Assemblymember Jen Cooper filed a formal notice to rescind Ordinance 2025-21, which repealed and reenacted KPB Chapter 5.12, saying amendments were not handled in order and that the final text unintentionally removed a senior exemption and capped other exemptions.

Cooper told the Kenai Peninsula Borough Policies and Procedures Committee she first sought reconsideration but had been advised that the proper procedure was a notice to rescind. "We were unaware or had admit that we could not ask for reconsideration, so I'm asking for a reason," Cooper said. She said the Cooper–Michitkee amendment was not addressed in order and that an amendment that passed removed the phrase "senior exemption," leaving exemptions capped at 375 in the ordinance as it now reads.

The issue matters because longstanding local practice has allowed eligible residential exemptions to be combined, or "stacked," and several members urged that the revised ordinance should not be read as ending that practice without a separate, public discussion. Borough Attorney Kelly described the historical application: "the way it's been is that the fact that it doesn't say you can stack, it's just been interpreted to say if you're eligible for each separate exemption and if you are you'll get those exemptions." Kelly said that a plain code change would be required to stop stacking.

Mayor Michitkee said the administration's intent is not to limit stacking through the ordinance. "Our intent is to not limit stacking at this time," the mayor said, and urged that any changes to stacking or exemption amounts be the subject of a separate public discussion. Several assembly members raised concerns that removing existing statutory language that explicitly allowed stacking could be perceived by residents as taking away a long-standing benefit rather than adjusting a number, and that mirroring related code sections (cited in the meeting as 05/1980 and 09/00) would be necessary to avoid inconsistency.

Committee members discussed practical consequences and next steps. When asked whether rescinding would allow the ordinance process to be completed the same night, Attorney Kelly replied that, because a public hearing already had been held, the ordinance could be finalized promptly if the assembly moved to do so. No final vote on the notice to rescind was recorded in the available transcript.

The committee placed the matter in context for future deliberations: members asked that any change to stacking or exemption caps be the subject of explicit public notice and debate, and noted that legislative intent recorded on the public record can carry weight in later legal interpretation.

Votes or further actions on Ordinance 2025-21 were not recorded in the provided transcript excerpt; the item remained under committee consideration at the time the meeting moved on to new business.