[0:05] Assembly Chambers: I call this May 5, th 2025 Assembly Committee of the whole to order at 6, 34

[0:14] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Wall, would you read the land acknowledgement.

[0:17] Assembly Chambers: It's good.

[0:19] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Chair Smith. We would like to acknowledge that the city and borough of June is on Lingit land, and wish to honor the indigenous peoples of this land. For more than 10,000 years Alaska native people have been and continue to be, integral to the well-being of our community. We're grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Linga people.

[0:47] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Miss Wall, madam Clerk, would you call the roll?

[0:52] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Branson.

[0:55] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Scandies.

[1:00] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Here.

[1:01] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Atkinson.

[1:03] Assembly Chambers: Here.

[1:04] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Wall, present Mr. Kelly here, Ms. Hall, here Mr. Steininger, here, Deputy Mayor Smith here, and Mayor Weldon.

[1:22] Assembly Chambers: Sure all members are present.

[1:26] Assembly Chambers: Very good, thank you, madam Clerk, I did get a request

[1:31] Assembly Chambers: regarding the agenda, and I would like to offer

[1:36] Assembly Chambers: trans flopping agenda items 4 and 5. So Telephone Hill. Next steps would be 1st followed by the Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center Operation parts A and B,

[1:47] Assembly Chambers: assuming that is okay with the body. If I could have a motion approving that agenda with changes.

[1:56] Assembly Chambers: I would appreciate it.

[1:58] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the agenda as amended. Very good. Thank you. Any objection to that, seeing none. The agenda is approved as amended. We have 3 sets of community of the whole draft minutes.

[2:15] Assembly Chambers: any changes or a motion to approve those 3 sets of minutes

[2:20] Assembly Chambers: we're supposed to make a motion is what Staff prefers versus me, just saying none. So thank you, Mr. Kelly.

[2:27] Assembly Chambers: I move that we approve. The July 15, th 2024, Assembly cow draft minutes, the August 5, th 2024

[2:37] Assembly Chambers: minutes, and the September 9, th 2024 min, and ask for unanimous consent.

[2:44] Assembly Chambers: Very good seeing objection. Those minutes are approved

[2:48] Assembly Chambers: onto our agenda topics. We are again starting with now with

[2:53] Assembly Chambers: Telephone Hill next steps. Item 5

[2:59] Assembly Chambers: for discussion. The manager has a memo. Imagine we've all read it. Some options outlined.

[3:08] Assembly Chambers: but I know we're just trying to make some headway due to trying to

[3:14] Assembly Chambers: keep this thing going along. Manager Kester. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I have a few slides in your packet that are pulled from the Telephone Hill Place guide, and I just want to go through them to kind of get everyone up to speed on where we have been on the Telephone Hill project. So Telephone Hill was

[3:35] Assembly Chambers: conveyed from the State of Alaska to Cbj. In March of 2023 thanks to Senator keel hats off to him for his work on that. I think the city had been working on that for for many, many moons, many years. They've been working on that telephone hill.

[3:52] Assembly Chambers: The area that we're talking about. The the neighborhood in general includes the downtown transit center and the parking lot there. But we're really talking about 2.5 acres of developable land on top of Telephone Hill. Currently, there's 13 units there in 19 properties. So the kind of 1st order of business. One of the most important things is replanting that property because the property lines go through existing buildings.

[4:21] Assembly Chambers: We've spent over a year in a pretty extensive public process, starting with public meetings, assembly meetings coming to the whole meetings, listening sessions, and all of that process culminated in the telephone, help, Place guide, and these pictures are just pulled from the telephone. Help place guide you know. So that process kind of took all of the community wishes the Assembly wishes, and

[4:47] Assembly Chambers: gave a really pretty robust vision for what the Assembly and the community want to see developed in Telephone Hill and the Assembly picked concept C, and that's the image you have here, which is a mix of studio, one bed and 2 bedroom units

[5:02] Assembly Chambers: with a 65 foot height limit throughout the site, really wanting to preserve those viewscapes, but also build maximum density, wanting to preserve or reestablish our tree canopy. There was a desire for some like open space incorporated throughout, really improving the pedestrian access with a stairway connection from Willoughby Avenue and Main Street, and principally the Assembly, wanted to create a

[5:26] Assembly Chambers: affordable housing and make sure that 20% of those units were 80%. Ami. So this is kind of the vision

[5:34] Assembly Chambers: option C was the vision that the assembly talked about. That's 150 new residential units. So the next slide

[5:43] Assembly Chambers: just talks about how these, how once you get rid of all the lot lines you could develop Telephone Hill. And the reason these kind of lines are drawn like this is to maximize the buildable area. So you know, the consultants 1, st 40 feet, who we hired to work on. This really recommended

[6:03] Assembly Chambers: this particular configuration to maximize the size of the units that we would be able to build next slide. Another challenge of Telephone Hill is the, I guess, a challenge and a benefit. Right is the steep slopes and the grading. So it's

[6:20] Assembly Chambers: lovely because it creates some elevation and some different views, but it creates some challenges for buildable lots. So one of the recommendations that you saw in the memo, and that the place Guide talks about is doing some excavating to create those buildable lots. So basically, some blasting is going to need to be done up there to create those lots next slide.

[6:40] Assembly Chambers: Another improvement that is going to be according to the 1st 40 feet that is going to be needed to the property is to move Dixon Street. It needs to be realigned again to create maximum density and also to be improved for emergency access. Right now the slope and the alignment of it are not great for emergency access. So the kind of realignment of the road is another

[7:04] Assembly Chambers: recommendation that 1st 40 met, and then I'm going to end on this slide, even though you should never show an image of a project that has not even been gone through a feasibility design stage. But I think it's kind of lovely to just think of what that area could look like with, you know, some mixed housing, retail space up there just a really kind of a vibrant neighborhood, so

[7:29] Assembly Chambers: Don't get too hung up on the windows or the blockiness or the squares. Just take a moment to imagine the direction that we're all headed in. Okay, you can take down those slides now, madam Clerk.

[7:40] Assembly Chambers: So with the telephone Hill place guide staff worked on a

[7:46] Assembly Chambers: request for information to issue for developers, and the idea for this request for information was to give them the place guide and give them the parameters that the Assembly and the community wanted to see in a development and ask the development community. What do you need to make this happen right? What improvements do you need? What incentives do you need? And we got one response, and that was from Johnson and Carr, important to note that Northman architects who's in the room, was the local representation. On that response

[8:16] Assembly Chambers: we sat down and met with a respondent, and with north wind and kind of had the same kind of more colloquial conversation with them about about what would be needed to develop this site. And you know, just

[8:28] Assembly Chambers: to summarize the uncertainty of having the units up there with a lot of hazardous materials, and the expense in demoing is going to be really tremendous because of the hazardous materials because of the unknowns

[8:43] Assembly Chambers: we've heard from local developers. And 1st 40, if you, you know, went through this process with us, said, you know you might need to invest in demolition and site preparation just to be able to attract developers. And I think that's been confirmed when we talk to local developers and confirmed when we talk to outside developers. The question is, you know, where?

[9:03] Assembly Chambers: Where in the trajectory of the project would we need to kind of stop direct city investment and direct city management of the project, and depend on a private developer to do that. And so the memo tries to kind of walk you through a few different options.

[9:21] Assembly Chambers: The option that is recommended by 1st 40 feet is that that we do demolition site preparation, which includes excavating and build the realigned road, basically leaving us with 4

[9:36] Assembly Chambers: for developable

[9:37] Assembly Chambers: plots of land. And I think I like land Manager Blightorn, who says, I want to see a grassy patch with a for sale sign on it. So that is the option that the that 1st 40 feet recommended.

[9:50] Assembly Chambers: There are some challenges with that option, principally among them the price tag. So the Cbj engineering took the the original cost estimate from 1st 40 feet, which was done, I believe, by respect as as a sub on that. And it was a 5 million dollars. Construction. Estimate

[10:09] Assembly Chambers: difference between construction and project cost is about 40% added some contingencies, because we're dealing with a lot of hazardous materials and came up with a 9 million dollar price tag. So

[10:19] Assembly Chambers: I think you know, appreciate that there's a lot of challenges with coming up with 9 million dollars to get a kind of

[10:27] Assembly Chambers: perfectly aligned for clean buildable lots at that site. I did build out a timeline in the memo that just tries to walk through, how we could approach

[10:40] Assembly Chambers: developing Telephone Hill so that we could build by next summer season. And so you can see in the timeline. I recommend that by the next cow we get some direction on funding for for development a city led project of development of Telephone Hill that we notify tenants up there of development and give them September 15th

[11:05] Assembly Chambers: as a date that they need to leave by the timeline also talks about bringing in a developer for construction before we've necessarily demoed and

[11:18] Assembly Chambers: done that site preparation work. So there's some advantage to like having that work started and doing that work so that the city takes on the kind of responsibility of that. But bringing in a developer to develop the property or to have a vision about the development of the property before that work is finished, and the reason, of course, being timeline, and also, as you, you know, get to a

[11:41] Assembly Chambers: more complete phase and a time when we would hand that project over to a private developer. You know there may be things that they

[11:48] Assembly Chambers: they want to add and contribute to that that project. So that takes me to talk a little bit. The timeline is for like how we would get from, you know

[11:59] Assembly Chambers: demoing homes to building a road by next summer.

[12:03] Assembly Chambers: But the the very logical question is, how could we phase this project? Given the the 9 million dollars price tag. And so I did spend some time thinking about a phasing option that would be just doing

[12:19] Assembly Chambers: just doing demolition site preparation and leaving the kind of future road development up to a future developer and or a future phase. So you know, I think that there's 1 scenario where we could demo the properties that are up there. And really, that's the bulk of that cost. Because of the hazardous materials we will. We will be looking at having to container, those and ship those those materials out. We're going to be having to look at a lot of

[12:47] Assembly Chambers: extra cost just in in contractor time. And and they're so

[12:52] Assembly Chambers: staggering what it cost to demo those older homes so. But looking at a phase project, we would do that demolition. We would do some of the excavation to make it a buildable lot, and most importantly, we would replat it right? So the the platting would be clean and the lots would be clean, and then, under a phased approach, we would want to bring in

[13:14] Assembly Chambers: a developer to do the development. So we would issue an Rfp similar to the Rfi. That we issued, but with a lot more concrete details of what the city is looking for now the unknowns are. I have no idea what it would take to leverage exactly what the Assembly wants. Right? So there's still unknowns in any one of these scenarios. There's a lot of unknowns like

[13:37] Assembly Chambers: okay, we invest 5.5 million dollars? Are we going to get a developer or 4 different developers that will build maximum density and

[13:46] Assembly Chambers: 20% affordability? Those. Those are still unknown questions. But we're certainly in a better position to leverage that if we've taken some of that uncertainty and and really given a nice buildable lot. So I think there is a path where there's some phasing. I also outlined in the memo some potential funding sources for funding the 5.5 million dollar investment that that phase one would look like.

[14:13] Assembly Chambers: We have 1.7 million in the current cip. We will after this year's cip, because you're transferring about 400,000 into it. As part of this, the 1% funding in the cip. I talk about Peterson Hill Cip being a potential place to transfer funds to Peterson Hills. Another high priority for the Assembly. In fact, I think telephone Hills Number 4 and Peterson Hills number 5 on your Assembly priorities.

[14:39] Assembly Chambers: The affordable Housing Fund is another potential funding source, so that would mean not doing a round of of affordable housing fund or reducing the available funding for the affordable Housing fund.

[14:50] Assembly Chambers: And that's about as far as I got, though the members may have other creative ideas for potential funding sources, but essentially some type of funding that follows the the budget cycle. It can be as a separate ordinance, but could could kind of follow that budget cycle. So you guys are making all of those decisions on what to do with fund balance at the at the same time would be ideal. If you are interested in

[15:14] Assembly Chambers: kind of launching a city Led development project. So, in conclusion, I have laid out 4 different options for you to discuss. As I mentioned, it'd be great to get direction tonight. But I understand that maybe you just have a lot more questions, in which case I could bring back answers. At the next meeting.

[15:33] Assembly Chambers: The 1st option is just replanting, and, you know, putting it on the market so kind of the least the least

[15:41] Assembly Chambers: option would be to get rid of all those confusing lines. Since we own the property we could do that. I've talked a lot about funding phase one at 5.5 million talked about funding the entire project, the entire project being to construct the road, and then another option, of course, is to do nothing right now but continue to save funds to do the project in the future. And in a way, that's how we've done Peterson Hill right.

[16:06] Assembly Chambers: We've appropriated a little bit of money here and there, and are looking at kind of building up that fund so that we can eventually do do the project.

[16:16] Assembly Chambers: I think the main difference between Peterson Hill or one of the differences between Peterson Hill and Telephone Hill

[16:21] Assembly Chambers: is we can still make substantial progress on Peterson Hill kind of a little bit at a time, because of both the the nature of the project. And it's just a less visible project. So you know, I think this body has talked before about it, being challenging to like

[16:37] Assembly Chambers: just demo the homes and then wait for 2 years to collect more money to do any more site development, and so that that, I think changes a little bit how to how to prioritize this project. So with that, I will stop for questions.

[16:53] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Manager Kester questions from the team, Mayor Weldon, then Mr. Bryson and Miss Atkinson.

[17:00] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[17:02] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Castor,

[17:05] Assembly Chambers: So we received an I think it was just me maybe received an email today, and just to ensure that the tenants aren't competing with

[17:16] Assembly Chambers: the seasonal workers. If we move the lease termination to 11. How much would that affect you? Because it doesn't say we start our demo until October, anyway. Speak to that a little.

[17:31] Assembly Chambers: I think that would be fine. We were just looking for a fall date that would have the maximum availability for

[17:39] Assembly Chambers: 4 tenants, and if October one feels better.

[17:46] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Bryson.

[17:48] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I agree. October. One would be better than any date for September to try and find new locations. My question is.

[17:58] Assembly Chambers: We have the Juneau fire department has used, abandoned or condemned homes for firefighting practice. They set them on fire purposely, and are able to conduct training with them. If we know that we are disposing of these buildings. Wouldn't that be a good scenario

[18:17] Assembly Chambers: to let the fire department conduct extensive training, and it removes the some of the costs are getting rid of the building.

[18:27] Assembly Chambers: Is there a reason why we wouldn't be able to do that?

[18:33] Assembly Chambers: Wow!

[18:35] Assembly Chambers: But

[18:37] Assembly Chambers: I defer to former assistant fire chief, Welding.

[18:42] Assembly Chambers: thought the mayor might have some insight. It would depend on how much hazardous materials are in each building, and what's the

[18:50] Assembly Chambers: anything around it. That might be a questionable problem that might catch on fire, too, including things like power lines and

[18:59] Assembly Chambers: such that. But it's not a bad idea to at least ask them if they want to do search and rescue training if they can.

[19:05] Assembly Chambers: So that's not a bad idea, Mr. Price. Well, Madam Mayor, just if I may. It's right in the heart of downtown.

[19:13] Assembly Chambers: which, if we're going to have a problem downtown, it would be very similar to any circumstance on Telephone Hill. That's kind of what prompted that thinking, because if it happened anywhere in a 2 mile circus, it's a circle of that. It's going to be similar. So let's

[19:29] Assembly Chambers: yeah. But again, it depends on how much hazardous materials. If they're full of asbestos, it's not going to happen.

[19:37] Assembly Chambers: Miss Adkinson.

[19:39] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[19:41] Assembly Chambers: just a question for you, or maybe city staff. I'm noticing on our agenda. We have a few things labeled for discussion, for action. Are there reasons why we are just discussing some of these items instead of potentially moving them forward today.

[19:57] Assembly Chambers: Yeah, thank you.

[20:00] Assembly Chambers: just as chair. I feel like it's beneficial for the body to have some indication of.

[20:07] Assembly Chambers: You know what I'm what I'm at least thinking of. And you know I discuss these agendas with staff. You know, for certain items.

[20:15] Assembly Chambers: Personally, I feel like they may need more than one hearing. Others may disagree, but it's kind of just

[20:20] Assembly Chambers: to offer guidelines. So people can determine how much they need to hone in, how much they need to ask, how much they need to prepare, how much they need to, you know, be ready to make a big decision. So

[20:30] Assembly Chambers: sure. So it's just a chair suggestion. Then

[20:37] Assembly Chambers: I would guess so sure, because we people could move it at any point. But, as you may see, Ms. Atkinson, you know.

[20:44] Assembly Chambers: we're trying to like jump process. You may lose votes when you do that. So. But anyway.

[20:50] Assembly Chambers: we can. We follow Robert's rules so things can be in order.

[20:55] Assembly Chambers: Did you have a question about this topic.

[21:00] Assembly Chambers: this wall?

[21:03] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Chair Smith.

[21:07] Assembly Chambers: 1st question is about the 4 developable lots. This, this may be me, not being

[21:18] Assembly Chambers: not super well versed in

[21:21] Assembly Chambers: some of these aspects of the city. But where did that number come from? And does that decision to replant into 4 developable lots?

[21:35] Assembly Chambers: Restrict options like, how did that number come up with? And could

[21:41] Assembly Chambers: there be benefit to deciding the number of lots at another point in time?

[21:48] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. So that specific alignment was determined by 1st 40 feet. After looking at our zoning code parcels, our zoning code, our setback rules in order to kind of be able to build to maximum density. I think

[22:07] Assembly Chambers: you know there's a there's a slide in your packet that just recommends that the it be divided into those 4 lots, you know. There's only so much room up there with alignment of the road, and just all the other things that are necessary. That being said.

[22:23] Assembly Chambers: certainly we could engage a potential developer early enough in the process that if you know that wasn't the the preferred alignment, and it could be replatted into something different. We are the owner of all that property. So it would be. You know it's relatively easy to replant that

[22:41] Assembly Chambers: when it is by owned by one owner.

[22:46] Assembly Chambers: Very well, then, so remind me

[22:53] Assembly Chambers: when we sell land it goes to the land fun correct?

[23:00] Assembly Chambers: Because that's my 1st part of my question, and he's going to give me a follow up. Is that correct? You are correct. So if we wanted to be creative with our financing.

[23:09] Assembly Chambers: instead of taking it from the affordable Housing fund, the 2.5 million, we could technically take it from the general fund, and then, when we sell it.

[23:19] Assembly Chambers: give all the money to the land. But except for the 2.5 million

[23:27] Assembly Chambers: a loan from the general fund that we would repay when we sell it.

[23:32] Assembly Chambers: I think that that is correct. You could loan the Land Fund. The Lands Fund doesn't have enough money to cover the entire cost of the development, but you certainly could

[23:44] Assembly Chambers: do some arrangement where, when those properties are sold that funding kind of repays that initial investment. And it's an important thing to remember. This property has value and will have additional value once it's improved.

[24:02] Assembly Chambers: Very good, Miss Hall.

[24:04] Assembly Chambers: A couple questions first.st How many folks are living up there now? How many people will we be displacing?

[24:14] Assembly Chambers: It's between 14 and 16.

[24:16] Assembly Chambers: And then second question, unrelated is, you know, in in the options it says, there is no option that meets our goals without investing significant Cbj funds.

[24:30] Assembly Chambers: and this sounds odd coming from the social service gal. But what happens if affordability is removed? And it's just kind of, you know, flat out market rate

[24:43] Assembly Chambers: housing.

[24:47] Assembly Chambers: So I obviously don't have a

[24:50] Assembly Chambers: crystal ball, so I can't tell you exactly what would happen. However, it would be premium developable land in downtown Juneau, and more attractive for a developer.

[25:03] Assembly Chambers: So i 1 1 could assume that

[25:07] Assembly Chambers: it would be easier, for example, for the city to invest either invest less in getting it to

[25:14] Assembly Chambers: getting into that place. Where am I, mate?

[25:21] Assembly Chambers: Thanks. I just kind of a I don't know if it's the same vein, but I guess.

[25:26] Assembly Chambers: is the fact that we just got one response from our Rfi is that

[25:31] Assembly Chambers: is that telling either about our design. And

[25:35] Assembly Chambers: you know the place guide that we created for that or put their

[25:40] Assembly Chambers: anyway? Should we read some kind of sign from the fact that only one company responded to that?

[25:48] Assembly Chambers: We have asked that question. Staff has asked that question of our local development community, and I think,

[25:55] Assembly Chambers: you know, they were like, decide exactly what you want and issue an Rfp. And we'll put the time and effort into actually developing a proposal. So I think that could be certainly a reason. But also it takes time to develop those materials. It takes time to put together that package, and only one respondent felt like it was worth their time to do that.

[26:18] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Thank you.

[26:20] Assembly Chambers: Further questions as well.

[26:24] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Smith. I listened into the Land's meeting today, and had seen the proposal that came through about second in Franklin, I believe, from same developer group that put in the Rfi.

[26:41] Assembly Chambers: And obviously that has also been on our priority list, much smaller scale project, but in that kind of came up out of nowhere a little bit for us, even though it's been on a priority list. And so from our conversations with that developer. Are we expecting that project as well to require city investment to move forward? Or was there an understanding that that would? Not? Only because

[27:11] Assembly Chambers: if so, I'd like to see kind of both of those projects

[27:15] Assembly Chambers: together, as we consider next steps, but hoping that

[27:19] Assembly Chambers: that was not part of their proposal.

[27:26] Assembly Chambers: So I don't have a specific answer to that question. We did meet and talk about a variety of challenges on that site, parking being one of them and the expensive parking.

[27:38] Assembly Chambers: so it would not surprise me to expect the Second and Franklin Development to also want to use tools like the affordable housing fund and tax abatement.

[27:53] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Any further questions on this topic, Mr. Kelly.

[28:00] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. I

[28:03] Assembly Chambers: so it seems to me that we're going through this to to try and make this more attractive to a potential developer. I guess I experience a little bit of hesitation in moving and asking people to to leave their homes

[28:22] Assembly Chambers: before we have a project under contract and and ready to go. Would would it be sufficient to just like have have a general direction in

[28:35] Assembly Chambers: where the Assembly wants to go, but maybe condition that on actually having something signed on the dotted lines that way, we're actually guaranteed, or at least as guaranteed as we can be to to have additional housing at the end of this

[28:54] Assembly Chambers: Andrew Custer.

[28:58] Assembly Chambers: I'm I'm struggling a little bit to understand the question, so I'm going to rephrase it and see if I'm meeting your intent. Is your, is your question. Is there a way to guarantee occupiable housing units before the Assembly

[29:15] Assembly Chambers: serves notice to existing tenants to leave their homes.

[29:21] Assembly Chambers: Essentially. I'm also wondering if it would continue to be attractive to developers if we did that

[29:31] Assembly Chambers: so?

[29:33] Assembly Chambers: I don't know right? I don't know. We certainly could issue instead of an Rfi an Rfp. That says.

[29:41] Assembly Chambers: Hey, this is what it's this is what it's going to look like. Are you going? Would you, you know, commit to doing a project? I think the challenges with that is, there are still so many unknowns with site, development and hazardous materials. There's also challenges with the timeline. So if you're a developer, you're not going to engage in a project.

[30:01] Assembly Chambers: and commit your capital and your funding to that project until you know what's happening. Right? So let's say, we're, you know, a year out or 2 years out. So those are some of the challenges I would see in in taking that approach. But I think that would be as the way. I understand your question. The best way to

[30:22] Assembly Chambers: try to get there would be to develop an Rfp. Instead of an Rfi based on the telephone Hill place, guide and be able to kind of award a firm commitment to a developer instead of

[30:35] Assembly Chambers: this, hey? We want to hear more from you, I think the other challenge with that is just the level of design that we put into the product? Right? Do we want 4 lots? Do we want Dixon exactly here, or does it aligned there. So we'd have to kind of make some more assumptions and decisions with less information, you know, unless unless we wanted to, you know, fund design, and I mean there, there are different ways to approach that timeline.

[31:03] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Bryson, if you may. Are we in just strictly questions. Or can we comment on some of the historical stuff?

[31:11] Assembly Chambers: I was gonna pivot to comments after questions? I think my question is, when did Cbj

[31:20] Assembly Chambers: be informed that we were going to receive Telephone Hill, and maybe what was the date that we actually received? Telephone Hill?

[31:31] Assembly Chambers: My suspicion was it was in 2018, we began discussing getting

[31:36] Assembly Chambers: Telephone Hill. We might not have gotten it for a couple of years after that.

[31:41] Assembly Chambers: but we absolutely have had discussions where we tried to let tenants know

[31:46] Assembly Chambers: that eventually those buildings won't be there.

[31:50] Assembly Chambers: We know that it's been a touchy situation. Nobody wants to talk about people's homes. It's very emotional and talk about what we're going to do to telephone Hill. We can't move Telephone Hill forward

[32:03] Assembly Chambers: if we try to reserve 12 apartments for people that are living there right now.

[32:08] Assembly Chambers: So we have this one and just looking at some of the numbers, it's hundreds of units. I mean, it could be a substantial improvement to downtown.

[32:16] Assembly Chambers: and while I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the people, we have been telling them for at least 5 years, you're going to have to move.

[32:25] Assembly Chambers: And here we are 5 years later, and we have people saying, Well, you can't make us move until you have a plan. We can't move a plan forward until they're gone, because what Manager Kester said was the point that will stick it if they're still living in their homes. That is a whole different legal realm.

[32:44] Assembly Chambers: and one person decided not to leave could delay this whole project. So at some point we have to say, this land is going. It's going to be a flat land, because no project can move forward until it has a 0 vacancy in it. And so, while I completely understand. We don't want to sound heartless. We have been saying for years.

[33:04] Assembly Chambers: You are not going to be able to live here indefinitely, and I think that we're at the point where we need to make that decision and make that very clear to the people that are there. So we can move this very important housing project forward. Thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Well, thank you. It seems that we may be transitioned in the comment portion. Are there further questions from anyone.

[33:26] Assembly Chambers: Very well, then.

[33:28] Assembly Chambers: I was. Gonna say, if we're going into comments, I could put a motion on the board of Comments.

[33:32] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Yeah, Deputy Mayor Smith, can you hear me?

[33:36] Assembly Chambers: Yes, we can hear you miss you scandies. Did you have a question on this topic?

[33:41] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Well, I had a question. I don't know if you guys are on a subset of a topic because I I got kicked out halfway through the 1st question.

[33:52] Assembly Chambers: Yeah, no problem, Miss Susandez. I know you're having some connectivity issues over there. Go ahead and ask your question.

[33:58] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Manager Custer. My question is about, and I don't have it in front of me now, because everything got closed but the in your timeline you gave the, you know. Rfp, one Rfp, 2 Rfp, 3. 1 of them. I was trying to better understand why we would be doing an Rfp. For the

[34:21] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: flatting.

[34:22] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: And then I have another question. One. But it's not on that topic, Mr. Smith.

[34:31] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: was that, did that make sense. Do you understand me, manager Custer.

[34:36] Assembly Chambers: Yes. So the reason for our kind of 1st Rfp being designing the new right of way and plat process is because that's the thing that we would need to get started the earliest. And it's a different specialty than.

[34:53] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: And.

[34:54] Assembly Chambers: So those would be 2 different firms that would be doing those those things.

[35:01] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I, maybe a better follow up a better question would be then. Could you talk to me about what that planning process normally looks like for us internally, then I know we have, like a you know, land department of

[35:14] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: one plus Roxy. But

[35:17] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: so every time we're developing, that is, we're going with a collection of firms. Is that correct?

[35:28] Assembly Chambers: So the project would require design, because it hasn't been designed, and that design and that survey work form

[35:38] Assembly Chambers: the plat, and we would in this instance apply to Cdd like any

[35:43] Assembly Chambers: developer for a replat. So like we would have to do the work as the property owner to

[35:52] Assembly Chambers: apply to get that property replatted. Is that helpful.

[35:58] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Yes, yeah, I can. I'll I'll follow up offline. But that yes, okay. I understand what you're saying now, because we would be representing the just like a normal applicant.

[36:08] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Gotcha and Mr. Smith. I have one more, but it's on a different topic.

[36:14] Assembly Chambers: No, you may go ahead, Mr. Susan. Oh, yeah, go ahead, missus. Scandies.

[36:18] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and then, Manager Custer, you may have already gone over this, in which case I apologize. But could you just

[36:27] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: let me know when we put that Rfi out with that

[36:33] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: telephone place. Guide. What? Exactly where? Exactly we put that what that consisted of

[36:41] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: that got us to one response.

[36:45] Assembly Chambers: I have to admit Assembly Member Huskandes. I do not recall exactly how we advertise that. Rfi. I do recall the Assembly being adamant, that we kind of spread that far and wide and make sure we connect with non Alaska developers. And we did did do that. I'd have to come back to you with specifics on. You know what? Exactly that outreach plan looked like?

[37:12] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Any further questions on the topic.

[37:13] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Okay.

[37:15] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Nope, that Nope, but that's a big one for me, Mr. Smith. Just Fyi.

[37:20] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: So I'll look forward to that.

[37:22] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: That's better.

[37:26] Assembly Chambers: Very good. See no further questions.

[37:30] Assembly Chambers: We could maybe start with emotion and see how we're all feeling about

[37:34] Assembly Chambers: way forward here. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. I'll just, I know it says Discuss. But I think the staff would

[37:43] Assembly Chambers: appreciate what we're thinking and kind of how we're paying for it. So I'm gonna do a 2 pronged motion 1st will be the motion on

[37:55] Assembly Chambers: what scenario I'm looking at, and second, I would come back with a motion on how I pay for it. So I would move.

[38:04] Assembly Chambers: We approve scenario number 2, and if I could talk to my motion. Yes, of course.

[38:13] Assembly Chambers: Most people have heard me say I would love to just put it to the highest bidder, but I don't.

[38:19] Assembly Chambers: After talking to some builders in town and getting the feel of the assembly. I don't think that would pass. And also talking to some developers, they said what they wouldn't want to do is evict and demolish houses, and if we could do the platting that would take the burden off of them for that, and they're mixed about the road. So I think we could start with scenario number 2, and if we had to go further we could go further. But

[38:47] Assembly Chambers: that's what my motion would be. Right now is the 5.5 million fund phase, one of telephone development.

[38:55] Assembly Chambers: Very good, thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Manager, do you need us to to describe what

[39:02] Assembly Chambers: funds and what sources of funds to fund whatever you choose here.

[39:10] Assembly Chambers: So if you were to move, and for introduction, I I believe we would just have funding sources blank, and then expect that to be amended at introduction.

[39:21] Assembly Chambers: Okay.

[39:27] Assembly Chambers: and returning.

[39:28] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. So what we would do. We would have placeholders there with a general description which you can then amend. So I think, unless we want to bring it back to a cow.

[39:42] Assembly Chambers: Then we could do full blanks.

[39:47] Assembly Chambers: Okay? Well, seems a little funky. But we could try, Miss Atkinson.

[39:55] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just objection for purpose of a question here. If we're going with the phased approach.

[40:06] Assembly Chambers: manager Kester, how concerned are we that that leftover 2.5 million, or that we aren't funding right now becomes a lot more than 2.5 million later on.

[40:21] Assembly Chambers: Well, it's 3.5 million, and construction cost. Escalation is certainly

[40:32] Assembly Chambers: still remains very high. We had a lot of construction inflation during covid.

[40:38] Assembly Chambers: It's a lot of civil work which isn't as problematic. However, there will be. So it's like a lot of like

[40:45] Assembly Chambers: actual dirt work. However, there will be materials for the utilities, and those also kind of get caught up in that tariff unknown. And so we are already getting

[40:56] Assembly Chambers: notifications from our contractors that you know they're not able to honor price estimates because of, you know, tariffs and and impending tariffs. So that's a long way of saying, I don't have any uncertainty in in today's environment, and those are the vulnerabilities that would that 3.5 million Dollar road construction would have.

[41:17] Assembly Chambers: I'll remove my objection, Mr. Kelly.

[41:21] Assembly Chambers: I have a couple questions. My 1st question will go to the attorney and Mr. Chair Smith did mention that Robert's rules we can propose anything, but I did notice on the agenda specifically marked. As for discussion, would that have affect anything as far as opens Meetings Act. If we did not advertise that we were going to take action on this.

[41:50] Assembly Chambers: if I might, through the chair, Mr. Kelly. Anything on your agendas are actionable. That's why, when they say for information, or for discussion, or whatever it is a suggestion. But it is not Robert's rules

[42:09] Assembly Chambers: violation should you decide to take action if something is listed. As for discussion.

[42:17] Assembly Chambers: and I may be removing these from future agendas, by the way, but we'll see Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I think I would object, because I still like to do a little bit more work on this. I don't feel good about moving forward when we don't have

[42:35] Assembly Chambers: a guarantee for more housing. If we're going to be asking people to leave, I would like to us to be able to guarantee that we're not going to have something that's going to potentially sit idle. I would like to know

[42:47] Assembly Chambers: that we are going to if we're going to be removing 13 housing units. I would like to see at least 13 more housing units coming up somewhere else. So

[42:58] Assembly Chambers: I I'll object to moving forward for that reason very good. Other comments.

[43:06] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Others.

[43:07] Assembly Chambers: Motion, Mr. Bryson.

[43:09] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Mr.

[43:12] Assembly Chambers: What did Miss Kladyshevsky used to say?

[43:15] Assembly Chambers: Perfection is the enemy of good.

[43:17] Assembly Chambers: We have a good plan here to get hundreds of housing, and I made this.

[43:22] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: You're interested.

[43:23] Assembly Chambers: That delaying this, after giving the people 4 years, notice that maybe 5 years notice that they would have to move at some point. I think that notice has been given, and we have been working tremendously on the amount of housing units, and we just made a motion to move it to October first.st So we're asking these people to vacate during the easiest time of the year to find housing.

[43:46] Assembly Chambers: We are not being haphazard or careless. This has been talked about, and has methodically got to this point. So I'm very strongly in favor of the mayor's motion. Thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

[43:59] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Bryson. Other comments. Ms. Wall.

[44:02] Assembly Chambers: just ask. Ask you a question. You know part of my

[44:08] Assembly Chambers: you know, if there's lots of great pros and cons here, but if we had all the money in the world I'd be ready to, you know. Fund this at the top level.

[44:22] Assembly Chambers: we don't, but we do have

[44:26] Assembly Chambers: budget conversations coming up, you know. If the Assembly was to move forward with an ordinance for 5.5

[44:34] Assembly Chambers: this year, or it coming up here. And after the end of our budget conversations, we still have 4 million that we want to spend on this project. We could move that direction.

[44:48] Assembly Chambers: regardless of what we decide tonight. Is that correct?

[44:56] Assembly Chambers: Yes, I do.

[45:01] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Missus Candis, do you have a comment or.

[45:07] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[45:12] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: yeah, I'll weigh in, and I might weave in some questioning statements.

[45:19] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I appreciate that. I've missed

[45:23] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: wherever you all have gone with this discussion, so I don't have much of a sense. It sounds like you guys were revisiting some of the early days of Telephone Hill, or found a squirrel to chase, or something like that.

[45:34] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Based on the the sort of direction and timeline the different options that were in the in the memo for us to discuss tonight.

[45:45] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I think obviously, like the rest of you, the the higher prices. That's a big number. And I think we're all feeling like that. There's a lot of competing pressures on the budget. That being said.

[45:59] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I am interested in seeing what funding sources that we could get creative with.

[46:08] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I lean more towards that way because I know there are many flavors of in between, just as Ms. Wall mentioned. But also I don't think there's anything magic about this particular date

[46:21] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: except I appreciate the manager's diligence and trying to keep us moving forward on it.

[46:27] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: So I just for for the interest of discussing this topic, I lean towards us, putting more money into it, because I think if we do not, we are going to

[46:38] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: end up in a situation where we're going to be hearing that it doesn't pencil out, and we can't keep the affordability, or we can't keep the density.

[46:48] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: That being said as the Mayor referenced already, you can add money, and you can add money as you go along. So why would you spend? She didn't say this next part, but why would you spend it all up front if you could, if you could go along and get it started.

[47:08] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I think the

[47:10] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: the question there between those 2 options, and whether the 5.5 million, or the or the larger number, the 9 and a half.

[47:19] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: or whatever the 2 numbers are.

[47:21] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I think part of my own question is, how much did we really do to to get feedback?

[47:30] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I would want us to to take another look at at that, because I think it's important that we do a better job of that. If if we do end up going down just a demolition and and site prep route.

[47:45] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I think what we've learned every time is that

[47:49] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I mean, I I think if we want affordability, I think if we want density density in this site, it is going to require a big commitment of capital funds from the city, and

[48:01] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: I just will say that we are. There are several other things we're looking at at

[48:08] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: money for in the budget, and to me housing would be a more of a priority. So if people are comfortable doing the

[48:16] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: site prep tonight and drafting that I think I could be open to that. But I also

[48:23] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: would wanna keep our options open to add more as we go on.

[48:30] Assembly Chambers: Very good, thank you. Mrs. Candy's very well, then.

[48:33] Assembly Chambers: thank you, Miss Hugh Scannis. You figured out my ploy for one reason, talking to some of the developers.

[48:44] Assembly Chambers: You might want to have a say in the road, and that kind of stuff, and we do have a mechanism to loan money for a road, but if it turns out that they can't do some of the affordable housing pieces that the body wants, then we can again look at helping them build the road so, but I thought we should at least start the 5.5.

[49:05] Assembly Chambers: Very good. My thought is, I think it might be useful for us to select an option, and then the next step will be figuring out different fund sources to pay for it

[49:14] Assembly Chambers: a motion on an option. Ms wall.

[49:19] Assembly Chambers: I'll hold my comment to the next motion that the mayor is going to make on mute, Mr. Kelly.

[49:28] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Just a question, for I guess anybody in staff. So if we pass this today.

[49:36] Assembly Chambers: would the effect be that this decision is forwarded on to the Assembly? Or is the is the

[49:42] Assembly Chambers: or is the decision that's made today like this is what what happens. And we start acting on it right away.

[49:51] Assembly Chambers: Andrew Kester, yeah. So we wouldn't be able to begin any work

[49:57] Assembly Chambers: without an appropriation. I mean that being said, we, we do have funding. We could like start the design work, but I guess it would be our intent to wait until there was funding and because we have to have funding to be able to do a project. So that means that the ordinance needs to pass we do in the timeline.

[50:18] Assembly Chambers: We have serving notice to tenants outlined once that ordinance is introduced, so that there would be like clear direction from the body, but we wanted to also give tenants like the most notice possible. So trying to kind of thread that needle of

[50:32] Assembly Chambers: making sure there was like a real project that was really going to get funded and giving them the most time possible. So if you were to move to introduce an ordinance. Once that ordinance was introduced, we would serve notice to the tenants unless directed otherwise, and then, once that ordinance passed, we would work on issuing Rfi. Number Rfp. Number one for design and reply.

[50:59] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[51:01] Assembly Chambers: Very good for the comments on the motion.

[51:04] Assembly Chambers: I guess mine are just.

[51:07] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Kelly. I guess I see this as we we know we need to do this stuff to move this forward. I want us to move forward. I think the timing especially due to the tenants, is the most compassionate in this way. 4 months notice

[51:23] Assembly Chambers: leaving before, you know, after you know, the Peak tourism season ends so hopefully, more housing availability before the holidays before the winter, trying to do stuff in the snow and all that. So

[51:35] Assembly Chambers: I feel like we know this work needs to be done. I appreciate the thought of it. Is, it is tough to say, Oh, we're demolishing housing, and you know.

[51:44] Assembly Chambers: when something else should get built.

[51:46] Assembly Chambers: But I don't think it's ever gonna build unless we do these steps. So I'm supportive of the mayor's motion. I think it also takes us, you know. As far as we know, we need to go without putting in a road or some other things that we just aren't certain of. So I'm supportive of the motion.

[52:02] Assembly Chambers: We have a motion on the table and objection. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

[52:07] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for mayor motions. Mayor Weldon's motion to go with option number 2, the 5.5 million dollars. Fund phase one Mayor Weldon. Yes.

[52:24] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Bryson.

[52:26] Assembly Chambers: Yes.

[52:28] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Hugh scandies.

[52:31] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Yes.

[52:34] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Atkinson.

[52:35] Assembly Chambers: Yes, as well.

[52:38] Assembly Chambers: Yes, Mr. Kelly.

[52:42] Assembly Chambers: No, Miss Hall.

[52:46] Assembly Chambers: Yes, Mr. Steinenger. Yes, and Deputy Mayor Smith. Yes.

[52:53] Assembly Chambers: motion carries 8 yays one. Nay, thank you, Madam Clerk

[52:58] Assembly Chambers: Mayor Weldon, do you have a motion on the funding sources before I make a motion? I just have one quick question, how much money do we currently have in the Land Fund right now

[53:21] Assembly Chambers: through the chair excluding Encumbered fund funds, I believe, are about 2 million dollars.

[53:30] Assembly Chambers: Okay, I'm ready for my motion, then, Mayor. Well, then, I would move that we fund the 5.5 million dollars

[53:39] Assembly Chambers: from 1.7 million from a Telephone Hill, Cip, 2 million from the Peterson Hill Cip. And if I've done my math correctly, that leaves us 1.8 million we have to find. So I would move 800,000 from the Land fund and 1 million dollars from the general fund, with the intention of the general fund being paid back once the land is sold.

[54:06] Assembly Chambers: madam, attorney and Manager, that those are appropriate fund sources, and we've discussed the loan idea already. Correct.

[54:14] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[54:15] Assembly Chambers: Any objections to the motion.

[54:21] Assembly Chambers: seeing objection to that motion is adopted.

[54:24] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[54:27] Assembly Chambers: That settles our business for the Telephone Hill agenda. Item.

[54:35] Assembly Chambers: do we need a short break before the glacier. The visitor center. Very good. 5 min, 7, 28, so 7, 33, please.

[54:45] Alicia Hughes-Skandijs: Mr. Chair, I appreciate you making that change, and I love you all. But I will be leaving you now.

[55:00] Assembly Chambers: Okay, yes, thank you. Miss Hugh. Scandies is gone for the record.

[55:41] Assembly Chambers: very good. Thank you. We are now on to agenda. Topic agenda. Item 5, Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center Operation.

[55:52] Assembly Chambers: We have an ordinance that has already been introduced, and a new resolution.

[55:59] Assembly Chambers: But just, we thought maybe worthwhile to hear from the body answer questions. The resolution is new.

[56:07] Assembly Chambers: Manager Cussler. Anything would like to direct us to thank you. I just want to briefly

[56:14] Assembly Chambers: summarize kind of where we are on the topic, and let you know that visitor industry Director Pierce is in the audience for questions.

[56:23] Assembly Chambers: We did discuss this at the Assembly retreat the kind of concept of using passenger fees to help in some way make sure that the Visitor Center stays open and stays in public ownership and public lands. The kind of current

[56:37] Assembly Chambers: vision that's coalescing is a way for Cbj funds, possibly to support either Clinken Haida or discovery southeast in having an employee that would manage the multiple visitor industry

[56:57] Assembly Chambers: tourism operators who have volunteered employees to help staff the visitor center. But that needs coordination. And because both organizations have existing operating agreements. There's actually a co-stewardship agreement with Clinkett and Haida, and an operating agreement with discovery southeast.

[57:16] Assembly Chambers: the vision would be that either one of those organizations, or both, could could channel those funds could be channeled to help that. In the meantime Us. Forest Service is still looking for resources internally to provide that service, and I know discovery southeast is applying for grant funding, too. So you know, it's

[57:33] Assembly Chambers: one of the options for the funding. It's not a sure thing, because this issue is ever evolving. But I wanted to just let you know that the intention isn't that like Cbj Funds staffing of the center. It's that we help support our partners in kind of finding a collaborative solution. And I also wanted to let you know that we do have executive director of Discovery southeast, Mr. Isley online.

[58:00] Assembly Chambers: And we have the program manager for Tlinket and Haida, Mr. Duville in the audience.

[58:08] Assembly Chambers: Very good. So we have 2 items. We have the the appropriating ordinance, and we have the resolution. Maybe let's start with the appropriating ordinance. So any questions on that

[58:19] Assembly Chambers: item, Mr. Kelly?

[58:22] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. I guess the 1st question I have about the idea that's kind of coalescing

[58:31] Assembly Chambers: about us. Taking on a coordinating role is.

[58:37] Assembly Chambers: how would that work? Because none of these organizations are under the umbrella of the city. So how like, what sort of authority, or what mechanism would we have to coordinate operations there, Andrew Custer, it would be a grant much like we make to other nonprofit organizations. So we'd have a memorandum of understanding. We have a template that finance uses.

[59:04] Assembly Chambers: Very good. I just had a question.

[59:07] Assembly Chambers: and I would invite them up. But we don't allow public testimony in the committee a whole, do you, manager, Kester. Do you know if Clinket and Ida supports this appropriating ordinance?

[59:19] Assembly Chambers: And if so, do you know what their position is?

[59:29] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Yes, click! And Haida is supportive of a solution to

[59:35] Assembly Chambers: keep the visitor center open and keep it in public lanes.

[59:39] Assembly Chambers: Very good, Mr. Kelly.

[59:41] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[59:44] Assembly Chambers: Would 200,000 be absolutely necessary for this this coordination role? Or would we be able to get by with something less

[59:55] Assembly Chambers: so, manager? And there's no real magic to the the figure of 200,000, except for it would allow for at least one full staffing position, I mean.

[1:00:08] Assembly Chambers: I suppose you could.

[1:00:10] Assembly Chambers: You could cut it, or you could grow it in the end. We hope to not have to use it, but want to have the flexibility to to be responsive.

[1:00:18] Assembly Chambers: Thank you as well.

[1:00:20] Assembly Chambers: And, Mr. Sanger, thank you. Chair Smith.

[1:00:27] Assembly Chambers: the you know this is, we do have limited brain passenger fees so like to evaluate them against other things that we are planning on doing with them I'd love to know. And this might be a question for Miss Pierce, a reminder of what is our balance, and this is coming from our fund balance. I assume our brain passenger fee fund balance. What is our current balance?

[1:00:51] Assembly Chambers: And I know there's been talk of what to do with that excess, balance, seawalk, other kind of long-term projects. I think my question for Ms. Pierce is, you know, what are we

[1:01:04] Assembly Chambers: kind of pushing down the road or sacrificing if we were to allocate these funds.

[1:01:25] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Ms. Wall, and through the chair you talked for long enough to allow me to look that up. It's about 1.5 million dollars in fund balance.

[1:01:33] Assembly Chambers: and I don't have the figure because you didn't talk for quite long enough for me to look at this year's budget, but we are projecting to spend in the budget less than we're projecting to take in. We do say that remaining funds we would split between, like the seawalk and shore power.

[1:01:55] Assembly Chambers: Those are big ticket long term expenditures that will probably require a conversation about some kind of debt with the Assembly. At some point in my view, I don't see $200,000 as really making or breaking the need to have that conversation, so I don't think it

[1:02:20] Assembly Chambers: puts our fund balance in jeopardy. I don't think it puts our passenger fee budget for this year in jeopardy, and since I have the floor, if I can add on the kind of intention behind the $200,000, figure not that that number was particularly magic

[1:02:42] Assembly Chambers: was when we asked

[1:02:47] Assembly Chambers: when we were looking at kind of staffing support for the summer if that was required. We came up with a number of about twice that much. So we cut that number in half and put it forward with the idea that

[1:03:08] Assembly Chambers: we don't intend to use

[1:03:10] Assembly Chambers: $200,000. We intend to, you know. If it does get used for funding a coordinating position, it would be a small portion of that amount of money, but it's kind of an insurance policy. We know that there's another reduction in force, or at least a plan for one coming, and we want to make sure that we

[1:03:32] Assembly Chambers: have the ability to move quickly so that we can support the organizations that already have the ability to operate out there to potentially either

[1:03:46] Assembly Chambers: absorb staff or

[1:03:50] Assembly Chambers: or fund expanded operations from what they they're currently doing today, if they need to do that. But we are, you know, we're we're hoping that we lapse most of this back to the passenger fee fund balance and are able to spend it on fun. Things like seawalks.

[1:04:09] Assembly Chambers: Further questions on the appropriate ordinance. Ms, wall.

[1:04:15] Assembly Chambers: this one's also for Miss Pierce.

[1:04:19] Assembly Chambers: you know I am of the mind that we've we've gotten a lot of emails on both sides of this.

[1:04:27] Assembly Chambers: I'm of the mind that

[1:04:30] Assembly Chambers: if we, if we do spend money, it's because we're in a what I would call an emergency situation, where

[1:04:40] Assembly Chambers: there's bare safety issues, and there is garbage, and the bathrooms aren't clean as opposed to people aren't getting quite the same experience as they normally would. Maybe all the trails aren't open, or they're not having access to all the naturalists they had like.

[1:04:58] Assembly Chambers: Is it helpful to get direction on from the body? On

[1:05:03] Assembly Chambers: which of, you know, in the spectrum that we're interested in providing funding for? Or do you feel like you're only this would only be used in one of those situations.

[1:05:15] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Through the chair. That's Staff's intention as well. It's not to

[1:05:23] Assembly Chambers: enhance the visitor experience. It's to provide kind of basic safety site maintenance, prevent vandalism, that sort of thing. And I do want to give a shout out to the operators out there. They've been had people out there directing traffic and trying to answer questions as best they can. I think that that

[1:05:47] Assembly Chambers: could all go a little bit better with with some support, but I think that their work to date has been pretty integral to the operations and the hours when the visitor center isn't open, because it's only open 10 to 5 and tours are still happening.

[1:06:12] Assembly Chambers: Any further questions on this topic.

[1:06:15] Assembly Chambers: madam Mayor, did you have a motion for us? Certainly I move ordinance 2024, 0 1 bal to the full assembly for public hearing, because I believe it's already been introduced.

[1:06:29] Assembly Chambers: Very good. You've heard the motion.

[1:06:32] Assembly Chambers: Is there any objection, Ms. Atkinson.

[1:06:36] Assembly Chambers: I recognize that we've already introduced it, and so we can have the actual vote at the Assembly level. But I just wanted to say that I have a lot of concerns with this proposal, and I think we're going to face a lot of pressure to backfill for the Federal Government in the next coming years, and

[1:06:54] Assembly Chambers: this is not the place I would start if we are going to be doing that, so I'll remove my objection for now. But I just didn't want to let it pass without saying that.

[1:07:02] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Miss Atkerson, I'll object for a comment as well, and that's

[1:07:07] Assembly Chambers: I hear the argument, and I don't

[1:07:11] Assembly Chambers: want to be backstopping or backfilling for the Federal Government as well as they're maybe shedding some of their responsibilities. But I guess for me, keeping this as a publicly managed and

[1:07:22] Assembly Chambers: decently run. You know, facility that does spread the impacts of tourism throughout the community. You know, I worry if it's we don't do something, and it's just a disaster like, what does that lead us towards? So I'll support the motion here, and likely at the full assembly, too.

[1:07:40] Assembly Chambers: I'll remove my objection, Mr. Kelly. Objection. Thank you. I share a lot of a lot of the same concerns as Miss Atkinson. I do feel like this is like a potential start. And if we just say Yes, here, then, we're possibly inviting

[1:07:58] Assembly Chambers: future instances of basically cost shifting from the Federal Government down to down to our city, and there are other uses where we could be putting these marine passenger fees.

[1:08:10] Assembly Chambers: so I will remove my objection. But I

[1:08:15] Assembly Chambers: I am possibly bringing a couple amendments forward at the at the Monday meeting.

[1:08:23] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[1:08:25] Assembly Chambers: Any other objections to the motion

[1:08:28] Assembly Chambers: seeing on that motion is adopted.

[1:08:32] Assembly Chambers: Now we're moving on to the resolution questions on the resolution.

[1:08:38] Assembly Chambers: This hall?

[1:08:40] Assembly Chambers: Yeah. I'm just wondering where where the notion comes from or where it's being suggested that the Mendenhall Glacier

[1:08:50] Assembly Chambers: recreation area would come under anything other than public ownership.

[1:08:58] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Ms. Hall. Through the chair

[1:09:03] Assembly Chambers: we are aware of at least one. I've heard a rumor of a second private entity that has expressed interest

[1:09:12] Assembly Chambers: in taking over the Menhaw Glacier recreation area.

[1:09:22] Assembly Chambers: I guess my follow up would be, you know, anyone can say anything, but that seems kind of, you know, like

[1:09:29] Assembly Chambers: a really something that I wouldn't think we'd need to be concerned about. At this point, Mr. Kelly.

[1:09:40] Assembly Chambers: thank you. Just to follow up to Ms. Hall's line of questions.

[1:09:46] Assembly Chambers: Under what mechanism would it be possible for private ownership to occur?

[1:09:56] Assembly Chambers: Who wants that one.

[1:09:57] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Kelly, through the chair. I'm not privy to the laws and regulations of the Forest Service, you know we we do have an administration with an expressed interest in privatizing public land, and I think I'll leave it there.

[1:10:16] Assembly Chambers: Mayor Weldon.

[1:10:18] Assembly Chambers: thank you. These are good questions, but I believe the Federal delegation asked us for this resolution. Is that correct? To continue their fight to get

[1:10:26] Assembly Chambers: Park Service employees are hired.

[1:10:32] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Madam Mayor, through the chair. Yes, you and I were both party to that discussion where we were asked by the delegation

[1:10:41] Assembly Chambers: for the record. I'm removing my objection.

[1:10:44] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[1:10:45] Assembly Chambers: We don't motion. I don't think yeah.

[1:10:48] Assembly Chambers: I guess I just had one

[1:10:51] Assembly Chambers: on the bottom of page one line 39 and 40,

[1:10:57] Assembly Chambers: the you know, speaking to the firing of Federal workers and forthcoming reduction in workforce prevent Forest Service and Mendenhall from providing effective services. Does that also kind of encapsulate

[1:11:09] Assembly Chambers: the issue that I mean, I actually don't know if this is still the case, but that they were moving staff from like permitting and other types of, you know, areas within the Forest Service to

[1:11:19] Assembly Chambers: support the efforts there, I mean.

[1:11:21] Assembly Chambers: are we also saying like, that's gonna be a problem with that. Whereas

[1:11:28] Assembly Chambers: thank you, Mister chair. That was

[1:11:32] Assembly Chambers: the intention, I think, that there has been a reduction in force across the Forest Service, and they still are required to perform the same functions, those functions. A lot of those functions have been moved towards the visitor center and away from

[1:11:49] Assembly Chambers: other capacities that the Forest Service typically performs. And I was remiss in my answer to Mayor Weldon. I want to make it clear that it was not the entirety of the delegation, but specifically Senator Murkowski, who asked for this resolution.

[1:12:08] Assembly Chambers: we get further questions on the resolution.

[1:12:11] Assembly Chambers: seeing on Mayor. Well, then, you have a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move resolution 40 10 to the full assembly.

[1:12:19] Assembly Chambers: Are you good? Any objection? Ms. Wall.

[1:12:22] Assembly Chambers: just objecting for the purposes and amendment you have in front of you, I believe. No, I just got a stack here that I'm supposed to be handing to you, so I will do that

[1:12:33] Assembly Chambers: very good. We'll pause for a moment for those to distribute and for us to read.

[1:12:59] Assembly Chambers: So this amendment

[1:13:04] Assembly Chambers: seeks to just for the record or anyone listening. Change section 2, so that it now reads the Mendenhall Glacier recreation area should remain a federally managed resource. To ensure these public lands are accessible to all. I struck the part about the Tongas National Forest.

[1:13:27] Assembly Chambers: The management of the Tonga's national force is much more complex a political issue than this body, I believe, should be discussing. We could spend many meetings talking about whether we believe that statement or not. And so I think it's best if we keep our focus on the recreational.

[1:13:49] Assembly Chambers: the Visitor Center recreation area and not get into some other politics that we are a lot less knowledgeable about.

[1:14:02] Assembly Chambers: Very good. We've heard the proposed amendment, any questions on the amendment, any objection to the amendment.

[1:14:17] Assembly Chambers: I'm still working it through, but I don't actually know if I have a question, Mr. Kelly.

[1:14:23] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. I guess maybe this might go to Manager Kester. How or no. I guess it would probably go more to Director Pierce

[1:14:34] Assembly Chambers: if just we're going to be going around and changing the language. I'm just wondering how specific was Senator Murkowski in the language of the resolution that she needed, or

[1:14:44] Assembly Chambers: she was just asking for a resolution.

[1:14:47] Assembly Chambers: Director Pierce.

[1:14:49] Assembly Chambers: Thank you through the chair, Mr. Kelly. It was specifically a resolution in support of the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation area. That was the the subject of the meeting. So I think Ms walls amendment would

[1:15:02] Assembly Chambers: be fine in in terms of what the Senator requested.

[1:15:08] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[1:15:10] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[1:15:14] Assembly Chambers: I guess I remove my objection. Thank you guess I'm

[1:15:19] Assembly Chambers: I understand the the maker's motion. I think it might have been fine before, but I understand it, and I don't have an objection. Any objections to the motion for the amendment.

[1:15:28] Assembly Chambers: Very good. That amendment is adopted. Now we're back to the main motion as amended.

[1:15:35] Assembly Chambers: Any objection to moving the resolution as amended.

[1:15:40] Assembly Chambers: Very good, seeing on that motion is adopted.

[1:15:43] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[1:15:47] Assembly Chambers: All right.

[1:15:53] Assembly Chambers: On to agenda. Topic 6.

[1:15:57] Assembly Chambers: Ordinance, 2025 to 13. Election code ranked choice voting. This has come to us from the Human Resources Committee.

[1:16:05] Assembly Chambers: My intent is it's a significant change, possible change to our elections.

[1:16:11] Assembly Chambers: My intent would that it would be. We discuss.

[1:16:15] Assembly Chambers: ask questions, and then we can bring this back

[1:16:18] Assembly Chambers: at a future committee of the whole.

[1:16:23] Assembly Chambers: We've seen the memo. We've seen the draft ordinance questions from the body on the ordinance or

[1:16:31] Assembly Chambers: miss human Resources chair. Did you want to?

[1:16:35] Assembly Chambers: Did you want to give any background or anything? You thought the committee might want to know on this ordinance.

[1:16:41] Assembly Chambers: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that the memo covers a lot of the background on this we just had, as everyone knows, a vote on the statewide ranked choice voting and looking at our precincts here in Juneau that failed, the Repealer failed pretty significantly here in Juneau, and there's a lot of support for ranked choice voting in our community, and especially in the last couple of years. We've seen quite a few people running for local office, which is excellent.

[1:17:10] Assembly Chambers: but I think that ranked choice voting in this case makes it a lot easier to, you know, build consensus in our community to fully, you know, express the nuances of every genoids vote, and to, you know, prevent folks from needing to drop out or pressure folks to drop out if they're, you know, taking votes from other people with 1st past the post. There's a lot of

[1:17:31] Assembly Chambers: that sort of thing behind the scenes that I think is detrimental to the election process.

[1:17:38] Assembly Chambers: So the main thing, I think, that is also covered in the memo. The decision points are. There's a couple instances where we do block voting. So in the event that a assembly member resigns early, there will be a block voting with the person with the higher vote getter getting a full term

[1:17:58] Assembly Chambers: second vote here, getting the partial term, and then also in the case of the School Board. So those are, I think, are the main decision points, though certainly the city attorney can correct me if there are something I am forgetting. So happy to take questions.

[1:18:11] Assembly Chambers: madam Attorney, did you have anything to add on this topic?

[1:18:15] Assembly Chambers: No, I think that's a good summary, and those are the main decision points very good questions on the ordinance, Miss Wall, followed by Mayor Weldon. Thank you, Chair Smith. I admit I have not been in any of the committee meetings that have

[1:18:31] Assembly Chambers: discuss this so far. So. But thank you for the work on the committee on getting it this far, but my question may have been covered, and so, if it has, maybe, you know, a high, level answer now would be fine if if somebody sends me the

[1:18:51] Assembly Chambers: more detailed information that was already presented. My, my, I agree with Miss Atkinson. That rank choice voting makes sense for Juno. My question is really about the the extra cost and the extra time I know we, our staff works

[1:19:06] Assembly Chambers: extremely hard during election season, and we have added resources over the years to continue to improve our process and access. So what is that looking like in terms of what this will change from a both budget perspective, and how long it'll take us to, you know. Get results.

[1:19:29] Assembly Chambers: madam clerk.

[1:19:31] Assembly Chambers: Thank you through the chair, Ms. Wall, for that question. It will take approximately 14,000 more dollars annually for the software module that's needed with respect to how soon you'll get answers and results that will delay things somewhat.

[1:19:55] Assembly Chambers: If we continue with the by mail election process, I would anticipate that we would have results within the 1st week, but maybe not on election night. But

[1:20:08] Assembly Chambers: we also have an initiative petition that's being circled so that may, depending on where that goes change our processes as well. So it all depends on what the election when this passes. If it passes right now, you're looking at an effective

[1:20:28] Assembly Chambers: time frame for the October 2026. Election. So we will know more in the fall after this election cycle. What kind of timing that might

[1:20:39] Assembly Chambers: might include. I'm sorry I don't have more definitive answers to your questions on the timing piece. No, that's helpful, I think. Just a note. For next time we do this. I'd love to know kind of if things continue the way we're doing them currently with vote by mail. What our estimate would be for changing the timing of how we get in

[1:21:02] Assembly Chambers: results will be helpful. Thank you, merriwoman.

[1:21:06] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[1:21:08] Assembly Chambers: Have we heard from the School Board what their thoughts are

[1:21:14] Assembly Chambers: through the chair. So I reached out to the school board. Twice we did hear back from the president of the School Board that they are waiting to be invited to participate in a conversation with you.

[1:21:29] Assembly Chambers: Beyond that they have not responded.

[1:21:34] Assembly Chambers: I didn't have a conversation.

[1:21:36] Assembly Chambers: I'll hop in really quick, madam Attorney, does

[1:21:41] Assembly Chambers: the counting, and I guess just the structure you know, of this ranked choice voting ordinance as drafted. Does it mirror how they do it for the state so like it will be a. It'll be the same thing, and people should expect to look at it kind of similarly, and it'll be.

[1:21:58] Assembly Chambers: anyway, is the structure the same as the State of Alaska's ranked choice voting, Mr. Chair. It's exactly the same. We took it from the State statute. We just modified language for what we call our elections. We have slightly different language, and I would expect the timing and some of those other things to track

[1:22:17] Assembly Chambers: with what happens at the State level.

[1:22:21] Assembly Chambers: Very good, Mayor Weldon, you had a question I did since if you look at

[1:22:28] Assembly Chambers: on page 2, the very top line there votes cast for the defeated candidate shall cease counting for the defeated candidate, and shall be added to the totals of each ballots next highest ranked

[1:22:40] Assembly Chambers: continuing Canada. Is this going to change our seniority at all.

[1:22:54] Assembly Chambers: madam Mayor? That is a very good question. I don't think it would change your seniority, but that's a good question, we can look into it and see what the State's done on anything, and if if there was a change, and we can also clarify language to ensure that that is retained here. That's a good question.

[1:23:13] Assembly Chambers: miss. That Kristen.

[1:23:15] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, since one of the decision points we're looking at is lock voting, and whether whether we preserve it. I wanted to ask the clerk how

[1:23:27] Assembly Chambers: how

[1:23:29] Assembly Chambers: well is block voting handled today, or is it a issue with our with voting. Do you see a lot of ballots that are

[1:23:37] Assembly Chambers: not marked correctly with black voting? That sort?

[1:23:42] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Miss Atkinson, through the chair, and I may phone a friend who is on zoom with us. Our deputy clerk, Andy Hirsch. If I don't cover all the points of that right now for a multi-member race.

[1:23:58] Assembly Chambers: When we have, say you have 5 candidates and you have 2 or 3 seats, let's say, in this case you have 2 seats that are open. It goes to the top 2 vote getters, and that's how that is determined. If

[1:24:13] Assembly Chambers: in that multi-member race say it's a district assembly race, and one is a vacancy for a two-year term versus a full 3 year term. The second highest vote getter would get the second term two-year term, and the top vote getter would get the full 3 year term for ranked choice voting. Depending on how

[1:24:38] Assembly Chambers: you guys decide to go that route in multi-member races.

[1:24:46] Assembly Chambers: This is where I would call in my deputy clerk for her lifeline, because she can explain it much better than I can, and I've tried to articulate this, but Andy does a much better job if you wouldn't mind Ms. Hirsch.

[1:24:58] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: Sure. Thank you through the chair. So I believe part of Miss Atkinson's question was with our current block voting setup. Are we finding that people are confused in how they vote.

[1:25:12] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: We don't see a lot of over voting in block voting setup. If we say vote for 2, we do see people who choose to, who under vote, who the only vote for the top candidate. But we can't describe any voter intent to that. We don't know if they just don't like any of the other candidates, or if they don't know that they can vote for more than one person. But we rarely see

[1:25:37] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: over voting for candidates like we do in Assembly District 2, where we

[1:25:42] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: more frequently see an overvote than in any other district, and then, I believe, part of the other question was about block voting in rank choice. Is that correct?

[1:25:57] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: Okay, so this I

[1:26:02] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: can be. This is a little complicated. So let me know if I need to explain things differently. But, generally speaking, when you have a multi-member seat in ranked choice voting, there are 2 different ways that

[1:26:20] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: that it can go. And so one of them is what I generally call like a cascade ranked choice vote, which is, you run ranked choice vote as if it's a single seat, somebody wins, the winner is removed, and then you run the entire process again.

[1:26:37] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: That, however, that option, we are not

[1:26:46] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: My conversation with our with Dominion voting, which is our election support

[1:26:54] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: back in January, did not indicate that that was an option for us that their software module doesn't work for that version of block choice rank choice voting.

[1:27:07] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: Miss Mcewen had another conversation with a different Dominion person, I think Thursday or Friday, and walked away from that conversation with a different

[1:27:18] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: understanding than I got. So that's something that we can look into more. The the type of ranked choice voting for multi-member seat. That Dominion absolutely does is called single vote transference. And what that does, it's a much more complicated system. And so what happens is, if we have 5 candidates and 2 seats, we say each candidate must get 50% of the winning vote.

[1:27:47] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: And so everybody everybody you vote, and you pick your one through 5. And then let's say, candidate A, everybody loves them. They get 55% of the vote awesome. They're elected. But they actually got too much of the vote. So then 5% of their vote is then reallocated back into the second choice vote getters for those specific ballots.

[1:28:12] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: and then, if nobody has hit the other 50%, then you drop the candidate who have received the least number of votes and reallocate their votes to the next down in the ballot, and you continue on until you get another candidate that hits 50%. And so it's

[1:28:31] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: it's mathematically, like all of this is done on a computer in the background. We set it up. It works it is hard to explain to the public, and would require a large level of public trust

[1:28:47] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: in order, because it's it's a very complicated mathematical system on how the votes are actually delivered, and and whose vote counted for what? And then also, it is a change from our current process. Where, in block voting, if there are 2 open seats.

[1:29:05] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: you get to vote twice. In this case, single vote transference means once your vote is counted towards one candidate, your ballot is basically taken out of consideration. You get to vote for one person, regardless of the number of open seats. So that is the type of multi member ranked choice voting that we know is available to us

[1:29:29] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: and not the we're unsure about the other version.

[1:29:35] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: I hope any of that made sense.

[1:29:39] Assembly Chambers: It did. Thank you. Mr. The 3rd option, of course, I just want to clarify is to designate seats and not do multi-member raisings at all. Is that correct.

[1:29:50] Andi Hirsh, Deputy Municipal Clerk: Correct. So if you through the chair, if this would just basically take multimodal seats out of the equation at all, and every seat would be run as as a pick one so every seat would look the same as kind of what's on the seat.

[1:30:10] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Thank you, Miss Arch. Mr. Kelly.

[1:30:13] Assembly Chambers: thank you. And I believe I did ask this question. I did have the opportunity to participate in the Human Resources Committee. But it's been a while. So I believe I did ask this question of Miss Wright before, and it seems pretty relevant now, what would.

[1:30:28] Assembly Chambers: I guess? Would we be able to switch to individual seats away from block choice voting without a charter amendment? Could we do that by ordinance.

[1:30:40] Assembly Chambers: Through the chair. Yes, you you can. You can switch all of these. You can switch the school board to 5 separate, you know, or to per year. I guess it's just 2 or 3 separate races, and you can switch if there was an early

[1:30:55] Assembly Chambers: If somebody left early from the Assembly normally, that's a multi-member. You can make them individual races very easy to do. None of this requires a charter.

[1:31:09] Assembly Chambers: I had a question on the School Board Conversation invitation piece.

[1:31:17] Assembly Chambers: Was your sense that they wanted like a joint meeting with us, to discuss it, or can we just

[1:31:23] Assembly Chambers: ask them to respond. You know.

[1:31:27] Assembly Chambers: in writing about any of their preferences on, you know

[1:31:31] Assembly Chambers: the voting structure that would impact

[1:31:36] Assembly Chambers: their races and have them give us

[1:31:39] Assembly Chambers: a letter or something back. Do you have a sense on what they want, Mr. Chair? I think they're just looking for something official from the Assembly versus me, reaching out and ask and letting them know that an ordinance is in play. So I think that you could do that through a specific communication.

[1:32:01] Assembly Chambers: Okay, thank you for that further questions on this item.

[1:32:12] Assembly Chambers: I'm just trying to this whole.

[1:32:15] Assembly Chambers: Oh, was the 14,000 an annual expense or a 1-time expense.

[1:32:25] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Miss Hall, through the chair. The 14,000 was the initial outlay. I believe 12,000 of that would then become a annual expense, and then that would increase. I believe they generally have a 3% increase per fiscal year.

[1:32:47] Assembly Chambers: Very good trying to work through my mind if I need to make a motion about

[1:32:51] Assembly Chambers: conversation with the School Board, but maybe we can figure something else out. Very good. We have some outstanding questions again. My intent was just to get this before the Assembly, ask questions.

[1:33:04] Assembly Chambers: and then get those questions answered at a upcoming committee the whole. So I think we've achieved that

[1:33:11] Assembly Chambers: any other questions on this topic.

[1:33:14] Assembly Chambers: If not, we will move on to our last item of business.

[1:33:21] Assembly Chambers: Stay on my agenda.

[1:33:25] Assembly Chambers: Agenda. Topic, 7. Ordinance, 2025 0. 5 B. An ordinance regarding policy and procedures for the release of body worn camera video footage and critical incidents

[1:33:39] Assembly Chambers: seen this before. I think the history and the memo are in there.

[1:33:46] Assembly Chambers: Miss Wright or Madam Manager, any introduction for the body? Again, we are looking to take action on this.

[1:33:53] Assembly Chambers: It's the second time we've heard it in the count.

[1:33:56] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the

[1:34:00] Assembly Chambers: ordinance that you see on page 52 of your packet does have a change that that this body requested at the last committee of the whole, and we moved from referring to things as involved in a traumatic incident to

[1:34:18] Assembly Chambers: the new title that was presented. Everything else is the same. However, there are 2 staff recommendations based on the conversation with the State.

[1:34:34] Assembly Chambers: I spoke with the Chief and deputy Manager Barr, and we have 2 recommendations to present to you

[1:34:43] Assembly Chambers: tonight. The Srrc. Also made some recommendations, and I can speak to those I know. Ms. Atkinson was there, and then I'll remind you, I guess, to start

[1:34:54] Assembly Chambers: because Miss Kemp was invited this evening. I don't think she was available, but in general. The State's position was, they were looking for a total of anywhere from 45 to 60 days. That was their kind of acceptable timeframe, I mean, as you remember, she wanted.

[1:35:16] Assembly Chambers: They want more than that, right? They want until the investigation is over. But the range that their office is working through is 45 to 60 days. So if you would like, I can explain the 2 amendments that we're recommending.

[1:35:32] Assembly Chambers: That sounds good, I guess. Do people have general questions or any just broader questions on the ordinance and the proposed policy.

[1:35:40] Assembly Chambers: Okay, we do not. So yes, maybe let's start with the 1st staff, recommended amendment.

[1:35:47] Assembly Chambers: That's right.

[1:35:48] Assembly Chambers: So the 1st recommended amendment was, it's on the bottom of page 55.

[1:35:55] Assembly Chambers: We had stated that footage would not be released if Jpd. Was in receipt of a valid court order prohibiting release. The State indicated that there could be lots of reasons why something might be prohibited by law.

[1:36:09] Assembly Chambers: And so that's a valid point. That's kind of assumed in most things that we wouldn't do something if it's illegal. But our 1st recommendation is to make that very very clear that unless there's a court order, you know.

[1:36:27] Assembly Chambers: that we won't release if there's a court order, or if there's some other prohibition by law, so I think this one is fairly non controversial. It's what we would do anyway.

[1:36:37] Assembly Chambers: The second one probably is a little bit more conversation, and I know the chief is here as well.

[1:36:44] Assembly Chambers: So as we were going through one of the things that the and this is on page 57, one of the things that came up was, what do we do in instances where the safety of individuals involved, including officers, witnesses, bystanders.

[1:37:00] Assembly Chambers: or confidential sources or investigative techniques?

[1:37:05] Assembly Chambers: Does that need to be more than 10 days? Do we? Do we need the department to have a little bit more time to redact footage, blur footage? Are we placing 2? Is that too short for the department? I would note we did not change what's required of the State.

[1:37:23] Assembly Chambers: There's nothing here changing theirs that may come. Other people may want to do an amendment for that, but this is only to give the chief and the manager's office time to deal with

[1:37:36] Assembly Chambers: those specific instances, and we realized that we had kind of limited them there.

[1:37:45] Assembly Chambers: So the recommendation was to delete that there's still language that the expectation is 30 days release but a delay. If they can't get redactions done, they they would have longer to delay.

[1:38:01] Assembly Chambers: I will note that Srrc. And Ms. Atkinson. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:38:06] Assembly Chambers: They expressed frustration with that. They felt like it would be a pretty large loophole, and could be really used by the city to to

[1:38:19] Assembly Chambers: delay much too long, so they didn't like that, and that is a valid piece of feedback from them.

[1:38:28] Assembly Chambers: the other thing. And I'll just note the other thing from the Srrc.

[1:38:33] Assembly Chambers: Which I think I was asked whether there was any legal difference between the phrasing

[1:38:41] Assembly Chambers: officer involved. Use of force versus officer use of force, and legally there's no difference. It was brought up that

[1:38:51] Assembly Chambers: kind of historically, we've used this concept of officer involved use of force, and as a society as we've encountered more police shootings that we're talking about in the public.

[1:39:08] Assembly Chambers: You know, sphere that the term officer involved allows this kind of step back.

[1:39:15] Assembly Chambers: It gives a distance in how we use our language. And so they they recommended the more common current language, which is simply officer use of force, and and that that was a recommendation. Legally, there's no difference. And and so it's really just kind of a societal shift.

[1:39:33] Assembly Chambers: So I think that is it for the recommended amendments and information from Src.

[1:39:41] Assembly Chambers: Very good, maybe, just to help us.

[1:39:46] Assembly Chambers: You move ahead and just stay in order, and then maybe even address them as they come.

[1:39:52] Assembly Chambers: might be worthwhile to move them.

[1:39:55] Assembly Chambers: Move the ordinance should anyone want to, and

[1:40:02] Assembly Chambers: you might get to do it. We'll see, Mayor Weldon, did you have a motion?

[1:40:11] Assembly Chambers: I move ordinance 2025, 0 5 b, and offer an amendment?

[1:40:17] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[1:40:19] Assembly Chambers: so that would be amendment number one on page 55. And if you have questions you have to ask the attorney office because I've just moved it for the Department.

[1:40:30] Assembly Chambers: Very good Miss Atkinson, and then, Mr. Steininger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a question for Miss Wright on this one, I understand, trying to say we're not going to do anything illegal, which, as you mentioned, is probably not necessarily put in writing. But since we're putting it in writing, there

[1:40:48] Assembly Chambers: could feasibly be a situation in which the State and the city disagree on whether or not something is illegal. What would you do in those sort of edge case

[1:40:59] Assembly Chambers: disagreements? Sure, thank you through the chair, so as your counsel and the working with the manager and the chief, we would advise you, based on our understanding of the law. Certainly the State could

[1:41:14] Assembly Chambers: differ with that, but our advisement would be based on our understanding of the law and and going forward

[1:41:22] Assembly Chambers: and and putting this explicitly in the ordinance doesn't change or alter how Cbj law would approach that

[1:41:31] Assembly Chambers: correct. This changes nothing for us. We always look at whether something's prohibited by law, or whether we have court orders perfect. Thank you. I'll remove my objection.

[1:41:42] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Seninger.

[1:41:45] Assembly Chambers: So

[1:41:46] Assembly Chambers: so I guess just. You know I don't have any objection to the amendment itself. It's it just kind of brought a question to my mind. You know. The example was, you know, if minor child is involved, and I'm curious if

[1:41:58] Assembly Chambers: if it would be the totality of the footage that wouldn't be released, or if that would guide the redaction of the footage and the public would still see, you know, some form of the footage just removing anything you know in this specific example related to minor child

[1:42:13] Assembly Chambers: through the chair. So it. It would be just specific to whatever the prohibition is. And so if we can do that by blurring a face that's fine. If we have to piecemeal out some of the footage or stop footage and then restart it. We could do that, but it would be the least

[1:42:31] Assembly Chambers: the least effect on the video footage as possible to protect whatever we're we're not supposed to be showing, but still release the video.

[1:42:43] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[1:42:43] Assembly Chambers: Ms hall, objecting for a question.

[1:42:47] Assembly Chambers: Yeah, I guess my question in this. You know, I'm not opposed to the amendment. But

[1:42:54] Assembly Chambers: Does the footage have to be released on social media? Or where would we cover that? I find that pretty shocking to have that type of footage on social media, and doesn't feel

[1:43:07] Assembly Chambers: appropriate, you know, like a professional appropriate place to post

[1:43:13] Assembly Chambers: post something. So where in all of this would we have that guidance?

[1:43:19] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. Through the chair so we could add an additional piece that specifies exactly where things are shared. Currently, when items are released, it's on Jpd's webpage. There are warnings ahead of time before you click on something, and it's not widely. I guess I'll just double check. I don't believe it's widely disseminated on social media. I believe that there are press releases that come out

[1:43:48] Assembly Chambers: on Jpd's Facebook page saying, Here's this has been released. You would have to go somewhere to look at it. But

[1:43:57] Assembly Chambers: but if you're trying to make sure

[1:44:00] Assembly Chambers: to limit who's clicking on it, or to.

[1:44:05] Assembly Chambers: you know, protect in some way, I think the only thing that we have are disclaimers that images may be violent, or may make you uncomfortable, or maybe very hard to see.

[1:44:17] Assembly Chambers: That's the limit of what we have right now you remove your objection.

[1:44:23] Assembly Chambers: I do. Very good, thank you. Any other objections to amendment. One, Madam Mayor.

[1:44:34] Assembly Chambers: so that amendment passed. Oh, I thought you were objecting to it, seeing no objection that amendment is adopted. Sorry I was too quick on my end.

[1:44:43] Assembly Chambers: madam Mayor, entertain another amendment. Very good. This would be Amendment number 2.

[1:44:48] Assembly Chambers: Again going to the attorney. If you have any questions, Ms. Atkinson.

[1:44:55] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This may be for the city attorney, it may be for chief folks part of the concern that Src. Had, and one that I share is that they're not, that

[1:45:09] Assembly Chambers: the 10 day is struck, but that there is no specific time constraint here, so there could potentially be in perpetuity. So I have great trust in our city manager and our current police chief. But it's always good to plan this for the worst possible city manager and the worst possible chief of police. So is there a recommendation for a set timeline that the chief or you, Madam Attorney, would be comfortable with to put instead of leaving it open.

[1:45:41] Assembly Chambers: I think I'm going to defer to the Chief on that one.

[1:45:57] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, chief boss, for being here. Welcome, you bet. Thank you.

[1:46:00] Assembly Chambers: So through the chair to answer that I think there's 2 parts to it.

[1:46:05] Assembly Chambers: One, you know it, it would not be in perpetuity, because once the investigation is finished.

[1:46:12] Assembly Chambers: there's there's that deadline always on the horizon. So if it takes 60 days for Abi and Osp. To finish. Then that's the end. So

[1:46:22] Assembly Chambers: you know, once that's finished, there's nothing to stop us per se. The other part of it is

[1:46:28] Assembly Chambers: if that investigation gets elongated for some reason.

[1:46:31] Assembly Chambers: and we have a reason to withhold.

[1:46:34] Assembly Chambers: The video feed, there's probably it ties into that extension.

[1:46:40] Assembly Chambers: So it's hard to say. You know they are doing an investigation that's lasting longer.

[1:46:45] Assembly Chambers: We don't know what that timeframe is going to be.

[1:46:47] Assembly Chambers: so. It's a little challenging to say, you know, 90 days. Is it because it might take them a hundred days?

[1:46:53] Assembly Chambers: One example I would give is, if toxicology is a key part of an investigation toxicology could take up to

[1:47:02] Assembly Chambers: 8 weeks, 9 weeks, 10 weeks.

[1:47:05] Assembly Chambers: So we might have those kinds of delays. So it's tough to put that final timeline on it. But it is not a forever thing, because it will always be at the end of the investigation.

[1:47:16] Assembly Chambers: Not the best answer. But that's kind of follow up, Miss Atkinson.

[1:47:20] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In that case, if

[1:47:25] Assembly Chambers: if the concern is the State may say there's this, if a court order. We can't. We have to delay the release for this reason, or perhaps they, everyone agrees that it would be against the law. Couldn't we then

[1:47:41] Assembly Chambers: tie it to that court order, or something like that, instead of leaving it open. So because, as I read it currently, if the chief of Police and city manager were to agree that there is a need to protect individual or something, they can just delay it past what the State is allowed to delay. So I guess I'm a little confused on that.

[1:48:03] Assembly Chambers: I think that's fair to be confused

[1:48:07] Assembly Chambers: it. Our intention is to release the body camera footage as quickly as we can. So we're not looking to push this out in perpetuity. Our end goal would always be, you know, if we can get this done in 15 days. Let's get it done in 15 days. If we can get it done in 3 extra days, we'll do it in 3 extra days. So that's that's our focus. We're not looking at it. The opposite.

[1:48:27] Assembly Chambers: I think the other part of it is.

[1:48:31] Assembly Chambers: if there's a court order, that kind of trumps all of this.

[1:48:34] Assembly Chambers: So if the the judge says.

[1:48:37] Assembly Chambers: you know it's going to be 90 days, it's 90 days

[1:48:45] Assembly Chambers: brief. Add ease.

[1:49:00] Assembly Chambers: Bring us back some slight discussion on that is so.

[1:49:07] Assembly Chambers: Did you have more follow-up, Mayor? Well, then.

[1:49:10] Assembly Chambers: thank you, Mr. Chair, I would like to withdraw my 1st amendment number 2, and move to my second amendment number 2, and that would be on

[1:49:21] Assembly Chambers: page 57, where it's item C, where it struck out, in no case shall a delay exceed 10 days, I would change that to. In no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation

[1:49:36] Assembly Chambers: per Chipo's thoughts, and also to

[1:49:41] Assembly Chambers: to stay with the spirit of the Srs.

[1:49:44] Assembly Chambers: Essentially, that is.

[1:49:46] Assembly Chambers: would make it so. Yeah, so there is some kind of finality and not just an open ended time

[1:49:52] Assembly Chambers: period. Mr. Kelly.

[1:49:54] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. I did. I also had an idea for amendment that might address the Src's concerns. I think this might pair with with this one. Okay, I guess I'll maybe propose it and see what the Assembly's feelings

[1:50:11] Assembly Chambers: right? And I was going to move an amendment to the amendment. Very good. Proceed.

[1:50:20] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. I would.

[1:50:23] Assembly Chambers: I would also amend to

[1:50:28] Assembly Chambers: to add the language, that any delay exceeding 10 days shall be subject to Assembly Review and Executive session.

[1:50:39] Assembly Chambers: Okay, I'm not quite sure how that melds with this. But

[1:50:45] Assembly Chambers: Mayor Weldon, response, I'll object. I don't think that's necessary added language, Ms. Walt, I think that's

[1:50:56] Assembly Chambers: I don't think that's an amendment.

[1:50:59] Assembly Chambers: Oh, because then.

[1:51:04] Assembly Chambers: because it adds on oh, because she made a new amendment, she didn't amend her original amendment. Okay, I withdraw. Thanks. I'll keep trying to keep up Miss Adkinson.

[1:51:16] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll object as well. It does feel a little separation of powers issue there. That makes me a little little uncomfortable, so I will object to that.

[1:51:28] Assembly Chambers: Any other comments on the amendment to the amendment.

[1:51:38] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Kelly. I think I did like initially have this idea before I did want to float it out. I think

[1:51:47] Assembly Chambers: think I'd be okay with

[1:51:50] Assembly Chambers: with the revised amendment 2, and I can kind of count votes here, so I'll go ahead and withdraw my amendment to the amendment.

[1:51:58] Assembly Chambers: Very good. We have amendment

[1:52:02] Assembly Chambers: 2, or maybe it's 3, because you withdrew the second one. But we have that amendment.

[1:52:08] Assembly Chambers: Would you restate it for me? One more time, madam Mayor?

[1:52:11] Assembly Chambers: Certainly. So in item C. On page 57. You would now read, ignore the strikeout, but it would now read, in no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation period.

[1:52:27] Assembly Chambers: Very good, Mr. Sanning. Your question.

[1:52:29] Assembly Chambers: Objection?

[1:52:31] Assembly Chambers: Yeah. Object for question. And maybe just an objection in general.

[1:52:38] Assembly Chambers: maybe there's a question for you, Chief Boz, or, if I understand current policy.

[1:52:46] Assembly Chambers: the footage gets released at the end of the investigation under current policy. Is that correct?

[1:52:52] Assembly Chambers: Yes, okay, follow up.

[1:52:55] Assembly Chambers: So with this amendment effectively, without any, you know, just other than you know, an agreement between

[1:53:09] Assembly Chambers: the Chief police and City manager.

[1:53:12] Assembly Chambers: You know, this wouldn't really change current policy other than you know. At each instance you would have to, you know, decide that

[1:53:21] Assembly Chambers: you felt there's a compelling reason. But that compelling reason wouldn't become public until after the footage was released. So during that kind of intervening time period between 30 days and the end of the investigation will still have sort of a vacuum of information that the public will be ruminating on.

[1:53:39] Assembly Chambers: I think there's other elements of the ordinance that require us to explain why we would do the delay.

[1:53:45] Assembly Chambers: so I don't think there would be that necessarily vacuum. It would be more of a we are delay release. For these reasons.

[1:53:54] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Staninger.

[1:53:57] Assembly Chambers: If I understand subsection d the re. Maybe I'm not understanding right. The reason for the delay isn't released until the release of the video. Is that correct?

[1:54:10] Assembly Chambers: Through the chair? So that's correct. And this was contemplated because we only had a 10 day there. So if you would like to

[1:54:22] Assembly Chambers: If you want to delete that upon the release of video clause, then it would require the chief and the manager to provide an explanation to the public as to why it was delayed at the 30 day. Mark.

[1:54:38] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Seninger, can I offer an amendment to the amendment, sure to require that the reason for delay.

[1:54:48] Assembly Chambers: Oh, yeah, upon release of strike out upon release of the video in subsection. D.

[1:54:56] Assembly Chambers: Good

[1:54:57] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Senger, where did you? What was your change? And where did you want to implement it? So it's an amendment 2

[1:55:06] Assembly Chambers: under subsection delay. It currently reads, if delayed by the manager of chief or chief of police. Upon release of the video, an explanation for delay shall be released to the public. So propose to strike upon release of the video.

[1:55:20] Assembly Chambers: which, at least in my mind, would mean that that reason would have to be released.

[1:55:27] Assembly Chambers: you know, at the point of choosing to make a delay.

[1:55:32] Assembly Chambers: madam Mayor, objection to the amendment to the amendment.

[1:55:38] Assembly Chambers: I see where Mr. Steininger is coming from, and it

[1:55:43] Assembly Chambers: and he's pointing out that my amendment may be a little bit

[1:55:49] Assembly Chambers: vague, and probably might perhaps allow a loophole. So I'm going to withdraw my amendment again and offer a different amendment, and hopefully, that will survive. I'll call this amendment 3,

[1:56:02] Assembly Chambers: 4. Madam clerk, can can we take a brief at East? So we make sure that we're not losing

[1:56:10] Assembly Chambers: amendments that need to be maintained, or we are losing amendments that are intended to be removed.

[1:56:23] Assembly Chambers: to clarify where we were when we took the audis, and what we would recommend is, we were at where Mr. Steininger's amendment to Mayor

[1:56:35] Assembly Chambers: Weldon's amendment, Number 2 was on the floor.

[1:56:41] Assembly Chambers: The cleanest way to handle that is, if both of them want to remove their amendments.

[1:56:48] Assembly Chambers: Whichever one of them wants to move forward with one of the amendments should do so, a vote should be taken, and then, whatever happens after that, the next amendment can be made, and the vote would be taken on that next amendment just to be

[1:57:02] Assembly Chambers: crystal clear on what we're voting on and what we're action we're taking, if that helps. Yes, thank you, Mr. Steininger. Did you want to withdraw your amendment to the amendment? I'll withdraw my amendment to the amendment. Very good, Madam Mayor, do you want to withdraw your amendment? 2. I would withdraw that amendment and offer another. I would ask the clerk what she wants to call it, what number she wants to call it?

[1:57:28] Assembly Chambers: Can we call this amendment? Number 3, please? Sure. So Amendment number 3, and I apologize to everybody. I realize, after hearing Mr. Steininger that it might be some ambiguity to Item C, so item C would now read if delayed by the manager or chief of police. In no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation, and I'm trying to close any loophole that the State could use to say.

[1:57:55] Assembly Chambers: we don't have to abide by our timeline because you've granted us till the end of the investigation. So hopefully, that's made it clear and

[1:58:04] Assembly Chambers: trying to get rid of some of the loopholes.

[1:58:06] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Refer the motion. Are there objections to the motion, Mr. Kelly?

[1:58:11] Assembly Chambers: So would you be striking all the other language that is in part C. Then I.

[1:58:19] Assembly Chambers: Okay.

[1:58:20] Assembly Chambers: Again, it would read.

[1:58:22] Assembly Chambers: see, from the very beginning of C would say, if delayed by the manager or chief of police. In no case shall the delay exceed the end of the investigation, so exceed 10 days, would replace by exceed the end of the investigation. That's helpful. And then the rest of the sentence would remain, and the rest of the sentence would remain.

[1:58:42] Assembly Chambers: That was my question. Thank you. Very good. Sounds like you removed your objection. Ms. Atkinson. Objection.

[1:58:48] Assembly Chambers: Objection for a question for the city attorney, because I realize I know what targets state has. But I don't actually know. Is there anything that says the State has to complete their investigation by a certain time? I know they aim for 60 days. But is that

[1:59:03] Assembly Chambers: anything solid through the chair? No, they do not have any statutory requirements, for when those investigations are done.

[1:59:13] Assembly Chambers: Ms, wall, I'm going to object. I appreciate

[1:59:21] Assembly Chambers: what we're trying to do here, but I liked the original version that had a

[1:59:28] Assembly Chambers: 10 day limit on it. I feel like it's and

[1:59:34] Assembly Chambers: more close to what the goals are that we stated originally, and I'm not sure why we would be putting with again, with all due respect to the

[1:59:46] Assembly Chambers: current trusted people in these roles. Why would we be putting more? Why, the public would trust our city government more than than the State Government? I would hold them to the same

[1:59:58] Assembly Chambers: standards. Thanks any other comments on the amendment or Mr. Seneger.

[2:00:09] Assembly Chambers: I guess just a general question for Chief Boz. Because if I if I understand the, you know the need for 30 days and the potential need for additional time, it's really around ensuring that the video released doesn't harm

[2:00:24] Assembly Chambers: your ability to investigate doesn't harm a confidential informant, you know. So on and so forth.

[2:00:30] Assembly Chambers: How time consuming is the redaction process like, is that a process that actually needs 40 whole days.

[2:00:40] Assembly Chambers: So that varies greatly, depending on how long the video is and what we have to redact.

[2:00:46] Assembly Chambers: So I'll give you 2 examples. The incident in July required a significant amount of work to do redaction

[2:00:54] Assembly Chambers: that took about 3 weeks total for us to complete redaction on, because there were so many witnesses that had to be redacted in the crowd.

[2:01:03] Assembly Chambers: The incident in December it was about 8 h worth of work to put everything together.

[2:01:11] Assembly Chambers: So 2 extremes, it's really hard to to say. It's always going to be this amount of time.

[2:01:22] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Atkinson.

[2:01:24] Assembly Chambers: You, Mr. Chair. Mr. Zeittinger's question

[2:01:27] Assembly Chambers: brought to mind another one for the chief. I know, I think the city attorney mentioned that you've worked in a state that had a much stricter timelines for release of footage. Were there in that State cases where this chief of police was able to delay like this? And did you ever have an issue where that strict timeline did endanger safety of an officer, for instance.

[2:01:52] Assembly Chambers: That's a very loaded political question.

[2:01:55] Assembly Chambers: The short answer is, I never had to delay release. We also were not allowed to redact.

[2:02:02] Assembly Chambers: So we had to release the raw video.

[2:02:06] Assembly Chambers: and that was that so very different dynamic there?

[2:02:13] Assembly Chambers: Very good Mr. Kelly.

[2:02:16] Assembly Chambers: Thank you.

[2:02:18] Assembly Chambers: I think the the answer to the question that

[2:02:26] Assembly Chambers: an investigation theoretically like there is no required, and to win an investigation has to be

[2:02:34] Assembly Chambers: that makes me very hesitant. I think I was willing before to maybe entertain something along these lines, because it has to deal with

[2:02:46] Assembly Chambers: the safety of

[2:02:50] Assembly Chambers: bystanders, witnesses, confidential sources, and I was a I was willing to take a little bit of leeway if we would be able to provide some sort of check

[2:03:01] Assembly Chambers: on this.

[2:03:03] Assembly Chambers: but I'm not seeing a good check that is available to the assembly or to the people who who care about this.

[2:03:12] Assembly Chambers: so I will be objecting. For that reason

[2:03:17] Assembly Chambers: I'll object for the purpose of a question. The mayor pointed out to me the second part of the of the subsection or paragraph, or whatever, that the video imagery in question shall be released as soon as the reason for delay for delay has been resolved.

[2:03:33] Assembly Chambers: So, I guess. May I ask you the shall there compels

[2:03:39] Assembly Chambers: the release of that information whenever the actual reason which has to be given is resolved.

[2:03:46] Assembly Chambers: That's how I understand it. So that's correct.

[2:03:52] Assembly Chambers: So I may have been wondering if we need the 1st part, Mr. Kelly.

[2:03:58] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. And to kind of take line off of that question.

[2:04:04] Assembly Chambers: Is there any ever any guarantee that something would be resolved?

[2:04:13] Assembly Chambers: I'll strive for resolution, but I'll let someone go after that.

[2:04:17] Assembly Chambers: I think an easy example would be redaction. So if it takes us.

[2:04:21] Assembly Chambers: you know, 35 days to complete redaction. Once it's finished, it's resolved. And we would release the video.

[2:04:27] Assembly Chambers: You know, we're we're discussing kind of the one to 2% of cases that might

[2:04:35] Assembly Chambers: come up. We just don't know what those are going to be, but I think 97, 98% of the time this will work flawlessly

[2:04:42] Assembly Chambers: those other times it might be a discussion with you again as an assembly, saying, Here's what we're up against. Give us guidance.

[2:04:53] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[2:04:55] Assembly Chambers: We have a motion, madam, so, and that's the purpose of the amendment is, you know.

[2:05:02] Assembly Chambers: I'm trying to stay with the spirit of what the ordinance is saying, plus the spirit of what Src. Is saying. So they have to release it as soon as their delay has been resolved. But I don't think 10 days is long enough. Certainly you heard the chief give examples when it's not, but it is an endpoint with the end of the investigation, and that's why I'm trying to carry for both care for both of those ideas.

[2:05:27] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Madam Mayor, with the second part of the

[2:05:31] Assembly Chambers: question, or the second part of that subsection in my mind, I I'll support the amendment, madam Clerk.

[2:05:40] Assembly Chambers: we have a motion with objection. Would you please call the roll?

[2:05:45] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is Amendment number 3 for Section C. To read if delayed by the manager or chief of police. In no case shall a delay exceed the end of the investigation. And then that section continues with the remaining sentence, the video imagery in question shall be released as soon as the reason for delay has been resolved. Madam Mayor.

[2:06:11] Assembly Chambers: Yes, Mr. Bryson.

[2:06:17] Assembly Chambers: Yes.

[2:06:20] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Atkinson.

[2:06:24] Assembly Chambers: Yes.

[2:06:26] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Walt.

[2:06:28] Assembly Chambers: No, Mr. Kelly, no, Miss Hall.

[2:06:36] Assembly Chambers: Yes, Mr. Steininger, no Deputy Mayor Smith. Yes.

[2:06:46] Assembly Chambers: motion carries 5 yays 3 nays.

[2:06:52] Assembly Chambers: We're back to the main motion. Mr. She. We're back to the main motion. Thank you. As, amended

[2:06:57] Assembly Chambers: Mr. Seninger.

[2:06:59] Assembly Chambers: I'd like to move, I believe. Amendment 4, 4.

[2:07:04] Assembly Chambers: So Amendment 4 would amend

[2:07:09] Assembly Chambers: the next section subsection d. Near 2D. Which I should have pulled up to find exactly where that is in the bill, but currently reads.

[2:07:18] Assembly Chambers: Thank you 57.

[2:07:19] Assembly Chambers: If delayed by the manager or chief of police upon release of the video, an explanation for delay shall be released to the public. Like to amend that to read, if delayed by the manager or chief of police, an explanation for delay shall be released to the public

[2:07:37] Assembly Chambers: no later than 30 days after the incident.

[2:07:42] Assembly Chambers: and if I could speak to my amendment.

[2:07:45] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Yes, Mr. Sanningar, so my my thinking here is just to ensure that

[2:07:51] Assembly Chambers: if we have to delay, especially if that delay could be of an indeterminate length to the end of the investigation that we're not leaving a time period with kind of a vacuum of information to the public, because I think the intent here is really to make sure that the public has timely information about, you know concerns in the community and providing an explanation of why we're going past that, you know.

[2:08:15] Assembly Chambers: 30 day deadline that we're setting for ourselves is important in communicating to the public what's going on, and what's happening in what are frankly, fairly distressing times in the community at large.

[2:08:28] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Sanning. Would you would you restate your amendment for me? One more time, please. Yes, so would

[2:08:36] Assembly Chambers: change the language to read if delayed by the manager or chief of police an exception. Explanation for the delay shall be released to the public no later than 30 days after the incident.

[2:08:52] Assembly Chambers: Would you like it? One more time?

[2:08:54] Assembly Chambers: Oh.

[2:08:56] Assembly Chambers: I guess if I can just ask a clarifying question. So you you are specifying a certain time frame after

[2:09:05] Assembly Chambers: after the release of the footage there?

[2:09:08] Assembly Chambers: I so the the idea is that you know. So under the current, you know, under the ordinance.

[2:09:15] Assembly Chambers: if there's an incident 30 days after that incident we'll release the footage. However, there's now the ability for the manager or chief police to delay release, but this amendment would require that on that 30 day deadline there'd be some communication from the city as to what's going on effectively and in the form of an explanation.

[2:09:40] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. I'll remove my objection.

[2:09:47] Assembly Chambers: We've heard the motion. Is there objection to the motion or the amendment?

[2:09:55] Assembly Chambers: See no objection that amendment is adopted?

[2:09:59] Assembly Chambers: Madam Mayor, I think we're on Amendment 5

[2:10:03] Assembly Chambers: Amendment 5 would basically anywhere it says officer involved would switch to the word just officer.

[2:10:13] Assembly Chambers: Very good. And I,

[2:10:15] Assembly Chambers: when I looked through, I think I only found that in one was that only in one place.

[2:10:21] Assembly Chambers: madam Attorney.

[2:10:27] Assembly Chambers: Oh, excuse me, there's 2

[2:10:32] Assembly Chambers: page 2 of the ordinance lines 5 and 7.

[2:10:37] Assembly Chambers: Okay, very good.

[2:10:39] Assembly Chambers: Any objections to the amendment, seeing on that amendment is adopted, Madame.

[2:10:48] Assembly Chambers: are we on 6, madam? Clerk

[2:10:50] Assembly Chambers: Amendment 6, which might not go down quite so easily? I would

[2:10:56] Assembly Chambers: we heard the prosecuting prosecuting attorney, and I know people got excited about this, so I'm not going for the full window. I'm just asking for on

[2:11:09] Assembly Chambers: page 2 line 24. The prosecuting authority may result, may request and rate up to a 15 day delay, and then on the next page, under line 7. Subsection. I only 1 15 day may be requested. They ask for a little bit longer, but I am taking a shorter window.

[2:11:30] Assembly Chambers: Very good. You've heard the amendment objection to the amendment, Miss Atkinson.

[2:11:35] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. I appreciate the collaborative thought process that the mayor is engaging in. I do.

[2:11:47] Assembly Chambers: I was not being too mean.

[2:11:51] Assembly Chambers: I want to emphasize that the State prosecuting office is not representing Juneau, and that

[2:11:59] Assembly Chambers: I found some of the things said by Ms. Kemp to be a little dubious, and so I do not believe an extension is necessary, and that they have the ability to extend. If there is a legitimate reason to do so through a court order, or if there's a prohibition by law, and so I see frankly no reason to give them any other leeway.

[2:12:24] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Ms. Atkinson. Mr. Kelly.

[2:12:27] Assembly Chambers: Thank you. I

[2:12:30] Assembly Chambers: I won't call into question the motives of our State prosecuting attorneys and state law. However, I think I feel in a much similar way that this responsibility belongs to the State, and that

[2:12:50] Assembly Chambers: it would be, I believe it would be within their capacity to complete it within the time frame that we've provided. Assuming that they were adequately staffed. And so I think that is not. That is not an issue that we should accommodate for them. That is an issue that they should take on themselves.

[2:13:09] Assembly Chambers: And so I will also object. But I also do respect and appreciate the Madam Mayor's attempt. Thank you.

[2:13:20] Assembly Chambers: Very good.

[2:13:21] Assembly Chambers: We have an amendment and objection.

[2:13:25] Assembly Chambers: Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

[2:13:29] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chair for amendment number 6 to change 10 day to 15 day on pages 2, line 24, and page 3, line 20. Mayor Weldon.

[2:13:42] Assembly Chambers: Yes, Mr. Bryson.

[2:13:46] Assembly Chambers: Yes, Ms. Atkinson, Madam Curry, I apologize.

[2:13:52] Assembly Chambers: You have the wrong line. Sorry to stop the vote. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you.

[2:13:58] Assembly Chambers: It would be. It was page 3 line 8 or yeah.

[2:14:05] Assembly Chambers: Thank you for that correction.

[2:14:07] Assembly Chambers: Page 3, line 7, 8, somewhere in the middle. There.

[2:14:13] Assembly Chambers: So, Mayor Weldon, let's start the count again. If we might. Yes, Mr. Bryson.

[2:14:21] Assembly Chambers: Beautiful Ms. Atkinson. No.

[2:14:25] Assembly Chambers: Ms. Wall.

[2:14:27] Assembly Chambers: Oh, Mr. Kelly!

[2:14:31] Assembly Chambers: Oh, Miss Hall!

[2:14:35] Assembly Chambers: Oh, Mr. Steininger, no.

[2:14:40] Assembly Chambers: And Deputy Mayor Smith! Yes, motion fails. 3 Yays, 5. Nays.

[2:14:54] Assembly Chambers: Very good. We have the motion as amended before us.

[2:15:00] Assembly Chambers: Is there any objection for any reason, to the motion as amended.

[2:15:07] Assembly Chambers: seeing none. That motion is adopted.

[2:15:13] Assembly Chambers: Very good, and that takes us to the well to the next item. Our agenda staff reports, Madam Manager.

[2:15:20] Assembly Chambers: Thank you, Mr. Chief.

[2:15:25] Assembly Chambers: No staff reports.

[2:15:27] Assembly Chambers: Very good. Our next meeting date is June second, 2025. Madam manager, madam Mayor.

[2:15:37] Assembly Chambers: did you want to make a statement about something? Well, I was going to let you, but just wanted to say Thank you to our madam clerk who provided cookies and goodies for public Service Recognition week, and we'd like to just recognize all our public service employees. Thank you.

[2:16:00] Assembly Chambers: Thank you for bringing that up, Madam Mayor. And yes, we

[2:16:03] Assembly Chambers: appreciate you all. Okay, seeing no other business for the committee of the whole, we are adjourned at 9 0 1.

Assembly Committee of the Whole

Transcript