way that they could protect his family from a searchable database for student way as um from that point I was a little lost that we didn't have that accessible to those first responders. So working with our wonderful legal staff over there um we found that there is an angle out there that protects the victims of sexual abuse. Um, that kind of falls right in line with what we want to do here. Um, our first responders are out there taking care of us. They're in harm's way. They're put in certain circumstances where they really need the protection of this database search. Um, I feel that it is in our best interest to protect those that protect us, giving them the option, I reiterate, it's an option for the peace of mind for themselves and their families. Um, granted it's not for every one of these first responders out there and a lot of them won't participate, but I really think that it's a really good deterrent step that they should have at their disposal and I would ask my colleagues to support this statement. So, um, any Yeah, thanks. Um yeah and I was happy to to uh jump on and support um the original ordinance and um and I I believe I would support the aspart and sorry Mr. the through the S essentially just makes two changes to the actual um original AO. First, it instead of breaking out individual exceptions to the requirement um a property be searchable by name um by individual class of person. It puts it creates a class called protected class which essentially is an umbrella term that is defined earlier in uh the chapter. Uh which is intended to instead of having to be create a new definition every time somebody wants to add a new uh category of person that we think should probably be able to exempt themselves. it enables us to just keep that language in place in statute and only modify the definition. So essentially it's just a an efficiency thing. It allows us to only amend one section of code as opposed to having to amend two sections of code in the future. Uh and then second, the other thing it does is that it uh makes the requirement explicit that the property owner uh can uh certify in writing as opposed to the individual person who's a member of the protected classes. the code currently stands, it requires the survivor of um violent crime to be the person to attest, which uh doesn't really seem like a necessary uh step u especially considering that a child is one of the people that could qualify. Uh so it just simply states now that the property owner would be the one who certifies writing that they member of their household qualifies for as a member of the protected class. Anyone else? Good. So, I I am one of these people who love looking at people when someone goes, "My property taxes are so high." Like, well, by golly, they're not that high. No. Anyway, um I digress. But what I wanted to say is sorry, Mr. Um I would say that there are other classes of people I understand first responders but um public servants in a way if you're holding elective office I don't know if that is possible to be included I mean you make decisions that make people angry at times and you know where where do we draw the line you know a teacher that's students students that don't like the grades they get. So yeah, go ahead. So if you look at the S version, what Mr. Her just suggested, if you look at page two, line 18 through 29, it essentially creates a mechanism by which new protected classes can be added very simply and very cleanly. And so instead of that paragraph as it was above, we broke it out into category A and category B, which means the category CD E F added an could be added depending on the will of the body. And so I had another member whisper but there members there may answer with some fire department. Yes. And so we've created the structure to make that feasible through that version. I appreciate that's a good good plan. Miss Al, thanks. Um, I won't be around to add any categories, but I would caution um in really thinking through those categories. Elected officials are already disclosing their addresses in other forums around their financial disclosures. There are other requirements that may preclude adding certain individuals. Although the instinct is right perhaps or the instinct is there, um, it should definitely be done with um, good care. I said with council because you never know until the attorneys have really looked at it whether or not it's a valid conclusion. So but yes, we put the framework together. Anyone else on this side? I think Mr. Failed heard a whisper from earlier that said this is an elegant solution to proposal that came before us a few years ago. This takes to the next that there's no further discussion. I would like to ask members consent. Is there any objection to the adoption of the motion to approve it 25-4 2s? I'm hearing and seeing no objection. Thus the items adopted 12 to zero. Next we have item 5 L which is AO 2025 F-44 an ordinance of the Assembly code section 21.018 018 to adopt the municipal man long range transportation strategies and contract strategy anyone wish to welcome please state your name we'll have three minutes yeah thank you south anchorage supported this I think it takes some really good steps to address Is it my is okay sorry I need to take some really good steps to address the problems that we have seen as of late know that as a resolution safety and we're trying to address that through a number of means I think establishing a mobile hierarchy is a really good first step in getting after this problem and I think that the uh the mobile the target shares of trips is appropriate. I did hear uh from someone who wasn't as much in favor that they found the shares aggressive and I thought that that was an interesting term to use because plurality of trips are still personal vehicles and yet it's still seen as an act of aggression. Uh I think goes a long way to uh describing the kind of situation we find ourselves in culturally around transportation. how uh we really do need to do in order to not just encourage but are made safe but make attractive non-com so uh I would say that there's been a lot of talk about shared responsibility and how drivers need to put down the devices and pay attention which I agree with and that pedestrians seem to be responsible which I agree with but the one person or one class of people that don't seem to be brought up much when it comes to shared responsibility is engineers designing the system and so and that's no slight engineers I know that they work with the manuals they have but we really do need to change the way we design our system starts to get after that establishes some good priorities thank you anyone else Seeing public hear. Thank you. So, this has been a long time coming. Um, back when Mr. was on the body, he and I brought forward the first funding uh to make this happen. Um, so it's really important to me that we take this item up before I leave. Um, which will be more than three years. Um but in that three for years um plus um there's been um really great community engagement around this long range transportation strategy. Um in code or per code um one of our legislative powers is to adopt a local long range transportation plan. Um throughout my time on this body that longrange transportation plan has been the metropolitan transit plan. Really a plan written by the state that focuses on the state's priorities and needs. and I have undertaken on behalf of the body a number of times extensive comments to the MTV most of which are ignored um and don't get incorporated but one of the things about AAS should you have a great privilege to serve on AAX is you learn that local plans have to be taken into consideration but it's hard to have your local plan taken into consideration if you don't have a local plan you don't see where I'm headed um so this is called a long-range transportation strategy. I think in the future it should probably be named to the long range transportation plan, but right now it is a strategy because it is goals and object objectives, but it doesn't necessarily have a bunch of action items. So, I'm willing a step in the right direction. Um, and I think that's really important. Um what really catalyzes this now and I appreciate the public testimony is we have had a rough couple of years like with pedestrian deaths with um safety on our roads and I think that it is time to get serious about that. I think a couple of ways to get serious about that is local planning and efforts and making sure these plans are considered. We're about to undertake a targeted comprehensive plan review and having this be our transportation strategy in that targeted plan review I think is very important. Um I think it's really important to set things like road share goals to talk about what are we encouraging? How are we making investments to further those goals? Are we investing enough in our public transit system? Are we making sure that when we build roads that pedestrian or multi-use pathways or just amenities, they're actually um integrated pieces because it fits with our strategy. So, I want to um give thanks to the planning department for getting this through um and to Mr. Downing for um making sure it didn't fall too far off the radar. Um it's really important that we take responsibility and do our own transportation planning. Anchorage is a complex transportation network because of the intersection of so many state roads, local roads, and frankly not quite fully developed roads. Um, so I would um really appreciate your support for this. Um, I have a clean up amendment. I'll go ahead and move amendment number one. a motion to amend by myself until Thank you. This is um kind of a cable amendment that we can clean up any um scribes, errors, typographical or grammatical conforming amendments can be made. um as we did with um another plan. Um the idea is that the um changes will be in a separate document listed and then those changes will come back but informationational memorandum to the assembly just so that you can check off that nothing got changed that wasn't supposed to get changed. It was truly administrative work. Thank you. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, I'm going to pass against consens a hearing. And seeing no object objections amended next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I I certainly share members enthusiasm um over this plan. For me, it sort of feels like a full circle moment, too. I think in my first budget cycle I'll tell I need an amendment um at the request of planning department then got broken apart um into two separate studies one on best practices and snow removal parking management for rightway management that is still underway the other piece was the longrange transportation strategy u and I'm I'm really um I think appreciative of the fact that this is something that was um that the planning department at early because uh in much of the public testimony that we here, members Al and I, Littlefield and others who serve on the AAS policy committee, um a lot of the public testimony revolves around the fact that we need to do a better job of tying land use to our future transportation goals and I think that this does that. Um I also uh think the strategy um embraces a willingness to be innovative. Um, and I also appreciate uh the efforts that were made on the front end to bring in a diverse um roster of perspectives and demographics to this plan um including facilitating my request to uh have some folks from Mountain View including this plan this planning process. So bringing in some new fresh voices and fresh perspective on my voice my appreciation for that and so yeah I will be supporting this strategy and uh I think it'll be a very helpful tool for myself and others um policy makers or or any assembly members who are interested in transportation transit infrastructure um just a good guide for some of our decision making. Thank you Mr. Chair. All right. Next result. Thank you, chair. Um, I just like to move Johnson amendment number three. So, there is a motion to end by Mr. Salt, seconded by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Thank you, chair. So, what this amendment does is it brings back in the 2010 hillside district plan uh into the table referenced. Um just to make sure that we recognize the use that we do use a fund on the hillside for the light and safety service areas such as the mountain air extension uh is a good example and I encourage members to support this amendment. Thank you. Anyone else? I don't see anyone. I have a few questions. Um, so to the sponsors in particular, it's on the the last page. No, second to the last page of the packet with number four and what do those mean? I I'll take a stab at least. Uh policy 9B I have some familiarity with this. There's been a long standard question from community that for the old Stewart Highway that piece that runs adjacent to Park that it's that uh when it is that road is rebuilt that it becomes more of a multimodal transportation. right now it's not well suited to pedestri bicycle traffic but the community has long stressed that when a project moves forward in that area that it should accommodate those uses so I think that's at least part of what's trying to be captured there um and then 90 I mean this comes over from the hillside adjective plan which is adopted neighborhood plan um so that's where the language came from I don't think there's anything that uh myself are changing there Um, but to be honest with you, I'd have to look a little bit deeper to understand more of what an ID. Do you have any sense of what that means, Mr. Mr. Case, sorry, I was unmuted. There we are. It's all good. Yeah. So, I think 90 is Appreciate it. 90 is uh around if we if we expand the play arts or other entities on the hillside that we avoid um projects that would increase problems on some standard parking road system. So, a a good example of that is actually there is really good one, a good one, but um like Birch Road, there's a project out there that basically redo Birch Road because of the way that road was designed. It's it's over like a million dollars a mile for that project. So, we would not want to kind of relive or recreate the sense of the past and and hold some of these roads to uh to standards that don't that don't fit the hillside characteristic because it'll be cost party. Thank you. So, just like a more refined question, is there a project to develop aside road management entity? Is there such one existing if not intended to design it for? What what is that? Right? What are we talking about here? And so, but Meg might have an approach or an answer to my general question. I'm just confused. Yeah. So, where this goes in this amendment goes in the plan is exhibit A. Um, exhibit A is a historical recitation of what are in these plans. It is not a commitment or an otherwise prioritization of particular projects. It just calls out um what's been in the plans that have historically been adopted as part of the comp plan because this is all about the intersection of transportation and the land use plans. So these things are all related to transportation and in the hillside 2010 hillside district plan um they can be referenced um because it's just the history that then leads into chapter 2 which um starts to go into the strategies and the implementation areas. All right. Um, I it's confusing to be taking a vote on an entity and establishing an entity that I don't know exists or does exist since 2010. I'm okay with it in the context of historic kind of intersection between the various plans, but that's not a problem. I just feel like there's a language gap between then something is missing. Mr. Gates, did you have something to add? Um well there's going to put it in context and by there's um page 59 that over the past four years adopted and there's excerpts that participation and so it's already it's just from all right Um, all right. Um, anyone else on the broad? Yeah, thanks. Um, and I appreciate the explanation and and I do see as looking back through that list of plans. I mean, certainly the hillside district plan was adopted as part of our uh is is an element of our comprehensive plan. So, it makes sense to include it here. Um I will note also I was just flipping through um most of the policies and strategies and objectives there's kind of different terms being used per plan. Um all of them are really um kind of above the level of an individual road project or intersection or trail for the most part. I did see reference to the coastal trail. I saw reference to the sewer Glenn Highway um connection but but generally speaking not um kind of specific roads. Um, not to say that those plans don't speak to more specific areas, but um, so, um, I guess I'm going to move to amend the amendment to strike uh, policy 9D. Not because I don't I understand that's in the plan. I'm just trying to be consistent because we're not replicating every aspect of every plan and um, as I said, there's a couple other examples. So, I would I just want to have a discussion about whether we should put individual examples in this plan or not. Second motion to amend. Yes. I jump right to description. So that was what I was going to say. Okay. And would it be easier if the would it be easier if the mover second or agreed? Uh yeah. What would then occur would be we would just ask the motion original motion to be everything except policy. So I concur with the motion amendment to undeserve. All right. So, um, madam cler that the amendment would be everything contained in the draft amendment number three bar in policy 98. I'll I'll briefly speak to that. Um, I think that that was kind of the gist of my question. It's like by putting these in here, one, does it grant them special consideration because they're specifically called out separate from the plan itself which is called out? Does it raise it up as a priority first? And second, what about all those other priorities? And third on that one in particular, I think the whole gist of the plan is multimodal facilities serving the community, right? And so in some further discussion on the amendment, I'd like to ask for the amendment. Is there any objection? Hearing see no objection that amendment is adopted. Are there any amendments? And so, um, now we're back on our main motion, Miss. Thank you. Um I was looking at page 11 uh the goal to maintain exist transportation infrastructure and um I don't specifically see uh the repair of pavement problems. It's it's snow clearing, gravel sweeping, uh fixing drainage, striping, landscaping. Uh but along the main corridor, you know, we have these alligator cracks um in the center and really calling out keeping up on taring. I don't know if I'm just not seeing it, but in some way I almost feel like we need the same pothole reporting mechanism for bike trails that there someone knows who to contact. Um you just get in there and click, you know, put the coordinates of where this big crack is or or where there's a tree in the trail. Um so that's that's one thing I noticed. And then um the other thing is it's further down. Um and this looks like it's just a worksheet. Let me just find the page. Oh, on page 22 um treat resolving path conflicts as priority. and it says, "Zack, what do we mean by this?" And maybe there's some maybe I'm looking at an old page. Um, and there's a newer one because I've done that once already today, but I'm wondering what that does mean. And then the last thing that I wanted to say on that is the striping. I on the and that's the third thing on page 20 that or the fourth thing. Um, I really hope that we can get to some of that striping this summer. um that horrible ebike accident um was from someone not being on the right side of the trail and I think we can solve some of those conflicts by making sure that for sure striped. Thanks. Okay, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so goal two on page 11 is maintain existing transportation infrastructure, improve, fix and use what we have first. And then under that M uh M2 I think calls out specifically what Rock is getting at and that's to prioritize structural maintenance. So things like striping, landscaping and maintaining drainage. And this actually goes a step further which um speaking my prior point about the willingness and also bring sort of our infrastructure back in balance. This calls to do that first for people walking. So that infrastructure that's needed repair for those user groups. This actually prioritizes which I think is very interesting. So that's correct. You're saying it is in there. It's just not any further discussion. Yeah. Thanks. Um so the planning department asking about that amendment about typos. Okay. So I didn't want to leave. Okay. What do we what do we mean by that? Yeah. So it will be taken care of in the final. I don't know. All right. So any further discussion? I just want to pivot back to that M2. Um, you know, if you didn't have a slash between maintaining, fixing drainage, when I read that, it's like we're going to maintain, we're going to fix the drainage, but not I don't read it as maintain the trail in ridable condition. Um, I read it maintain the drainage, but that that's Nikki, but I want to make sure that's I get a lot of messages about trail problems. see those with you. Anyone else? Is there any action? Okay, then seeing no further inputs or actions. We'll go ahead and ask for unanimous consent of approval of the motion. Motion is to approve 2025-44 as amended. Is there any objection? hearing and seeing no objection 2025-44 as amended has passed by vote 12. The next item we come to is not public hearing item agenda item 4. Um thank you Mr. Chair. This item is a continued item from a previous meeting where you found that I had a conflict of interest. So I would ask to be excused. Yes, you are excused. So next up we have item 4 A. Item 4 A is assembly memorandum 323-2025 amendment three penning the operation warning certification of Anchorage. Um I don't see any action under it is continued I guess or postponed from the meeting our last meeting. So what is to approve? Martinez. Uh before that though, go ahead and lay on the table before you a number 2025 mayor's office 2024 to 2025 operations update and direct third discriminator and the title or excuse me subject memo operations freshies right? Yeah and so just make sure that gets into the final record and um so Mr. Okay. So, I'm going to move an amendment. Um the So, I think I I'll start in sort of the new section 29. Now, um that um extension of the contract and what suggested extension of the contract is contingent upon the contractor utilizing HMIS data as a contractor participating in HM So there is a motion to this second. So generally speaking across all the domains of our work in the home space we require our contractors utilize the HMIS system. This contract did not require it in the beginning and there are some absolutely amazing um assertions made in the memo like 1381 unique individual serve but there's no way to validate that because there's no data management required under this contract and so what this would do is just require the participation like the the organization contractor already does for other programs. This would just standardize this contract the other ones that we have. So that's the purp I think I support this amendment and it seems straightforward. Not to say that my feelings are necessarily contingent upon the administration's response, but just since this would be an action that I follow the administration to implement. I just want to see if there's a problem or concern here that I'm not not foreseeing with our real subject matter experts on this issue informed me that it's not suitable for this um requirement to be added to the contract. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? So on the amendment, I would like to go ahead and ask unanimous consent to ser the adoption of the amendment. Seeing hearing no objections. So the items amended for. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I would like I think to invite um Thea and Karina up here. Um we had the opportunity to um have a dialogue with some of the downtown community uh community council folks, the radicals, other interested parties. I do want to give a shout out on the record to uh Sylvia who's the president of the downtown community council for helping me out sort of a listening session and really want to voice a strong appreciation for the administration for the for attending and listening also for director I think as well um in that conversation um so I think what I heard um pretty clearly from the administration is that you feel it's important to keep the belonging area open for a time being because it's an important place to be able to connect folks to services. Um, a place where folks will reliably come back to and we have funding that's coming in to help assist folks with housing. We do feel like that's sort of the most streamlined way to move folks in in housing with that funding is to have the interface at the market. Um, and so I I I kind of want to get to a a yes on this. Um, because I I want to make that easy. Um, I do have I think a couple questions and maybe a couple concerns. Um, one of the things that we talked about in the meeting was what could we do to mitigate some of the public safety issues uh within the perimeter of the warming area because the contractor they're sort of responsible for what happens on premise and we're not going to know the premises. Um, so wondering um if you have the opportunity to to chat with AP or other entities about what could be done that would be question number one. through the chairman. Thank you for the question and thank you for scheduling the meeting with the downtown community council. It was really nice to hear their kind of feedback. Um, first and foremost in understanding that downtown has had a significant kind of impact on where and how we see individuals that are experiencing homelessness being in that area. One thing that I committed on the call and committed with you in a separate conversation is to really work with both the downtown community council president and heading to find a resolution for the neighborhood policy. I think that is going to be one of the first steps in creating some level of safety is finding a middle ground between those two entities. And then second, there's ongoing conversation with AP about how do we increase a presence in downtown? Understanding that we have the downtown revitalization and both for our east downtown as well as our town square, it continues to be a priority for the administration in seeing um a safer area for everyone and particularly understanding and recognizing that we're coming into the chair season. chair. This is Yeah. Um Bond, in addition to um kind of our general approach of wanting to have that increased presence downtown um and in other traffic areas like Midtown and Mountain View. Um we're tomorrow we're meeting with the chiefs both of fire and police to have a conversation kind of broadly around um our crisis response system and and really adding in when we think about our mobile response our engagement with vulnerable individuals that are either on the street or in public places. So, as you know, we have a number of different mobile tools such as our safety patrol, crisis response teams, um, including MIT and MCT. And we've been actively talking last week and this week around how do we kind of really increase that, uh, presence in those hightraic areas of town as well as um, kind of some new procedures about how to engage with people. So, as you know, in the past, safety patrol has been around to kind of end voluntary engagement. Um, and we're working with the fire department, with the contractor to to be in a situation more like, do you need help? Can I help you? Can I take you to warming? Can I take you to shelter? You know, so trying to kind of develop that approach. So, we we'll have more specifics on that after we've had some of those more internal meetings, but that's that's the direction we're going. Okay. Thank you. Um I appreciate the that answer. Um thank you very much. Uh my next question is so both in the the zoom call that we had with the downtown folks and in our prior discussion on this topic on the disaster regular meeting the question was asked um do we need to go all the way to June 30th? Is there any um appetite to go maybe to March 30th or have a shorter duration and then if you need or proceed at the the capacity may yeah um if the capacity is still there or you know people are still utilizing um the the warming area because folks might not you know they might decide to to go camp out um because it's warming up and maybe that's where they want to be and so and just to think of um you know our our limited funding Right. Um thoughts on um instead extending the contract to May 30th and then bringing back a separate item should it arise for um to all of June 30th through the chair member. Thank you for the suggestion. I did we did have an opportunity to talk about this and we would be okay with a what we would actually ask for is the authorization through June 30th with the opportunity to come back to the assembly and identify utilization if we see utilization winding down. we have the opportunity to work with the vendor and we've already had conversation about this that if we don't see utilization um demonstrating the ongoing need particularly with this being coupled with the emergency rental assistance that's coming through then we would wind down the service. Um it creates less administrative burden if we're authorized and then just have the ability to communicate with the assembly that we are going to wind down the contract based on utilization. But that would be our ask is to authorize through June 30th but recognizing that we would come back to the body and wind down the contract based on utilization earlier than the June 30th date. Okay. So heard I do think that we need to have some kind of information about this. Um so what I would like to see is um an information memorandum presented by May 20th um report on utilization and I think uh I think we got just to put that I think we should put that in the uh the memor here just So it's clear and nobody forgets. Um so I guess I would move to amend this again to say that um the extension of the contract requires an assembly information memorandum presented to the assembly no later than May 20th utilization of the area second motion seconded by Mr. Martinez the language. Okay. Um so any discussion on the event I guess operational question um maybe to the cler or maybe you know Mr. Did we already uh dispatch with you on HIS? I Yeah, we did by Okay. Um, so I'm going to speak I mean I support the real question I want to make sure we answer here on the record what I think you just said and I want to make sure it is accurate that the extensions that are going to be offered are going to be it's authorized through June 30 but we'll extend it through May end of May and at the May 20th period we'll review utilization and then we will make the decision if warranted. for that last 30 days or 15 days, however you want to do it, right? Is that a fair um statement to the chair? That is correct. Mr. Yeah, thanks. Um yeah, I appreciate diving into this. So, and I appreciate you saying it's a fair statement. Does the contract allow this to happen? because we can say our intent all we want but unless the contract actually says yo municipality you can turn this off when you want then our intent is sort of somewhat meaningless so please confirm that the contract actually allows us to do this I'm going to call so there are clauses in all of our contracts that does say that we been um terminated contract based on certain rules um in purchasing. So those are in this current contract. Um we just give somebody that I think they could make the extension. I would like to ask for a motion to send 10 minutes 10 minutes or second. I'd like to ask unanimous consents and objections motion objection or extended for 10 minutes that then we're back on the amendment. Um Mr. was in the queue. You're done. Okay. I can't find it now. But I guess the last thing that I would want to I think there was a lay on the table. Yes. Thank you. Uh so this is sort of the the rationale um for this. Thank you for providing this. Um I think I just want to express my own personal concern with in conclusion. Um warning centers have become a critical layer of homelessness response. Um and I guess what I would like to see is that we don't we're not depending dependent on warmness. uh that they have become sort of um a part a piece of the puzzle because we don't have adequate housing or shelter capacity and so we have these sort of stand up locations but there um one of the the interesting things I think we heard in the downtown community folks is there was a comparison to the way that the brother Francis shelter used to operate when they made everybody leave that for a certain time um and the community impacts of that versus now um with the crisis shelter is doing a great job and folks are able to have safe places to be overnight. Um and I think that um hearing from downtown folks say this is a much better model. We should make this instructive for us. Um and so I I guess just voicing two things primarily that I hope we move away from having to do with learning centers in the future because we have capac capacity. Um and then uh number two I hope we get a jump start. I know that the administration worked very hard on homelessness response and all the many facets um and that it it feels like a a tough hill to climb sometimes, but um I I I just hope we have that conversation further about where all the areas are going to be if we need them for this coming. Thank you very much. So I have one concern with the [Music] So have you validated this these numbers? Has the department had an opportunity to validate some chair? We have worked with our third party oversight to work with the vendor on collecting this data, but because they are not required to use HMIS, they've been able to cross reference only those individuals that voluntarily completed a coordinated entry assessment. So, of the numbers, we have about 450 plus individuals that were cross referenced into the HMIS system, right? And so, what this memo reads like is that these are your numbers. These are the department's numbers. We don't need like these are unedited numbers submitted by a vendor, you know, and so um I find that the number of 1381 unique individuals just stretches the field of credibility to a very thin point. I'm not going to say too, but I just think that by this coming from the department in the form that it's in, it is an assertion by the department that these numbers are factually correct. And so, um, I have some concern with that only because I think that, um, before I would assert numbers like this, I would want some procedure established to make sure because, you know, while we're not paying on utilization per se, per unit per capita paying as a whole, it's hard to narrow in. And I understand and I agree and I'm grateful that the members administration agreed to the application of the HMIS question which will hopefully get us to the point where we can validate them independently or at least through a mechanism that is third party validated. So I just have that but otherwise neighbors are concerned express their concerns I am confident that this is our so anyone else on the motion hearing and seeing none then on 323-2025 as amended and we'll go ahead and ask members consents and objections motion through the chair We're on the amendment right now. Oh, we're on the amendment. I'm sorry. Thank you. Is there any objection to the option amendment? The amendment as would you receive the amendment of the contract? So, the chair, correct me if I'm wrong, member Roland, but I got the extension of the contract requires an assembly information memorandum presented to the assembly no later than May 20th on utilization of the long location. captures it. Yes. All right. So there is a motion. Thank you for captioning that. Is there any objection to the motion motion to hear judgement? The motion is adopted. Next we're back on the main motion as amended and I'm going to ask unanimous consent to speak. So is there any objection hearing? See objection 323-35 as amended as passive body to conclude your business agenda for today is amazing um thank you Mr. Chair I just wanted to give the members a quick heads up about anticipate receiving from the administration later on today and which we will offer briefing on tomorrow morning and that is a waiver of title 7 to allow um for emergency to go forward contractor needed to address explosive levels of methane gas at Mel field um which is being emitted by the landfill that's been so um this is something that that that description really very frightening. This is something that has been that we've that has been ongoing to a certain degree for the last several years, but it's reached a point um where we have had levels noticed within buildings and also where the department of environmental conservation has been sort of to raise concerns about our ability um to to you know continue to safely operate. So, um, they are urging us to make sure that we are able to move forward with some corrective action this summer and that isn't sufficient time to actually go through an RFP process in order to procure the contract needed. So, I just wanted to flag that here openly right now and you'll receive further notice including the executions or further if you'd like to hear further details, we've already asked for time on that I will see meeting tomorrow morning to be able to address those. So, I just wanted to see that on the record here today. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um, just one second. Then I guess what we'll do now is participation where the focus should be heard. Please have. All right. Hi. Uh Jamie Anchorage from the coalition for the homeless. Uh I think he sitting at the chair uh at the podium so um so for TA uh the center is essentially part of the strategy to try and provide rental assistance to people that have sheltered. Um, obviously the people that are 14 days away from homelessness, they're probably going to get covered, but I say ability uh to get places uh to talk to providers for the vast majority of people that are outside. Uh the main issue is this. Um a lot of people don't have the experience uh they don't have to face adversity at the level of survival. And so the best way to describe to people who don't understand it is say you're military. You're deployed to a foreign country. You're on a for operating base. You're getting bombed every single day. Your supply line is cut. And then after a period of time, your perimeter is getting breached day after day after day. And things are coming in at all times, all hours. And uh it hits you and it hits you again. And then people start scaling your stuff on the way up. And so you're fighting a constant battle and then you know maybe get an air drop or two of the providers show up in every couple days. But it's a bit, you know, sort of like safari or season where you never depend on you never depend on it and the PTSD just rocks out and up. And so, uh, the general point of this nature is is that, uh, you're dealing with broken people and people that are broken out there so long they turn into a feral state. Some turns, some just don't come back. It's the same thing with Vietnam and other things as well. And so, uh, if you're trying to target people that are in shelter. They have years to pent out things and if you're providing short-term rental assistance, uh maybe say it's two months, three months, four months, um they're dealing with things that they've had build up for a period of time and it's not going to be very easy for people to acclimate and reintegrate back into society uh based on what's there. So, uh, it's one of these things where it's maybe a good idea on paper, but when you're starting to deal with people, uh, they they have issues. Um, other things that, you know, I might talk about in the 42 seconds that I have left. Uh, so obviously, um, people are outside. They're going to be outside for part of the summer. Uh, HMIS, uh, when I left Coalition, I came to the conclusion it's about data collection to get the grant funds to get the salaries in the office. And a few lucky people got got get help along the way of some of these people, but the vast majority don't. And so after a period in time that they keep on checking in on the weight list, some just stop coming up to the table because they they lose hope and they don't think they're going to get it. So the numbers are higher and aside from that, I hope tries to help people outside this summer because they're going to be a lot of people outside. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other member of the public wish to be hurt? Right. No comments. Thanks, chair. First off, I want to thank everyone for passing AR 2025 1116 S1 with amendments and I did I failed to thank members for the help she did for leading me to how to move forward. Um I also wanted to call out um at our last meeting u we did education sharing day and um it was it was lovely talked about um a rabbi that had done much for education and I wanted to um shout out Mammud Darish today a Palestinian poet and author uh he has passed out 3,000 scholarships and the motto of his center is education is sacred and they realize in Palestine that it's a gift that cannot be confiscated, demolished, or occupied. Thanks. Thank you. And I'll see you tomorrow. Thanks. No comments. Thank you, chair. Thank you. I'll just say we have another marathon agenda on the 22nd. We'll be somewhat divided between two assemblies, but there will be a lot of work to be done for certification. Uh so let's keep the pace. And uh in flight of the education and sharing day, I'll just say to those of you who who practice, it's Happy Passover. We're in the middle of it. And uh that's what the Rabbi was essentially celebrating. And with that, we will stand. Congratulations everyone.