2026-11-06 - Assembly Worksession

04:57Okay, everyone. I think we'll uh get

04:58started. I know we got a couple folks on

05:00the phone.

05:03>> Uh so this is the uh so today is Friday,

05:07November 6th. This is the assembly uh

05:09the last work session on our FY27 budget

05:12for this year uh regarding proposed

05:15budget assembly amendments. Um, and then

05:17I'll also say we [clears throat] will be

05:18uh because we didn't get to it on uh the

05:21last couple work sessions, um I'm going

05:23to briefly verbally describe the

05:25assembly budget as well. Um but we're

05:27not going to be kind of there aren't

05:29specific amendments on that. So I'll

05:30just kind of talk through some things

05:31that um we anticipate moving forward. Uh

05:34and so before we do that, we will do

05:36introductions.

05:38George Martinez,

05:40>> Janice Poke, Aaron Baldwin, Dave,

05:42>> Donald Handel, Jared Girker,

05:45>> Daniel Voland,

05:46>> Anna Broly. Uh, that's folks in the

05:47room. And then on the phone, I see Miss

05:49Scout.

05:52>> I'm here and on the way

05:54>> and Miss Silvers

05:58>> here. Thank you.

05:59>> Okay. Uh, that's folks on the phone.

06:01We're also joined by members of the

06:02administration, our OM director, and uh,

06:05budget analyst. And uh we are noticed

06:07from 10 am to noon. So I'll just briefly

06:10speak through kind of the order we're

06:12doing. So uh as we have a packet in

06:13front of us. Uh we got it in our emails

06:15yesterday. It's online as well. Uh so

06:18essentially my goal I believe they're

06:19they're organized also by uh Facebook

06:22we'll have our uh let's see capital

06:24budget um and then our operating budget

06:27and then uh go through I think there's a

06:30few on alcohol tax and marijuana tax as

06:32well. So, we'll kind of take those uh in

06:33order in the packet. And then um the way

06:36we've done this generally, of course,

06:38work sessions we don't debate, but this

06:39is a time for the uh amendment sponsors

06:42to talk through your idea. Um also feel

06:44free to flag things where you anticipate

06:46change or things that you're still

06:48working on. I think that could be

06:49helpful. And um also

06:52uh then opportunity to ask questions.

06:54So, we'll kind of go through I'm not

06:56going to set a time limit per amendment,

06:57but if we are taking a long time, then

06:59I'll kind of ask us to move along and

07:01then uh we'll go go through that and

07:04then at the end of the work session,

07:05we'll talk through a little bit of next

07:07steps in terms of process and then I'll

07:08turn to our budget analyst to kind of go

07:10over what that looks like. So, um okay,

07:12so before we get into the packet and

07:14also just say so folks uh just be ready.

07:16We'll we'll do it in order um as we go

07:19through. But in the meantime, I'll say

07:20just a couple brief things about our

07:22assembly budget. So, uh I think uh I

07:25believe we said this last work session,

07:27but essentially uh right now there are

07:30not significant changes proposed to the

07:32assembly budget. Um there were two kind

07:34of uh items that did not make it into

07:36the budget that we did request. Um that

07:38uh so one of them is or I guess there

07:40was a mistake that was made in the 27

07:43budget uh removing a position for the

07:46third attorney. Um we had changed around

07:48the funding for that in the 2026 budget,

07:50but the intent is to keep that position.

07:52So, it got scrubbed essentially because

07:53it was it looked like it wasn't fully

07:55funded. Um, so the intent is to uh

07:58return that third attorney position and

08:00to hopefully recruit for that position

08:02at some point in 2027. Uh, we have tried

08:04before, but we can try again. Uh, I

08:06think we all know we need that kind of

08:08support. And that it's a net zero

08:10amendment because uh we currently have a

08:13contract uh or not a contract just a

08:15line item for legal services. um and

08:17that was tied to a clutin and some other

08:19matters that are completed or not even

08:21if they're not completed we're not using

08:22those services anymore and so uh

08:24basically the funding for that can go

08:26back into that position. So, that's

08:27something that we'll see in the

08:29substitute version of the budget um that

08:31I know uh Miss Browse can talk through

08:32more in detail, but rather than running

08:35a separate amendment, that's one piece

08:36that we'll do. And then the other piece

08:38of it uh that we had requested that did

08:40not make it into the budget was um

08:43ensuring that we have adequate funding

08:45for uh the eventuality of a runoff

08:47election uh in this year's election. So

08:50in the clerk's office budget, I I'll

08:52also say our when I say our the assembly

08:54budget, I mean the assembly uh itself

08:57including [snorts] legislative services

08:58and council which are under the assembly

09:01and then also the clerk's office and the

09:02ombbudsman. So it's all of those things

09:04[clears throat] together um when we talk

09:05about the branch budget. So within the

09:07clerk's budget, there is adequate

09:09funding year-over-year for a regular

09:11election based on our known costs,

09:13mailing cost, all of that. uh staffing

09:15cost for uh election workers, but um but

09:18we do not normally have an extra 400

09:21some thousand in for that runoff

09:23election, which is another, you know,

09:24area wide election. So, uh rather than

09:27trying to put that in under the cap as

09:29we know that that has been a challenge,

09:31um I met with uh uh Miss Rocher and uh

09:34Miss Browse. We talked through a plan

09:36and this is what you'll see on the

09:37agenda for the 17th. essentially uh well

09:40one we have most of that legal services

09:42budget that was not used in 2026 um that

09:45can be essentially and it's not going to

09:47be used by the end of the year. So a

09:49portion of that can be essentially moved

09:51into a special project fund uh for

09:54basically the goal of saying funding um

09:58runoff and other election needs. So,

10:00we're working on what the wording would

10:01be, and that would be under the clerk's

10:02office, and it would essentially be um

10:06similar to other project funds, like a

10:07specific fund that goes into that. So,

10:09rather than trying to find $450,000

10:12every three years, we would essentially

10:14fund about $150,000 per year. So, we

10:16have to catch up this coming year. Um

10:18but the goal would be going forward that

10:21we uh put enough money in that fund

10:23every year to cover a runoff election.

10:25Of course, we if we ever have a special

10:27election, that would be the other way

10:28that we can fund that. But those are not

10:30certain uh or regular and sometimes

10:33they're district only, sometimes they're

10:34area wide. So, so essentially a

10:36mechanism that we make sure that we have

10:38that funding for running elections that

10:40are beyond our normal cycle and also um

10:43uh if there are any equipment purchases,

10:46software purchases. We know that there's

10:47kind of more one-time expenses that come

10:49up in terms of running elections. And so

10:51um anyway, so so that is not going to be

10:53proposed in the budget uh as a line

10:56item. Uh but you will see something on

10:58the 17th a resolution that that

11:00essentially reappropriates some of that

11:01money for 2027 creates that fund and

11:04then uh we'll come back to at the end of

11:06the year when we have a better idea how

11:07much uh lapsed funding there will be a

11:10portion of that lapse funding we're

11:11proposing to move and make sure that the

11:13a 2027 runoff if it happens is fully

11:16funded. Um so so we can have a bigger

11:19conversation about that. But essentially

11:20that is something that is not in our

11:21budget now that needs to be addressed.

11:23Um unless we don't know if we're gonna

11:26have a runoff um but if we do it will

11:29happen well before the first quarter

11:30budget revision. So it's also not

11:31something we can take care of in late

11:33April because by that point there would

11:34be we would be in that election uh cycle

11:37if it happens. So anyway, so if you uh

11:39would like more information about how we

11:41fund elections, um talk with uh Jamie

11:43Hines and Liz Edwards, uh our clerk

11:46staff. Um if you have questions about

11:48the assembly branch budget, talk to Miss

11:49Rocher. Um she's been digging into it to

11:51try to unpack what's there. We've been

11:53figuring out kind of what projects are

11:55one-time that we don't need to fund

11:56anymore, etc. So, so we're in the

11:58process of still figuring that out. Um

12:00and making sure that we are uh again

12:02funding things that we need to uh be

12:04ready for like election. So, um, so any

12:07questions on assembly budget or what I

12:09just shared?

12:11I'll get out my phone as well. As usual,

12:14folks, uh, text me if you would like to

12:15be in the queue. Okay, I don't see any

12:17other questions. So, as I said, um, uh,

12:19talk with M. Rocher if you have

12:21questions. So, let's then switch gears

12:23and we will talk about our assembly

12:25amendments. So, um, I'm going to again

12:27go through the packet and I'll remind

12:30folks, uh, we know some of these, uh,

12:32probably are fully baked, other ones are

12:34still in process. So uh I'll just turn

12:36to each uh member or set of members to

12:39provide comments as we go. So let's

12:41start on page uh two. So that is Baldwin

12:43Day amendment number one to the capital

12:45improvement budget.

12:46>> Yeah, thanks chair. So this is moving a

12:49project from 2028 back to 2027. Uh if

12:53you remember looking through your

12:55capital budget packet, uh this is the

12:58project, the drainage project that

13:00includes what looks like a swimming pool

13:02in front of a neighborhood and there are

13:04kids playing in it. Um this is uh this

13:07is something I actually tried to move

13:09forward uh for construction last year

13:12and the roadblock was that the design

13:14work was not completed. So I um I have

13:18reached out to PME. I understand that we

13:20are in fact on track for this project to

13:21be shovel ready in 2027 and I don't see

13:24any reason to delay if we are able to

13:26put shovels in the ground next summer.

13:28Um so this is fairly straightforward

13:30just moving this up and this would be a

13:32change in bond revenue. So this would go

13:35on the bond package this year. Happy to

13:36answer any questions about that.

13:39>> Okay, [clears throat] questions for

13:40members.

13:42Okay, I don't see any. Then uh let's

13:44move on.

13:48So, uh, next one is, um, one of my

13:50amendments, so I'll just very briefly

13:52speak to it. Um, so this is an existing,

13:54uh, item in the bond. You'll see it's

13:56it's right now it's funded at 250,000

13:58for, uh, coastal trail, uh, essentially

14:01erosion mitigation and, uh, relocation

14:03of portions of the trail. If you've been

14:04out by Point Warren's off or just north

14:06of it, you've seen uh, there's a bench

14:08that doesn't exist anymore. And, uh,

14:10just it's an ongoing issue. And so um

14:12there's been a conversation really for

14:14at least a decade on this with the

14:15airport with the FAA many partners um

14:18and we know that the actual the fix to

14:21stabilize the bluffs is much larger than

14:23any of these numbers is going to

14:25accommodate. So what this does is it

14:27essentially takes the existing project

14:29um it increases the bond amount it

14:31increases a small amount of on and m

14:34amount in that bond and then it also

14:36adds $500,000 of a matching state

14:39request. uh knowing that this is not

14:41only next to the state airport.

14:43Obviously, the trail is on the outside

14:44of the airport, but also uh this is the

14:46coastal trail is not just a local asset.

14:48It's not just a West Anchorage asset. It

14:49is a citywide uh impacts tourism, right?

14:53It has all these other benefits and it

14:54goes through multiple districts, too.

14:56So, um, so that essentially is to

14:59expand, uh, the ask for that and also to

15:01recognize that there are other safety

15:03risks along there, such as, uh, if

15:05you've been through or heard from folks

15:07about Westchester Lagoon to the Fish

15:08Creek Estuary, it's a very narrow

15:10corridor, lots of potential conflicts.

15:11So, really just allowing for uh, safety

15:14and stabilization projects within that

15:16corridor. That's the idea. Any

15:18questions? Uh, Miss Bald

15:22>> is um, so is this an additional is this

15:25additional funding for for design and

15:29then also O andM or are we are or is

15:32this a construction? Are we into

15:34[clears throat] construction? Oh, no,

15:34we're in design.

15:36Yeah, I believe I've been working with

15:38parks and rec staff to get the uh the

15:40language correct. So, some of it would

15:42be design because certainly looking at

15:43more longer term uh, you know, trail

15:46relocation, things like that. also that

15:47Westchester corridor would need design

15:50in order to figure out, you know, what

15:51the cost would be. Um, and so it's

15:54partly that, it's also there are some

15:56more tactical, I guess, stabilization

15:57things they can do. Um, if you've seen

15:59like rip wrap and things along the way.

16:01So, so I think it's giving parks and

16:03wreck the ability to um not only plan

16:05for these bigger picture things, but

16:07also uh address some of these more um uh

16:10immediate issues.

16:12>> Gotcha. So, so what we're what we're

16:14what we're really intending to do here

16:16is um is to give more flexibility to

16:20address not just erosion but also some

16:22of the safety issues that we know are

16:24cropping up in that corridor. Great.

16:26Yes. Okay. Thank you.

16:28>> Yeah. So, it it modifies the project

16:30description. Okay. Any other questions?

16:33>> Did you say

16:38>> Yeah. And then I al also note um my

16:40intention is to uh include this in this

16:43state request in the legislative

16:45program.

16:47It's

16:47>> okay. Also note we were joining the room

16:49by Miss Scout. [laughter]

16:56>> Okay. Um so let's move on then. I don't

16:58see any other questions.

17:00So next one is also me. Uh so it is a um

17:03uh essentially putting back something.

17:05This is a state request as well. putting

17:07something back in that has been

17:09historically in our uh legislative

17:11program and our our list of capsus

17:13requests. Um, and it's written up here,

17:15but essentially [snorts] there used to

17:16be a series of things that were in our

17:18legislative or in our CIB that said

17:21Senate District uh J, Senate District H,

17:24you know, all of the different Senate

17:25districts and asked for $3 million of

17:27pavement rehabilitation for local roads.

17:29So that essentially means resurfacing

17:31basically the the thing you do if you

17:33don't want to keep filling potholes over

17:34and over. So um so this is about

17:36maintaining and fixing what we have. Uh

17:38this puts a request back in not per

17:42district uh or not per Senate district

17:44but for ARSA. And the rationale is um we

17:47have road service areas. Um this would

17:49be for uh anything within ARSA.

17:51Obviously there are different requests

17:52for individual projects. Um sometimes uh

17:55limited road service areas ask for money

17:57as well. But uh it is very rare for us

17:59these days to be asking for state money

18:02to go into ARSA because we typically

18:05only bond at this point for those. So

18:07this is really about um making sure

18:09we're we're putting funding in our urban

18:10core and then the 5 million is certainly

18:12less than the three million per multiple

18:14Senate districts. Um but just trying to

18:16be realistic there. So so this is again

18:17the theme of ma fixing and maintaining

18:19what we have. Any questions?

18:25Okay. Don't see any there. Then we can

18:27move on. Uh so next we have uh members

18:29Martinez and Silvers for uh parks and

18:31rack.

18:32>> Yes, I'll speak to it uh quickly. This

18:35is a change in the CI CIPCIB to move

18:39this project that's scheduled for 2031

18:42bond up to 2027.

18:45This is for Standish Park. It's a small

18:47neighborhood park close to Moldun

18:49Elementary. And for the record, I just

18:51want to put it on there. In 2008, the

18:54Anchorage Park Foundation report card

18:56gave this park an F rating, citing poor

18:59safety, visibility, and maintenance. And

19:02uh some of those challenges are old

19:04infrastructure, uh dated

19:08child playground area and equipment. And

19:11quite honestly over the last several

19:13years since the Centennial Park

19:17challenges that we've had um

19:21this area has also felt more neglected

19:24and this park was also utilized in some

19:27pretty negative ways and some of that

19:29damage still remains. So we just hope to

19:30move this project forward and uh get a

19:33little love on that park that is coming

19:35in the future but get try to get a

19:37little faster. Thank you.

19:39>> Okay. Um, and Miss Silver, just jump in

19:41if you have anything to add.

19:48Okay. Uh, questions for members on this

19:50one.

19:53Uh, Miss Walden.

19:55Yeah. Just generally curious if um if

19:59parks um has indicated their capacity to

20:02be able to meet this particular need

20:04with the staffing that they have right

20:06now.

20:16I'm not sure I understand the question

20:17with respect to staffing what

20:20>> or or being able being I'm not sure if

20:23this is something that we would be be

20:24doing like in-house with the existing

20:26labor that we have or if this is

20:27something we would be contracting out

20:28and I was just

20:30>> I know parks has a really really limited

20:32capacity and construction schedule. I

20:33was just wondering how this squares with

20:35other things that might be on their

20:36docket for 27.

20:38>> Sure. It was not flagged as a problem,

20:40but it wasn't asked specifically whether

20:43it was a problem or not.

20:45>> Okay.

20:46>> Thank you. Okay. Any other questions?

20:50Okay. Oh, do you have

20:52>> maybe a thought?

20:53>> Okay, Mr.

20:56>> Yeah. I I think one thing for us all to

20:58consider um given you know the

21:00constraints of staff capacity and um you

21:04know projects being in the queue is ju

21:05just because we bond we add something

21:08onto the bond to receive a round of

21:11funding um in a year doesn't necessarily

21:14mean and should not telegraph to the

21:16public that that project is going to

21:17then be completed that year. And often

21:20um it actually takes multiple rounds of

21:22bond funding to have the the stack of

21:25funds that you need to execute on the

21:27project. And so a good example of that

21:29would be like the um coastal trail to

21:32ship creek trail connection um that's

21:35received multiple years of bond funding

21:37and just now you know I think we had the

21:40um groundbreaking for that this year. Um

21:43I'm also looking further. I'm skipping

21:44ahead in the in the in the packet but

21:47another example would be the Cuddy Park

21:48Chalet. um that has been bonded for

21:51multiple times um and still is not a a

21:54completed project. So yeah, just I think

21:56that's good for us all to have that

21:57understanding is we can put something on

22:00you know on the bond to be get some

22:04funding but doesn't necessarily mean

22:05it's all the funding that it will take

22:07and it also doesn't mean it's going to

22:08be done anytime soon. Thanks.

22:12>> Okay, any other questions? Okay, not

22:15seeing any then let's move to the next

22:16page. Um next one is uh Mr. Mr. Bullen,

22:19please go ahead.

22:21Number six.

22:22>> Okay. Uh, this one

22:24>> we skipped five.

22:24>> Oh, yeah. I think we

22:26>> Oh, sorry. I turned the page already.

22:27Okay. Sorry. Uh, so let's go to project

22:29five. So, that's Mr. Martinez and Miss

22:30Silvers.

22:31>> Yeah. And, uh, thank you, Member Volen,

22:34for the commentary. This is similar to

22:36that. This is a project uh that uh

22:40essentially is

22:45moving an existing project from the 2032

22:48forward but specifically targeting

22:52Nunaca Valley South. Nun Naka Valley

22:54South funding had already been bonded

22:57and some of that money went to finishing

23:00the projects in the north part of the

23:02park. Um and so across years that north

23:05part of the park was done with part of a

23:07legislative grant from the state

23:09legislature and our local reps there.

23:12And so this is the attempt to get some

23:16of that funding forward to the park that

23:18had already been designated so that the

23:19south park can also get uh the

23:22improvements that folks have been

23:23waiting for with the money that they

23:25expected this year to be in the hopper

23:28that was moved forward to uh the north

23:30part of the park. Thank you.

23:34>> Okay. Any questions?

23:38Okay. Not seeing any. Um then, uh let's

23:41turn the page. Okay. So, now we're on

23:42amendment six. So, Mr. B.

23:45>> Okay. Yes. So, this is for Woodside

23:47Park. Um and we did work with Parks and

23:49Recreck and and both Shana and Taylor

23:50were uh pretty enthusiastic about this

23:53one. Um the design is already underway

23:55for a more inclusive playground, parking

23:58and access improvements, a pavilion. Um

24:01and so this would be for the

24:03construction portion of that project. Um

24:06there's a larger um sort of master

24:09planning process with the Eastchester

24:12Park master plan, but Woodside Park and

24:14Playground is um sort of a subset of

24:17that project that is already much

24:19further along um and ready to go. And so

24:23yeah, we are just looking to add this to

24:25the park spot. Thank you.

24:27>> Okay, questions. Oh, Miss Go ahead. just

24:30state for the record I meant to sign on

24:32to this one too and fully support it.

24:35>> Okay. Thanks. Yeah. And I'll say also I

24:37forgot to say that before. So this is

24:39our opportunity to socialize ideas and

24:41things we intend to bring forward. So if

24:43you are very excited about something um

24:44obviously talk to the other sponsor. Um

24:46but uh this is another place to kind of

24:48signal that. So and these are all

24:50drafts. These are not necessarily what

24:51we'll see exactly on the 17th. So this

24:54is really just um you know consider

24:56these things that can change. Okay. Any

24:58other questions on what side?

25:03Okay, not seeing any. Then we'll move

25:05on.

25:06Oh, and [snorts] I forgot to say as

25:08well, uh, we were joined by Mr.

25:09Presfordia at about 10:20.

25:12So, let's move uh, next page then. Oh,

25:14sorry. So, that is the background on

25:17that. Next one is amendment seven. Uh,

25:18Miss Park.

25:20>> Thank you, chair. So, this amendment is

25:22to move um construction for a chalet in

25:27Cuddi Park. Um as mentioned by member

25:31Voland, um uh they have money on hand

25:34from a previous bond. It was originally

25:37quoted to be 350 million. Uh a couple of

25:41budget cycles have gone by. Now it's I

25:43think the cost is estimated to be 4.5.

25:47Um, I'm asking for two and there's a

25:50commitment from uh Senator Greg Jackson

25:53and uh Representative Galvin to add

25:57state money to that. So to match um

26:00match funds. Uh the chalet would also be

26:03used as a warming center in the winter

26:05and I think uh given the location

26:10that that gives access to that uh

26:13Northern Lights and Benson Quarter where

26:15we see a lot of uh unhoused uh people uh

26:19who could utilize that facility and uh

26:22there's support from the community

26:24council Midtown Community Council and

26:31as well as a speed skating uh

26:33organization we saw Tuesday night that

26:36gave $10,000 to the city for their

26:40management of the um of the ice there in

26:44Cuddy Park and they have done that for

26:46several years running. So um I think

26:51it's a it's a a

26:55a good location also for the kinds of

26:58events that people would would hold.

27:00they would rent that similar to um what

27:03is done in Concaid Park and very close

27:06to the restaurants and hotels in that

27:09area and it would be good for business.

27:11Thank you.

27:13>> Okay. Um Mr. Boland and then Mr. Handle.

27:17>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I love this

27:18project and I I

27:21have supported it um and co-sponsored

27:24bond funding for it in the past. And you

27:27guys know me, I'm Mr. Skate.

27:30My [laughter]

27:32my grand polit

27:35if you guys could call me that from now

27:36on, I would greatly appreciate it.

27:39[snorts]

27:40Um, you know, my grand political

27:41ambition is the Voland freezeway, which

27:43is going to be an ice skating pathway

27:45connecting all the lakes in Anchorage.

27:48Um,

27:49but on this one, I think, member Park, I

27:52would I would like to get in a room with

27:54you and the parks and rec staff and kind

27:56of hash this one out a little bit

27:58because I know that they are um doing a

28:02um a master planning process for Cuddy

28:04Park. And I guess I have just heard some

28:09reservations from the department about

28:11proceeding with this project um before

28:15that master planning process is um

28:18completed. So yeah, again I'm very

28:21supportive of this. I just I I wonder on

28:24the the timing and the sequencing with

28:26parks and recck what their level of

28:27support is. Um yeah, that just be a

28:30question that I have and I don't know if

28:31Miss Browse has any insights into that.

28:35Go ahead, Miss Cross.

28:36>> Uh to the chair to member Voland and

28:38member Park. Uh yes, that is true. They

28:40are undertaking the master planning

28:41process and um I think traditionally we

28:45wouldn't be uh bonding for projects in

28:47advance of a master planning process

28:50specifically to determine what kinds of

28:52projects should be bonded for. Um I know

28:55that some of this has happened outside

28:57of the master planning process and that

29:00is fantastic. We like to secure funding

29:02for projects that we want to do. Um, but

29:05I think that the completing the master

29:08planning process would give us more

29:10direction and a better way to advocate

29:13to the community and to the state for

29:15the additional funding for the

29:16development of the entire park as

29:18opposed to just the chalet.

29:23>> Okay. Uh, next, Mr. Handelin.

29:25>> Uh, thank you. Uh, so it says on here uh

29:28about $4.6 million and stuff. Is that I

29:31guess what is left remaining in those

29:33park bonds and individual donations is

29:36that that 6

29:37>> um as they have money on

29:39>> Miss Park if you can make sure your

29:40microphone's on. Yes, thank you. Um they

29:43do have money on hand from the previous

29:45bond that's that's been sitting there

29:49and then um

29:52that money would be matched uh with with

29:54this $2 million ask and money from the

29:58state.

30:00Okay. But is the that that 6 is is that

30:03roughly what it is or are are you with

30:06this I guess over over asking I guess

30:08over what the um the engineering

30:11estimate is.

30:14>> Um

30:16I don't think we're over asking.

30:20>> I'm not sure I understand your question.

30:23>> I think maybe that would be a followup

30:24as to it sounds like you're asking how

30:26much has already been funded

30:27essentially. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, I

30:28think maybe that's it's not something to

30:30answer now, but the answer

30:32>> because I think sometimes this also is a

30:34good opportunity to to surface questions

30:36that people will have and then that way

30:37you can get the information before the

30:38meeting.

30:39>> Yeah, they do have a million dollars on

30:41hand.

30:41>> Oh, okay. Yeah.

30:45>> Okay. Any other question, Mr. Handling?

30:47>> Okay. Next, I have Miss Scout, then

30:49myself, then Miss Baldwin Day. Miss

30:50Scout, thank you. Um,

30:54early in your introduction of this, you

30:57said 350 million had been secured

31:01[clears throat] already. Did you mean

31:02thousand

31:04dollars?

31:05>> Oh, may have misspoken. It was

31:08originally quoted at 3.5 million.

31:11>> Oh, 3.

31:11>> And that's that was a couple years ago.

31:13And so it's been increased to reflect

31:17inflation.

31:19>> Total construction. Is that right?

31:20>> Yes. Okay. Okay.

31:22>> 4.6.

31:25>> Okay. Um, thank you. I just wanted to

31:27clarify because that sounded like a big

31:29number. Um, [snorts] and then you

31:32mentioned

31:34that this could be used for as a warming

31:38shelter.

31:39>> Yes. Um, and I I want to sort of

31:42tease that apart a little bit and just

31:44understand because when we talk about

31:47like chalet,

31:50those are not staffed by people who are

31:54prepared and ready to support like

31:58people using a space as a shelter. Um, I

32:02think about like Kade Chalet, Russian

32:05Jack Park Chalet.

32:07The intention of that space is like

32:10you're out skiing, you come in and take

32:12your clothes off and let them dry.

32:16[snorts] Um, I think a warming shelter

32:18is a great concept. It's also something

32:21I know that we need in this community,

32:23but I want to just clarify that those

32:27two things are not the same and

32:28understand your intent with this

32:31project. Is it a chalet or a shelter or

32:34some mix of both?

32:35>> Some I I think some mix of both. And I

32:37think that that money money to staff as

32:39a warming center for for people who are

32:42unhoused would probably come from

32:43another um another uh program.

32:47>> Okay. Thank you.

32:49>> That would be my expectation.

32:51>> Okay.

32:56>> Um I have myself next in the queue. Um

32:59I'll say yeah I think my my ask was

33:01similar to Mr. Handelin just to really

33:02understand I would love just a a page.

33:05Um, and this would come from staff

33:07obviously of what's been funded on which

33:09bonds, what the status is because I

33:11understand we have design drawings, but

33:12I think understanding where this fits in

33:15um, and the scale of that facility. And

33:16then I'll I'll just say too, I think,

33:18um, on the theme of fixing and

33:20maintaining what we have, I think that's

33:22that's really the questions that are

33:23going to be asked by the community about

33:25building any new facility. Uh, we we had

33:27a presentation yesterday about a

33:28different facility uh, that is not

33:31intended to use taxpayer funds, but I

33:32imagine those questions will come up.

33:33So, I'm just bringing it up. Anytime

33:34there's a new anything, [laughter] um,

33:36we have to we have to describe that. So,

33:38um, uh, I think those are my questions

33:42for now because I think most of them

33:43were answered. Um, so next, Miss Baldwin

33:44Day and then Mr. Bull.

33:46>> Yeah, thank you. Um, I so I think I I

33:51think I might have a slightly different

33:52understanding of the warming intention

33:55of this particular um of this particular

33:58facility. So, I think I if it's all

34:01right, I would like to invite myself

34:02into the conversation with member Park

34:04and member Walland. Um, and I also I

34:08think um want to highlight that what is

34:11currently in existence for this

34:12particular project um I believe is uh

34:15just conceptual drawings. Is that is

34:18that correct? Member Park,

34:23[clears throat]

34:23>> I know that there is uh is a plan. I

34:26don't know how to categorize that. Um,

34:30we we do have

34:33illustrations.

34:35>> Okay.

34:36>> In in an engineering report. So,

34:38>> yeah. So, um I think I I want I want to

34:41be very clear. This is this is

34:43absolutely a a concept that I I am in

34:46full support of. Um I I don't know. I

34:50think it would be it would be good to

34:51have additional clarity on what

34:54[clears throat] what exactly is being

34:56where we are in the process of

34:58developing this project um and whether

35:00an ask for construction funding at this

35:03time is actually appropriate um given

35:06the the level of specificity that we

35:07have. And so that might be a good

35:09follow-up um conversation can add that

35:12add that to the agenda and potentially

35:14get additional information from some of

35:15the community members who are um who've

35:17been really really persistent and um

35:20tenacious in helping to move this

35:22project forward. So thank you. Thank

35:23you.

35:25>> Okay, Mr. B.

35:27>> Thank you. Yeah, one thing I'm like

35:29thinking about too, not to get too far

35:32down the road into debate, but um it is

35:36really cool, I think, when we have

35:37community members that sort of start

35:40projects and and raise funding. I'm

35:42thinking of uh the the Mushing Arch for

35:45instance. Um and sometimes it seems like

35:48those things kind of take a long time.

35:51And

35:52yeah, I'm always just I guess I'm

35:54curious about like how how can we be

35:56supportive of those community-led

35:58projects that have a lot of momentum

36:00because I think it's people also taking

36:01pride in our town and I like to support

36:04that stuff. But um I will say as far as

36:07the the conversation around the warming

36:09center um [clears throat] my what what I

36:12understand with this project proposal

36:14and having talked with the the people

36:15behind this for a few years now

36:17>> [snorts]

36:17>> um it c certainly would not be um I

36:20don't think the funds that have been

36:21raised or or the conversation around

36:23this project is geared toward um

36:28a homelessness response of any kind. Um

36:31this is a recreational facility and it

36:33would be more akin to the concaid chalet

36:36for instance. Um and actually I would

36:38posit that um the the highest usage of

36:42this would it be intended to be winter

36:45by the community. Um people who are

36:47using the skating oval uh you know

36:49families who want to take lessons and

36:51then have a a a nice warm place to drink

36:53hot chocolate and observe and and warm

36:55up and that kind of stuff. So, just want

36:57to make sure we know what we're um what

36:59what the overall goal is. You know, I'm

37:02I would assume anybody who's not being

37:04disruptive to others could come in and

37:06warm up. Um but that is the the primary

37:09purpose is more of a recreational

37:11facility. Thank you, Madam Chair.

37:14>> And Mr. Presia, and I will note he

37:16joined us in the room at about 10:30.

37:18>> Yeah, I think all my questions already

37:19been answered. Thank you.

37:20>> Okay. Um I don't have anybody else in

37:22the queue for this item. So, uh let us

37:25move on. So, next we have also in the

37:27CIB amendment 8, Mr. Well, this mayor

37:30and then Mr. Handelin.

37:32I don't know. I'll turn to Mr. Handle,

37:34but I'll also say if there's any that

37:35the mayor's co-sponsoring, if there's

37:37comments, please offer those as well.

37:38So, go ahead.

37:40>> I mean, I I'll I'll turn it over to

37:41owner. She she was the the main writer

37:43on this. [laughter] So,

37:45>> fair enough. Yes, that does happen.

37:50>> Uh, thank you to member Handelin and to

37:52the chair and the rest of the assembly.

37:54This is um frankly very interesting. Uh

37:57this proposal um through the

38:00conversations that we have had both in

38:02budget and finance and just generally

38:04throughout the municipality. We're

38:05trying to figure out ways to do things

38:07better, smarter, ideally cheaper. Um and

38:11in the long run, one of the things that

38:12we do is look at how we pay for things

38:16and whether or not there are other ways

38:18that we can stretch a dollar. Um, as

38:21part of the conversation this year

38:23around the proposal to add an ambulance

38:26to the areawide service, uh, we had

38:29conversations around, um, how does that

38:32impact the north and south communities,

38:35specifically when you add, you know,

38:37something to the middle or to an

38:39undesated areawide spot, where does the

38:43uh, ripple effect land? And when member

38:46Handelan was talking about that during

38:48the work sessions, um what many of you

38:52uh know some of is that we are working

38:54through AFD alignment with their budget,

38:57with their positions, making sure that

38:58we're analyzing their overtime, and how

39:00do we make particularly the police and

39:02fire departments who are our largest

39:05dollar consumers um more efficient and

39:08ideally uh be able to do more with what

39:11we currently have. One of the things

39:13that became clear in the conversations

39:16with Chuyak Volunteer Fire and Rescue

39:18and Gerwood Fire and Rescue who serve

39:22the um service areas by contract under

39:25AFD is that the um sort of coordination

39:29and the funding levels on EMS in

39:32particular for those service areas has

39:34not necessarily adjusted in a way that

39:37supports their operations.

39:40meaning the uh areawide portion that uh

39:43belongs to AFD proper sort of maintains

39:47their operations and whatever is

39:50possible to give to these contractual

39:52providers is sort of passed along. um

39:56cost increases, all the inflationary

39:58action over the last many years has

40:00meant that both of those um operational

40:02positions have sort of gone unfunded in

40:06lots of ways and we've been having

40:09conversations um with both of those

40:11entities particularly around how do we

40:13fix this going forward? What are the

40:16ways to do it? They are mil levy limited

40:19uh in both areas as you know we have tax

40:21caps too. But when we looked at the

40:24financing, um, we annually propose bond

40:30financing for ambulance purchases. And

40:34we I don't know for how many years. I

40:36still have to do a little bit more

40:37research um in order to get all of the

40:40final numbers on this, but I don't know

40:42how many years we have done this, but

40:43it's at least 10 years of annual bond

40:47requests of two ambulances, three

40:50ambulances, two ambulances, three

40:51ambulances, and it's $800,000 and $1.2

40:55million varying. Of course, any assembly

40:58or administration can increase that

41:00amount and put, you know, four

41:02ambulances on a bond or they cannot

41:05offer that request at all. That has

41:06happened in the past where we have gone

41:08a year or two without an ambulance

41:10approval. And really that just

41:12hamstrings the whole system um because

41:16part of the process so far hasn't

41:18necessarily integrated secured funding

41:21for Gerwood and Chooiak specifically.

41:24And um in looking at the financing when

41:27member Handelan was asking that

41:29question, I realized that we are this

41:31year asking a two ambulance bond request

41:35for the replacement plus an expansion of

41:38one ambulance with additional staff in

41:41order to increase the capacity.

41:44But but then I looked at the debt

41:46numbers on how much we pay doing that in

41:50a year-over-year process. and we end up

41:53paying more because we've been doing it

41:55for so long. So we now have this running

41:59trail of debt behind us for something

42:02that is an annual operating cost. I

42:04don't think any of us in this room

42:06necessarily are interested in decreasing

42:09the number of ambulances that we have

42:11providing service to the municipality of

42:13Anchorage. And if that is the case and

42:16it has been that way for years, then we

42:18should contemplate the idea that there

42:20is a better funding mechanism than

42:21acrewing debt on an annual cost. So

42:26going through this, the proposal

42:28basically would delete the recurring

42:31bond request and make an annual levy of

42:363.345 million that would provide funding

42:40for Chooak and Girdwood over and above

42:43what their current contract uh has

42:47because it is not enough to provide

42:49service. Plus, it secures the annual

42:52funding for them to set aside and then

42:55purchase those ambulances on a regular

42:58replacement cycle. Um, on page three of

43:01the amendment, you see the um sort of uh

43:06representation of what that capital

43:10request would look like in, you know, if

43:13we were going through our normal

43:14cadence. You see the bond numbers on the

43:18current proposal for 20 that should be

43:20in 2027. I should have moved this all

43:22down here. But uh so the current year we

43:25would have 1.18 which is the 380 bond

43:28request plus the 800. And then next year

43:31would be the $1.2 million recurring

43:34annual bond request for three

43:35ambulances.

43:37This graph incorporates the proposal of

43:41adding an ambulance with staff and then

43:44basically converts the whole funding

43:46mechanism to an annual levy that then

43:50saves us the bond debt of $300,000 plus

43:55a year, which is essentially almost

43:58another ambulance purchase.

44:00and and and um so part of this uh we

44:04need to continue pulling the the savings

44:07uh uh thread together to actually

44:11quantify exactly how much this will save

44:13over time. But essentially what it will

44:16do is it takes a borrowing model, puts

44:18the levy in place and then as the

44:20borrowing goes down the levy will

44:23continue and ideally the inflation

44:25adjustment with the levy payown will

44:28sort of flatten out over the few years

44:30as we get into paying it off. Um this is

44:36cheaper.

44:39>> Okay. And Mr. Handelin.

44:40>> Yeah. And I mean, credit to ONA on a lot

44:44of this stuff. I mean, some some of it

44:45is like, hey, sparking the idea and then

44:47then then bouncing off of it. But, uh,

44:49also, I mean, talking with Chief Dalton,

44:51he really, um, uh, is supportive of

44:54having it where I mean, in in the past,

44:56oftentimes it was like, okay, well, when

44:58Chuyak Eagle River or when Chuak

45:00volunteer fighter, but is essentially

45:01due the ambulance, it's like, okay,

45:03well, hey, here you you're going, they

45:04might be in a situation where, hey,

45:06normally they would say, hey, we might

45:08need it earlier. or hey, our our

45:10ambulance fleet is is well stopped.

45:12We're not going to sit there and say no

45:13to a a new one, but it might not be part

45:16of that kind of re uh that that that

45:19current cycle that they're in. So,

45:20giving them kind of that operational

45:22flexibility

45:24um to kind of kind of save and put away

45:26that money and say, "Okay, well, hey,

45:30this one we we might need to upgrade a

45:31little bit sooner or hey, we can

45:33actually stretch this out for two years

45:34and so then we're not upgrading uh

45:36quicker than than we need to." and then

45:38they have the flexibility to use that

45:40money uh more towards operations. And so

45:43um I really like this because yeah it

45:44gives the the service areas but I mean

45:46both in uh Chooak and then also for for

45:50Good Kwood the kind of the the

45:51operational flexibility to utilize that

45:54money.

45:56>> Okay, Mr. Bowen and I have myself in the

45:57queue.

45:58>> Thank you. I think I know the answer to

45:59this, but we've been having a lot of

46:01conversations around um

46:04service areas and and who pays for what

46:06and who benefits from what. Um and I

46:08know so does this do anything um to

46:11change who's paying for what

46:14>> to the chair member? No, this is the

46:17same area allocation that is currently

46:19paid. it would be slightly uh more in

46:22order to accommodate the um Shugyak

46:24Eagle or Gerwood portion of the

46:26contract, but overall it's the same uh

46:30subset, the same population paying the

46:32into the same system. And what I will

46:35add to that is one of the things that I

46:37really like about this is that if this

46:40were to uh become the way we did

46:43business, then we now all know how much

46:46it costs for ambulances in this

46:48municipality. We know it costs $8 per

46:51hundred,000 of valuation. That doesn't

46:54that's not how much it costs to operate

46:55them, right? With the people attached to

46:57them, but that is how much it costs.

46:59It's $40 a year for an average household

47:03to have ambulance service within the

47:05municipality of Anchorage available. And

47:07I think that is tangible in terms of the

47:10information the public wants.

47:13>> Awesome. Thank you.

47:14>> We have myself in the queue then, Mr.

47:16Martinez, Miss Baldwin, Miss uh Mr. Mr.

47:18President, um my question is quick. I

47:20think a lot of my questions were

47:21answered and then I'll also say um I

47:24guess at our fiscal future meeting last

47:26Friday, uh the public is very interested

47:28in in essentially how we change how

47:31we're doing things and making sure that

47:32we're paying for things. So I think this

47:33this seems like it's in the the space of

47:35that. But um the uh question I had was I

47:38I was actually surprised how how low the

47:41cost of an ambulance was. Um, so can you

47:43what is the cost and relatively speaking

47:46because I I was at a couple of these

47:47push-in ceremonies for fire engines. Can

47:49you do you happen to know the running

47:50cost of a fire engine, meaning the thing

47:52that has the water and all of the the

47:54tools and so on?

47:55>> So to to the chair, that's actually why

47:57this sort of clicked for me because I

47:59was looking at the bond request of

48:01$380,000 and I thought this is an

48:03ambulance. We buy this every year. Why

48:05are we paying debt on that? Um, and so I

48:08think the ambulances run between 375 and

48:11400 depending and the um, uh, engines

48:15are 1.2 to 1.5 I believe depending. Um,

48:19and so they the, you know, the

48:21ambulances are the more affordable rigs

48:24within the fire department. And so, um,

48:26whether or not it makes sense to do that

48:27with engines and ladder trucks, etc., we

48:30have to look at all the math. um there

48:31are fewer of those than there are

48:33ambulances. So the math might not work

48:36out quite as well, but um we are looking

48:38at at how all of that the same sort of

48:41consideration here, how does that look

48:43across the rest of municipal assets?

48:46>> Yeah. Yeah. And I'll just note I think

48:47we get questions like why is it why are

48:49we paying so much for that thing? And I

48:50just want to offer it's very different

48:52than a truck, a regular truck or a car

48:55or something like that. It's much more

48:56special. Anyway, um so I was surprised

48:58how affordable it was. Yeah. Uh okay. Uh

49:01next uh Mr. Martinez.

49:03>> Thank [clears throat] you chair. It's a

49:05similar line of inquiry with respect to

49:09understanding changes that are being

49:11described. But first is what's the

49:13difference between the the

49:15responsibility of a bond and versus a

49:18levy? Is is is a levy fundamentally a

49:22tax where a bond is a different

49:25instrument? Can you describe that

49:27>> through the chair to member Martinez?

49:28That's a great question because it's

49:30actually the part that I wanted to

49:31clarify that right there is a

49:33significant difference between a bond

49:35and a levy. Bond is a financing

49:37mechanism and it's it's a borrowing

49:39mechanism. A levy is a a tax levy,

49:42right? It is an a certain amount on

49:44[clears throat] an annual basis that you

49:48uh collect from the community. A bond is

49:51a financing mechanism that you are

49:53approved to use to make a purchase and

49:56then whatever the bond terms are or

49:59whatever the financing terms are you

50:00have to repay that debt over time. So

50:03there is a significant difference in

50:05terms of the impact to the taxpayer in

50:09any one single year if you bond versus

50:12if you levy because you know the bond

50:14process may increase your allocation by

50:18you know 20 cents this year 40 cents the

50:20next year 60. The challenge with that is

50:23that after a certain number of years,

50:25you have essentially put yourself in the

50:28same position as an annual levy dollar

50:31amount. And so the question is, where

50:34are we in that threshold on all of these

50:37different assets? Have we now

50:39accumulated so much debt that

50:41transitioning to an annual levy is

50:45cheaper in the 5 to 10 year run than the

50:49way we are doing it currently? Are they

50:51annual operating costs that we would not

50:53expect to ever decrease? Or if they do,

50:57because this is a specific ballot

50:59question, you know, this could be a

51:01reauthorization question. It could be

51:03an, you know, uh you can have it extend

51:06all the way through. It can end after

51:07five years, three years, however long

51:09the reauthorization needs to take place.

51:12um that may be important either if the

51:15program ever needed to change to

51:17decrease or potentially increase if

51:20another ambulance needed to be added. So

51:22I think the communication back and forth

51:24between the uh the community and the MOA

51:28is important in terms of what the

51:30service levels are, but this essentially

51:33is the baseline of a service level. So

51:37the areawwide service level for

51:39ambulances

51:41we're setting in this

51:44ballot proposal we would say the

51:47baseline service level of the

51:48municipality of Anchorage is 19

51:50ambulances and it costs this much.

51:52Anytime we go above that or the costs

51:55increase and we need more, we can

51:57explain how and what happened and that

51:59is either a service level adjustment

52:02because the service is expanding and

52:04more is happening or it is a cost

52:07increase because inflation has gone up

52:09and we need to adjust for that cost

52:11increase. So there's there's more

52:12clarity in terms of um transparency into

52:16the budget and what it pays for.

52:21>> For uh additional context, the nature of

52:24a bond is not stable per se. It changes

52:28across markets and across time. So at

52:31some points in time, a bond is a more

52:33useful tool than than a media taxation.

52:36So I think it

52:37>> through the chair member Martinez.

52:38Absolutely. and and and that is right

52:41the the more we can expand the tools we

52:44have in the toolbox the more we have the

52:46opportunity to do things cheaper and

52:48more efficiently because sometimes we

52:51get stuck in the clunky box and we can't

52:53get out of it and and I think that there

52:56are there are um there are challenges

53:00that come with where we used to be and

53:03we were building huge buildings and we

53:06were borrowing for large projects

53:09But now because of our revenue

53:11situation, we are borrowing for

53:13everything

53:14>> and and that does not compute with the

53:17way the math lands over the last 30 to

53:2040 years.

53:22>> So who would be able who would be voting

53:24on this?

53:26>> Uh through the chair member Martinez.

53:27This is an area question. So all of the

53:30municipality would vote on this.

53:36you uh

53:40it's interesting

53:43where uh because I'm interested in the

53:45the philosophy of of the idea, right? Um

53:52I mean, if you could buy your home with

53:54cash, you would not mortgage it.

53:56>> Correct.

53:57>> Right. Um

53:59>> through the chair. That depends.

54:00>> Depend. But that's that's See, that's

54:02the other part. And and so I was

54:04wondering about where how how this is

54:09unique in terms of

54:12this particular item, this particular

54:14project or are you talking

54:16philosophically of of a a change that it

54:20makes sense across other areas as well?

54:23And then go to Mr. bonus point. Are we

54:26talking about

54:28um

54:30getting more direct with

54:33who pays for what or we don't do it? I

54:37mean, because that's the that's

54:38essentially the question of a bond is we

54:41know you don't want to get taxed now.

54:44So, it's easier to digest the cost over

54:48time rather than have the $40 out of

54:52your um and so then the question becomes

54:55how do you break it all down and the

54:58entire budget down in similar lanes and

55:01then who gets to choose which you know

55:04what what those conflicts look like. So,

55:05I'm just interested in that larger

55:07question. And it may not be here for the

55:09depth of it, but at least the touch

55:10point

55:11>> uh through the chair to member Martinez.

55:13I I think uh the answer to all of the

55:17questions is yes.

55:19In terms of the philosophy, um I think

55:23that this is this kind of thinking, this

55:26philosophy is one of the tools in the

55:27toolbox. And so when we are looking

55:29across the municipality in each of the

55:31columns, we can pick this up and say,

55:33does this work over here? Does this work

55:34over here? Does this work over here?

55:37As you said, there may not be, you know,

55:40reason or it may be make more sense to

55:43borrow for a specific purchase that is

55:45$40 million because that would be a very

55:50um low annual increase over a long

55:52period of time for a large dollar

55:54project. But this is an operating cost.

55:58Buying an ambulance that we know we're

56:01going to use and have used for 20 years

56:04is an operating cost. and we should not

56:07be paying debt on those operating costs

56:09if we don't have to. And so really the

56:12the the

56:15>> who who breaks it all down, who does

56:17that? I mean, respectfully, I do. And

56:21and and and I and I think that that is

56:24>> we could tell this is a three-page

56:25[laughter]

56:27that I think is the is is what I am

56:31saying is that I think we can look at

56:32this more. Um, I don't know if it if it

56:36works across other assets and other uh

56:39operating uh departments, but I think

56:42that it can because

56:45because

56:48it feels like it's supposed to. We're

56:50trying to get out of this weird bag that

56:52we're in. We're all saying it's not it

56:54this isn't right. This doesn't feel like

56:56how. And I think that it's because we

56:59need to change it. And and so looking at

57:02this um that doesn't mean that we don't

57:05have a tax cap or any of that. It means

57:07we're looking at how we're paying for

57:09things and whether or not it is

57:12reasonable to continue doing it that

57:15way. if we have changed our patterns in

57:18the intervening 1015 years and um and so

57:22pulling the details on the savings on

57:25this I think will give us a little more

57:26clarity on how this works and uh looking

57:30for other examples of what this might

57:32look like. But I think that the more

57:36this kind of thing happens, the closer

57:39we can get to uh the question member

57:43Perez Verdia asked a few work sessions

57:45ago like what is the baseline? How do we

57:47do that? Well, we said it. You said it.

57:50And so we ask the public, do you want to

57:53pay this amount for this thing? And so

57:57this is a a small sort of subset, a

57:59microcosm of ambulance that we can put

58:02our hands around and figure out if that

58:03works and and we'll be doing more of it.

58:06>> All right.

58:07>> Okay. Just as a time check, it's 11:00

58:09a.m. Uh we're about halfway through the

58:11packet. I've got four more folks in the

58:12queue. So just asking if we can try to

58:14get toward wrapping up this

58:15conversation. Thanks.

58:19>> Uh yeah, I'll follow up with the the

58:21interruption took my question right from

58:24my head. So, um, thank you, chair.

58:31>> Okay. Sorry. Uh, yeah, I want to make

58:32sure we have plenty of time to discuss

58:33our operating budget amendments. Um, and

58:35then I don't think we're going to go

58:36past uh, noon at this point. So, uh,

58:38next, Miss Wald Day,

58:41thank you. I just want to do that thing

58:42I do where I clarify that I know what

58:44we're talking about in plain language so

58:45I can explain it to other people. Uh, so

58:47I think what we're doing here is is two

58:49things and please tell me if I'm

58:51correct. So the first thing we're doing

58:53is we're basically saying we've been

58:54paying for ambulances and associated

58:56humans with basically a loan

59:01that's labeled bonds and we've been

59:03doing that for a while. Um and we have

59:06been charged interest on those loans and

59:08that interest is expensive. And so what

59:10we are doing now is we are moving to a

59:12system where we know what it costs and

59:14we are going to pay upfront for those

59:16things while we are paying down the debt

59:19that we have acrewed on the things we've

59:21already done.

59:22uh through the chair to member Baldwin

59:23Day almost uh love that for me. Go

59:26ahead.

59:26>> Uh 98% correct at the very beginning you

59:29said we have borrowed for ambulances and

59:32the humans. Um we have not borrowed for

59:34the humans on ambulances. This um

59:36expansion proposal is the first proposal

59:38to say we need to add the amount of

59:41money to pay for the ambulance and the

59:44humans because we need to grow the

59:46amount of uh revenue under the areawide

59:49service

59:51but uh the rest of it is correct.

59:54Excellent. Okay, I will take 98%. Thank

59:57you. Um, and then the second thing we're

59:59doing is we're giving Tuyak and and

1:00:01Girdwood volunteer fire departments more

1:00:03flexibility, more agency over their sort

1:00:06of unique EMS needs where they are.

1:00:08We're giving them the ability to sort of

1:00:10self-manage that rather than us being

1:00:12like, "And now you get an ambulance and

1:00:15now you get an ambulance.

1:00:16>> Now you get an ambulance [laughter]

1:00:18through through the chair to member

1:00:20Baldwin Day." Yes. and and you you said

1:00:23they're distinct uh geographic areas or

1:00:25service areas and and that is important

1:00:28in terms of both of the landscapes of

1:00:30those areas. Um particularly Gerwood has

1:00:33very interesting apparatus in terms of

1:00:35what they have to do for rescue and and

1:00:38all of the other issues that come with

1:00:40the fabulous mountain town of Gerwood.

1:00:42Uh so I think that that that is a

1:00:46significant change mainly significant

1:00:49for for Judia and Gerwood but

1:00:52specifically for any of us who are in

1:00:54that those areas ever and I think a lot

1:00:58of the municipality is

1:00:59>> yeah okay um and I think the last thing

1:01:02really is is just a comment and that is

1:01:03you know I really appreciate this

1:01:05conversation about like what is our

1:01:06baseline service level um and I I hope

1:01:09that as we carry this conversation

1:01:11forward that where we're not treating a

1:01:14baseline service level as an ideal or

1:01:17optimal service level that like this is

1:01:19what we are doing, this is how much it

1:01:21costs us, but that might not actually be

1:01:24the right answer over the long haul. Um

1:01:27especially when we're contemplating the

1:01:30current uh demand on services at this

1:01:34current service level. So, just wanted

1:01:36to put that out there that our our

1:01:38baseline service level now is 19

1:01:39ambulances, maybe we shouldn't say that

1:01:41that is the right number of ambulances

1:01:43for us to have, you know, in perpetuity.

1:01:45Okay. Thank you.

1:01:46>> Yeah. Next is Persia.

1:01:49>> Yeah, I I think we've exhausted this.

1:01:50I've most of my questions have been

1:01:52answered. Thank you,

1:01:53>> Mr. Volunt.

1:01:55>> Thank you. So, um I think I just wanted

1:01:58to highlight that this is well, I like

1:02:01this model and we've been successful

1:02:02with it. We've we did a special levy for

1:02:05um fleet replacement I I believe for

1:02:08APD. We did a special levy for um some

1:02:10snowplow uh equipment and voters passed

1:02:14uh those things. Um

1:02:17is this sort of indicative do we do we

1:02:20imagine or maybe we don't know yet but

1:02:22the levy that's going to this is going

1:02:24to be part of

1:02:26is this like a standalone thing or is

1:02:27are there other things that are going to

1:02:29be included on that levy?

1:02:31uh to the chair to member Voland I this

1:02:33should be a standalone question and and

1:02:35that's another thing that sort of made

1:02:36me uh realize that we could do this is

1:02:40in the work session when we were

1:02:41explaining how bonds have the you know

1:02:43bond question for the borrowing and then

1:02:45the small O andM levy portion my brain

1:02:48just sort of said why don't we we just

1:02:50make the whole thing the actual purchase

1:02:52as opposed to putting the financing

1:02:54mechanism in at all um and so it would

1:02:56be a standalone question so so I think

1:02:59one of the things that we have to weigh

1:03:01is if um if is if this is

1:03:05uh approved the is it the only question

1:03:07around ambulances on the ballot? You

1:03:10know, does that limit the choice and

1:03:11then mean that if it is not approved

1:03:13that we're out of a cycle? But I think

1:03:15that um we can do that calculation

1:03:18between now and January when we have to

1:03:20figure out what actually goes onto the

1:03:22ballot for final and determine what the

1:03:25what the right sort of tenor of that

1:03:27conversation might be.

1:03:29>> Thank you. getting the strand on.

1:03:32>> Yeah, just some kind of uh follow

1:03:33comments on this. So, I mean essentially

1:03:35we are already paying for this and it's

1:03:37like we have these bonds where it's like

1:03:38hey we are putting small amounts and

1:03:40then collectively and stuff we are

1:03:41paying more than the $40 and so by doing

1:03:45it this way we are saving money we're

1:03:48going to be able to get more and so it's

1:03:49just how how essentially we are we're

1:03:52structuring that that system there

1:03:55>> through the chair member handling. Yes.

1:03:56And and the other thing I didn't mention

1:03:58is that the other thing that you know we

1:04:00don't have to uh pay for when we don't

1:04:02use a financing mechanism is the actual

1:04:04cost of issuing the financing. And so

1:04:06that initial cost upfront goes away too.

1:04:09So and then this just becomes an regular

1:04:12procurement that goes through the

1:04:14contractual approval and gets delivered.

1:04:16So it becomes much more simple. Also,

1:04:18the the the more we decrease our bond

1:04:21debt schedules and all of the things

1:04:23that are contained within the ACER means

1:04:25that the ACER is easier to complete and

1:04:28quicker. So, um all of these things sort

1:04:30of move us in a better way.

1:04:38Okay. Um so, I don't have anyone else in

1:04:41the queue. So, that that concludes our

1:04:43capital budget amendments. Um, so we are

1:04:46going to now turn to the operating

1:04:47budget. So I'll note we're about halfway

1:04:48through our uh packet uh more or less.

1:04:51So we'll continue through there again in

1:04:53order and then um and then I also want

1:04:55to make sure that we reserve a few

1:04:56minutes at the end because I need to

1:04:58have our budget analyst talk through our

1:04:59process and then just some reminders

1:05:01about how we get between now and Tuesday

1:05:03the 17th. So uh next we have item uh

1:05:06amendment nine. Uh so that is uh members

1:05:08handle and Girker. So uh please uh

1:05:10proceed.

1:05:11>> Yeah. And then Matt Kirkshank who is the

1:05:13vice chair. if you want to come up uh to

1:05:16potentially uh answer some some

1:05:19questions here. He's the vice chair of

1:05:20the subversive board. Uh so this

1:05:22amendment what it does is um

1:05:26>> Oh yeah, one one of the microphones.

1:05:30>> Yeah. And staff can get you a

1:05:31microphone.

1:05:33>> And I'll just just note because it is

1:05:35sort of unusual for us to have other

1:05:36folks at the table for our amendment

1:05:38work session. So I'll just remind folks

1:05:40um this is for answering questions. Um

1:05:42and then uh yeah. So, thank you. And

1:05:44folks can follow up offline if they have

1:05:46detailed questions. Go ahead.

1:05:47>> Yeah. So, uh what this amendment does is

1:05:50it um transfers uh $4.27 million to from

1:05:54public transit to the suburba board. So,

1:05:57right now in uh uh Eagle River Chugiak,

1:06:00we are paying into uh the transit system

1:06:03and the uh ability of people out uh in

1:06:07Chuggyak Eagle River 2 to utilize the

1:06:08system is is is very limited. Uh we have

1:06:12route 92 that um uh is operated out

1:06:15there. It's a commuter route is only

1:06:17operated uh both in in the morning and

1:06:19evenings on on weekdays. And it is the

1:06:22most expensive route. It costs uh uh 31

1:06:26uh dollars per passenger. So um when the

1:06:30the big buses are going up and down the

1:06:32highway, there's about three and a half

1:06:34people on the bus at a time. Uh I mean

1:06:37this is I mean the the next highest one

1:06:40uh in in the municipality is $13 per per

1:06:43cost of travel and so it is I mean it is

1:06:45is extreme amount. So total operations

1:06:47for for that bus system is uh about five

1:06:50uh $560,000.

1:06:52And so what we are proposing to do is to

1:06:56uh eliminate that route uh completely

1:06:59and then have the money that uh the

1:07:02proportional funds that Chooak Eagle

1:07:04River are paying into that system for

1:07:06that to be transferred to Subursa to be

1:07:09utilized for the transportation needs uh

1:07:12of that community. Um because the subura

1:07:15board has I mean just like the rest of

1:07:16the municipality has been seeing uh

1:07:19impacts with uh their budget uh in terms

1:07:22of having to reduce uh um snow plowing

1:07:26along uh pedestrian walkways and um it's

1:07:30just how we have to do it uh given given

1:07:32the uh budget constraints there. And so,

1:07:35uh, with this, um, this amendment, I'm

1:07:38happy to kind of can kind of answer some

1:07:40some questions on it, but, um, or Jared

1:07:45has some things, but it's also I I would

1:07:47like to I guess if you could just give

1:07:48kind of a brief, uh, kind of potential

1:07:51impact of of what uh, some of these

1:07:54funding uh, this this additional

1:07:55funding, what kind of subsa could be

1:07:57could be doing uh, with this.

1:08:00>> Thank you. And please turn on the

1:08:01microphone. to press the button and when

1:08:03the light is green, you can speak and

1:08:04then make sure to Oh, you have to hold

1:08:06it down a little bit.

1:08:08There you go. And then make sure to put

1:08:09your name on the record. Thanks.

1:08:11>> Through the chair, Matt Crookshank, vice

1:08:13chair of Subersa. Uh so Subersa is

1:08:16broken down into two separate mill

1:08:18rates. We have a 1.1 for operating in a

1:08:21one for CIP. Uh over the past several

1:08:25years, we had a significant contract

1:08:26escalation with our last year with the

1:08:29the contract uh holder was McKenna and

1:08:32we had generally speaking, we're paying

1:08:33for the hourly rates of contract

1:08:35equipment. It had roughly about a 25% uh

1:08:39average [clears throat]

1:08:39across all of our pieces of equipment.

1:08:42We've now awarded a new contract and

1:08:44have about an additional 25 to 30% uh

1:08:48average cost uh for the equipment right

1:08:50there. Our current our current uh mill

1:08:53rate is at 1.1 right now. We've been at

1:08:56the the cap now for several years right

1:08:58now. Uh, and why I'm just mentioning

1:09:00this is uh we do not have any additional

1:09:04uh funding to put into uh sidewalks. And

1:09:07why I mention sidewalks is an easy one

1:09:09because the constituents out in Chuko

1:09:11River extremely value connectivity to

1:09:13different areas in the area. And we have

1:09:16something called uh hazardous roadways

1:09:18or hazardous uh hazardous bike paths. So

1:09:22the number one thing we get is uh why

1:09:24can't you plow our bike path? I'd like

1:09:27to commute to different locations right

1:09:29there and uh we have the difficult

1:09:32challenge to prioritize the roadways and

1:09:34with our now limited budget and the

1:09:37increase in our expenditure across the

1:09:41uh portfolio of Chie River we are uh put

1:09:44into a difficult situation that we have

1:09:46to cut ultimately uh bike paths I mean I

1:09:52poor term but it low hanging fruit uh is

1:09:54probably the easiest place to So, so

1:09:57with additional funding, what I would

1:09:59envision is we'd have two major extreme

1:10:01benefits to the community right there.

1:10:04First, uh hazardous walkways always

1:10:07prioritizing schools and major uh

1:10:09transit routes is always going to be a

1:10:11priority. It would be amazing to be able

1:10:13to offer that, but also uh microtransit.

1:10:16I think microtransit it would be an

1:10:19amazing uh both for future development

1:10:21of the area. right now we don't have the

1:10:24connectivity that Anchorage has and so

1:10:26as the new developments are going up

1:10:28right now. Uh walkability is not really

1:10:31uh an item right there. So actually

1:10:33creating some type of transit system and

1:10:35I know there's some federal uh dollars

1:10:37potentially coming to a sample

1:10:39microtransit system out there but that's

1:10:40not a sustainable model. So, additional

1:10:43funds coming through our uh subersa,

1:10:46everyone I think knows what sub chuk

1:10:48birchwood eagle river rural road work

1:10:49service area. Uh I think would be

1:10:52amazing to have a microtransit system

1:10:55out in river where we can uh prioritize

1:10:58our

1:11:00groups [clears throat] that don't

1:11:01actually uh have the funding to afford

1:11:03uh vehicles to commute to different

1:11:05locations. Our senior center um right

1:11:08now we only have a single bus route 92.

1:11:11uh it's not utilized. Uh over the past

1:11:14uh 10 years, we've had a couple of

1:11:15routes and they've slowly been all cut.

1:11:18Uh so currently we do not have a transit

1:11:20system in place with Chu Gigle River. So

1:11:23I would think uh any type of funding

1:11:25investment into directly I think we're

1:11:27coming up on 40,000 uh population would

1:11:30be a good investment.

1:11:32>> Thank you. And so uh just uh a little

1:11:34bit of background on uh how how this

1:11:36number came up with. Um this was using

1:11:39the uh transit bus systems uh um budget

1:11:44uh taking out uh any federal any

1:11:46wrership amount. And so this is just the

1:11:48the allocation the pr-rated uh uh local

1:11:52share that is going currently into the

1:11:55transit system from the people of Chooak

1:11:57Eagle River. And so this is not p p p p

1:12:00p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p

1:12:00pulling anything out of uh uh the

1:12:02Anchorage Bull. It's just uh allowing uh

1:12:05the people of Chugi Eagle River to

1:12:07essentially keep the uh funding that

1:12:09they are paying uh for transit so that

1:12:11it can be utilized uh in the community

1:12:13as they see fit.

1:12:18>> Okay. I have Mr. Martinez in the queue

1:12:19then myself and Mr. Bol.

1:12:22>> Thank you, Chair.

1:12:25Um, budget director,

1:12:33do we have uh

1:12:37how

1:12:40how is transit funded today?

1:12:44Bus people mover specifically, how is it

1:12:46funded

1:12:48and how is it distributed?

1:12:53Well, through the chair member Martinez.

1:12:54I'd need to get my book and look

1:12:56specifically, but uh but through it's

1:12:59through areawide and federal funding as

1:13:02well as any other grants that are

1:13:03required as far as I know.

1:13:08>> And how it's distributed? You mean how

1:13:10is the how is the funding collected? And

1:13:15is this the representation from

1:13:18>> an areawide model

1:13:19>> to the distribution of those resources?

1:13:22in fact through bus routes. How is that

1:13:25distributed? Is it is does it follow the

1:13:29collection model

1:13:31or is it need-based

1:13:34>> uh through the chair? I don't know. I

1:13:36would need to ask uh Director Rudolph in

1:13:39order to determine how they actually

1:13:42align those, but I don't know that it

1:13:45has any specific

1:13:48uh formula that says that this corner

1:13:52gets this dollar amount, this corner

1:13:54gets this dollar amount. I don't I don't

1:13:56know if that is how the system is

1:13:58planned.

1:13:59>> Yeah. Similarly, I haven't heard of bus

1:14:03routes being determined

1:14:06based on

1:14:08tax taxing districts, right? So like

1:14:12because

1:14:14this is how much is collected here,

1:14:15there's a bus that goes here and and we

1:14:17follow the route similarly

1:14:19>> through the chair to member Martinez.

1:14:20Correct. I do not think that that

1:14:21happens.

1:14:22>> Okay. So, so the nature of of the

1:14:25collection areawide to the distribution

1:14:28is not based on the taxing districts per

1:14:30se. It's based on a different

1:14:31methodology,

1:14:33development, growth patterns,

1:14:34demographic,

1:14:35>> correct,

1:14:36>> a variety of other things. um

1:14:41to the sponsors essentially

1:14:44the nature of the request.

1:14:49It seems like there's two requests here

1:14:52and I wanted to just peer peer them out

1:14:55a little bit. is the $560,000

1:14:58for the bus line is when we remove that

1:15:02bus line,

1:15:09how do you get how is it the how is that

1:15:12five where does that $500,000 live to

1:15:16the nature of the remedy? So if the

1:15:20remedy is proportional representation,

1:15:22how do you take from $500,000 off a bus

1:15:24line that is being used today and turn

1:15:26it into a proportional share of more

1:15:29than $4 million

1:15:32to the sponsors?

1:15:33>> Yeah. So I can answer that. So right

1:15:35now, Chug Eagle River, the average

1:15:39homeowner is paying around $360

1:15:42into the transit system. What as far as

1:15:45I can see that we are receiving back in

1:15:48terms of transit services is route 92

1:15:53which is about half a million and then

1:15:56about $90,000 that comes in to Chugek

1:15:59Eagle River Senior Center in terms of

1:16:01their portion of uh anchor rides. And so

1:16:06the I guess issue that we are I guess

1:16:09raising here is that this is an area

1:16:12wide tax that we are paying into and

1:16:15that we are not do uh do not feel that

1:16:18we are receiving anywhere close to a

1:16:21proportional share of the tax dollars

1:16:23that are going into that system. I mean

1:16:26right now for someone to utilize the

1:16:28system the average person out has to

1:16:31have a car to get to the bus system.

1:16:35And so when we are talking to people out

1:16:37in the community of what transit and

1:16:39what the needs are that they would like,

1:16:41it is interconnected within Chooak Eagle

1:16:44River, it is not we want to go downtown.

1:16:47And as far as the the $31 here to to get

1:16:51down, I went and checked an Uber ride

1:16:54here today. It is $29.

1:17:00And so I mean that's and that's for

1:17:02four. I mean, so we are we are right now

1:17:05that that route is severely

1:17:08I mean we're we're paying way more than

1:17:10we're we're actually receiving. I mean,

1:17:12and this this is for t uh the taxpayers

1:17:14and so just trying to I guess shift it

1:17:17so that hey chew river we can get get a

1:17:20system that we're we're paying for.

1:17:23So to follow up with one additional

1:17:26question, has the analysis been done and

1:17:28this is probably to the sponsors if the

1:17:30assertion is essentially a proportionate

1:17:33share related to the amount of

1:17:37tax collected should be distributed in

1:17:40that particular area. Is that is that an

1:17:42analysis that's been done citywide so

1:17:44that we know that that's true for

1:17:46everywhere else?

1:17:49I chose the the test tax districts that

1:17:52are in my uh area there because there is

1:17:54a uh current road service model that uh

1:17:57aligned with that that we were able to

1:18:00sit there and say, "Hey, this this is an

1:18:02operational body that knows the um the

1:18:06transit needs of of the community that

1:18:08could administer that and develop the

1:18:09programs that um the community needs."

1:18:13>> Thank you. I I had enough.

1:18:16Um, I have a couple uh questions. A

1:18:19couple for the sponsors and one for Mr.

1:18:20Krookchang. Thanks for being here. Um,

1:18:22one is uh I know the [snorts] decision

1:18:24about our routes and where they go and

1:18:27and you know expansion all of those

1:18:28things that runs through the transit

1:18:30department and then there's a whole

1:18:32federal process. There's notice

1:18:33deadlines, things like that. So, I guess

1:18:35to the sponsors, have you all spoken

1:18:37with the department about this or or um

1:18:39I know the timeline is short. Um was

1:18:41there any intention to bring this to the

1:18:42public transit advisory board or any of

1:18:44those folks who talk more about the kind

1:18:45of route planning side?

1:18:47>> Uh so I did talk to uh um

1:18:51[clears throat] uh transit uh not

1:18:53specifically about this amendment but

1:18:54about some some other stuff um kind of

1:18:57uh my concerns but not not about this

1:19:00this item uh specifically but plan to.

1:19:03>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be

1:19:04helpful to understand because I think

1:19:05it's just important to understand that

1:19:06we we budget for the routes, but there's

1:19:09another process for determining those.

1:19:10So, I don't know what the timeline is on

1:19:12that. I know it takes a long time

1:19:13because if you discontinue, you have to

1:19:15give notice, but um which doesn't mean

1:19:17that we can't change the budget, but I

1:19:18think that'd be helpful to understand.

1:19:20Uh and then uh just for clarity, so it

1:19:23looks like basically the proposal is

1:19:24that um a portion of what is now within

1:19:27an area, it's not really a service area,

1:19:30but an area service would then be

1:19:33transferred essentially to a service

1:19:34area. Is that correct?

1:19:36>> Yeah. And I guess one one of the things

1:19:37that I kind of look at this similar to

1:19:39what we do with ankor rides right now is

1:19:41Ankor Rides does not operate on Chooiak

1:19:43Eagle River. we are giving money to the

1:19:462D senior center to essentially perform

1:19:49those duties. And so I'm looking at this

1:19:51essentially parallel to it of hey the

1:19:53the taxes are uh collected arewide the

1:19:56portion that is being contributed from

1:19:58the community of Chiak Eagle River. We

1:20:00are sitting there and giving that to the

1:20:02subursive board to set to then go and

1:20:05determine uh their priorities, their

1:20:07needs and then actually go and

1:20:09administer those programs because

1:20:10they've got staff, they've got uh kind

1:20:13of the the pulse on the community there

1:20:15uh to be able to kind of move much more

1:20:17nimly.

1:20:18>> Okay. Thanks. Yeah, I think um the

1:20:20conversation has come up in the context

1:20:22of CASA about essentially you know

1:20:24moving funds from one service area to

1:20:26another. So I would want to understand

1:20:27if there's any precedent and that's

1:20:29maybe a question more for the

1:20:30administration as a followup just you

1:20:32know if and where we do that. Um I

1:20:34imagine there's Torres and other

1:20:35mechanisms to do that as well. So that's

1:20:37something I would like to understand.

1:20:38And then um my last question is for uh

1:20:41Mr. Krookshen. You mentioned uh the

1:20:43subersa mill rate and and all of that. I

1:20:45know this isn't proposing to change

1:20:46that. I'm just wondering what is the

1:20:48mechanism to change the mill rate? And I

1:20:49say that because I remember a couple

1:20:51years ago having former assembly member

1:20:53Kennedy testify because I think there

1:20:55was something on the ballot. So I guess

1:20:56I'm wondering what is the mechanism to

1:20:59consider changing the operating or

1:21:00capital mill rate for subersa and have

1:21:02those discussions happened within subura

1:21:04in the last year or so

1:21:06>> through the chair. Uh yes those

1:21:08conversations have been had we had a

1:21:10ballot initiative uh I believe last year

1:21:12to increase the mill rate cap to 1.3 1.4

1:21:17uh to give additional flexibility with

1:21:19the increased expenditure that we were

1:21:21having. Uh ultimately the voters voted

1:21:24down that initiative

1:21:27>> and then um either to you or Miss Brow.

1:21:29So and remind me because I know there's

1:21:30some things where everyone in the MUN

1:21:32votes for example Gerdwood uh it's

1:21:34something that impacts Gerwood. It's

1:21:35their service area but it's the full

1:21:36faith and credit would something like

1:21:38that um the subsa is that something that

1:21:41is voted on area and to either of you if

1:21:43you know is that an area wide or is it

1:21:44only the uh service area voters? to the

1:21:48chair. It's service area voters only to

1:21:51increase their mill rate. Okay. Thank

1:21:52you. Um okay, those are my questions. Um

1:21:55Mr. Font.

1:21:57>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think

1:22:00>> um Okay, I want to make sure I'm

1:22:02tracking here. So, the the cost of

1:22:04people mover Route 92 is about 560,000,

1:22:09>> right?

1:22:09>> Okay. Um but what this purports if I

1:22:13understand correctly is to so all of the

1:22:16taxes for this purpose

1:22:19from this region of the municipality

1:22:23um would stay within that region.

1:22:25>> Correct.

1:22:25>> Okay.

1:22:27I think that's interesting. I think it's

1:22:29also like interesting in light of the

1:22:32prior um amendment for Mr. are handling

1:22:34where you know we're using areawide

1:22:36funds to give more flexibility to areas

1:22:39like Eagle River and Gerwood and I just

1:22:42want to go back to the services service

1:22:44area conversation is essentially what

1:22:46this is doing it's not just

1:22:48deprogramming one route

1:22:51it is deprogramming

1:22:53Eagle Rivers contributions elsewhere in

1:22:56the municipality to transit and so you

1:22:59know what if District 1 North Anchorage

1:23:01decided we don't want to pay for bus

1:23:03service in South Anchorage. We don't

1:23:04want to pay for bus service in East

1:23:06Anchorage. Like, would that be a fair

1:23:09thing? What What are What are if if the

1:23:11contributions are are wide, you know,

1:23:14we're not just paying for my little

1:23:15hamlet, I'm paying for the services in

1:23:18my city. Um,

1:23:21I guess I just want to hear a little bit

1:23:23more from the sponsor on on how

1:23:28did you look at maybe just taking the

1:23:30the people mover route 92 amount and

1:23:33programming that to the Chuggeek Eagle

1:23:36River Senior Center? Well, I mean, I

1:23:38guess I mean, as the I guess through the

1:23:40history of the people mover and as

1:23:42routes have been cut and it's

1:23:44oftentimes, hey, around the the

1:23:46outskirts of town that are doing it, but

1:23:49the amount of money that those people

1:23:51are spending towards that that that

1:23:54transit does not change. And so it's not

1:23:57I mean the the way that I was was

1:23:59looking at it was that uh I mean when

1:24:02you have a fire service area

1:24:05this is not that oh hey your house is

1:24:09further away it's going to take farther

1:24:10away. is

1:24:12on this the the fire department will

1:24:15never come because it is is so the the

1:24:20people mover system is so far away that

1:24:22it is really infeasible for anyone who

1:24:26doesn't live near one of these uh bus

1:24:29stops and I'm actually one of the people

1:24:30who who does live near near one of them

1:24:33that it it really doesn't make it a in

1:24:37any way practical for for people

1:24:40in Chewyak Eagle River to utilize the

1:24:42system. And I think that's I guess uh

1:24:45characteristic of the

1:24:48usage rate on that 92. And so um I

1:24:52[clears throat] think that that that

1:24:53should be eliminated and that was kind

1:24:55of more of a thing of like hey just just

1:24:56from a from a a I guess cost savings uh

1:25:00perspective but then it was okay well

1:25:02Eagle River Tube Gekk is essentially not

1:25:03in in the system. We would like to I

1:25:07guess keep the money that we're trying

1:25:08to do and and develop our own systems.

1:25:10It's not sitting here saying, "Hey,

1:25:11we're trying to trying to pull something

1:25:13out of Anchorage." It's more of, "Hey,

1:25:14this is the thing that we're we're

1:25:16paying into uh and wanting to utilize

1:25:19that."

1:25:20>> Sure. But it but it does impact bus

1:25:23service elsewhere in Anchorage, I guess.

1:25:25Yeah.

1:25:26>> Yeah. And I'm perfectly [snorts]

1:25:27thinking of like, yeah, there are I

1:25:28guess but I guess the fundamental

1:25:31question is is bus systems in other

1:25:34parts of the the area of the

1:25:36municipality. Should those necessarily

1:25:39be I guess impacting people who are not

1:25:42utilizing that not not able to to fully

1:25:45utilize and them them essentially having

1:25:47to to subsidize that that system and I'm

1:25:49not Yeah sure I understand you know if

1:25:52if I don't go to the park should I pay

1:25:53for the park? I don't know. But um I I

1:25:55will just I I think I would be curious

1:25:57to see this maybe come back in a form um

1:26:01that doesn't entirely eliminate uh Eagle

1:26:04River's contribution to bus service in

1:26:06the rest of the municipality, but maybe

1:26:08can um do something to support the Chiak

1:26:11Eagle River Senior Center. So for what

1:26:13that's worth, um I I guess I will just

1:26:15socialize that as my response. Thank

1:26:17you, Chair.

1:26:18>> Okay, Mr. Martinez. Just one clarifying

1:26:21question uh to the sponsor. So the the

1:26:24intent would be to not have any

1:26:28connected service between Eagle River

1:26:31and Anchorage. Correct. Is now. Okay.

1:26:34Thank you.

1:26:37>> Okay. I think that's all the questions.

1:26:39Uh let me just check the phone one more

1:26:40time. Uh okay. So uh that's amendment

1:26:43nine. We'll move on to amendment 10.

1:26:45Thanks Mr. Kchang for being here. Uh so

1:26:47uh amendment 10 that one is mine. It's

1:26:49for parks and recreate the and I should

1:26:50say again we're in operating budget from

1:26:52here on out. Um this is a a small

1:26:55proposal. Obviously I will acknowledge

1:26:57uh you know we know there's not

1:26:58sufficient room under the cap. So this

1:27:00is this several amendments that I saw

1:27:02that I think the part of the discussion

1:27:04offline is is where we would fit this in

1:27:05and how essentially this is to and I've

1:27:08spoken with parks department about this.

1:27:10Uh this would add two seasonal part-time

1:27:12and it's point uh three because their

1:27:14horiculture department which only

1:27:16operates during summer months they're

1:27:17less than a.5. So these are seasonal

1:27:19positions. Um separately they've been

1:27:21reducing the number of seasonal

1:27:22positions generally to make sure that we

1:27:24have folks who are working year round

1:27:26that have benefits. Uh but this

1:27:27particular one uh I they were in support

1:27:31of essentially it's to create an

1:27:33invasive species task force meaning

1:27:35having a small team of people at the MUN

1:27:38um to supplement what they're already

1:27:40doing and what really is left to a lot

1:27:42of volunteers at this point which is to

1:27:44deal with invasive species. And um uh

1:27:47not to go too in the the weeds on it, so

1:27:49to speak. Uh I actually anyway sorry

1:27:52[laughter] that was not intentional and

1:27:54my brain did that anyway. Um but I think

1:27:56it is true. I think it is not just a

1:27:58matter of we don't like these flowers.

1:28:00This is a serious problem. Uh European

1:28:02bird cherry kills moose. It is very

1:28:04aggressively invasive. If you live

1:28:06anywhere where there's any patch of bird

1:28:08veetch, that bird veetch will get

1:28:09everywhere and I've seen it kill entire

1:28:11trees. Um and so so these are things

1:28:13where they are serious encroachments on

1:28:16what is basically a a a separate

1:28:19ecosystem that is being invaded by these

1:28:21invasive species. I mean that that's so

1:28:22so I want to be clear. Um I am not

1:28:25arguing this is the most important

1:28:26priority in the entire city. I am

1:28:28arguing that that this is uh not just

1:28:30cosmetic. And so um so I think uh

1:28:32relying on volunteers all summer um is

1:28:34not sufficient. And uh I've been one of

1:28:36those volunteers every summer. This is

1:28:37one of the things I do is weed polls.

1:28:39Um, and just seeing the the scale and

1:28:41the the fact that you uh year one they

1:28:45do a bunch of polls of uh bird cherry or

1:28:47choke cherry, whatever it's called, and

1:28:48then year two, year three, you have to

1:28:50go back and do these same things. So, we

1:28:51are not keeping up with this and this is

1:28:53a threat to our parks and green belts um

1:28:54in terms of native vegetation, native

1:28:56wildlife, all that stuff. So, anyway,

1:28:57all that to say, um I am hoping to find

1:28:59a way to fit this in the budget. Um and

1:29:02again, I know it's competing with a lot

1:29:03of other priorities, so I'm working on

1:29:04that. Um and uh uh this again though

1:29:08would be seasonal so it doesn't add

1:29:09benefits and so that's why the cost is

1:29:11so low even though it is four positions.

1:29:13Um questions Miss Park would is is this

1:29:15part of the program that or do we first

1:29:18of all do we still have a program that

1:29:20subsidizes removal of bird cherry trees?

1:29:23Um I can find out. I don't know the

1:29:25answer to that. It might have been a

1:29:26one-time grant would be my guess.

1:29:27>> Okay. My second part of the question was

1:29:29with is that included in that program?

1:29:32>> Yeah that's a good followup. I will find

1:29:33out. This would be for paying for staff.

1:29:35Um, and then this would be in addition

1:29:37to activities we already have. So, any

1:29:40other questions?

1:29:42>> Um,

1:29:44>> okay, Mr. V.

1:29:45>> Um, well, first of all, I'm just going

1:29:48to say I think there could be some

1:29:49really cool swag. I I want like an

1:29:51invasive species task force t-shirt or

1:29:54something. Um, but

1:29:56>> that's not in the budget. [laughter]

1:30:00Uh, but I guess my question is is on the

1:30:03funding source. Is this something that

1:30:05could be put on a bond like a parks and

1:30:08wreck bond?

1:30:10>> Um, that's a good question. I think I I

1:30:13would be very hesitant to pay for

1:30:15seasonal positions with a bond um and to

1:30:17pay debt on them because it might the

1:30:19debt might I mean for 80,000 it might

1:30:21actually end up being a significant

1:30:23amount or at least I guess it's a

1:30:25question. I don't I don't know if

1:30:26there's a way to fit this in our

1:30:27operating uh budget. So, I'm going to

1:30:28investigate that. Um I don't think that

1:30:30it's something we should bond for

1:30:32because I think long term we should be

1:30:33getting away from bonding for staff that

1:30:35we need and I think that the

1:30:37>> if we're going to do that, the fire

1:30:39folks are probably a priority.

1:30:41>> Okay. Then another question. Um just

1:30:43because we know the tax cap is what it

1:30:45is. Um could this has this been included

1:30:49in the conversation around the

1:30:50legislative packet?

1:30:53Um, that is a good question. I have not

1:30:55investigated that. Um, I would say

1:30:57again, I don't know that we ask for

1:31:00operating subsidies from the state.

1:31:02>> I'm just thinking more like a grant like

1:31:04a I mean, invasive species would be

1:31:06removal be something that would benefit

1:31:08the state as well as Anchorage.

1:31:09>> Yeah, I think it's worth discussing. I

1:31:10mean, I will say this and I should have

1:31:12said before this is a recurring request.

1:31:13So, in our operating budgets, one time

1:31:15or recurring, I don't see the state

1:31:17giving us a recurring money for

1:31:18something like this. So for this the way

1:31:20it's designed I think that's that's the

1:31:22intent but I think there's other

1:31:23conversations to have.

1:31:24>> Okay.

1:31:26>> Okay. Other questions?

1:31:29>> Yeah. Mr. President, what do you have?

1:31:30>> Yeah. The the nonprofit organizations

1:31:33that are in Anchorage that are

1:31:34addressing this already, the Anchorage

1:31:36Park Foundation, Anchorage Soil and

1:31:38Water Conservation that are there is

1:31:41this is something that that we need to

1:31:43be um funding or are there others that

1:31:45can do it?

1:31:47>> Uh it's a good question. I can uh I can

1:31:49certainly follow up with those

1:31:49organizations. I think most of those

1:31:51organizations have very small staff and

1:31:53in fact most of the things I've been

1:31:54part of is Anchorage Park Foundation

1:31:56working with the department organizing

1:31:58volunteers on a one one-off basis. And

1:32:00so I think it's not that there is a set

1:32:02a set of staff who is doing this work.

1:32:05It is that they are actually getting

1:32:06folks to do it folks like me for free.

1:32:08And I and I don't think that that the

1:32:10scale of this problem is is a volunteer

1:32:12only effort. So that's why I'm bringing

1:32:14it. Thanks.

1:32:15>> Any other questions?

1:32:18Okay. Uh let's move on then. So

1:32:19amendment 11. Uh Mr. Martinez.

1:32:23>> Thank you, chair. Uh one of the con one

1:32:26of the this is a um an increase in

1:32:29public transportation funding for people

1:32:32mover particularly to extend people

1:32:34mover service to holidays. Um, one of

1:32:37the complaints that we I hear often from

1:32:40folks who are using People Mover from

1:32:42across the city and and especially in my

1:32:44district is that people who use People

1:32:47Mover for work have to get to work even

1:32:50when there's holidays. Um, and then when

1:32:52there are holidays, sometimes we want

1:32:54people to move around and celebrate and

1:32:57connect on some of those holidays as

1:32:58well and their bus service is not

1:33:01available. So essentially, if you don't

1:33:04have a car on a holiday, you may be uh

1:33:07neighborhood or even homebound. And so

1:33:09this essentially brings people mover

1:33:12service to holidays, which I think is uh

1:33:16going to help us economically and help a

1:33:19lot of workers move around on those

1:33:22days. Uh there is no source uh

1:33:25identified particularly at this point

1:33:28although the cost is $580,000

1:33:33to increase people mover uh for every

1:33:38day including those holidays and this is

1:33:40seven holidays at full day service which

1:33:43would restore MLK day president's day

1:33:47sewers day veterans day and day after

1:33:50Thanksgiving junth and indigenous

1:33:52People's Day.

1:33:54Thank you, chair.

1:33:56>> Thanks. Um I have myself in the queue

1:33:57and then Mr. Bolan. Oh, Scout. Um my uh

1:34:03question I guess I'll ask the same

1:34:05question since it's about transit. Um uh

1:34:07have you discussed this with the

1:34:08department and um and of course route

1:34:11changes of any kind or or the kind of

1:34:12thing would go through um that system.

1:34:14So just wondering if you talked to those

1:34:16folks.

1:34:16>> Yes. Uh I got the numbers and the specs

1:34:19from uh transit.

1:34:22>> Okay, thanks. And then um another

1:34:24question just so this is for seven

1:34:26holidays then essentially this divided

1:34:29by seven would be the one for each

1:34:30individual holiday. Is that correct?

1:34:32Whatever that number is.

1:34:33>> Yes, about and this is that full weekday

1:34:36service. So there's a different cost if

1:34:38you did weekend service on those

1:34:40holidays as well. I think it's about 300

1:34:42and somehat thousand.

1:34:44>> Okay, thank you Mr. Blunt. Actually, I

1:34:46was flagging it for Mr. Ker.

1:34:47>> Sorry, Mr. Ker and then MSC.

1:34:49>> It's okay. Um, how many people is this

1:34:51serving? Like, how many people are going

1:34:52to be riding the buses on these days

1:34:55to the sponsor

1:34:58or the administration, whoever has the

1:35:00answer?

1:35:02>> The question is, how many people are

1:35:03riding the bus on holidays?

1:35:05>> Well, yeah,

1:35:06>> I couldn't know that.

1:35:07If we're increasing,

1:35:09>> I guess what I'm trying to get to is if

1:35:10we're increasing the cost by nearly

1:35:12$600,000, how many people are actually

1:35:14going to be utilizing this? If you have

1:35:16an idea,

1:35:20>> I don't have the floor. So, Chair, I

1:35:23think there's a question. Someone from

1:35:24the administration came up and so maybe

1:35:27there's a response.

1:35:28>> Yeah. And I think if we don't have a

1:35:29response in the room today, generally

1:35:30that's a follow-up question, too. So, go

1:35:32ahead. So

1:35:33>> yeah, I would just say

1:35:37>> I've seen some of the communic

1:35:47>> Can you not hear me?

1:35:49>> Can you hear?

1:35:50>> I can hear you.

1:35:50>> Can members hear me?

1:35:52>> Yes. Yes.

1:35:56>> All right. Now, can you hear me? All

1:35:58right. Better mic. Okay. Um, if anyone

1:36:00wants to offer an amendment on that for

1:36:02Mike's. Um, so I've seen the

1:36:05communication and I believe that when we

1:36:08you could potentially get some numbers

1:36:12of wrership when we had holiday service.

1:36:16Obviously, it would be dated, but at

1:36:18least it could give you some sense.

1:36:20>> Yeah, that'd be helpful. Thank you.

1:36:21>> Yeah. And and additionally I think just

1:36:23with that request um we kind of have a

1:36:27sense of employment usage as well in

1:36:30terms of wrership and the demographics.

1:36:32Um I think that would be potentially

1:36:34helpful as well because you can

1:36:35extrapolate to a workday and going to

1:36:38work with with respect to employment

1:36:41data

1:36:42>> by the contract labor contract. Yeah.

1:36:45>> Mr.

1:36:47Press Virginia was having a a side

1:36:49[clears throat] comment that also

1:36:50because it'd be a holiday depending on

1:36:52the labor contracts you could also be

1:36:54paying uh more in cost for labor. I'm

1:36:57just curious if was that factored in Mr.

1:36:59Martinez or the administration?

1:37:00>> The line on the bottom of the paragraph

1:37:03describes funding would go to support

1:37:05labor and associated overtime cost. So

1:37:07at least it's contemplated but I don't

1:37:09think there's any hard and fast numbers.

1:37:11Okay. Thanks.

1:37:12>> Okay. Next, Miss Scout.

1:37:15>> Thank you. Um, I just want to note I've

1:37:19received requests for this as well from

1:37:22my um, community council leaders and

1:37:25from um, yeah, bus riders in our

1:37:28district who have been surprised at some

1:37:30of these like lesser known and

1:37:33celebrated holidays go to the bus stop

1:37:35and then don't have a way to get around

1:37:37town. And as we get into the colder

1:37:39parts of the um season, it becomes

1:37:43increasingly detrimental to quality of

1:37:46life for people in our community. Um so

1:37:49I think this is a really much needed

1:37:52proposal and I look forward to seeing

1:37:54the data on wrership on these days where

1:37:57kids are out of school um and some folks

1:38:00are off work. So thank you Mr. Martinez

1:38:02for bringing this forward.

1:38:06>> Thank you. And I think that's a you

1:38:08mentioned the last point. I think it's a

1:38:09really important point. Days off from

1:38:13school are not necessarily days in. And

1:38:18with youth being able to ride buses free

1:38:20and sometimes those holidays are festive

1:38:22and we invite people into kind of

1:38:24community ceremony, it is often puzzling

1:38:27to visitors that uh we don't have we're

1:38:30shut down essentially from public

1:38:31transportation on holidays. Thank you

1:38:34for the point.

1:38:35Okay, Miss Park.

1:38:37>> Thank you, Chair. I would just note that

1:38:38that when you're looking at this list of

1:38:42holidays, um that this would heavily

1:38:46impact people in the service industry

1:38:48who need to go to work and are not paid

1:38:52highly and are going to work to help the

1:38:55rest of the community celebrate these

1:38:58holidays.

1:38:59So, I I'm absolutely in favor of this.

1:39:01Thank you.

1:39:02>> Okay. Thanks. And I'll remind folks too,

1:39:04uh, we will have plenty of time for

1:39:05debate on Tuesday the 17th. So, we want

1:39:07to be careful about not debating here

1:39:10and asking questions or, um, asking for

1:39:12follow-up information. I know it's a

1:39:14fuzzy line, so we try to try to walk it

1:39:16as best we can. Um, so also note it is

1:39:1811:41 and so we have six amendments

1:39:20remaining. Um, and so, Miss Baldwin Day,

1:39:22but I want to make sure that we're

1:39:23moving through because each of these do

1:39:24need some discussion.

1:39:25>> Yeah, this is a very quick question and

1:39:27apology apologies. It might have been

1:39:28asked while I was out of the room. Are

1:39:30there any contractual issues with this?

1:39:32I want to be clear. I'm very much in

1:39:33support of this, but do we have any

1:39:34labor issues with this in terms of our

1:39:36our labor contracts for our drivers?

1:39:39>> Uh, TBD.

1:39:40>> Okay, that would be my my only flag.

1:39:43Thank you.

1:39:47Okay, I don't see anyone else in the

1:39:48queue for this. So, let's move on to uh

1:39:50amendment 12. Uh, so that is members

1:39:52Scout and Bourne. So, please go ahead.

1:39:54Whoever wants to start?

1:39:57>> Yeah. Um well I am preparing my speech

1:40:00to accept the award for lowest budget

1:40:03amendment [laughter] proposal. Um

1:40:07and want to um yeah this is a pretty

1:40:12straightforward request. The Anchorage

1:40:15Senior Center, which is in Fair View,

1:40:18provides very critical services to our

1:40:20community and they have a recurring

1:40:22contract with the health department that

1:40:25doesn't automatically adjust for

1:40:28inflation. Um, and like many um

1:40:32businesses [snorts] and just property

1:40:34owners around town, they were in facing

1:40:37increasing costs over snow plowing. So,

1:40:39we um they have a modest request for

1:40:42$65,000

1:40:44um to cover those additional expenses.

1:40:47And I'm happy to answer any questions um

1:40:50but have met with these folks and they

1:40:53are working very hard to um put together

1:40:56a patchwork of funding from many

1:40:58different sources to provide meals,

1:41:01social support, um and yeah, just

1:41:05quality of life for our seniors in

1:41:07Anchorage. So thank you.

1:41:09>> Okay. Um also I will note I was uh

1:41:11mistaken. So we are noticed to 12:30. So

1:41:13apologies I was in my head it's been two

1:41:15hours [laughter]

1:41:17or sorry in my head that the time that

1:41:19we had was two anyway. So sorry. So we

1:41:21do have time. Apologies for that. Okay.

1:41:23Questions for uh Miss Scout or Mr. B on

1:41:26this one.

1:41:30Okay. I don't see any on that one.

1:41:34[clears throat]

1:41:38Okay. So, next is uh amendment uh 13 or

1:41:42I think it should be 13. Uh that is also

1:41:44Mr. Bull and Mr. Scouts. So, please go

1:41:45ahead.

1:41:47>> Thank you. Um on this one, actually, I I

1:41:49would like to invite uh Miss Fleet Green

1:41:51up. Um, and I I think I'll have um

1:41:56either Miss Fleet Green or Miss Browse

1:41:58speak to this as well, but this is just

1:42:01uh responsive to some of the public

1:42:03testimony that we've heard pretty

1:42:05strongly from from District One and and

1:42:07and um downtown business owners that

1:42:10they really see the value of the

1:42:12downtown foot patrols and don't want to

1:42:14lose those. Um the mayor spoke in her

1:42:17report at our previous meeting that

1:42:18there's been a little bit of confusion

1:42:20around how that is um outlined or not in

1:42:24the the budget. Um

1:42:28folks u may recall that the funding

1:42:30source for the downtown foot patrols was

1:42:34a program within the room tax, the tips

1:42:38program. Um and that is to help uh

1:42:41facilitate tourism. Um, and that can

1:42:44look like a number of things. Um, and

1:42:46and I would argue that um, one of the

1:42:49things that that can look like is making

1:42:50sure that the places where tourists are

1:42:52hanging out are are really safe and

1:42:54welcoming places. And I think that the

1:42:56the downtown foot patrol certainly was

1:42:58perceived um, as a huge compliment to

1:43:02creating that. Um, so what this

1:43:04amendment does is it states the will of

1:43:07the assembly to say, "Hey, we want to

1:43:10use that same funding source, which

1:43:12again is not a line item in the budget,

1:43:13but we want to use that same funding

1:43:15source um to prioritize those room tax

1:43:18dollars for this important service." Um,

1:43:21now if this money can be found

1:43:23elsewhere, please let me know. I'm happy

1:43:26to make this go away and have the have

1:43:28the program continue. Um, but on that

1:43:30note, I would like to turn it over to

1:43:32the administration. And I I believe this

1:43:33is a program that the mayor supports

1:43:35too.

1:43:37>> Sure. Um Suzanne Fleet Green through the

1:43:39chair. Maybe I'll start and uh director

1:43:43browse can jump in. But first, I just

1:43:45want to say um we really do

1:43:48uh look forward to uh collaborating with

1:43:52with the sponsors of this as the mayor

1:43:55said on Tuesday night, but also in it's

1:43:59evident in the fact that she promoted

1:44:01the funding of this last year and

1:44:04frankly

1:44:05um uh when he was chief administrative

1:44:09officer, Mr. Falls. We worked really

1:44:12hard to find new revenue so that we

1:44:14could invest in tourism projects and so

1:44:18it was through negotiation with visit

1:44:20Anchorage that this new funding stream

1:44:23was created. Um and I will say that it

1:44:27is focused on projects. That was the

1:44:29intent of this new stream is to fund

1:44:32projects. But last year, knowing that

1:44:35this was a high need for all the reasons

1:44:37that you stated, we were able to make

1:44:40the case to Visit Anchorage that we

1:44:42should invest in operating dollars for a

1:44:46department and that that would really

1:44:48support the overall mission of this

1:44:51fund. Um,

1:44:54we would like to invest the tip money in

1:44:56projects though and visit Anchorage

1:44:58definitely sees it as a project fund,

1:45:01not a program fund. Um, so we're trying

1:45:03to be respectful of that too. But mayor

1:45:07absolutely committed to the downtown

1:45:09foot patrol. It is successful. It is

1:45:12particularly successful in this area. It

1:45:15works well in this area. Um, and it has

1:45:19had a real effect. businesses like it,

1:45:21of course. Um, residents like it,

1:45:24visitors like it for all of those

1:45:26reasons. So, we have been talking at the

1:45:29mayor's direction, in fact, we just had

1:45:31a conversation this morning again about

1:45:33other places to find the funds. Um, but

1:45:38it also is a staffing issue. Um, we had

1:45:41hoped to be further along in having more

1:45:44patrol officers and csos that could fill

1:45:49this role so that we could take it out

1:45:51of tip and out of overtime because we

1:45:55were paying the officers overtime to

1:45:57fill these shifts. So, it would be

1:46:01better if we did it with more officers.

1:46:03We aren't there yet. So we probably are

1:46:05still in an overtime situation whether

1:46:08it's CSOS, sworn officers or a

1:46:12combination of both. Um so we are trying

1:46:14to figure out a way that we can cover

1:46:16the work and then find money from

1:46:19another source because we we probably

1:46:22need to do it within the APD budget to

1:46:25cover it. That is our preference. Um, I

1:46:28think the TIP fund is frankly the last

1:46:32resort. And so again, I'll turn it over

1:46:35to Director Browse, but it is something

1:46:37that we definitely agree and the mayor

1:46:40is committed to continuing because of

1:46:42the success.

1:46:45>> And and just to clarify the the comments

1:46:47that Miss Fle Green made about the TIP

1:46:49funding, we've only had TIP funding for

1:46:51one year earlier in March. and um that

1:46:56should be treated as a supplemental

1:46:58appropriation because it's a low dollar

1:47:00amount um in terms of making sure that

1:47:02it doesn't become an operating subsidy.

1:47:05Um I think that that the TIPS

1:47:09appropriation should come before the

1:47:10body after this. Um, and so I think we

1:47:13can continue to work through

1:47:16how this actually works out and if we

1:47:18need to have a conversation about tips,

1:47:20we can. But I think as Miss Flee Green

1:47:22said, it's more appropriate to use the

1:47:25funding source as identified for

1:47:26projectbased work and see if we can work

1:47:29the angle on uh the overtime for foot

1:47:32patrol specifically from a different

1:47:33fund.

1:47:36Yeah. Um, so

1:47:39no, I appreciate all of that and I I I

1:47:42really um

1:47:44Yeah, let me know what I can do to to

1:47:46support you all in doing that. Um,

1:47:49in terms of the tips being the last

1:47:51resort, I guess I'm just wondering about

1:47:52timing. um you know, if we go past the

1:47:56budget process and there's not um an

1:48:00opportunity for the assembly to really

1:48:01state on the record, this is we're

1:48:04listening to the community. This is what

1:48:05we want to prioritize with the this

1:48:06money. Not forever because we want to

1:48:08get to the other stuff too, but um at

1:48:10least to fill a gap. Uh when are we when

1:48:13do you think we'll know, I guess, if

1:48:15there's another potential funding

1:48:17source?

1:48:18Yeah, I'm just thinking of when to

1:48:20>> Yeah, fair question. Um, we have been

1:48:22trying really hard to lock down a

1:48:26negotiated recommended tip program to

1:48:29bring forward to the assembly. Um, we

1:48:32are hoping that that is done by the end

1:48:34of next week. So, you will know sort of

1:48:37comparisonwise

1:48:38the projects that would be in tip or

1:48:42not. Um, and then on the funding, I

1:48:46think I would turn that to direct

1:48:48browse, but there there's a couple of

1:48:50options um that she can go through, but

1:48:53again, fair question that we could bring

1:48:54you the options back. We've been trying

1:48:57to

1:48:58squeeze a very overly squeezed uh lemon

1:49:01here. Um, that is our budget.

1:49:05uh to the chair to member Voland. I

1:49:07think the intent is to identify how we

1:49:10keep the program as robust as we can in

1:49:13January before the end of the year. Um

1:49:16we will work through how all of this all

1:49:19the pieces and parts of all of this

1:49:21moving uh between what we're proposing

1:49:23for operating in 2027, any potential uh

1:49:27lapse funding that needs to be

1:49:28reappropriated into 2027. And the closer

1:49:32we get to the end of the year, the more

1:49:33we know what that sort of landscape

1:49:35looks like. And so I would expect the

1:49:38assembly to know and have the

1:49:40information on what this looks like

1:49:42going forward before the end of the

1:49:44year. But I think it will be much sooner

1:49:46than that and ideally while we are

1:49:48having the tips conversation so that

1:49:50there isn't a a hard choice that that

1:49:53you feel like you need to make.

1:49:55>> Yeah, I appreciate that. I I I just

1:49:59um

1:50:01again I'm happy to not have to move this

1:50:02amendment because there's something

1:50:04negotiated. This is at Anchorage or

1:50:05there's you know other funding. Um but I

1:50:09I don't want to not have the opportunity

1:50:12to to say this is what this we want this

1:50:15funding to be for. Um and so I guess

1:50:17that's like the timeliness that I'm

1:50:19looking at um is that I I will want to

1:50:21move this amendment as a last resort if

1:50:24there's another option. So, kind of just

1:50:26putting that out there. Thank you.

1:50:28>> Okay, next. Miss,

1:50:31>> thank you. Um,

1:50:33yeah, I have a couple thoughts and

1:50:35questions here. I I'll say I attended my

1:50:38first meeting as the one of the liaison

1:50:41to the visit Anchorage board yesterday

1:50:43and they do have a wholesome list of

1:50:47projects that they've been speaking with

1:50:49the administration about um to include

1:50:51on the tips funding and I think many of

1:50:53them would earn many of our support um

1:50:56across the municipality and that did

1:50:58raise flags for me about where this

1:51:01money would come from and we've also

1:51:02been hearing from constituents

1:51:06more broadly um about these

1:51:11programs within APD that are effective

1:51:14and popular and potentially on future

1:51:17chopping blocks. And so I think I just

1:51:19have a bigger picture question about um

1:51:24how these programs, why and how these

1:51:28programs that are effective and have

1:51:31community support um are on the chopping

1:51:36block when um yeah, and that we have to

1:51:40be scrambling for funding from new

1:51:42sources here. um when these things are

1:51:45working and um making our community

1:51:48safer.

1:51:51>> Um

1:51:53I would love to have the police chief

1:51:56involved in this conversation because he

1:51:59is the operational expert on it. But in

1:52:02terms of what's on the chopping block or

1:52:05not, let me just say again, we we don't

1:52:09want to make those cuts. We are trying

1:52:11to present to the community for full

1:52:13transparency

1:52:14the way we are looking what we are

1:52:17looking at for the next fiscal year

1:52:20after we get through this one so that

1:52:23people understand and I'll just take a

1:52:26moment to again applaud member Broly and

1:52:28member Baldwin Day for the physical

1:52:31future summit how we and the meetings

1:52:34that you two have also had in your

1:52:36districts that it takes a lot of

1:52:40education and conversation so that

1:52:42people really recognize

1:52:45that we are at a hard point um with our

1:52:48budget and as you've heard from member

1:52:51Bruss. So none of these are cuts that we

1:52:54want to make for the APD budget. I think

1:52:57what it comes down to is you start

1:53:00getting to the really core services and

1:53:03at the core what APD needs to be able to

1:53:07do is fill their patrol shifts,

1:53:11fill their detectives. So they work up

1:53:13from that core baseline of what APD is

1:53:18expected to do.

1:53:21>> Thank you. and and through the chair to

1:53:23member Scout, I will say um to to keep

1:53:26it away from the operational decisions

1:53:28because that is not my forte. I will

1:53:30speak about it from the budget

1:53:31perspective. When when we talk about the

1:53:34quote special team will end, what that

1:53:37means is we will have to remove enough

1:53:41officer positions to get to a budget

1:53:43level we can fund and therefore there

1:53:46are not enough people to create

1:53:49dedicated specific officers for the

1:53:52community action policing team. It

1:53:54doesn't mean that community policing

1:53:56doesn't happen. It means that there is

1:53:58no longer a specific team whose job is

1:54:01that every day. It means that we have

1:54:04decreased the amount of officers we have

1:54:06available to us. So it is patrol

1:54:09function only and everything else as

1:54:12possible because the patrol function has

1:54:15to sustain. That is not a right as that

1:54:17as Miss Fle Green said that's not a

1:54:19choice we want to make. We do not want

1:54:20to end these special teams. They are

1:54:23effective. They are fantastic. We have

1:54:26lived through an era where special teams

1:54:28were removed from APD's operations and

1:54:32the community felt it. But the reason

1:54:35that that has to be discussed is because

1:54:38that is the practical reality of losing

1:54:41the amount of money that we may lose or

1:54:43not have enough of next year and the

1:54:46funding that would have to change with

1:54:48it. And so it is a all hands- on deck

1:54:51alert to say just so everybody knows

1:54:54that this is what the result of having

1:54:57to sustain 10 to$15 million of cuts is

1:55:01potentially right. That's if the cuts

1:55:04are chosen in that way. You can make

1:55:06other cuts to get to the same dollar

1:55:08amount at the bottom. But those are the

1:55:11operational impacts all across the

1:55:13board. And so we want to make sure that

1:55:14we're communicating those to the

1:55:15community directly. Um but also clarify

1:55:19that that is not something that we want

1:55:20to do nor would it be the first thing

1:55:22that we did when we needed to do

1:55:24something.

1:55:30>> Thank you. Um yeah, I guess just a final

1:55:34note, one thing that I've learned

1:55:36through um doing these presentations,

1:55:39these North Anchorage Talks budget

1:55:41presentations and having to sort of

1:55:43summarize information is that public

1:55:45safety, I I think for good reason, is

1:55:48the only department that has seen their

1:55:53budget grow since the 70s. Um, and so,

1:55:58you know, I think

1:56:01that's just important to note here as we

1:56:03think about cuts and think about um

1:56:06where we prioritize. But yeah, thank

1:56:09you.

1:56:11>> Um, I have myself in the queue and then

1:56:13uh Miss Baldwin Day. So, most of my

1:56:14questions were answered u process for

1:56:16tips. Uh, I believe the amount just to

1:56:18confirm is 1.5 million. Uh, I was

1:56:20looking back at the resolution from last

1:56:22year. Uh so it's a 100 thousand less

1:56:24than last year uh or than this year and

1:56:26then uh uh we covered vacancies. My only

1:56:29other question was um and I'm not

1:56:31suggesting this is the right answer, but

1:56:33um there is a downtown improvement

1:56:34district uh right now it funds the

1:56:36Anchorage uh downtown partnership. I

1:56:39think their budget is about $1.1

1:56:40million. I looked it up. So this would

1:56:42be more than half of that. But I'm

1:56:43wondering is it realistic or what would

1:56:45it look like to fund that through an

1:56:47increase um to that? And again, I'm not

1:56:49arguing that's the right answer. I think

1:56:51it should be on the table unless it is

1:56:53not somehow legally allowed to do that.

1:56:58>> That could be a follow-up. Yeah. To the

1:56:59ch or to the chair. I I I don't know

1:57:02what the dollar amount would be, but I I

1:57:03think that is a possible option in terms

1:57:06of um it would be a an allocation within

1:57:11that service area that would be then

1:57:13paid into APD to Yeah, I think that that

1:57:16is um something we can get the numbers

1:57:18on. Yeah, I just think in in terms of

1:57:20how to pay for it, I think uh that would

1:57:21be helpful to know if we can or can't do

1:57:23that. Um Miss Baldwin Day,

1:57:27>> thank you. Um I'm I'm wondering if um if

1:57:30the justice assistance grant can be used

1:57:32to cover overtime. Is that a thing you

1:57:34can do

1:57:40>> uh to the through the chair to member

1:57:41Bald? I don't know. I we'd need to find

1:57:43out.

1:57:44>> Okay. Um I was sifting through and it

1:57:48looks like we have um about a half a

1:57:50million dollars worth of justice

1:57:51assistance grant funding that's set to

1:57:53lapse in 2028 and that's something we

1:57:55receive on an annual basis. So I don't

1:57:58know if that's something that we could

1:57:59raid um but that's on PD page 19.

1:58:07Okay. Any other questions on this one?

1:58:11Okay. I don't see any. So let's uh move

1:58:12on. So the next one is uh

1:58:16uh number

1:58:18yeah 13. Uh Miss Baldwin Day.

1:58:20>> Thank you. Um so first I want to um I

1:58:23want to say um this was perhaps not the

1:58:25best constructed budget amendment. So I

1:58:27do intend to improve the description and

1:58:30the explanation here. I also want to

1:58:32clarify that this is not necessarily a

1:58:34planning ask. Um this is something that

1:58:37I've been noodling on for almost a year

1:58:39now. Um but my my in my interest here is

1:58:42um in really making a lot of information

1:58:46that already exists within municipal

1:58:48databases viewable in a single location.

1:58:52Uh and I think there are variety of

1:58:53interesting applications for this kind

1:58:56of this kind of thing. I think there um

1:58:59I have not shopped this I have not done

1:59:01an exhaustive review of departments that

1:59:03might be have an interest in this kind

1:59:04of software. Uh but um both the fire

1:59:06department and the clerk's office are

1:59:08very interested in the the capacity that

1:59:10this would offer. Um so essentially uh

1:59:12what I'm interested in is a software

1:59:14that essentially acts like a um like a

1:59:17screen um that sits on top of all of the

1:59:20databases that we currently use and it

1:59:22pulls parcel data up from all of our

1:59:25different platforms. So City View, KMA,

1:59:28SmartGV, a bunch of other things that we

1:59:30use um within the MUN. And it also pulls

1:59:33data in from other public record sources

1:59:36and it unifies it in a single place. So

1:59:38it allows um it allows a user to

1:59:42basically see the data that we know

1:59:44about any given parcel in the

1:59:46municipality in one place which means

1:59:48that a user could go to this platform,

1:59:51click on a parcel and see within the

1:59:55same screen uh property tax information,

1:59:58zoning designations, reszone

2:00:00applications, building permits, um

2:00:02conditional and special land use

2:00:03permits, um code enforcement, uh

2:00:06including whether or not there's an

2:00:07active or open case, the history of

2:00:09that, there's an active license, um the

2:00:12ownership of that parcel, which I think

2:00:14is really interesting, uh whether or not

2:00:15there's an STR registration associated

2:00:17with the parcel. Um and uh also AFD and

2:00:21APD calls for service. Uh not like

2:00:25detailed information, but just like an

2:00:27aggregate number of service calls in any

2:00:29given time frame. And it also allows us

2:00:32to slice and dice that data without

2:00:34impacting any of the underlying

2:00:36databases. So, for example, if I wanted

2:00:39to say pull a report on how many

2:00:42reszones from R5 to R2M have happened in

2:00:46the last 5 years, this would allow me to

2:00:49do that without having to go and

2:00:53essentially ask building services or

2:00:55development services or the planning

2:00:57department to pull that information for

2:00:59me. Um, so one of the things I have

2:01:01noticed particularly in the last year is

2:01:03that I spend a lot of time asking other

2:01:05departments for information because I

2:01:07can't see it. And it's not that I I want

2:01:10to um adjust any of that information. I

2:01:13just want to be able to look at it. And

2:01:15the the back and forth with various

2:01:17departments is time consuming. It takes

2:01:19time away from staff. Um, and it it

2:01:22means that um my ability to both craft

2:01:25policy or to see the applicability of

2:01:28pol policy or even answer constituent

2:01:30questions and concerns is really based

2:01:32on how quickly a staff person in another

2:01:35department can respond to a question.

2:01:37So, um I think again utility across a

2:01:40lot of different departments for this.

2:01:42Uh and I I I understand um I understand

2:01:46that there's a reluctance to spend money

2:01:48on new things. I think if we can spend

2:01:51money in places that allow us to do our

2:01:53work more efficiently and more

2:01:54effectively then we should be using

2:01:57technology to take those steps. So um I

2:02:02have researched a couple of different

2:02:05options uh for this kind of uh software

2:02:08but um would definitely need to to put

2:02:10an RFP out to be able to pro procure it.

2:02:13uh I am hopeful that this could be a

2:02:15collaborative funding arrangement in the

2:02:16long haul especially if we have multiple

2:02:18departments that are interested in

2:02:20participating in the use of this

2:02:21software. Uh so this is really sort of

2:02:23an opening salvo to number one test

2:02:25interest and also to say I think this

2:02:28has a lot of utility in a municipality

2:02:30that tends to be extremely siloed when

2:02:32it comes to the use of its technology.

2:02:34So I'm happy to answer any questions

2:02:36that you have.

2:02:37>> Okay. Uh Mr. Bulland then myself then

2:02:39partner.

2:02:40>> Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah I'm curious.

2:02:41So, I also can see you had mentioned

2:02:44multiple departments could potentially

2:02:47be benefiting from this. Um, I'm

2:02:50wondering about a connection with

2:02:51transportation as well, transportation

2:02:53planning. Um the assembly passed

2:02:58policy guidance um talking about you

2:03:00know we're going to be make um one of

2:03:02the the criteria for prioritization is

2:03:05population density

2:03:07>> for in um investments in infrastructure

2:03:09investments in parks. um

2:03:13and I'm wondering if this is something

2:03:15that could augment transportation

2:03:18planning

2:03:20um if it might be eligible for AAPS

2:03:23funding. And I know that one of um one

2:03:26of the projects that we've tried to

2:03:28prioritize in the past through AAPS

2:03:30funding and we passed assembly

2:03:32resolutions on it I believe a couple

2:03:33times was to do um an inventory of

2:03:38public rightway and easements.

2:03:42Um and there's been some community

2:03:43members who have really um wanted that

2:03:46to happen. And I think that that could I

2:03:48mean there's all kinds of things that

2:03:51that could inform us about. uh not only

2:03:53transportation planning, housing

2:03:55planning and data um but also trails,

2:03:58you know, what are public rights of way

2:04:01or or easements that people could be

2:04:03using for their benefit. Um and how do

2:04:06we maybe mitigate conflicts between

2:04:09private property owners and people who

2:04:11are wanting to use public rights of way?

2:04:13Um so ju just a thought. I mean maybe

2:04:16there's a connection there where AAP

2:04:18funding could be used on something like

2:04:19this too.

2:04:20>> That is um that is a great flag. Um I've

2:04:23I don't I don't know if that

2:04:25functionality would exist inside of this

2:04:27particular um format but uh definitely

2:04:31something worth chasing down and I will

2:04:32do that. Thank you.

2:04:34>> Okay. Um I have myself in the queue.

2:04:36Just a couple quick questions. Um so

2:04:37just to confirm this says RFP. So the

2:04:39intent because you do list a specific

2:04:41vendor as a spec as a example but this

2:04:44would be a competitive bid. Is that

2:04:45correct?

2:04:45>> Correct.

2:04:46>> And then other question um or or I guess

2:04:49just something to think about as you

2:04:50were describing. I I see the utility of

2:04:52this. And also um wanting to flag uh as

2:04:55we're thinking about this, I guess I'm

2:04:57wondering as the way that the software

2:04:59would work, pulling in multiple data

2:05:00points, we just had a long conversation

2:05:03over multiple meetings about the the

2:05:05risks of essentially uh aggregating

2:05:07multiple data points about individuals

2:05:10and a property. And so, um, so I want to

2:05:12just for clarification, the goal would

2:05:15not be to necessarily publish all of

2:05:16this information about individual and

2:05:18and I'll say we had that conversation in

2:05:20the context of public safety. Uh, we've

2:05:22also had a lot of push back from

2:05:23individual short-term rental uh,

2:05:25registration folks. Uh, and there was

2:05:27confusion about whether our map would

2:05:28even be published. Um, and part of that,

2:05:30I think, was safety concerns. Uh, you

2:05:32know, whether those are um, likely or

2:05:35not. But just wondering kind of can you

2:05:37clarify exactly how the software works?

2:05:38>> Yeah, certainly. So um there are a

2:05:41variety of of different options

2:05:42depending on the the platform. Uh so

2:05:46most of the platforms like this that are

2:05:48out there allow uh allow for either um a

2:05:53curated external sort of dashboard uh

2:05:56where certain information is public and

2:05:58other information is not. Um these can

2:06:01also be set such that there is no public

2:06:03facing information that it is only an

2:06:04internal facing tool. But the the my

2:06:08intent would be that what would be

2:06:09available within this would be anything

2:06:11that anyone could actually ask for in a

2:06:13public records request and that it would

2:06:16be available internal to um municipal

2:06:19employees and to to legislators. Not

2:06:21something that we would necessarily

2:06:24create a public facing platform for. Um

2:06:27I think it potentially in like a 2.0

2:06:30roll out if I know we've talked a lot

2:06:32about having different types of

2:06:33dashboards. uh this would allow us the

2:06:36flexibility to do that and to choose

2:06:37what information we actually made

2:06:39available to the public. Um but I I see

2:06:41this more as an internal a tool for

2:06:43internal utility um for the reasons that

2:06:46you've just described. So thanks.

2:06:47>> Okay. Thanks. Yeah, I want to make sure

2:06:48we're not setting up a giant public

2:06:50dashboard. Thank you, Miss [laughter]

2:06:52Park.

2:06:52>> That was essentially my question. Thank

2:06:54you, chair. um whether it would be

2:06:57public and I I can see how it could be

2:06:59used as a tool, but I can also see how

2:07:02neighbors might say, "Oh, they had a

2:07:05police call. Um they had one last week

2:07:08or you know, or or they have a code

2:07:10violation." So, I just wanted to be

2:07:12clear that it was more for an internal

2:07:14uh uh use.

2:07:16>> Yeah, precisely. I don't think we need

2:07:17to fuel the hysteria on Next Door. So,

2:07:19that is not what this is about. So,

2:07:21thank you.

2:07:22>> Okay. Thanks. Any other questions on

2:07:23this one? Okay. And I neglected to say

2:07:26earlier Mr. McCormack joined us I think

2:07:28about at uh 11:45 on the phone. Okay.

2:07:31Let's move on to our next one. So

2:07:33amendment 15 also Miss Baldwin Day also

2:07:35related to planning. Please go ahead.

2:07:37>> Uh yes. So um this is this is another

2:07:41thing I've been I've been pondering for

2:07:43a while and I think what I want to say

2:07:45from the outset is that having an

2:07:48onstaff transportation planner is

2:07:50something that is really customary in

2:07:52other localities. Um the Fairbanks

2:07:54Northstar burrow has a dedicated

2:07:56transportation planner. The Juno uh city

2:07:58and burrow has a dedicated senior

2:08:01transportation planner. And what what we

2:08:03have done here in the municipality of

2:08:05Anchorage is we've essentially

2:08:06outsourced this work which is very

2:08:08important um to AATS and AATS is a

2:08:13separately constructed entity. It is a

2:08:15it is a construction of the state and

2:08:17the municipality together and we have

2:08:20essentially said we we have we have

2:08:21offloaded the responsibility for this

2:08:23work onto that body which I I think is

2:08:27structurally inappropriate and also

2:08:29inefficient. Um so a transportation

2:08:31planner essentially forms the connective

2:08:34tissue between our adopted suitcase of

2:08:37plans and the public and project

2:08:41engineering as it pertains to

2:08:42transportation projects. that is the

2:08:44role of a transportation planner and

2:08:46currently we don't have anyone that's

2:08:48really located in that space. Um and I

2:08:51think what what has happened what I have

2:08:53perceived that happens is we end up with

2:08:56a lot of project starts and stops um

2:08:58because there are design questions there

2:09:00are public engagement opportunities that

2:09:02need to occur that it's not clear whose

2:09:05responsibility it is. Um, we've run into

2:09:07a lot of schedule delays and and a

2:09:09frustrated public uh as a result of of I

2:09:12think not having someone specifically in

2:09:15this role and we've also saddled our MO

2:09:18we have saddled AATS with a

2:09:20responsibility that really doesn't

2:09:21pertain to them and we've asked them to

2:09:23essentially make some poly policy

2:09:25decisions on our behalf because we are

2:09:28not making them ourselves internally as

2:09:30a municipality.

2:09:31So um that is the the rationale for this

2:09:34position. This is something I I if it is

2:09:37not possible to make this position

2:09:39happen this year, I want this to be a

2:09:42recurring conversation. Uh because I I

2:09:45really believe that if we have more more

2:09:48internal agency with our transportation

2:09:50planning, we will actually be able to

2:09:52deliver projects more efficiently and to

2:09:54to get things uh completed in in a um a

2:09:58more efficient fashion. So um happy to

2:10:01take questions about that. um and any

2:10:05any additional feedback that you think

2:10:07would be helpful as I move this forward.

2:10:09Thank you.

2:10:09>> Okay, Mr. Volunte.

2:10:11>> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um I think

2:10:13this one is really interesting. We we've

2:10:15we hear a lot about um sort of that

2:10:18missing nexus of land use and

2:10:20transportation. And so having this with

2:10:22within the planning department, I think

2:10:24could be pretty cool. Um,

2:10:27on the funding part of it, I'm wondering

2:10:30if we've looked at

2:10:33um, again, just giving given our our

2:10:36limited room under the cap. Um,

2:10:40positions that haven't been filled in

2:10:43either the planning department or the

2:10:44transportation department. Um, one that

2:10:46I'm thinking of, for instance, the

2:10:48assembly funded uh, budget amendment

2:10:50that uh, former member Zalatel and I

2:10:52brought forward uh, for the vision zero

2:10:55coordinator position within the

2:10:56transportation department, but that has

2:10:58yet to be filled. Um, and some maybe

2:11:02there's like an overlap between this

2:11:04work and some some vision coordination

2:11:06or vision zero type planning work. Um

2:11:11[clears throat]

2:11:12the other

2:11:15I guess the other thing I have um to add

2:11:17to this is

2:11:21some like you said member Baldwin Day um

2:11:23AATS you know some of a lot of the plans

2:11:26are are run through AATS for instance we

2:11:28just updated the recreational trails

2:11:29plan uh but the parks and wreck

2:11:31department had to work with a

2:11:33third-party uh contractor to put that

2:11:36together and it was kind of this weird

2:11:38like okay well who's running point on

2:11:40their parks and wreck assets, but it's

2:11:42also transportation multimodal use

2:11:45planning. It's transportation, it's

2:11:47AATS, it's kind of everything. And so

2:11:49maybe to have a a a key person who would

2:11:51be the the um I mean, is that kind of

2:11:54what you're imagining? They would be

2:11:55sort of the person who coordinates all

2:11:58of that.

2:11:59>> Okay.

2:12:00>> Um I think that is a fantastic example

2:12:02of one of the things that I'm that I'm

2:12:05one of one of the things that has sort

2:12:07of illustrated the need for this

2:12:08position. I I think um I think another

2:12:10place that another project that

2:12:12illustrates the need is fire lane. Um I

2:12:14I think having an onstaff transportation

2:12:16planner would have really changed the

2:12:18shape of or would change the shape of

2:12:20that project in process. So

2:12:22>> yeah, thank you.

2:12:23>> Um do we have do we know does the

2:12:26planning department have um within their

2:12:28budget for hiring contractors uh funds

2:12:32that might be available for this?

2:12:34>> Um that's uh that's a good question. Um,

2:12:37and I I don't know what they have in

2:12:39terms of funding remaining for for

2:12:41contractors. I think it would be my

2:12:43preference that this would be something

2:12:45we would actually bring in house. I

2:12:46think having this as a contractual

2:12:48relationship sort of further fragments

2:12:50as opposed to sort of unifying parts. Um

2:12:55I um I am aware that uh they have they

2:13:00have been recruiting for an open

2:13:02position but I think that is also an

2:13:04important position and I would sort of

2:13:05hate to poach the funds from that. Um

2:13:08there's also u planning also funds right

2:13:11now a GIS position that actually isn't

2:13:14in planning. It's external to planning.

2:13:16Um so they have an FTE right now that's

2:13:19being sort of utilized in a different

2:13:21department but um

2:13:24technically pertains to them. So I I

2:13:26don't know what the permutation of

2:13:28options are in terms of how we get this

2:13:29funded and that that is ongoing work

2:13:31that I I need to do probably with

2:13:33director browse.

2:13:34>> Okay.

2:13:35>> Great. Thank you.

2:13:36>> Yeah. Okay. Any other questions?

2:13:39>> Okay. Not seeing any on that one. So

2:13:41let's uh move on. So the last three and

2:13:44there's two of them labeled 17 but they

2:13:45are different. So there's three more

2:13:46amendments. Um we have about 15 minutes

2:13:48left and then I'll just note all of

2:13:50these are related to uh the alcohol or

2:13:52marijuana tax. Um I guess well two of

2:13:55them are alcohol tax, one of marijuana

2:13:56tax. So uh so we are switching gears out

2:13:58of our general operating budget into

2:14:00that. Um and we'll uh go through that

2:14:02with the remaining time. So and then as

2:14:04I said uh need to reserve just a couple

2:14:06minutes to talk through process and next

2:14:08steps. But I also know our budget

2:14:09analyst will be emailing uh this

2:14:10information to all members as well. So

2:14:12uh next is mine. It is amendment 16. Um,

2:14:15I'm not going to read all of the text

2:14:16here. But the reason I put more text

2:14:18than we normally do in an amendment is

2:14:20um I thought some background might be

2:14:22helpful um because uh the few folks were

2:14:25here when some of these things happened

2:14:27and um as I said I it's not a disclosure

2:14:30because it's been long enough that I

2:14:31have not worked for the prior company

2:14:33that I worked for but um but just to say

2:14:35I have been involved in in this very

2:14:36deeply and so trying to communicate some

2:14:38of that but this is some of this is my

2:14:39take as well. So, um, essentially the

2:14:42the gist of this amendment, it is it is

2:14:44net zero, uh, because it moves, uh, it

2:14:46proposes moving $1 million out of the

2:14:49alcohol or I should say reducing the

2:14:51funding, uh, in various grants under the

2:14:55alcohol tax in order to make room for $1

2:14:57million for half of the uh, what we

2:15:00currently fund for ASD preK, which is

2:15:02about $2 million, uh, which was moved

2:15:04into the marijuana tax a couple years

2:15:06ago. And there we've had this

2:15:07discussion, so I won't reiterate that.

2:15:09Um, and I know I've not uh I've

2:15:11communicated some with some of the ACE

2:15:12fund board members. I know that this is

2:15:14part of their recommendations. The

2:15:16reason I did half is because if you look

2:15:17at the alcohol tax, um, there are not a

2:15:19lot of choices and they are all hard

2:15:21choices to make. So that I'm going to

2:15:22talk through why specifically I did uh

2:15:24the ones that I did. Uh, because I also

2:15:26want to recognize um, all of these

2:15:28organizations are doing good work. I say

2:15:29that in writing on this amendment. Uh,

2:15:31this is not a direct um, going against

2:15:34these amendments. But I think the

2:15:35question that this amendment raises and

2:15:38I'll also say this may change by the

2:15:39time we get to the 17th but I want to

2:15:41bring this discussion is really what are

2:15:43we holding harmless uh especially when

2:15:45we're talking about direct named grants

2:15:47and what are we either shifting or

2:15:49funding and what is the opportunity cost

2:15:50of that so essentially um I list

2:15:53multiple organizations here three of

2:15:55them uh this amendment right now

2:15:56proposes a full uh defund of these

2:15:58organizations so I will say awake star

2:16:00and victims for justice um I have not

2:16:03communicated with these organizations

2:16:05However, I know that these grants have

2:16:06been in this budget since the beginning

2:16:08and I also know that they have increased

2:16:10over time for these three organizations.

2:16:12Additionally, um, Anchorage Coated

2:16:15Homelessness, Catholic Social Services

2:16:16for Complex Care, Christian Health

2:16:18Associates, and Covenant House. Again,

2:16:19all of those have have most of them have

2:16:21been in the budget from the beginning.

2:16:22There has been a lot of work to fund

2:16:24homelessness. Um, and that is very

2:16:26important work. But again, I want to

2:16:28raise this conversation because

2:16:29essentially these things have been held

2:16:31in our budget year-over-year as we moved

2:16:342 million out for preK that was moved to

2:16:36a new funding source that I understand

2:16:38voters to mean wanted new things to be

2:16:40funded and not shifting existing things

2:16:43that we're funding. So, so this is why

2:16:46I'm doing this. Um, I will also say uh I

2:16:48think that that there's been the

2:16:49discussion about named grants. I think

2:16:51we've moved um there's pros and cons to

2:16:54doing competitive grants. There's pros

2:16:55and cons to doing very small grants at

2:16:56the municipality that all have a large

2:16:58administration cost, relatively large

2:17:00for depending on the amount. That's a

2:17:02lot of a lot of it's fixed cost for

2:17:03reporting the staff that you need, etc.

2:17:05So, a $20,000 grant can have the same

2:17:08cost as a $200,000 grant in terms of our

2:17:10overhead cost and the administration

2:17:12cost on the the city side. So, again, I

2:17:16I was looking for how do you carve a

2:17:17million dollars out of the alcohol tax?

2:17:18There's no fund balance. We're not

2:17:20expecting that to increase. It may even

2:17:22decrease over time depending on

2:17:24consumption patterns. Um and and all of

2:17:26these things do have a cost to those

2:17:28other organizations. However, again, we

2:17:31have moved $2 million out of the alcohol

2:17:33tax while these things have not been

2:17:35touched for several years. So, uh this

2:17:37that's really the conversation. So, um

2:17:39and also note there's a couple

2:17:40amendments after this um that that the

2:17:43other sponsor will speak to. It does

2:17:44different things, but just to say I

2:17:45think that this conversation about what

2:17:47we fund in the alcohol tax, how many

2:17:49years we fund it, and how reliable that

2:17:51funding is year-over-year for

2:17:52organizations that rely on it for

2:17:54operating subsidies, that's the big

2:17:56conversation. So, this is just one way

2:17:57to do that. So, uh questions, members,

2:18:00uh Mr. Presia,

2:18:04>> uh I I just like to say this is a really

2:18:06important conversation that we don't I I

2:18:08don't feel like we have enough time

2:18:09tonight to or today to completely um

2:18:11discuss. I would very much like to be

2:18:14involved in conversations with the

2:18:16administration about this. This is a I

2:18:18have a great deal of interest in this

2:18:21and it's a conversation that we've been

2:18:22having for a while and so I I think it's

2:18:24important and I I have lots to say about

2:18:26it but I don't have time tonight. So I I

2:18:28just wanted to say that that um um

2:18:30please include me if possible. I mean

2:18:33whether that's making me a sponsor and

2:18:34then making me a part of the

2:18:35conversation. I'd really like to be

2:18:36involved. Thanks.

2:18:37>> Yeah. And I'll just briefly say um agree

2:18:39we don't have the time for the

2:18:40conversation. I'm just putting it on the

2:18:42table. Happy to talk offline. Mr.

2:18:43Valent,

2:18:45>> thank you. Um I'm curious about

2:18:50So I I I think part of the um the other

2:18:53part of the alcohol tax conversation is

2:18:56if you know if these are if a if a big

2:18:59proportion of the alcohol tax is

2:19:03uh grants to nonprofits, community

2:19:05partners. It also leaves less room for

2:19:09municipality projects, special teams

2:19:12that we were talking about earlier. So I

2:19:13just want to flag that. um

2:19:18on the prek in title one schools. I I

2:19:22think that's um you know just of course

2:19:24a conceptually important thing, but if

2:19:27we

2:19:30I I I I just I wonder did the sponsor

2:19:33consider just eliminating that entirely

2:19:35rather than the decreases to the other

2:19:38alcohol tax

2:19:40appropriations?

2:19:41Um

2:19:43because I'm thinking about, you know,

2:19:44potential new state leadership,

2:19:46potential forward funding of education

2:19:49being uh you know, a school district

2:19:50potentially being in a different um

2:19:54budgetary posture in the future. Um is

2:19:58is that something that that could be

2:20:00funded through the state, through the

2:20:01school district?

2:20:03um maybe talk me through the importance

2:20:06of keeping the the prek funding at all

2:20:09or just what was the rationale there?

2:20:12>> Yeah, I think and there's the long

2:20:14version so I'll try to give the short

2:20:15version. Um the short version is um

2:20:17January 1st 2027

2:20:20uh is halfway through the school year

2:20:21and so one question is what do we do in

2:20:23the spring versus next academic year? So

2:20:251 million is one semester essentially.

2:20:28So um so I think that's that's a

2:20:30conversation to have. And then I think

2:20:31if we have it in two pieces, what we do

2:20:34with 27, like what we basically do for

2:20:35the kids that are already in these

2:20:36classrooms now versus what we do next

2:20:38academic year is a question. Certainly

2:20:40what happens with the state is a big

2:20:42question. And I think there is

2:20:43opportunity. This is not considered K12

2:20:45instruction money. And so the only

2:20:47reason we're able to do this is because

2:20:48it is outside the local contribution uh

2:20:50similar to transportation, SRO's, all

2:20:52these other things. And so um so can the

2:20:55school district absorb this on their

2:20:57own? Definitely not. Um not with the

2:20:59funding they have. and they're looking

2:21:00at cutting additional programs already,

2:21:03especially, you know, middle school,

2:21:04high school, sports, all those kind of

2:21:05things. Like that's that's the

2:21:06conversation we have had and continue to

2:21:08have. So, so yeah, I think um I think

2:21:10there is opportunity at the state. Um I

2:21:12think there's opportunity that this is

2:21:14not how this is paid for long term. I

2:21:16think there's a if you talk to the ACE

2:21:18fund board and childcare providers, they

2:21:19have their own perspective on whether we

2:21:21should be providing pre-k funding and

2:21:23how that impacts their um their uh

2:21:26ability to have operating models because

2:21:29uh prek kids cost less to have than

2:21:32infants. I mean, so anyway, so this is a

2:21:34big conversation. the AC1 board has been

2:21:35digging into this certainly and no one

2:21:37is arguing that we don't like prek but

2:21:39um but yeah so I think so I think as

2:21:41long as we can have the conversation

2:21:43about what happens January 1 of this

2:21:44coming year and what that certainty

2:21:46looks like versus next academic year I

2:21:48think there are more options and I'll

2:21:50say this is not I don't imagine this is

2:21:51the version I'm bringing on Tuesday but

2:21:54I think I again we have to have this

2:21:55conversation

2:21:58other questions

2:22:01you miss Baldwin Day sorry if you can I

2:22:03need a hand gesture or something.

2:22:05>> Oh, [laughter] sorry. You mean the head

2:22:06nod doesn't work? Okay. Um I I really

2:22:11appreciate this being put on the table

2:22:14as an option. Um I think in a resource

2:22:17constrained environment, we have to be

2:22:18willing to bite off really big hard

2:22:20questions and I think this is a really

2:22:22big hard question. Um, and so, um,

2:22:26I

2:22:28I think I I would I would also really

2:22:31like to, uh, participate in whatever

2:22:34conversations move forward with the

2:22:36administration and with other entities

2:22:38about this particular question because I

2:22:41think we avoid this at at our peril um

2:22:45to our own detriment really. So, um, if

2:22:48that again, as Mr. Presver. I said if

2:22:50that means having me as a co-sponsor, if

2:22:52that means um just inviting me into

2:22:55discussions, um I would really

2:22:56appreciate that. Thank you.

2:22:58>> Yep. Happy to have you. Uh any other

2:23:00questions on this?

2:23:02Okay. I'll say also uh just very briefly

2:23:04because then I know we need to move on.

2:23:05Um this does not make any choices about

2:23:08where that 1 million in marijuana tax

2:23:09funding goes. Um however, the ACE fund

2:23:12board has provided recommendations to

2:23:14this body. And so I think that's that's

2:23:16another that it's not part of this

2:23:17amendment. That's another piece of the

2:23:18conversation. And then I'll also say I

2:23:20really encourage everyone to look

2:23:21closely at appendix R of our budget,

2:23:24which is the alcohol and marijuana tax

2:23:26um appropriations proposed for next

2:23:28year, but also gives you a flavor of

2:23:30what's there now. Um because the only

2:23:32other line that is large enough that

2:23:34this is possible from is our shelter

2:23:35funding. So I I made a choice to not do

2:23:38that, but I will just say that there are

2:23:39very few places to pull these from. Uh

2:23:41regardless of how you want to slice the

2:23:43the alcohol tax.

2:23:45So, uh, with that said, uh, we do have

2:23:47two more on the alcohol tax, both from

2:23:48Miss Park. So, I will turn to Miss Park

2:23:50for both 17 and 18. Please proceed.

2:23:52Thank you, chair. So, um, that really

2:23:55leads into what I'm talking about. Um, I

2:23:59think from a public health perspective,

2:24:01when you're looking at long-term

2:24:03remediation, prevention saves you money

2:24:06over treatment of existing problems. So,

2:24:09with that in mind, um I am asking for a

2:24:13small amount of money to be taken from

2:24:15three existing programs. Um and a grant

2:24:20given for $75,000 to Alaska Children's

2:24:23Trust to administer a uh gun violence

2:24:27prevention uh program called Be Smart.

2:24:31Uh the program involves uh distribution

2:24:34of gunlocks and um educating children

2:24:38and families on uh safe gun storage. Um

2:24:44um knowing when there are firearms in

2:24:47the home, especially when school

2:24:49children are visiting each other. And um

2:24:54this would be administered through ASD.

2:24:57and uh President uh Carl Jacobs is very

2:25:01enthusiastic about this. Um uh Alaska

2:25:04Children's Trust would administer the

2:25:06funds. One of the things that we could

2:25:08do that would save some money um in

2:25:11distributing the materials is that ASD

2:25:15can print the materials and be

2:25:17reimbursed from the grant for their

2:25:19costs. So that it will be costneutral to

2:25:22ASD to be able to do this. and um

2:25:29would address the long-term goal of

2:25:31Alaska Children's Trust in um in harm

2:25:34reduction and violence reduction. Um

2:25:44I just I just lost a screen. Sorry. Um,

2:25:51in recent years, um, firearm involved

2:25:55homicide of children from ages 11, um,

2:26:00or younger have increased. Uh,

2:26:05from 2014 to 2023, the average

2:26:08percentage change in child homicides was

2:26:121.5%.

2:26:14But the invol the the involving uh the

2:26:17deaths involving a firearm uh was an

2:26:21increase of 4.2%.

2:26:23In 2023, 36% of child homicides included

2:26:29the use of firearms and that did include

2:26:32suicides. Um as mentioned by member um

2:26:36uh McCormack uh in our meeting Tuesday,

2:26:40we are the state with the highest rate

2:26:42of teen

2:26:44death by suicide and the majority of

2:26:47those used guns. So 36% of child

2:26:51homicides used uh firearms

2:26:55a a increase of 20% over 2014. So, in

2:27:00the last 10 years, um I think uh this is

2:27:03a a good investment and um if a single

2:27:08life could be changed by the investment

2:27:10of $75,000,

2:27:12I think that's warranted. Okay. Thank

2:27:14you. So, note um we have uh just a

2:27:17couple minutes left. I'm going to ask if

2:27:18we can extend um by at least five

2:27:21minutes or so and then I'm going to ask

2:27:22Miss Park to speak through the last

2:27:24amendment as well and then and then

2:27:25we'll go to questions on both of them.

2:27:27And just to to very briefly because we

2:27:28get don't have a lot of time. Thanks.

2:27:31>> No questions.

2:27:32>> Oh no. I'm going to ask you to speak to

2:27:34both of them together and then we'll

2:27:35take questions just to save a little

2:27:37time.

2:27:39So

2:27:43continuing similarly the grant for um

2:27:47recover Alaska would be in uh

2:27:49alcoholrevention programs and education

2:27:52um and conduct outreach for uh a a a

2:27:56hotline and peer support. And just to

2:28:00backtrack a little bit, part of the

2:28:01program for BS smart would be um uh PSAs

2:28:05and of course as I mentioned the

2:28:06literature to be distributed through

2:28:08ASD. um

2:28:13basically the same funding source that

2:28:15would be revenue neutral and um

2:28:21recover Alaska would use these funds to

2:28:24uh uh conduct outreach and get people's

2:28:27support before the problems escalate. Uh

2:28:30again, uh early intervention saved us

2:28:32money and uh I'd appreciate your

2:28:35support. Thank you. Thanks, uh Miss

2:28:37Scout.

2:28:40Thank you. Um,

2:28:42I have a lot of

2:28:45thoughts and questions here, I guess.

2:28:47So,

2:28:49there are two amendments that both cut

2:28:54three different nonprofits

2:28:57um

2:28:58$25,000. Are these amendments

2:29:02I is it a total of 150,000 for both?

2:29:08Okay. Because they and I think there's

2:29:09just like a scrier's error on the second

2:29:12one. Um saying add a new direct grant to

2:29:15Alaska Children's Trust instead of

2:29:17Recover Alaska. Um how

2:29:21normal is it or like how often do we do

2:29:23a sort of sole source contract like

2:29:27these two proposals? Is there a reason

2:29:29we wouldn't put out put a line item to

2:29:32address these issues? put out an RFP and

2:29:36go to the most, you know, the whichever

2:29:40proposal scores the highest rather than

2:29:42I think we're starting with a solution

2:29:45here and I'm not sure if that's our

2:29:47typical procedure. Um, but I have an

2:29:49issue with soul source contracting in

2:29:52general. Um, especially with these

2:29:53issues that really matter.

2:29:56>> I think yeah, I think to briefly speak

2:29:58to it.

2:30:00>> I was going to say I see uh Mr.

2:30:01Presbyver lean in for the mic uh

2:30:04[laughter] through the chair to member

2:30:05scout. Um I think the issue you have

2:30:08identified is part of uh what chair

2:30:10Broly is talking about in terms of

2:30:11directed named grants as opposed to a

2:30:13competitive procurement process for an

2:30:15outcome and um that uh has been a

2:30:20challenge uh for the municipality both

2:30:23in its operations but also in terms of

2:30:26our actual code on procurement. Um,

2:30:29which means that we usually put forward

2:30:32a program that has a amount of funding

2:30:35that is available for competitive bid.

2:30:42>> Yeah, Mr. President with you.

2:30:44>> Yeah, I I'll try to be really brief. Um,

2:30:46I I think that there's two two parts

2:30:48here. What we what we can do and what we

2:30:50should do as a body. And I think this is

2:30:52a really good conversation for this and

2:30:54all bodies to have is that is that

2:30:57during budget processes whether you're

2:30:58on the school board or on the assembly

2:31:00it it typically happens that somebody

2:31:02says I want to give that organization

2:31:05money or I want you to hire somebody in

2:31:07this position or I want you to buy this

2:31:10software program and so the question is

2:31:13is that stepping over the line in terms

2:31:14of our role and I think that's a really

2:31:16healthy conversation to have. So I would

2:31:18just leave it there and say that that

2:31:20that that that line between governance

2:31:22and of operations I think can be crossed

2:31:25and often is crossed and um and we can

2:31:28debate that but but this is this falls

2:31:30within that sort of sort of conversation

2:31:32and I'm often an adam advocate for for

2:31:35not crossing those lines as much as pos

2:31:37possible and giving the administration

2:31:40the ability to do competitive things or

2:31:43saying here's what I want to accomplish.

2:31:46let me let me allocate some money there

2:31:48and then and then I'll then you guys

2:31:50figure out how to do that as long as

2:31:52it's it's what I'm trying to sort of

2:31:53encourage you to do. So that that would

2:31:55be the statement I'd have. Thanks.

2:31:57>> Yeah. And I'll just briefly add um let's

2:31:58have an offline conversation because I

2:32:00can go way deep on this um that I think

2:32:02might be helpful but but the the short

2:32:04version is some of these uh named grants

2:32:06have been in the alcohol tax from the

2:32:07beginning.

2:32:09>> Thank you. Yeah, I think I appreciate

2:32:12the intent. I we need to work on these

2:32:15upstream solutions. Um those solutions

2:32:18also include addressing issues around

2:32:21housing supply and affordability, good

2:32:22jobs, education, mental health, like um

2:32:25this is a very multi-pronged issue. I

2:32:27think we're trying to have a silver

2:32:28bullet here, but I um don't think I'm

2:32:30convinced that this is it. And I guess

2:32:32I'll just

2:32:33also share like a moment of personal

2:32:36privilege that somebody that I grew up

2:32:38with here in Anchorage. Um, a peer of

2:32:40mine died by suicide last month by

2:32:42lethal means. Um, and so this issue is

2:32:44important to me. And I don't think we

2:32:46can speed through a solution here. And I

2:32:50think I know from my connection to this

2:32:53person who passed away [clears throat]

2:32:54that a handout probably, you know, a

2:32:57pamphlet wouldn't have helped, but

2:32:59access to housing, jobs, um, and

2:33:02reducing the criminalization of mental

2:33:04health and substance abuse issues would

2:33:05have been a lot better for that

2:33:07individual.

2:33:10Okay. Any other questions? Well, I think

2:33:12um we almost out of time. So, Miss Park,

2:33:14if you want to raise, but I want to make

2:33:15sure we're not debating. We could

2:33:19>> It's not It's not a matter of of debate.

2:33:22I'm just saying that prevention uh goes

2:33:25a long way in some of these issues, both

2:33:28both of these issues. So, what we what

2:33:31we would like to strive to do is to not

2:33:35have those detrimental outcomes. and

2:33:38that comes from an early investment.

2:33:40>> Okay. Uh so I know as we've said there's

2:33:42a big conversation to have. I think um

2:33:45part of it will happen through the

2:33:46budget process but I think this is um

2:33:48this has been a conversation for five

2:33:50years so it will certainly continue. Um

2:33:52so with that um we have gotten through

2:33:53our amendments. Um and then I will also

2:33:55say for folks um this is not the final

2:33:58packet. This does not limit you from

2:34:00bringing other amendments um on things

2:34:02that we haven't even talked about. I

2:34:03will also remind folks though, the the

2:34:05later the later someone gets something,

2:34:08the less likely they're going to be able

2:34:09to uh support it. So I would encourage

2:34:11socializing ideas. Obviously, we won't

2:34:13have another work session. And then I'll

2:34:14also say I want to say very clearly this

2:34:16process is different than writing floor

2:34:18amendments for code. Um so so part of

2:34:21especially if you're touching the

2:34:22operating budget, even if you're

2:34:23touching the capital budget, we aren't

2:34:25to the point that we're doing bonds. Um

2:34:27but it affects IGC's, it affects other

2:34:29things. So that is why I'm really

2:34:30encouraging everybody um even if you

2:34:32don't have something on paper yet talk

2:34:34to the budget analyst because what

2:34:35happens in our meeting especially

2:34:37because we cannot exceed the tax cap is

2:34:40uh every time we move an amendment there

2:34:41will be a real-time calculation of

2:34:43whether that will increase or decrease

2:34:44the IGC's as well. So um so just keep in

2:34:47touch with the budget analyst and the

2:34:48OMB director about that. Um I'm going to

2:34:50very briefly turn to uh Molly to give us

2:34:53just a couple things on timing uh and

2:34:55and what she'll need from members before

2:34:57Tuesday the 17th.

2:34:59Uh, yes, super quick. The deadline has

2:35:01not changed in the original email that

2:35:03was sent out regarding this matter. So,

2:35:05end of day, November 11th. Yes, it's a

2:35:07holiday. No, I did not make the assembly

2:35:09work schedule and I confirmed everything

2:35:11with the clerk. Um, that is the addendum

2:35:14deadline, so it is the way to get

2:35:16everything out in time. Late on the

2:35:18table items require brownies before

2:35:21submission to me. Um, and those are due

2:35:25no later than Monday by noon. We need to

2:35:28be able to look through those things.

2:35:29So, um, obviously communication is the

2:35:31most helpful thing. So, email me after

2:35:33Ona tells you where all of the money is

2:35:35found. And by that, I mean, Director

2:35:36Browse, apologies. Uh, so those fund

2:35:39source lines, clean them up. I apologize

2:35:41for any of the little errors here. We'll

2:35:43get everything cleaned up and it'll be

2:35:44beautiful for the main meeting. Thanks.

2:35:46>> Yeah, thank you. And shout out to our

2:35:48budget analyst. This is her budget,

2:35:49first budget cycle as well. Um, so yeah,

2:35:52and these the reason we do these drafts

2:35:53is so we can get it right for the final.

2:35:55So, um, and then I'll also just ask Miss

2:35:56Browse, uh, can you speak to intention

2:35:58as far as S versions on our various

2:36:00budget items?

2:36:01>> Yes, thank you, Chair. Um, so I think

2:36:03the process we'll go through this year

2:36:05is that the administration does intend

2:36:07to uh put forward an S version uh of

2:36:10both uh potentially, as far as I can

2:36:12tell right now, the operating and the

2:36:13capital budget. Um the uh coordination

2:36:17that will occur between uh mayor's

2:36:20office, our office and all of you will

2:36:22be sort of communication on amendments.

2:36:25If they are being entertained or will be

2:36:28included in the S version, we'll talk to

2:36:30you about that and let you know. I think

2:36:32in the past we have put together sort of

2:36:34a uh a a spreadsheet a list if you will

2:36:38of whether or not all of the member what

2:36:40what what sort of happened with the

2:36:42member amendments whether or not the

2:36:43administration accepted or didn't

2:36:45include it in the s version and we'll be

2:36:47able to have that information for you uh

2:36:50next week in advance of the meeting so

2:36:52you'll be able to prepare your amendment

2:36:54packet for the Tuesday night itself.

2:36:58Thanks. And the only thing I'll add from

2:37:00the perspective of budget and finance

2:37:01co-chairs, um that role has been more or

2:37:04less hands-on depending on the nature of

2:37:06the budget each year. Um but

2:37:07essentially, um that is one of the

2:37:09functions. Uh and and I should say to

2:37:11Mr. Bull and I who are the co-chairs, it

2:37:13is not our vibes. It is not what we like

2:37:15or don't like. It is can we fit things

2:37:17in after conversation with the

2:37:18administration. And I think our

2:37:20intention um and and has been really to

2:37:23to try to make things work as best we

2:37:25can and then knowing that there will be

2:37:27individual amendments especially where

2:37:29we anticipate members don't agree. So um

2:37:31so there will be there may be some of

2:37:32that. It's tough when there is not a lot

2:37:34of tax capacity to deal with. Um but

2:37:36that's the intention. So uh so if you

2:37:38have questions again speak with our

2:37:40budget analyst and OM director who are

2:37:42not subject to the open meetings act and

2:37:44um and then look for some things coming

2:37:46through in an S version. And I do

2:37:47anticipate we're going to be spending a

2:37:49chunk of time on amendments in our

2:37:50meeting as well. So with that, I know

2:37:52we're a little bit over time, so thanks

2:37:53everybody. Um uh and I think that

2:37:56concludes our work session today. For

2:37:58those sticking around, we have a 1 pm

2:37:59legislative committee meeting.

2:38:00Otherwise, we our business is done for

2:38:02the day. So everyone have a good

2:38:03weekend. Thank you. We're adjourned.

```*