I just have to just make a lot of problems.

Yeah, but like what's a possibility.

I think that's how we make it around.

I call the Assembly Committee the whole to order March sixteenth, twenty twenty-six at six oh seven PM.

Miss Adkison, would you lead us in the land acknowledgement, please?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

We would like to acknowledge the city and borough of Dunos on Clingate Land and wish to honor the indigenous people of this land.

For more than ten thousand years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

We are grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Klingon people.

The intent would be to pass a year-round funding, but you would see the remainder of the year that is not normally funded, July 1 through October 15 in your FY27 budget.

If you pass this, there's been some confusion on that point.

So I wanted to be clear.

And we would anticipate that a total funding cost for year-round operations of the emergency shelter at Thane would be about 1.1 million dollars.

That includes contractual cost, which is most of it, as well as a more smaller amount for facility maintenance and repairs.

As you're well familiar, uh Juno and Anchorage lead the state in the amount of permanent supportive transitional housing and rapid recovery beds that we provide for our residents, however, who are in need.

However, that existing number of units that we we provide doesn't quite meet the need.

Along with the fact that we have a small proportion, small portion of our on-house population that isn't yet able to succeed in non-congregate sheltering.

Thus, thus the need for emergency shelter services of both ours and those provided by the Glory Hall.

You are familiar with the dispersed camping model that we had in place last year following the challenges we had with uh summer campgrounds uh in years past.

Uh dispersed camping really, we we think uh and our partners tell us really is a solution of last resort.

We've certainly considered uh bringing you proposals to operate uh the cold weather shelter year-round in prior years, but haven't been able to do that due to staffing capacity uh of our social service partners.

Our current partner, St.

Vincent's uh St.

Vincent DePaul that operates the warming shelter uh is this year able, they believe it's always tenuous, right?

But this year um they're they're they've brought us a proposal that would allow uh for a year-round operations.

And so that's why you have that in front of you tonight.

Um the one uh kind of additional additional point that I'll make is that um in in meeting with our partners, uh, which we've been doing all winter, uh, in addition to a handful of assembly members participating in those meetings from time to time.

Uh one one point was repeated and I think supported by the that partner agency group uh in that in order for emergency shelter operations to be successful over the summer months, we will have to take a different approach to dispersed camping enforcement.

So code on the books right now doesn't permit camping in most public spaces for longer than 48 hours at a time.

Uh, and and after that enforcement uh per code occurs.

We relaxed enforcement on that in the past due to not having adequate shelter space for um these residents to go to.

Uh, but we we we do believe and our partners agree that uh in order for an emergency shelter over the summer months to be successful, we would have to uh enforce code as as written.

Again, dependent upon our ability to continue to provide uh a warm, safe uh space for people to be overnight, uh, and uh relying on uh the Glory Hall.

It's another key partner in this space to provide day services uh for those same and many other CPJ residents.

Um happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Barr.

Questions from the assembly.

I see Ms.

Wall, Ms.

Adkisson, and then Miss Hall.

Thank you, Chair Smith.

Um in your comment about you know enforce different enforcement being needed for this to be successful.

I mean I'm assuming you mean people aren't going to go unless they're forced to.

Is that what you're saying, or do we know?

I mean, do we know that people aren't going to use it on their own, or maybe you can clarify that statement.

Yeah, we we um we believe that there will be a significant uh portion of the population that is using the shelter right now that would choose not to use the shelter and would prefer to camp when the weather permits.

Ms.

Edkison.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so just wondering how this enforcement sort of thing would work.

Uh I know in the past we've had you know shuttles go around at you know, certain routes and that kind of thing.

Is that something where JPD could bring call the shuttle to come pick someone up at a certain location?

Would they have to go to specific areas of town to catch the shuttle?

Thank you through the chair.

Um I'll tackle that in two separate paths.

So first, there's the transportation element of getting to and from the shelter every day.

Those services would continue.

They would be more challenging for us during the summer because we do rely on capital transit.

We rely on our partner agencies for the evening transportation.

Uh, and and they would continue and and we would continue to fund that.

Um, we rely on capital transit uh for the AM and morning transportation.

We are still working on that.

Um, we're not quite sure how we're gonna do that with the tripper service that we also add to uh during during the summer months, but we're confident that we'll be able to figure it out.

Still working on it.

Um so that transportation uh at least as currently envisioned would would continue a pace as it does today.

Um on the enforcement piece, uh in talking with with many partners, both inside and outside of Juno, um, people that work in the space.

Um we we really ideally in a perfect world uh like to see that first touch enforcement done by staff who work for the social service agencies.

It just works best.

Um and uh there's there's lots of lots of good um data uh and and research behind that.

Um we know that our enforcement capacity is limited, both uh from the partner agencies and CBJ's enforcement capacity.

And when I talk about CBJ's enforcement capacity, I'm referring both to um primarily staff that that work in parks and rec and JPD.

Um it's our park rangers, it's our community service officers, and it's our police officers.

Um, you know, we would do everything we can, right, to work first through our partner agencies for that first touch, right?

On getting people connected with the resources that um can best support them.

And in this case, it would be both the shelter itself as well as whatever wraparound services may or may not be appropriate depending on may be appropriate depending on someone's personal specific circumstances at that time of contact.

Um and where those partner agency resources are insufficient, we would lean in as well with CBJ staff to also make those connections and do the best that we can to get people connected with those resources.

Um similarly, um, and it's it's possible, right, that we still might run out of enforcement capacity, in which case I would be back chatting with you.

Ms.

Hall.

I don't know if this is the time in the meeting, but I uh deputy mayor, I would like to declare that I'm a member of the St.

Vincent Board of Directors.

However, I've spoken to the city attorney and my participation does not constitute a personal or financial conflict.

And so I will not recuse unless you think it's necessary.

Thank you, Ms.

Hall, Mr.

Sandinger.

Uh similarly, I'll declare that I am a member of the finance committee for St.

Vincent DePaul.

Again, I've also spoken to the city attorney and um have been informed this isn't a conflict of interest.

Thank you.

Um I know in my discussions on the that it is not a conflict.

And if some if someone has a concern, we can bring it up.

But from what I understand, it is not a conflict of interest.

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I uh I'm wondering if with keeping the facility open longer, will there be an intention to increase the capacity of the individuals using the facility, like get more beds in there or um you know, have more capability to um care for more individuals and then um also is there a current count on unhoused individuals within our community.

Through the chair.

Um we don't have plans to increase capacity.

The space is pretty maxed out um in terms of what we're what we're able to offer there.

Um it is it is possible to expand uh if that need exists from a physical footprint perspective, although it would require solving some storage problems that would not be simple to solve.

Um it may not be possible for St.

Vincent's to further expand their staffing resources to meet any growth and and capacity.

That that that is that is typically a more limiting factor than the space itself.

Um I don't have the most recent point in time count data at my fingertips.

I can tell you that attendance at the warming shelter uh varies.

Um I'm most familiar with last year's data.

This year's data has been a little bit better than last year's data.

Um we typically have seen a spike in the kind of January, February time frame that we did not see this year.

Kelly thank you to to follow up uh since Mr.

Brooks was asking about if we had plans to increase capacity and the answers that were not would we be increasing or anticipating an increase in patrons during the summer thank you through the chair no I I wouldn't anticipate uh increased demand during the summer um um I probably increase uh I probably anticipate a little bit less um demand during the summer months than the winter months pure purely because of weather I had a question it and I'm sorry if I missed it at all in what you were saying Mr.

Barr but you know in your memo you said that this the the group um of social service providers and others you know support the extending the cold weather shelter into a year round shelter do they did they also comment or make any sign of support on the changes to you know enforcement of dispersed camping uh yes um they they uh were have been and continue to be unanimously in support of increased enforcement um as as described in the memo to make the emergency shelter work Ms.

Wall Thank you Chair Smith and sorry um somebody just asked this a few times but I I gotta ask it maybe in a way to help me understand you know if if there are I assume there are people because I see tents who are not using the warming shelter in the winter right now and so if we were to move to this model of enforcing presumably those areas and opening it up in the summer wouldn't you expect to see more people or do you think it's negligible or are there areas that people are camping that would not be enforced thank you.

Thank you through the chair um I suspect that there would be um areas that so when it when it comes to enforcement we we are in many ways a complaint driven organization um and I suspect that we would still see camping in the community um but I I believe that we would see a a not insignificant number of people camping in in spaces that did not drive complaints I had another one um I I've I know when this is you know when it was proposed to be a cold weather shelter actually I think even after it was I was contacted by people in the area um you know with concerns about various concerns about you know this this type of facility being close there have we one heard from people in the neighborhood or and two I guess have we looked at is there are there site controls or things that we can do on that property that might help we evaluated those I guess.

Thank you Mr.

Chair um we have looked at um so we do anticipate that we will be confronted with with with new challenges uh in operating in the summer right we haven't done that before um in this type of model uh and and so uh I you know I I fully believe there will be a bit of a learning curve for us um St.

Vincent's has been a good partner when it comes to um site control and coordination and collaboration with the rock dump area um uh businesses and and property owners um and I would anticipate that they will have every expectation and and would believe that they would continue um to be a good partner with with those businesses and property owners um we we may need to do more um we've looked at uh installing fencing fencing is quite expensive we've um looked at uh and chatted with St.

Vincent's about uh camera systems and the monitoring and and funding and maintenance of those um I fully expect that if this goes forward if we do this that there will be needs um that that I hope I've accounted for a little bit in that annual 1.1 million dollar estimate that's not only the contract uh but it's entirely possible we'll we'll be confronted with a few surprises thank you any further questions on the topic I would let's try a motion not to get us going mad mayor all right uh thank you I would move ordinance 2025 zero one lowercase b uppercase a f to the full assembly for public hearing thank you madam mayor don't see any objection is there objection to the motion Ms.

I would move ordinance 2025 01, lowercase B, uppercase AF to the full assembly for public hearing.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Don't see any objection.

Is there objection to the motion?

Ms.

Wall.

I guess I'm I'm I'm not gonna object.

So I probably shouldn't be speaking, but I feel like I just have to say it.

You know what?

I think we need public comment on this, so I'm happy to send it.

I am you know uncomfortable with changing our enforcement, even though I'm supportive of opening up more space for people.

But sounds like we, you know, we've done good outreach to the social service providers.

So, you know, they know best.

But you know, I want to hear from a lot of people on that element of it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Wall.

Seeing no, is there any objection to the motion?

Seeing no objection, that motion is adopted.

Item two an ordinance authorizing a manager to dispose of 155 Heritage Way current city hall.

Madam Manager.

Thank you, Chair Smith.

Uh, so this issue is before you today because the land housing and economic development committee uh passed a motion to introduce an ordinance disposing of this building um for uh uh sealed bid with a minimum bid of 2.5 million dollars.

So that ordinance was introduced to the last assembly meeting meeting and referred to the committee of the whole for further discussion.

Um the intent of bringing the disposal of city hall to you, kind of well in advance of moving into the municipal building or the Burns building, is we unknowledge that this conversation could take some time and even a sealed bid process, which is relatively straightforward, will take about nine months.

So I just want to um inform you that that's where this timeline is coming from, not to rush you into a decision, but just to make sure that we're not sitting with a building that we have to maintain and uh condo do associate uh condo dues that we have to pay.

Uh we are um working towards a deadline of moving into that building by the end of the calendar year.

Still probably a little um optimistic, but that would be the goal because of course um more important than this facility are the is uh um marine view where we're paying substantial lease costs, and those costs will only escalate as we don't have you know a firm long-term lease with them.

So the memo proposes a number of different ways that you can dispose of city hall.

I I think rather than getting like really wrapped around the axle on the different ways of disposal that we have lined out in city code, which I'm happy to walk you through, you have a tremendous amount of flexibility in how you want to dispose of it.

You can do a uh sealed bid, that's where you know there's a minimum bid set and everyone submits an envelope at a certain time, and then whoever uh has the you know highest bid gets that property.

You could do something um more like a proposal or a request for proposal.

And while that looks like what we're doing with a telephone health properties, if you kind of think about uh think about that process, it does not have to be that prescriptive or that complicated, right?

You could have a one very simple condition on your sale um that would be used in the scoring criteria of the sales.

And I think I recommend you know, three in the memo just to give you an idea.

So I don't want the idea of a um negotiated sale like that to sound like big and daunting.

It is, of course, more complicated and and will probably get you less money, uh potentially get you less money than just selling it um competitive sealed bid, but uh it can be done in a way that's not um I mean there's a spectrum of how complicated that can be.

Um I we've had a lot of questions about where the 2.5 million as a minimum bid came from.

That was in consultation with our assessor and um just doing an analysis of the building.

We don't um really update assessments for public facilities.

So um, you know the idea of uh sealed competitive bid is that the market will determine what that value is.

Another uh mechanism that you have for um disposal is just to negotiate with uh directly with um one entity.

So you could uh direct the manager to negotiate with one entity and you could sell it for less than fair market value to a nonprofit, for example.

So that is another direction that you could go uh all of this to say there are many different mechanisms within city code, and you know, you can even exempt yourselves from portions of city code should you need to, but I really don't think you do.

I think that um based on the conversations that I've heard in committee and with many members, I think that there's a way to achieve the disposal that you like.

Uh and once you kind of decide your objectives with disposing of City Hall, your your policy objectives, uh, we can come back to amending the current ordinance that's before you to reflect that.

It's a very has a very broad title.

Attorney Wright made sure to draft it in a way that wasn't um kind of locking you into the motion that uh the land housing and economic development committee made.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Manager.

I I guess just to sorry to jump in, but it might be helpful for us as we deliberate.

With the current way the ordinance is written, if we you know, follow just as an example what lands the lands committee suggested, and then determine later that maybe we want to do a negotiated sale or something.

Can we use the can we adjust this ordinance as it moves through the process to make that change?

Yes, you yes, you can.

So that's why we left it very, very broad.

It's just an ordinance authorizing the manager to dispose.

So we could do any of those options presented under this ordinance.

You wouldn't have to start over.

Very good.

Thank you.

Questions, Ms.

Wall.

Thank you, Chair Smith.

Um not to belabor the 2.5 million dollar um number here, but do you have a sense of whether that is you know, primarily the land?

Do we assume that anyone who might want this space would have to take down the building?

Or are there what do we what do we know about what does our sessor know about um how valuable this might be?

Yeah, thank you.

So I do believe that includes the building value taking into consideration the condition of the building.

You have heard me talk for the last six years probably about the condition of this building.

So um uh, but the boiler seems to be working this evening, so it's not interrupting our meeting.

But um, you know, I I think there's definitely um a good chance that someone who purchases would want to take down the building.

Other questions, Missus Candees?

No.

Okay.

I was trying to decide if we want to do a motion or if people are if we want to like go down the line and get different different perspectives.

But Mr.

Brooks, you had your hand up.

Did you have a question or yeah.

Are we okay with that method to hear?

Or how about this?

If people have strong feelings about which way they'd like to go, go ahead.

You're not required to speak.

So, Ms.

Wall.

I do.

I do have strong feelings.

Um, you know, I I uh I guess object strongly to the the recommendation from L head.

Um, but I think there's a few options other than that.

Um, you know, to me, we have a duty, you know, we need to that this project to move City Hall has been very expensive, more expensive than we would have ever wanted, and the public is not happy about it.

So I do feel like we have a responsibility to um get at least fair market value for this property.

That being said, I don't think we need to get the highest amount that we could get out of this, because I think that will come at an expense to our other goals.

Um, this is our downtown core and our waterfront, and we hear all the time from people who want to make sure this space stays um year-round in nature.

And so I think if we don't design a process um that allows us some control, not all the control of the world, but a bit more control um to make sure that it goes um somewhere that you know supports other community goals and is more year-round in orientation.

Um, and so I got thoughts on how to do that, but I'll leave it there for now.

And you know, maybe just if again, you're not required to state them, but staff did desire to, you know, they did want some direction that we see at the top of page 16.

Do you if you want to put any condition on the sale?

Obviously, if you say no, it's just a sealed competitive bid, you don't have to respond.

And then are you can comfortable with the 2.5 minimum?

So if if people are responding, let's maybe we could just add that in.

Okay.

So my preference would be to um go get a appraisal first, and then um come back to what the manager said another suggestion she made about um doing a minimum bid with criteria.

Thank you, Ms.

Wall.

Other members with comments.

Madam Mayor, then Miss Hughes Scandi's.

That's we're not going to order.

I appreciate uh Ms.

Wall's candidate to comments.

Um I would disagree with getting an appraiser.

I think that's spending money.

We don't have to.

If a Hunatoton dock goes in, this is going to be a really valuable piece of property.

And I think 2.5 will be nothing to what we can get for it.

I probably have a couple minor little conditions to put on it, but not major ones.

And my minor would be um just to give people food for thought is uh no jewelry stores.

Um a portion of the building would have to be year-round.

So I'm not saying the whole building because I don't want to let people do whatever they want to do, but just a portion.

But everybody has to keep in mind that we can sell it like this, and then that person who bought it could turn around and sell it and have no conditions on it.

So we just want to be careful.

And I like Ms.

Wall would like to get as much money as we can from the building.

Miss Hughes Scandis.

Uh thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Good thoughts so far.

I when we looked at this in L head, I like that new designation.

Um I also said I was interested in getting an appraisal.

Um I hear the point that it's spending money, we don't have to.

I don't like to spend money, we don't have to.

But 2.5 just seems like throwing a dart to me.

Um I I think wherever if we're doing something where there is a minimum, I kind of want to have a better feel of confidence in that.

But perhaps an appraisal for folks would not make you feel like you had a better sense.

But if that's how other things are done, then I think we should uh at least take that step.

Um, just because I don't want us to feel like we're guessing, because uh I think past has shown us we're not always the most knowledgeable about the value uh of the property.

But what I do know is that this piece of property is valuable and I don't know what that dollar amount is, but the footprint that it occupies in the downtown core, so close to the waterfront, there are many aspects of it that are uh you could slice it many ways, and it's valuable in all those ways.

So I would start there.

I would I think a good clarifying comment, maybe for me is when Ms.

Wall said, you know, if we if we just went for as maximum dollars, then we're gonna be sacrificing some of our goals to do so.

And I think perhaps it might be helpful.

I appreciate that staff brought it to us so early so that we do have time to keep it moving, but not have to necessarily make uh the decision right away.

It would be helpful if we had a better sense of if we have consensus on what those goals are.

I agree year-round is paramount.

And then I think the other thing is kind of the character of this area.

Do we want that character to stay the same?

Um, you know, it's been from down the state from the legislature.

This is like a kind of governmental area as you go down the hill.

Um do we want to keep that or or what are we going for?

So it might be helpful as people are talking um for me.

If if you do think you know what those it could be many different goals, but it would help us to get clarity around that, and then that would help me know how many conditions we would set.

But I would want some goals and maybe as people talk, we'll see if there's a consensus on that.

Um I think that answers those two questions.

Thank you, Miss Hughes Scandi's, Ms.

Adgison and Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, apologies for the rogue, bro.

I have a headache and I think it's messing with my filter.

So I was all sorry, I'll try to be coherent here.

Um I too am not in favor of an appraisal, mostly because while I I understand other members' desire to try to figure out how to quantify what this building is worth, because I agree 2.5 million is is pretty low considering location and things like that.

Um, if I remember correctly, the uh HUNATOTEM land was appraised for like four million and went for 20.

So I don't know that an appraisal is any less throwing a dart at a wall than what we're doing now is.

Um I definitely am not opposed to raising that minimum bid, but I don't know that we need to spend money on an appraiser to do that.

Um I won't die on that hill though.

Um the other thing I would say is I do agree that the most important condition to put on it is year-round occupancy.

And and the reason for that being we are taking an economic engine out of the core of downtown when we bring it to the Burns building, and I don't want local businesses to suffer when we do that.

So I would say I don't know how prescriptive we want to be about goals or public benefit.

I I not sure how we should if we should approach it that way, but I think year-round occupancy is really important.

Thank you, Miss Adkisson.

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I uh also would resonate that I'm not particularly interested in doing the assessment, but it's for a different reason.

The uh, you know, just a few years ago, we spent a lot of taxpayer money doing a campaign on why we need the new building, and plenty of data and figures came out from that campaign that this building was worth around three to five million dollars and needed 14 million in deferred maintenance, therefore rendering it worthless.

And that's not to say that the land isn't, though.

We all know that the land is extremely valuable, extremely desirable, but to say we're selling a building, I think isn't the most transparent and upfront.

And we already did spend a lot of money figuring that information out that we put out there to the public.

So that's I and I'm I know that the situation that we're in right now is that you know, we need to find money where it can be found, but you know, doing you know, what's right by the public takes the precedence though, too.

So um as far as the stipulations or requirements, I think like the others were saying, having a preference for your someone interested in year-round operations, and then if possible, having a preference for a local purchase or two.

Thank you, Mr.

Brooks.

Mr.

Steininger.

Um I I'm gonna kind of echo what Mayor said and and what Ms.

Agison said about keeping the keeping the number of conditions as limited as possible, but I I can understand where year-round is very beneficial from a community perspective.

You know, I think as we look at this as a public asset, I think we kind of owe it to the public to try and get as much money out of it as we can.

Um, and so the more we load on in terms of those those um conditions, the the less likely we are to do that.

Um I voted against doing a um an appraisal in the L head, I guess we're calling it now.

L head.

Um and mostly because yeah, I think it unnecessarily slows down the process, spends money that we don't need to.

Um Mr.

Brooks made a great point that we kind of already have done some work into figuring out what the building is worth.

And and I think at the end of the day, you know, whatever that number came back with, if we're doing a you know, a public closed bid with maybe a couple of conditions on it, that's gonna tell us what's buildings worse anyway.

So it's months of time and and dollars we don't need to spend.

Thank you, Mr.

Saniger.

Miss Hall.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um I I would also echo what uh several others have said that um, you know, I I do like the idea of supporting our community goals.

Um the year-round operation is important.

Um, however, I do feel um, you know, with the fiscal reality that we're in, we you know, the sealed competitive bid.

I like the post-bid negotiation part.

Um yeah, that's that's where I stand as well.

And the year-round operation would be important as well.

Thank you, Ms.

Hall.

Just you and me.

Um I can go on where I stand.

Um I'm I'm in kind of the sealed competitive bid with some um conditions.

I mean I'm also I'm also a little bit, I don't know.

I guess I don't necessarily say the sense that we need to move super fast, but I don't know what we're waiting for if we don't, you know, we were we're aware and have received some correspondence and probably had conversations with a local nonprofit, C Alaska Heritage Institute that is, you know, put forward I don't know if I call it an offer anyway, some numbers and things that they would potentially use with the space.

Um I'm not, you know, um I like a number of things about what they proposed in terms of the use and the benefits of the community.

You know, we are looking at money at the end of the day as well.

And and I'm I'm not sure that's right.

The number gets me to where I'm I'm good with that, but we have chances to change the direction of the ordinance as we move forward.

So um did I cover what I needed to?

Um, you know, I guess I'm I've thought about things like year-round tennis tenancy.

I I have to admit I haven't talked to a developer to say if we've said housing is a thing that if they would would that crush the, you know, would that crush the interest or not?

And probably would.

I don't know.

I mean I'm not a developer.

I'd need to talk to I'd like to talk to someone and hear from that.

Um I guess that's that's where I stand.

Um, you know, if people are ready to move, we we can again.

I also can be held in committee because I don't have a sense, madam manager, that it needs to be, you know, decided right now.

But if you well also if people are ready to act, we can go.

So those are my comments, Madam Mayor.

I'll try a motion that might make everybody happy.

So I move ordinance uh 2026-15 to the full assembly for public hearing and then uh to return it back to the cow.

We all are pondering the motion.

Would you like you'd like an added use?

Let's let's see what's let's see if people folks say, and then maybe if we if we need, we could take a little break after that.

Ms.

Wall, uh an objection.

Um objection.

I'll actually object this time.

Oh, although I'm listening to all of you, I feel like this will probably pass.

Um and then I'll continue the conversation.

But I just wanted another opportunity to talk about why I think an appraisal is important right now.

Listening to all you are interested in not just giving this to the highest bidder, you're interested in weighing price and other community benefits.

And if we don't know what the property costs, that's gonna be a very hard balance to make.

Um, I I also worry about us going through a big long process, and no one that we like who meets our other goals bidding on this because of the price.

And then we've wasted a whole bunch of time.

And so it is not a lot.

I don't like spending money.

You don't have to.

I think we have to spend this $10,000 to know to feel confident when we get to that negotiation that we are in the ballpark.

Thank you, Miss Walt.

Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

This is a question for staff.

Um commercial appraisal.

That's usually more than 10,000, correct?

Or maybe I'm wrong.

15 to 20,000 is our best estimate.

All right.

Well, we have a motion.

We have an objection further comments or objection, Miss Yuscannies.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

I'm not sure I'm gonna object to this or not.

Um I appreciate the mayor sending it back, making the motion to save it back to committee because I think it does need work.

Um, and I think we need to I for me to be convinced I think more work uh needs to be done.

It never hearts to get public comment on anything uh that's helpful, but um I also just feel like there's not really a whole lot right now for the public to comment on, but uh but also that being said, it's generally harmless, so I I don't mind it.

Um yeah.

I guess I will just since Ms.

Well brought up the appraisal again.

I'll say that I've seen a lot of disposal of land and the from the city in my time, and I've seen the city acquire land and I am thinking of some of the smallest buildings uh and family practice medical and just some random uh CBJ properties in which we got an appraisal.

So when I think of uh of our our long list of uh CBJ facilities and properties, uh even though this sweet, sweet building is in terrible, you know, unloved condition and shabby shape.

It is also in a way our crown jewel.

It is our city hall, it is you know, in the center of downtown.

So I would say certainly worthy of feeling that confidence of getting that.

Um, I also think there's a difference between assessed and appraised.

Um for the people who make their living at it, then I would say take a crack.

Tell me if you were listing this, you know, see the fly and dive place listed for 10 million.

I see other places, Brooks building, you know, 12 million.

So again, to me, then I'm saying two and a half million.

Yeah, you gotta take the building down, but the land, you know.

So that's where I'm coming from.

But I will remove my objection.

Thank you, Miss Yu Scandis.

Further comment.

I'll I'll object for the purpose of comment.

I appreciate the mayor's motion.

I'll I'll support it.

Um I think a little more time and it gives us a chance to think about things like appraisal.

We can with the staff, we can work on getting a list of you know different conditions or things that were brought up and maybe have a list so that when we come back in not that long of a time, I actually don't think um the next regular isn't anyway that far in the end.

And then I think there's a a cow right after that.

So anyway, I don't I wouldn't expect it to be a long time away.

Um anyway, I think that will give us some time to simmer and allow me, for instance, to be able to look into some things and different conditions and talk to some other people.

So I'll support the mayor's motion.

We do have an objection.

We have a motion and we have an objection.

Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Thank you.

Ordinance 2026-15 to the to forward to the full assembly for public hearing and refer the ordinance back to the cow.

Ms.

Wall.

No.

Mr.

Kelly.

Yes.

Ms.

Adkisson.

Yes.

Mr.

Steininger.

Yes.

Ms.

Hall.

Yes.

Mr.

Brooks.

Yes.

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Ms.

Hughes Scandis.

No.

Deputy Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Motion carries with two nays and seven yes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Yep.

Um, all right.

That moves us to our second agenda topic and brings us to our third ordinance 2026-12.

Amending the Title 69 code relating to tax on peer-on-peer vehicle sharing.

And more words in the title of that ordinance.

But Mr.

Barr, I believe this is you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh uh.

The L head committee.

Um, this this ordinance or this um, yes, this ordinance, and there was a memo in that packet as well describing um a potential excise tax on top of peer-to-peer uh car rental operators uh that would be uh collected by marketplace facilitators.

Um in this case that's primarily Toro um on uh peer-to-peer car rentals that originate or conclude inside of a specific downtown parking uh zone.

Um general and pro generally that zone is uh within uh approximately readjusted the map a little bit after feedback from committee, uh approximately within one half mile of a cruise ship dock.

Um we've certainly we don't have good data on this, but anecdotally um we've observed uh and and received some public complaints that have informed those observations that this type of activity has seen a significant uptick in the past uh couple of uh summer seasons.

And uh in addition to that, we have uh costs associated with uh downtown uh parking management, both on street enforcement costs and in the garage and parking lots that we own, um maintenance and operation and and janitorial costs associated with those facilities that we do not fully recoup through fees.

Um so this would um potentially if you if you so implement it, uh provide a revenue stream to help uh offset those costs.

At the uh let's see what else.

Um at uh it's it's not terribly uncommon for municipalities to implement excise taxes like these on either rental car companies or peer-to-peer um car rental uh companies.

It is um you you see it more frequently uh in uh airports, but it also occurs on a statewide basis in some states as well as a municipality wide basis in some municipalities.

There were two changes that the Lands Housing and Economic Development Committee requested from how this was originally proposed.

One of them was the map adjustment that I mentioned that uh refined the map a little bit and uh took out some areas that didn't really make sense when you only applied a strict half mile radius around each cruise ship dock was which was originally how we wrote it.

There were some streets in Douglas as an example and kind of further up the hill downtown that um we receive feedback from committee members that probably did not need to be included.

So the revised map includes those adjustments.

There was also uh committee feedback to um exempt uh in the ordinance, and this is included in the ordinance exempt um from this excise exempt this excise tax when uh this peer to when these peer-to-peer rentals, if these peer-to-peer rentals both originate and on private property within this downtown zone within the map.

The idea there being a way that kind of equalizes or sets a level playing field between peer-to-peer operators that might have private land uh in that area and originate and end their rentals on those lands, uh, as well as traditional car rental companies, which do um currently there are at least one or two um that have uh that do operate on on their own property uh and and therefore in theory see fewer impacts.

I included um some policy arguments that you may like or not like, both in favor of of that exclusion and in opposition of that exclusion.

I think it is strictly a policy call as to which one of is which you know how how you decide to go down that path.

Um there I think it's it's both fair to say that there are reduced impacts when um rental cars uh don't occupy um space and and publicly available parking uh when they are you know before they are rented and right after they are rented, so when they're engaged in the rental process, I think it's also fair to say that um those impacts exist, especially in this uh downtown parking management zone, um, regardless of uh how origination or conclusion of a rental happens.

So happy to um happy to take questions.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Bart.

Questions from the assembly, Mr.

Kelly.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure I was clear on uh the L head's amendments.

Um being as I I was a part of that committee, I just wanted to make sure that with those amendments, is it your understanding that if somebody were to start on private property within the, I think it's actually a quarter mile radius.

I I could be mistaken about that.

Um, but they were to end like say the airport or someplace that's way outside the uh the radius.

Would those also be exempt, or would they both have to start and end on private property?

Mr.

Bark.

Thank you for the question through the chair.

Um, in that scenario, which you described, assembly member Kelly, they would be exempt.

Other question, Miss Yuscandy's Ms.

Hall.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

I think my question is related to one of the policy arguments you included in opposition to the exclusion was that the enforcement complexity goes up and and maybe you don't end up um capturing what you thought you would.

Um we would uh be very reliant on the marketplace facilitator to uh demonstrate compliance with the ordinance as written.

So uh we would we would closely be working with the marketplace facilitators or the marketplace facilitator in this case, I'm not aware of more than one, um, to uh you know be able to geofense uh the area that we've described in that map.

Um, and then we would provide them data uh about you know where if you if you pass the ordinance as currently written, which includes the the private property exemption, we would provide them data with uh which specific uh areas in that geofenced um map are private.

Um, and when they had uh rentals that both uh the the that originated and ended, right, or at least didn't originate or end and and public funds on public property in that map, um, we would be reliant on them to um do that work, right?

To know when to charge the excise tax and when not to charge the excise tax and report that back to us.

Are you aware of anyone else?

Or and in other examples of excise taxes where they have this private property exemption.

I'm not aware of anywhere else that has a private property exemption.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hall.

Mayor Weldon.

Yeah, this seems thank you, Deputy Mayor.

It seems very complicated, but you know, the geofencing to look into that.

But um uh do we know how you know how many we currently have the most in the least during this during the April through September time period, you know, what what are we talking about here?

Through the chair.

The short answer is we don't.

Our data on this is very sparse.

Um this would help us get more data on that because we would be receiving reports on you know who was who was charged, how many how many vehicle rentals were charged this excise tax um if passed, but right now, no, our data is very very anecdotal.

Follow up.

Um yeah, thank you.

So the tax would go it would be done through the rental company, the Turo, the um, and so that would be the user itself that would be paying that extra fee, not necessarily the car owner.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Um, so the when the when the renter um kind of settles their Turo bill, or actually when they book their their reservation, uh they would receive an indication that there is a there is a tax associated uh with their use.

Um there are taxes associated with their use now.

There is a statewide sales tax.

Um, our current sales tax applies, this would be an additional tax.

Mayor Weldon.

Thank you.

So the marketplace facilitator, so I can see how that works for Turo.

Would that work for any so tell me about the private companies that rent cars down there?

Would that be considered a marketplace facilitator?

Or how does that work?

And I know some of them are cars are parked on their land and some are in our garage.

It would thank you for the question through the chair.

It would not apply to traditional car rental uh agencies.

So traditional like Hertz, Avis, those types of uh businesses that do not use a marketplace facilitator as defined in our ordinance.

Um, this particular tax would not not apply um uh unless unless modified.

So follow-up to that, I'm specifically referring to the Jeep, the company that rents the Jeeps.

Are they uh marketplace facilitator?

Are they a rental company because their jeeps are all over our parking lots?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Madam Mayor.

Um is as far as I know, they do not rent via via marketplace facilitator app.

I could be wrong about that.

I'm not intimately familiar with their business.

Um if they do not um utilize a marketplace facilitator like Turo, then this would not apply.

Um there are uh other fees that apply uh to um you know parking and public parking uh that do not fully capture the costs of of those parking, uh of those parking spaces, uh, but this would not care for that unless they are unless I am incorrect, which I could be, and that they do in fact use Turo or a different marketplace facilitator.

Ms.

Wall.

Thank you, Chair Smith.

Um this is like a policy nerd's like fantasy or worse nightmare.

And there's a lot here to um unpack.

You know, we we were just in the L head, we were talking about you know, defining the problem that we were trying to solve by short-term rental regulations.

And I think what I'm hearing from you is, you know, it's we don't quite know, but we think it's a problem for people to be taking parking spots in the garage.

It's a problem for people to be taking parking spots on the street, and we know it's a very congested area that when you add cars makes it more congested.

Is that a summary of what the problem we're trying to solve with this?

Through the chair, yes.

Uh someone wall, you've described it very well.

And a follow-up that hopefully is related enough.

The solution of a 10% tax in your mind is to discourage you know, like lessen congestion, or it's to pay for the impacts of that by through that tax or both.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And again, thank you for that question.

Assembly Miller Wall, you described it very well.

It is both.

Um, I think that uh it would both help uh offset the public costs that we have associated with down to parking and garage costs.

I also think that it's possible that that might be enough of a tax to incentivize some operators to find spaces on the edges of that map or slightly outside of that map to be able to offer a cheaper product.

Ms.

Candy.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

My question was actually a follow-up because I wasn't sure I was tracking, and I want to make sure I'm fully understanding the situation with the private rental, because it then that almost sounds like something to add to the list is something to care for.

So are we saying that there's some we have commercial activity using the garages, which we're aware of that we don't that does not go through the marketplace facilitator, but is also another private this would not apply for that, but we are aware that that's adding in addition to the peer-to-peer, we also have uh seasonal business that's using the garages.

Is that correct?

And if the answer is, oh, it's anecdotal and someone on the committees saw it, that's fine too.

Yes, thank you for the question and through the chair.

It's pretty anecdotal.

Um we're we're anecdotally sure um that we have uh marketplace facilitator type rentals happening in our garages.

Um I would imagine there are other types of um business type use of our garages as well, but I don't have good data on that.

Okay.

Mr.

Steininger and then Miss Wall.

Not to kind of belabor the question, but a follow-up because uh the mayor's question got me one and to flip that around a little bit.

Non-marketplace facilities, so traditional car rental.

Do we know if all of those that are you know doing pickup drop off serving the you know, cruise passenger downtown industry, if they are all doing those pickup drop-off from their own private property, or do we not know could there be some traditional car rental companies using our garage, which seemed to be kind of what Mayor Welda was asking.

Thank you for the question.

Um, before talking with Mayor Walton, I believed uh that they were those traditional car rental companies were primarily maybe entirely operating from private property.

Um, but uh I understand now that might not be the case.

Um I'll give Mr.

Brooks a shot and then go back to you, Ms.

Wall.

I just wanted to add on to Mr.

Steininger's point that uh there definitely is a degree of that, and you can see the serialization of the license plates for those companies and know pretty well whereabouts they are in town.

Um but you know, the the other side of that is that it's I would assume the majority of the time someone renting a vehicle and then taking advantage of not paying for paid parking spaces more so than the company itself putting the vehicles in those kind of uh situations.

Ms.

Wolf.

Thank you, Chair Smith.

Um, given this is an evolving question, I don't if you guys don't have an answer for this yet.

That's okay.

But um logistically, could we tax you know, private sorry, rental car companies in this zone logistically and or legally Mr.

Chair?

I believe the answer to that question is yes.

We'd want to dig into that a little bit um if we got that direction to broaden this, um, but I think so.

I I agree.

Thank you.

Um share, I agree.

We would need to look at it a little bit more closely, but but um you should have the legal ability to impose a tax on private companies as well.

And I'll follow up on it and a sorry if Mr.

Walsh said that, but but we could also exempt private companies that are renting a car from a private from their private property.

I I don't know if that's what we should decide to do, but I guess like you know, a standard more rental car company um that's operating for their own.

So um, anyway, we can see about that.

All right.

I had a question on I had a question on just some of the language used in the ordinance.

Um, you know, I see renters being added kind of throughout pages one and three, and in my very and just my very kind of layman it just made it seem like that that it was like the renters are are not expected to be ones that would be submitting you know sales tax or doing anything like that.

The people actually renting the car going through Turo.

Anyway, I was just wondering about the addition of of that word in some of the mostly I think in section two.

Deputy Mayor Smith.

So we I did go back and look at this.

This was modeled after the hotel bed tax.

We added in language to be consistent there.

I think you could remove it.

It's covered um the intent of so there's two sections.

Um there is what you find in the 6905062.

That's just monthly remittance of sales tax.

Really, the meat of this ordinance is starting on page three cruise ship cruise dock zone peer-to-peer vehicle rentals.

Um, so we were just attempting to make that sales tax remittance consistent, but you are correct.

Um the the important language for this ordinance is the marketplace facilitator on to on behalf of renters.

So um, for example, on page two line 11.

Um you could certainly take out the first renter, and then it would just say seller or marketplace facilitator on behalf of the renter.

And that would be that would that would um accomplish what um was meant to be set out in this ordinance.

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Would uh marketplace facilitator cover both renter and seller?

Could it just be marketplace facilitator?

So I would um be careful here on this, and I would have to go back and look.

I'm absolutely happy to look at this because this is monthly remittance with estimated sales tax in general.

Um, and so I think we probably shouldn't touch, I wouldn't recommend touching something that was already there, but I will double check whether whether we could pull that.

But thank you.

Thank you.

If others don't have a question, I didn't, I had to just a couple small questions or just something I've noticed, I guess, on the map.

Um it's just a little interesting, though I don't think it matters in so yeah, page whatever, 35.

The map doesn't extend to like the end of the rock dump.

I again, I think that in that kind of wedge at the bottom of the page above the um scale or whatever that thing is called.

I think that's mostly private property, so I don't actually think it, I don't think that matters that much, but for maybe you know, comprehensive sake.

And then I mean the the other the only other thing that I kind of saw was that was interesting is the IGA parking lot also, you know, is a pretty significant area of open parking in the area that's a private area.

Um that's also not included.

So anyway, those are just things I I noted and maybe may make a motion about in a second.

Um are there further questions on the on this ordinance?

Shall we take a swing at motion here to see how everyone's doing?

Go ahead, madam mayor.

No, we shouldn't.

I would like to see this come back with some changes.

Um the renter thing that you said, and um I think some people were concerned about the private property thing too, so we might look at changing that.

And um, I would love to see.

Um, you don't have to put in the ordinance right yet, but basically amendment to um if we do the private rental cars.

Should it might be easy?

Would staff appreciate some motions with votes on some of these on some of these items?

Always very good.

Um, did you have a comment, Mr.

Kelly?

Yeah, I guess.

I'll just do it one thing at a time, but you'll have to bear with me because um I would move that we uh do the amendment that the deputy mayor talked about removing the words renter where it was appropriate.

Start with these one at a time.

Ms.

Wall.

Um objection for a question.

Maybe Mr.

Smith can speak to that more.

I I am trying to listen to everything everyone says in that one I may have put off for thinking we were talking to talk about in a future meeting.

So when I what I noticed on that, it's it's just having that appear in the language, especially in the sections that it appeared in.

Um, you know, it in the remittance of estimated sales tax.

I just thought it was it almost made it seem like that the renter could be responsible for having to remit the sales tax or or do things regarding the tax, which I just didn't that that just didn't really seem like the right way to do it.

And anyways, just was just kind of strange.

Madam Merritt thought, what if on that one we maybe seek some like get more information back from the attorney or something, and then we can decide whether or not at the next if we're bringing it back, then we can decide to if we want to strike it.

That that sounds fine to me.

Like I said, I just would rather have some things come back before we move this myself.

And that's one of them, and we can make that.

So I guess I'll explain where I was coming from.

We had some many ideas, and I was just gonna say the ones that I was interested in, and then we could bring them back as kind of amendments, and then when they're in front of us, it's hard to do amendments on the fly.

So that's what I was doing.

And I'm sure somebody else might have an amendment they might want to bring back.

Okay, just so I'm clear.

You don't necessarily want to propose changes to the ordinance now and have it brought back revised.

You want to have like amendments or things when it comes back next time.

That's what I would prefer.

Okay.

It might be helpful for staff to know what those thing items might be.

Um, it sounds like very good.

No, and you did okay, very good.

So maybe you could maybe we could just be like, yeah.

Well, I was just trying to do them one at a time because you said you wanted the staff to know.

So that was one of them.

The one I'm interested in is bring amendment back that relates to the private rental companies, the same thing to the private rental charging them the same fee.

Very good, man.

I think other people down there were talking about the private to public land, but I'll let them do that.

Sounds good.

I don't know if there's any that are going to be proposed where people are gonna say no, I don't want that.

So that's why I was kind of just wondering about doing it like as a so I mean maybe I'll say you you made a motion to have information or a potential amendment regarding renters brought back to the committee of the whole.

Was there any objection to an amendment or information on that being brought back to the committee of the whole?

Thank you.

You had also proposed an am to get some get an amendment brought back to add private rental car companies and brought okay, very good and brought back.

And is it I don't see an objection to that.

Very good.

Moving on.

Were there other items that people want to make possible changes to I have a couple map options to change that I would maybe consider adding that's hear them?

I have a couple map options to change that I would maybe consider adding.

Let's hear them.

I'll pass the all that mayor.

Oh, well, then have the gavel over this.

Very good, thank you.

I would move that we get an amendment back to add the remainder of the rock dump added to the map.

And then another addition would be to include the IGA parking lot.

Okay, we'll treat those separately because I think people will treat those separately.

So the remainder of the rock dump.

Is there any objection to adding that to the map?

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I was just looking here, and um isn't the edge of that right by where the storage units are and uh the green elephant.

Uh it looks like the rock dumps already in there.

Mr.

I'll look for the staff to give us help there.

Are there any public streets in that area that's not red?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

There are no, unless you count a tiny sliver of Thane Road, there are no public streets that are not shaded red.

There is private property that is not shaded red.

I'll be there is private property that is not shaded red.

I'll leave it at that.

So um Mr.

Kelly, you either raise your hand or you don't.

Mr.

Kelly.

I'll guess I'll I'll just object for the uh purposes of a question to the maker of the motion.

So is the purpose of your amendment to specifically add those private properties back to the map, or is your motion to um to extend to the public property that is in the vicinity of those two private properties?

Thanks, Mr.

Kelly.

My the purpose of my amendment was if we're to treat, I guess, similarly situated and located properties the same.

Um you know there's just a businesses that just are on one side of Mill Street versus the other, and one would be subject to the excise tax, whereas one would not be.

Interesting note, however, I'm looking at my map.

Avis rental car is located on one of the properties, so um so that'll be anyway.

That's so we'll just do a round Robin here or a quick vote here, but uh I would object to that just because I there would not have any public property there.

I don't think we need to go through and that might get people to go there with their cars to private property.

So I would hate to put more private property, and I think that's why they took left the uh parking lot of AGA if I chooses to rent to these people, then so more power to them.

Mr.

Mrs.

Wall.

I'll I'll support this motion just because I don't even know that we've decided yet about how we're treating the differences between private land and city land versus um and commercial rentals versus peer to peer.

And so I appreciate Mr.

Smith trying to make this area have some logic, and then when we get into our policy decisions, some other things may fall out.

Anybody else want to speak to this?

Ms.

Hall.

Yeah, I I agree with that.

I I think it seems a little arbitrary going on one side of Mill Street, not the other, and the carve out for the parking lot, the food land parking lot until we know where we're where we're going with the public private um consideration.

Okay, is anybody gonna object beside me?

Because if if the okay, Mr.

Okay, then we'll do a quick vote.

Madam Clerk.

This is basically the amendment to extend the map.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

For the amendment to add the remainder of rock dump.

And are we doing food land in here as well?

Sure.

And food and as well, Mr.

Brooks.

No.

Ms.

Hall.

Yes.

Mr.

Steinger.

Yes.

Ms.

Adkisson.

Yes.

Mr.

Kelly.

No.

Ms.

Wall.

Yes.

Ms.

Scandis?

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Madam Mayor.

No.

Motion carries with six years and three nays.

All right.

Does anybody else have any amendments that they want to see for the next meeting?

This would be the time when you brought your private public unless you just want to think about it.

Ms.

Euskannies.

Sorry, I have to bring this back.

I just realized I was like, wait, hijack the meeting.

I'll have to take this out of it.

I would just, I would uh, I think the public private is not decided fully.

Or I I'm certainly my mind's not decided, so I would want to see what it would look like to make the argument against.

So it's excluded now, so to put it back in.

As it was in Lehead.

Very good.

Yeah, any objection to amendment brought back to us.

Oh, very good.

Okay.

Hopefully, I'm not overcomplicated this and made it more clear, but that's what I'm hoping for, but we'll we'll see.

Okay, were there other concepts that would wanted to be brought back as an amendment?

And you know, you can do them on your own too, but this is a good way to you know test the waters.

Staff team, how is there is there more inform?

Is there anything else you need from us?

Was that a clear exercise and what's going on?

Mr.

Chair, that was that was excellent.

Super super clear.

Like, seriously.

Yeah.

No, no, no.

Like I'm not forgotten.

Like we've I think I think we've got what we need.

Okay.

Very good.

That moves us past our third agenda topic into staff reports.

Do we have any staff reports?

Our next meeting date is April 13th at 6 p.m.

this year.

Um, maybe we're I was gonna say next, all right.

Well, there's our next meeting date.

We have a couple supplemental materials.

Um was a one was a set of draft minutes, and the other was probably a type uh slip of the, you know.

I click on it anyway.

I've just included, if I may, sure in the packet um some email correspondence where we accidentally did a reply all and there was no response from other assembly members, so we didn't have any serial meeting happen or anything along those lines.

Um, but it's just a good reminder for the group that we'll avoid hitting reply all to assembly borough emails.

And this is what happens if you do accidentally do it.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you, Miss Hendricks.

Seeing no other business before the committee of the whole, we are adjourned at 727.