Community council members voted to adopt Resolution 2025-2 on Tuesday, calling on the Municipality of Anchorage to adhere to municipal code and ensure community councils and advisory boards receive early, continuous notice and opportunities to review and participate in decisions within their council boundaries.

The resolution grew out of months of concern in Birchwood and neighboring councils about a proposed casino and associated construction on a Native allotment. The meeting’s discussion focused on two strands: (1) whether the Municipality and developers had provided adequate notice and chances for community input, and (2) legal and jurisdictional questions over the allotment that could affect whether new construction should proceed.

Debbie (no last name provided), a community council representative who introduced the resolution, said she had prepared materials documenting gaps in the environmental assessment and community notice and offered copies for other councils. "I moved that we adopt the resolution," Debbie said while reading the measure to the group.

Mister Hall, identified during the meeting as a litigant in a federal case, told the councils the legal challenge centers on "sovereignty of the land and the jurisdiction of the land," and said past federal and state legal decisions and statutes, including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, factor into current disputes about whether gaming on certain allotments is lawful.

Participants described direct contacts between developers and council representatives: Debbie said Anthony Marnell, described at the meeting as the head of the gaming consortium building and running the casino, met with local council representatives and that Brenda Hewitt, identified as an administrator at the college, had been given as the communications contact for complaints. "I have called her three times now," Debbie said, describing efforts to raise noise and dust concerns.

The resolution initially included language asking for a pause to construction pending greater clarity on jurisdiction and related legal actions. Some council members and their counsel objected to the final sentence as drafted; the council discussed removing or amending that line and ultimately moved to amend the wording to specify which parties would be asked to pause work.

After debate and a motion to strike and then amend the final sentence, the council approved the resolution as amended. Members indicated they would distribute the adopted text to other community councils. The meeting record does not list a roll-call tally in the transcript provided; the vote was taken by voice/hand-raise and a member said afterward that the measure had passed.

Supporters of the measure said it is intended to protect the councils’ advisory role and to insist the municipality follow its own code for notice and participation. Opponents or hesitant members raised concerns about the council’s legal authority to order a pause of private construction and about acting on matters some council counsels viewed as prematurely litigated or requiring additional review.

The council also discussed the broader legal background: speakers referenced the Department of the Interior’s review of prior decisions and court litigation over jurisdiction of allotments, and attendees said there is a strong possibility of an injunction or other legal action relating to the project. The council resolved to circulate the language of Resolution 2025-2 to other councils and to seek clarity on jurisdictional questions moving forward.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 2025-2 (adopted, amended): Calls on the Municipality of Anchorage to comply with municipal code and ensure early, continuous notice and opportunities for community councils to review and participate in decisions within their council boundaries; the resolution’s final sentence about pausing construction was amended to specify which parties a pause request would target before passage. Vote tally: not specified in transcript.