July 08, 2026 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.
Speaker, after the committee discusses each item, members of the public are invited to comment. Housekeeping items. For virtual attendees, please turn your cameras off unless you're speaking. For those attending by phone, please press star six to mute or unmute yourself. And as a reminder, amass committee meetings are audio recorded and posted on the AMATS YouTube page. Thank you.
And we're back. Okay, sorry about that. And we're back. So we have the next item's, approval of the agenda. This agenda's simple. There's just one item on it and that's to go over the transportation plan, the MTP for 2052, in which we have several sub items as project lists. Is there any, is there a motion to fruit the agenda and moves? Any discussion on this? Any changes? Right. So no objections. The agenda is approved. So with that, there are no previous meeting minutes because this is a special session. We'll hold those for the next official policy committee meeting for action items then this is number five. And Mr. Jongenelen, will you be going through the item brief?
Yes, I will. Rhiannon Brown is home, not feeling well today, but she is online if we have any questions for her. So I will do the best I can. So as a reminder, at the last policy committee meeting, this item came before you. This is for the 2052 MTP project list and fiscal constraint analysis or the revenue assumptions. But really the fiscal analysis is kind of part of that. The technical advisory committee reviewed it and had a number of changes that they recommended mostly to add in the Seward de Glen PEL projects. You can see at the top some consolidation of projects, removing of duplication projects as well. Updating termini. There was a project increase for the Seward Highway Dimond O'Malley project. There was an increase request in there for the traffic control signalization project to add some additional money per year for additional staff.
A new position for the muni, that one, as a reminder, staff needs direction on where the funding could, could, should come from as we were fiscally constrained for the AMATS funding. So there's no funding available for that. It's a total about $4.2 million over the life of the MTP. And then the TAC recommended, including the Safer Seward Highway with a placeholder of projects and the fiscal analysis from DOT to follow before you, that fiscal analysis is printed off so you can see it. I apologize, we did not post it on the agenda. That was my mistake. And then on the non-motorized there were some changes as well. Removal of duplication projects for the transit centers that mixed hubs from Muldoon downtown. This is just a duplication there are in the Complete Streets list, but we're showing them both non-motorized and complete streets. So we're moving 'em from non-motorized.
So they're just in the complete complete street split. Also updating some termini for the Hyder pedestrian project and adding in the hyder, the rest of the Hyder Pedestrian Boulevard project. And then moving some projects out from the short term into the long term. And then long term into the not program, there were some changes for transit projects, removing a duplication of projects and then some Las Railroad Corporation project updates. So that's what was brought to you for the TAC. At the June 18th meeting, the policy committee moved to table this item until a special meeting today to give members more time to review the recommendations. Additionally, staff was asked to meet with the Fairview Community Council and the Reconnecting Fairview Group regarding the Hyder Pedestrian Boulevard project. We did meet with that project and the DOT project team, project team member of the project manager, sorry, and then had updated project information based on the termini there.
What came out of it is that everybody was in agreement that there's four separate phases of the project and what those phases are. I'll go through those really quickly. The first was to update the termini in the, the AMATS funded that's in the TIP right now to be 15th to eighth Avenue with specific verbiage to include crossing work at the intersections of Hyder and ninth Avenue. There's the Chester Creek to 15th Avenue, so the southern portion. Then there's the eighth to third Avenue. So this is back at the northern portion and then the third to Ship Creek. So previously there were four recommended for the TAC. After discussion with everybody, everybody felt comfortable having those four, just updating the termini and then updating the project costs as you see there. And then there was one other change that was recommended removing the line 49, just a second as I go to what the project name is, sorry. It is the Fairview Greenway phase one. So we're recommending removal of that because it is a duplication with the other, the Hyder projects. It's basically that southern portion or part of that southern portion of Chester Creek to 15th Avenue, a duplication to have it in there. So staff's recommending removing that and that'll free up about 11 million in the short term for non-motorized funding.
Appreciate it. So looking at it with the changes, so removing of that duplication project line 49, the total cost of the Hyder Pedestrian Boulevard project is roughly $33.5 million. There's about 17, 17 million available in non-motorized funding. So about 16.5 million will still need to be shifted to accommodate that, those higher projects in the non-motorized list. So that's part of what we need from you today, is what projects should shift to free up room for those Hyder projects. So this is before you today and I'm happy to help answer any questions you have. Thank you.
Yeah, so this is as best a guess we can of where we're at with the current timeline for the project. So of course we are doing the project list approval right now and the modeling work that needs to be done. So the plan originally was to have this back before you in August for review to release for the public, August 6th, the TAC, and August 20th for the policy committee and then have our public comment period in September, October timeframe. Then bring it back to you all in November for kind of final review, any changes, that kind of stuff. And then final approval in December.
I'll say where we're at right now, we're probably delayed a little from this timeline that you see in front of you. We haven't updated it from what you see. This is kind of our best guess at the time, but we don't know, know what our plan is today. If we get approval of everything today, we're gonna do our best to stick to this timeline as best as possible and hopefully have all the modeling and everything ready for you in August and bring that back for your review before it's released, you know, to ask for release for public file. If we have any delays from today, then we'll probably have a delay on when we're gonna be bringing it back to you all. Probably to September is when we would have, depending on how much of a delay today, if there is. So just keep that in mind that this schedule is just, if we get everything approved today. Thank you. And by everything I mean the project list and the fiscal assumptions to be put in the document to bring back for your review before it's released for the public.
Okay, thank you. And as another follow up, just as it's pertinent to the timeline, could you please offer an update and of the meeting that was recently held with the Federal Highways Administrator, which is a great opportunity to showcase the successes that AMAs has had and the the work in the MPA and yeah, anything relevant to the timeline could be good to offer context based on our last meeting and the questions we had.
So there was a meeting that was put together that I was invited to that was with the FHWA administrator, Sean McMaster McMaster. And then it had additional individuals there. Katherine Keith was there, Erin Baldwin Day was there. We had some representatives or staff member from the senators. I think both, it was Murkowski Sullivan I think had staff there as well. It was a big group of people. Some Matthew W folks were there. So it was a rather large group. We sat down and talked about kind of some wins in our area, what's been going well. We did have a discussion with the boundary and based on my view, the real, the real crux of it is, is FHWA will support us in our efforts, but they're really looking to us to figure out the concerns with the boundary. However, it did come up at that meeting the possibility there was a request from Deputy Commissioner Keith, a possibility of an extension for the requirements of our boundary and MTP update.
And I think there was support from that from FHWA as long as we're showing a good faith effort in moving forward. So if there are delays from today, I'll let you know, we probably will make our December timeline and so we'll probably have to put a request in however that goes, to ask for an extension and we'll need to figure out how much time we're gonna for the boundary and the operating or boundary and the whatever we're working on today. The MTP will let you know, the technical advisory committee did recommend a work session on the boundary. There's a lot to go over and I think they felt that best to start with what we all agree on. Say this is everything that we all agree for the boundary and then what we're having disagreements on and work through that and try and get to a resolution as quick as possible.
I will let you know that that will delay us a little for the boundary. We won't be able to have a work session until basically early August at this point, just with timing and getting everybody's schedules aligned. And so we'll be a little bit of time there. I will let you know that the boundary, it's fine that we're still working on the boundary. We can still continue to work on the MTP as there's really no projects or very few projects that are impacted by the boundary 'cause the are relatively small, but that depends on what the policy committee does for the boundary. If they make big sweeping changes or small changes to what is. So I can help answer any questions that you have on that. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. And, and I do wanna say thanks to Mr. Jongenelen did a fantastic job presenting to the administrator and it was a very large room of high level official people and you did an excellent job speaking to the successes and also the challenges that we're all working through. So it it was well presented and handled. So one of the takeaways was to provide an update to back to our, both our, our state district federal highways administrator as well as our regional administrator that's Elise Canova. And update her on the timelines in which we find ourselves in for both the boundary and the MTP and, and then that way she can help work with us if we need to request some sort of support or extension they were willing to offer. Was any, any other comments on that?
I, I actually had a, a clarifying question. There was a, it was just a brief moment during that meeting where Mr. Jongenelen indicated that we would need some clarification or some direction to staff if we were going to ask AMATS staff to do additional work on the, on the boundary question in particular. So I just wanted to flag that for the, the committee that it sounds like we need to make some explicit direction if we're going to invite staff to do additional work on this particular question. And I, I didn't want that to escape notice,
So Yeah, that's correct. I'll clarify on that just so you're all, where we come from the staff is we have a boundary that's been approved by the policy committee and so we, we don't have anything else to do at this point unless you guys direct us other ones. So if there are things that you would like us to do, research development of X, Y, and Z changes, whatever, we would need explicit direction from you guys on what that is and that you want us to go ahead and spend time doing that. I, I'm not gonna make an assumption, I'll need direction from you all on what you want done.
Okay. Well let's just dig into the MTP items and then at the end if we wanna take time to do that, it could be helpful just so that you have a little bit more time to prepare ahead of work sessions. Remember if all days that work. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for bringing that up. Absolutely. Okay. So to begin with, the first item that's on the project list are the complete streets. Would the committee like to just go through them one group at a time? Or is there another order that you think would work a complete streak? Sorry, I'm catching up on the laptop here. So in terms of work of operations, would we, would we need to bucket be, would we need to do these amendments individually or could we bucket all of the complete trace actions into one motion?
Well, I'd suggest let's start at number one and just go through them and if we get through like number 10 and we can approve 'em all, then let's just take that action to clear the slate and then do the next. And if we have significant changes on one, then let's make a motion for that one item. So it's easy to follow.
All right, let's take a brief at ease. That's gonna be extremely long and I don't think that that's technically necessary for Robert's rules. So I'd be looking to perhaps assembly members who have a lot of experience with complex Robert's rules. I think if that's their requirement, it's going to not be manageable, to be honest. There'll be a lot of discussion points. So yeah, I think, I think from, yeah, from a Robert's rule standpoint, I think we could, we could move to approve the Complete Street's recommendations from the TAC and then that would open up the possibility to discuss any of those items one through eight. And so we could work through those and just discuss them. And then if we wanted to move to approve all of those things, we could, we could move directly to a vote. If we wanted to make amendments, we could make amendments as sort of as needed. And then I, I think I, I don't think it'll be quite as, as clunky as it sounds, the, the, an initial motion to approve the Complete Street's recommendations is just unlocks the option to make changes or adjust. So you're proposing we have motions for each project list? Yes. And then amend projects within that? Correct. Okay. Yep. So let's give that a whirl.
Motion for the entire action item. Oh, like per like to like, we would move to approve just one, like number one in the complete streets. No, that wouldn't be the ideal. No. Okay. I thought we were going to be restricted to one motion for the entire action item in which we'd have 40 amendments. But
Project list you would, yeah. And then the fiscal, the fiscal assumptions as well, we would need. So you would go through each project list. Complete Streets would have its own main motion and any amendments non-motorized would have its main motion and amendments transit, its made motion in the amendments. Alaska Railroad Corporation. And then the fiscal assumption,
Yeah, thank you. I, I think I, I want to ask staff about sort of precedent with, you know, taking action and voting on things in a work session format like this, when the assembly has our assembly work sessions, it's more of an opportunity to dig into legislation or ideas, you know, and in fact, often we're, we're discussing legislation in those work sessions and, and we're, we don't debate the merits of that legislation in, in those work sessions. It's more of an opportunity for information sharing. And so I, I guess I'm just curious. You know, we have our sort of publicly noticed policy committee meetings when the assembly has committee meetings. We do take, we do are, we are able to debate that committee can take votes that they want to express their will to the rest of the body. And so, yeah, I guess I'm, I'm, I'm just curious about past Amap work sessions like this. Do we actually take actions in in them? Is that, is there precedent for that or would it be more appropriate to have the discussion here in the information and then to, and then to vote on those takeaways, essentially take action on them in a policy, a regular policy committee meeting. Do you have any insight into that, Aaron? What sort of past practice has been?
I know. So I would like to Oh, go ahead and I'm sure, may I be sorry? Yeah, we're, and we're still at ease, so we're still it at Yeah, but I can go back on the record. Oh, okay. We should, but if you, do you have anything about just press process? No, no, I think we should go back on the record. Okay. Okay. So back on the record. It's 10 26. In the interim, we were just discussing the working, the nuances of Robert's rules and whether or not we can make subsequent motions multiple motions on an action item. This determines that yes, we could, but we are gonna limit it to the project list so that we have one motion per project list and try to keep all the amendments to that one motion. So we'll have multiple motions subsequently, but rather than breaking out several motions per project list, we will just have one motion and see if that works. And we have confirmed that this is a special policy committee session, not a work session. So therefore we will keep this to official actions. So yeah. Member Cole Hayes. Thank
You Madam Chair. So regarding, this is specific to the information we received on June 17th related to the Safer Seward project. And I, I don't want to discuss the project yet, but I, in reviewing the information provided, I did have some questions for staff specific to how this information, whether this information is comprehensive enough to allow a vote on the Safe sewer highway project today. And my questions are particularly surrounding the cost estimates. There are only costs provided for P four P seven elements. And I'm wondering, and I'll break my question into two parts. Mr. Yanella, if you were staff could comment on whether that amount of information is adequate for the inclusion in the MTP at this point, or is more information required in the way of cost?
And as is for discussion. At the time, the request was for the staging of the construction project. So that's what was provided here. It is no difficulty for project team. And we have our pre-construction engineer here, Luke Boland. So I'd like to ask him for clarification on that and what those pre-construction costs are. But it was not the request. But it is more than happy to provide that as we do have that. Yeah. Could you clarify?
Yeah, thank you for the record. Luke Bowland, DOT Pre-construction E28ngineer for central region. So the construction breakdown that we have there on the, on the memo doesn't include the phase two or three costs. Phase three or phase two. The additional design costs that we're anticipating for that whole 20 mile stretch would be in the ballpark of $50 million. And the right of way phase or phase three costs is estimated at $3 million. I think looking at the additional phase two additional design cost at the completion of epo, which we probably be fiscal year 27 for that, based on where the project is in the, in the schedule. And the phase three costs either be 27 or 28.
So to summarize, we have obligated to date for initial design and environmental 16.5 million. The next obligation will be in federal fiscal year 27th. That gives us authority to proceed on final design. That'll be 50 million. A right of way phase of 3 million may be needed in, will be needed in 27 or 28. And that gets us through the pre-construction costs to kick off these initial construction phases. So we can certainly, we will amend this document for the record and just make it available and, and email that back to Mr. Jongenelen. But the Member Kohlhase has, does that, your question was, is it enough information? But does that satisfy your inquiry right now?
Yeah. And then if I may madam chair my, my second question again, I think, think for AMATS staff is with the project broken into the eight phases, rating stages or segments, the, there are not detailed project descriptions. There's a description of the safety needs that are addressed. But the project description, the description of the work to be done in those phases is not a lot of detail there. So does that fall back to what's identified in the draft EA or is additional information needed in this document in order to populate eight phases of work that would be added to the MTP?
Yeah, for staff's perspective on what we've had, we would need project descriptions on what each of these is gonna do. Like for example, this first one south of Potter Marsh to Mchugh Creek, it says what the safety needs are, but then it lists no separated non-motorized facility. So we would need to know is that part of the project description so no non-motorized facility is gonna be added at that phase or what. So we would, we would need some more information on what the projects are actually doing. And it's not just funsies we're asking this, we need it so we can do the modeling. 'cause part of our requirements is putting these projects in, we would have to model the ones in the MPO boundary and any of the ones that are re significant that require FHWA action that impact the MPO, we would also have to model them. And so we need enough information to put into the model. Like for example,
Thank you. And I can just clarify, this was a summary letter for the policy committee for purposes of decision making. The assumption is, is that in general, Mr. Jongenelen is the AMATS DOT coordinator coordinates with our DOT AMATS coordinator. So they lies and they get that information for specifically including it in the MTP. So I apologize, this wasn't intended to be give everything all encompassing free programming. So I apologize that I didn't realize that was a request when we wrote the letter, but we can get that to you or it can work with Mark Eisman and our preconstruction engineer to get the language needed for the MTP itself. We will provide it to you if we have information vague.
Yeah, thank you. That was the question. If you had everything that you needed from member and the answer is no, you need additional information which we can provide. Chair, if I might. Yeah, I I think that those, I think that information's actually, you know, quite important for the decision making process for this body. I, I would, I would certainly appreciate seeing, you know, something that is commensurate with what is before us in the project list. This gives us a really clear idea of every other project that's been proposed for MTP inclusion. And so I, I think beyond, you know, what's useful for AMATS staff in terms of modeling is also really critical for policy committee members in terms of feeling really confident in our decision making and, and honestly being able to be accountable to the public for, you know, the, the reasons that we would choose to include these products.
So I, I would feel, I I I wouldn't feel comfortable including these placeholders without additional detail on exactly the scope of each segment would include. And speaking for myself personally. Yeah, thank you that, that's good information. Our draft environmental assessment in which the committee and staff had provided excellent questions. The Commissioner Anderson had submitted a letter back to staff and that committee, this was just last night. So we do know that there has been extensive conversation, which has been great based on that environmental assessment. The scope of the project has not changed. So I think we can all be confident in the decisions that we make, that we fully understand the scope of the Seward Highway project. What's in question is exactly the segmentation or how this gets staged. And to be honest, this, what we have proposed is still a draft. Some of these projects go out past 2035, I believe, 2035.
So it's inevitable that this staging and sequencing of construction will change based on other needs at the time and other construction and that corridor. So I can assure you that the scope of what the project entails, that purpose and need is the same as what you've read in the draft ea And if you have further clarifying questions, both our chief engineer and our pre-construction engineer can, can answer any of them. We're happy to take the time to do so. Yeah. So yeah, to your point, this, this response letter arrived in our inboxes last night at 6:36 PM I was in a, I was in an assembly meeting until quite late and have not had time to, to digest the entirety of, of this document, which I appreciate how comprehensive it is, but it is, it is 30 pages. And so again, in in terms of, in terms of due diligence in particularly since we've had so many questions about the draft EA itself, I, I really, I really hesitate to, to move ahead with, I think the number of questions that are still lingering in my mind as far as you know, this project. And it's, I I, to be quite honest, I'm, I'm not entirely clear on the last paragraph of the June 17th letter that suggests that there would be
Meaningful financial impact on Anchorage projects. And so to me there, there are many unanswered questions with respect to this particular project and that's inclusion in the MT p. And so I think a question for staff actually might be, whether it's, whether it's possible to, is there a form in which we could take more time with this item in particular with the, the safer Seward highway suite of placeholder projects and amend the MTP at some future date? Or is this, is this our one and only opportunity to, to really have this conversation in a fulsome way?
Sorry, I don't really know how to answer it 'cause I don't wanna seem obstant, but it's not your only opportunity even with this MTP update. 'cause you could always schedule like a later special meeting if you wanted more time to review things and get more information, then come back and have the discussion. If you're just talking about kind of in the future, yes, there is always an opportunity to amend the MTP at a later date to add the project in. We're just in the middle of an MTP update right now. So no, no changes would really happen to the MTP we're working on until it's finalized. And then we would do an amendment after it's finalized. So it's not like we would do an amendment to the 2052 MTP while we're in the middle of updating it.
Sure, sure, sure. Okay. No, that's not obstant at all. That's, that's really helpful. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Well, you consider your next question. I I would like to ask chief engineer Lauren Little, can you give us an update on the scope and you know, how we broken out the projects, but segmented, and you could add on to that, the impacts how spending dollars in that National highway system, our National Highway Performance Program funds, how we prior, how, how we select projects statewide. Could you touch on those two topics please, for context?
Yes, absolutely. For the record, one of the chief engineer will ask pf speaking to the, the Seward Highway and its impacts to programming statewide. To start, this really isn't new for us. We, we have started a lot of, of large linear corridor projects because it provides a very efficient way to cost effectively get survey work through environmental issues and, and have a comprehensive environmental document for a corridor that we can then break into logical segments for construction. These, these long linear highway projects are fairly easily broken up into manageable components because within the statewide transportation improvement program, the stip, we, we have to balance, you know, that financial investment across our entire state and multiple modes, right? Non-motorized users, highway users, freight users, all of that gets balanced across that transportation investment program. And so our strategy here for the Safer Sewer Project is very similar to how we've approached things like the Parks Highway.
You know, we've got a project parks Highway 1 63 and 180 3 that we're, we've constructed constructing in logical packages that fit the available funding in any given fiscal year. And, and further, you know, the, the Cooper Landing Bypass project, Sterling Highway Milepost 45, the sixties, another great example, you know, that was one that the contracting community was really concerned about. You know, that that amount of money on one project, and I think we've shown we can stage these projects so that other projects and programs in the state continue to advance. It's not just the Seward Highway project in, in the stip. And we have to do that, right, because projects like this have a lot of complexities, permitting and all of those details. So we need to have a balanced program. And so that's, that's what we've done here with this project. Another requirement for projects of this size with Federal Highways is we have to develop a financial plan.
So we as a state DOT have to prove the federal highways that, that this can be constructed and we can fund it, you know, for the full suite of improvements. We've done a draft of that early on in the project life. It needs to be finalized before our first construction package, obviously it will be a living document. We haven't gone through the refinement process now we're really focused on getting to that completed environmental document. But, but at a, at a federal level even we have to speak to that reasonable financial investment. And so that, that's part of our efforts and part of our early efforts before we got too far down the environmental process was how do we build this project with the funding that we know we're gonna have, which is generally the National Highway Performance Program, federal Highway Funds. And so our planned investment is somewhere between 75 and 150 million balanced over many years.
We don't, we don't expect to build the Safer Steward Highway in the next three years. We have a 15 to 20 year plan to build those improvements out speaking to how projects get prioritized across the state. Again, it's that balance. We need to have a mix of investments in, in modes. We need to have our investments balanced with the various flavors of Federal highway money that comes in. And so, you know, we have sort of a two-pronged approach there. One is through the planning group, identifying needs, developing these various transportation plans, needs lists, and feeding that into the new project starts. And then working with our regional delivery teams on where projects are at, existing projects are at in their life cycle to make sure that they have their construction years program correctly in the stip. And a lot of that is based on project readiness when we start looking at the four year stip horizon.
So it's a, it's a very many overlapping facets that go into the actual full prioritizing in, in stip. And so, you know, I think the biggest thing that we have found in the last eight to 10 years is project readiness. It's a project's ability to get through the local planning process, the environmental process, the permitting processes that really dictates those priorities in the stip. It's, it's gotta be ready 'cause we've gotta capture that funding and we've gotta deliver that investment to our communities, to our contractors. And so overall, you know, as we, as we bring the safer Seward Highway into, and it is in the step is balancing all of those factors and making sure that we've got this project in appropriate dollar thresholds and, and delivery timeframes that we can still deliver the rest of the planned improvements for Alaska. Right? We have many communities, we serve many different modes of transportation that we're making sure we invest equitably across. And, and also making sure that what we have planned financially those projects are ready. All of those components feed into that prioritization. Katherine, did I capture all of the, the elements? I feel like I'm missing one that you listed.
Thanks for that. And because of the fact that you're on the Fairbanks area, MPO FAST and in your role as the, in project delivery division as a director overseeing planning, can you comment on your understanding of what's required right now for the safer Seward Highway 98.5 to one 18 project in the MTP? What do we need right now for your understanding? FAST
Yeah, absolutely. You know, these are, these are long range transportation planning documents. And so in my experience, apparent project scope would be sufficient, right? We're not doing something different within the MPO boundary than we're doing with, with the areas south of the MPO boundary. It, it is a comprehensive project and the term and I were set, you know, based on that, that having that consistent driver experience and, and not, not continuing to piecemeal this really critical interstate highway route. We've, we've tried all the quick fixes, we've tried all, all the, the smaller things and, and that's sort of what brought us to today. So in my experience, having an understanding of the dollars per year and the overall scope of the project is what I would've expected to be sufficient for a long range transportation planning document. Obviously the tip would need to be much more specific for those, those subsequent work packages. But at a long range planning level, this is typically sufficient information in my experience.
Okay, thanks. That helps. I mean, I know in our STIP we have one scope that's the same for the parent and all child projects and then we break out project scopes. When you obligate it with more detail, you're understanding is that's what we should focus on for the MTP or that, or at least sufficient for approval.
Any questions for a chief engineer right now on the technical side or of the project? Yeah, if I might. Yes, please. Thank you Ms. Little. So I, I I guess I'm, I wanna put a, maybe a bit of a finer point on the, the funding mechanism. So the, I'm assuming that the NHTP funding is not, it's not unlimited, correct? It is. That's a, it's a formula based funding model, is that right?
That is correct. We get so many dollars per year of, of that National Highway performance program, and then we supplement that with our advanced construct funding as needed. The, the NHPP does obviously have a lot of pressures against it, but also we've always reliably, fully delivered it and not, not seen any, you know, projects that were ready that couldn't be funded. In fact, in my career here, I have yet to see a project that was, that was ready, you know, had all its permits, all of its requirements met not be funded.
So, so that is, so that it is, it is essentially high in, in the sense that investment of NHPP funds in one project necessarily means other projects are, are not funded, can't be funded because we've, we've allocated money to a particular project that's part of that NHPP program. Is that, is that also correct?
Not necessarily. Right. I mean, we get so many dollars per year, and then there's also the August redistribution component and further we can spend other funding sources such as the surface transportation block grant funding that can be spent on NHS routes as well. And then of course, we also have the advanced construct tool available to us as well as we are pursuing grants where it makes sense or where, where scopes within the larger termini align with grant opportunities. So there's a multitude of ways to fund this, but in terms of the financial plan, we have balanced that investment largely on the NHPP funding assumptions of, of how much dollars we get per year and, and what is a reasonable amount to allocate to this project versus other projects in the state.
Okay. So the, and I think what I, what I'm, what I'm wondering about and, and I think where, where there's at least concern in my mind is that we're essentially proposing even at a very, very high level to lock up one and a half billion dollars in NHPP funding over the next 20, 20 years. I mean, what, what's, what's our, what's the timeline here?
Yeah, it would be 15 to 20 years. And, and I just wanna be clear and inclusion in a, in a long range transportation plan such as the MTP does not lock up that money. It shows our intent to invest, it allows us to make those investments, but if projects aren't ready, those investments go elsewhere. You know, so, so I I don't, I don't necessarily agree with the, the concept of it locking up the money, but it, it is the state's intent, right? This is, this is a very high crash corridor. We've had a lot of severe crashes. In fact, we just had the recent fatality fatalities at Potter Marsh in the, in the area of project we're talking about that, that this project could resolve. And so, you know, it is a state commitment that this corridor is important and we intend to make this investment, but the projects have to be ready. And, and those estimates are gonna evolve over time as well. Right? 20 years is a long horizon.
It is, it is a long horizon. And I, I'm, I'm not, I'm not just feeding that at all. I think if we're, if we're talking about wanting to make meaningful safety investments on the NHS, the characterization that the safer Seward Highway is the place where we ought to be dropping 1.5 billion over the next 15 years, is, it rings a little hollow for me because that particular segment of highway doesn't even crack the top 30 most dangerous roadways in Anchorage. And, and even if we were to hold those up against roadways on the NHS, and I'm talking specifically about Tudor and Muldoon, those are corridors where what happened on the Seward Highway or at Potter Marsh last week happens with regularity and without a whole lot of notice or fanfare. And so I think, I think it, it's difficult for, for me as, as someone who lives here and who recognizes that the safety risk of driving on NHS roadways in Anchorage is far more real and significant and statistically provable than this particular stretch of the Seward Highway, which admittedly is not the safest and could be improved.
It's really difficult to hear the justification that this is a needed safety improvement when it's clear that there are exponentially greater needs on the NHS that we can point to in the data. And, and that really is a reason why I struggle with this even as a long range solution, because I don't see commensurate solutions for far more dangerous roadways that are part of the NHS where people are dying and being, people are being seriously injured and killed on a very regular basis. And I don't see those projects reflected or prioritized in the same way. And that's really troubling because it begs the question, are we actually investing our NHPP dollars and the places where the need and the safety demand is the greatest? And, and I think looking at this, the answer is, is, is no, we're not. And, and that makes it hard as a policymaker to justify to my community why I would, why I would include this project at this scale, at this price tag when there is no visible commitments or investments in places where, again, we have a documented safety risk that is unassailable in my opinion.
So I, that's, that's really where the genesis comes from for me for this conversation, is I, I don't, this, this is a, in the end, it is a zero sum funding game, whether we want to talk about it that way or not. And it's troubling that we would prioritize something like this to the detriment and potentially the very real exclusion of other more necessary projects. Thank you, member Baldwin Day. Those are excellent points. And I'll just say as the Deputy Commissioner of DOT, I'm extremely proud that we are prioritizing this project. It's the safer Seward Highway Corridor because it is a safety corridor as established by Alaska statute. That's why it's the safer Seward Highway corridor. And focusing on resolving the last safety corridor doesn't mean it's the only unsafe route in the state, certainly not in the Anchorage area, but safety is not the only purpose I need for this project.
This is, if anyone has driven lately to try to get down to the peninsula and been stuck in hours of road closures, I'd love to see a statistic on the number of hours this year to date, that that road has been shut down and people have been just sitting there in traffic. So when we have rock lights, the road is shut down, avalanches, the road is shut down, a crash, the road is shut down as the only way in and out of Anchorage by road. Right? So the purpose of this project is not only to resolve safety concerns, it's to enable access in and out. There are multiple benefits of the project and another consideration and or for awareness. And I see, TAC Member Bowland, you have your hand up, but what we have in the project is moving forward, mile posts, 98.5 along with, see this seems to be highlighted strangely.
Yeah. 98.5 to 1 0 5. These are projects the department is moving forward with. There's two project segments that are within the MPA, that's the Potter Creek area to Chu Creek, rabbit Creek, to Potter Creek. Those are projects staged for 37 and 40 right now. We have put them at the last sequencing of the staging because of the prioritization here and allowing time, ample time for conversations on the design of those segments. So the amount of funds that we're expecting of the National Highway statewide, DOT funds within the MPA at this time as estimated is about 520 million. So what the state needs at this time and is requesting in our letters, is that we include this project, the entire corridor, 98.5 to one 18, and that we, we need to be able to have the authority proceed to final design in 27. So being able to continue to spend dollars on this corridor without having to be re having that to be state funds, enabling our current funds to be reimbursed by Federal highways, and that we can move forward on pre-construction to finish the dialogue and conversation on this, and to look at the design again, which right now, the project team is, is not able to, so it's not a definitive, it's not in the tip before we can take action to your Lauren Little's point, it's gonna need to be in the tip where there's another decision point on what actually moves forward with funding.
Sorry, I gotta unmute myself. Not a problem. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I, I guess I'll just say, you know, for my part, I am more aligned with member Baldwin day, you know, from my perspective, the project team can do with whatever they want to do outside of the AAPS boundary. Within the AMATS boundary. However, I, I think to prioritize such an expensive project, even as a placeholder over higher crash roads, you know, you're dealing here with the representatives of North Anchorage, including downtown as well as Midtown. And so the urban core, and we are acutely aware of the safety issues on state roads within our districts. And so to prioritize this, for me as a policy maker, I feel strongly would be malpractice. And so I don't intend to support the inclusion of this project. And I, I'm still unconvinced that a a highway widening project is going to create more safety to the, to the chair's remarks. You know, there may be other purposes of potentially facilitating faster mobility through the corridor that cars could, could drive faster and traffic mitigation perhaps. However, yeah, I, I, I just, this is not something I intend to support the inclusion of this project, at least a portion within the AMATS boundary on either the MTP or the, the, the TIP, particularly our, our short range transportation plan. We've got a lot of needs. So we've got a lot of work to do on making our streets more safe. So thank you. I appreciate the conversation.
Thank you. Luke Bowland, DOT. So we do have a number of projects on Tudor and Muldoon actively. We've got a Channelization project at Tudor & Patterson. That's gonna be an obligation this year for construction next summer. That's a HSIP project. We also have HSIP projects looking at improvements on Tudor & Dale, Tudor & Faulkner. We're nominating another HSIP project on Muldoon, the Fred Meyer vicinity there to address safety concerns brought up by Member Baldwin Day. We also have pavement preservation projects on both Muldoon and Tudor, which we'll be looking at incorporating a safety aspects. So we, those two projects, we have a corridor plan that we're gonna be looking at for Tudor and Muldoon, which hopefully lends us to additional projects that can come out of that study. Another thing too is, is the approaches for the, the Seward highway and the approaches for roads like Tudor and Muldoon and Urban Context are quite different.
We've looked at safety corridors and what we've, what we found is, is that a a four lane divided facility does solve those head-on collision safety problems that we see there. And so we've moved forward with a four lane divided on the Park Highway on sections of the Glenn Highway on Knik Bay. And so it's, it's, it is more of a proven concept there for, for highway facilities. For, for a Tudor or a Muldoon, you're looking at a, a facility that's, that's trying to accommodate all users in find space. It's, and the number of stakeholders within those, with all the businesses and residences, it's, it's very complex. And so it's, it's less of a straightforward answer when we're talking about the needs within Anchorage. And so I, and I hear the, the points of, of Member Baldwin Day and Member Volland that we do have needs within, within the community and, and the prioritization of that. I think that's what comes, as we look at where these projects land in a TIP, I think we can all agree that we've got needs within the Anchorage area and we've got needs on the Seward Highway and how we allocate funding to those different needs. I think it's something that is, is something we absolutely should debate as, as an organization like AMATS.
Yeah. Thank you. Because I do wanna make a motion. I'm gonna hand the gavel to the vice chair. So I would like to move that the AMATS Policy Committee due include the Safer Seward Highway Mile 98.5 to one 18 in college and transportation plans as presented. And that staff will work with the AMATS coordinator on further information that needs to be provided for Scope. So I will abbreviate that. We'll make a motion to incorporate Seward Highway Mile post 98.5 to one 18 in the MTP 2052. But this would be that, do I have a second?
We actually need to do public comment before we make motions. So that's our standard practice is you have discussion, then you have the public comment, and then you make a motion. So we would just need to do public testimony before we do motions. Sorry, just lemme point that out.
Basically before each motion, you would need to just have public testimony and you can limit it and say, we're talking about the Complete Streets project list. Now get your public testimony in on that. They're, well, I guess they're welcome to do it on all items, but since we're gonna be specifically talking about that one, you'd limit it to that and say, we're talking about the Complete Streets. If you have any public testimony on the Complete Streets list, please get it in now before we,
Thank you. Alexa Dobson, executive Director of Bike Anchorage. I want to thank members Volland and Baldwin Day for their great comments here about putting the seaward highway widening project into context in terms of the amount of money being spent here versus where it is truly needed in the Anchorage urban core. So from our perspective, if the scope of the Seward highway widening project continues to be unchanged, as Deputy director Keith mentioned, it has no place being added back into the MTP because that is specifically the reason why it was removed in the first place. Because it is a highway widening project that uses safety as a fig leaf. I think we just heard that once again, the justification for expanding the highway to a four-lane divided highway was to prevent fatal head-on crashes. It's important to know that there were three of those in a five year analysis period used to justify that in the draft EA.
So from our perspective, spending $500 million per fatal head on crash prevented is a really poor use of funds and should not move forward. I do also want to observe on the concept of DOT's commitment to safety, that this is certainly a great place to be concerned about safety. There are other areas that are far more urgent safety needs, and many of those have actually, they already have safety projects that have been programmed. But our chief engineer, Lauren Little Uni unilaterally imposed a directive that delays and adds cost to those projects for the reason that they might cause some driver inconvenience while saving lives. So we need to have that context and that understanding that, you know, we need to be serious about what we're talking about here. I would love to see DOT show a true commitment to safety and to direct money where that needs to happen. And until that happens, I really don't think that the project as it is currently scoped, has any place in the MTP. So I would urge the policy committee to vote against its inclusion. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. Jason Norris, south Anchorage. I don't wanna believe, or Alexa said it very well. The whole justification for this project over 20 miles is head-on collisions and there were three, and I documented this pretty extensively in some written comments provided prior to now. And as best I can recall, those three took place in the same two mile stretch. And so it just makes no sense that we're trying to justify 20 miles worth of road treatment based on head on collision deaths when those all took place in 10% of that corridor. And if you look next to a dozen streams filling something like 120 acres of essential fish habitat, getting rid of some pretty world class recreation opportunities, this project just doesn't make sense, especially for the cost. So I would urge you no vote. Thank you.
Yes, please. Yeah. Any committee comments further before? Yeah, well, are you guys done with public? Seems like there's no further public comment. So that's closed for Safer Seward Highway member of Kohl Hay. Any further? You need to make a motion on the table and then you can, okay. So I'll move to include the Safer Seward Highway Mile post 98.5 to one 18 in the MT P 2052. Seconded.
It strikes me that we're having a work session on the boundary and, and this meeting probably should have or have been a work session on Safer for Seward and maybe the MTP more broadly. I, I, I hear and agree with many of the, of the comments made by member Baldwin Day and Member Volland. I appreciate the comments by Member Little and by you Madam Chair. The, the, I would say from the, the standpoint of the, the municipality, the administration, the Seward Highway is certainly of high importance. The roads that Member Baldwin Day and, and Member Volland mentioned Tudor and Muldoon in particular and other roads. But I know as Mr. Bowland stated, have, are seeing some emphasis, those are high priorities as well. I guess some of the concerns that, that we have that I break forward are the letter from June 17th and then the, the letter we received last night seemed to indicate that there's willingness to look at a range of design solutions, but there's also the draft EA, which has arrived at a four lane divided. That's my understanding from
Ms. Little said it, that that is the, the plan going forward. So it's hard to reconcile in my mind an acknowledgement of the need to look, maybe take a harder look at the range of design solutions that meet the purpose and need of the project while there are being a, a draft DA that says this is the design solution that's gonna proceed forward. I would say that we have heard whether, whether 100% accurate or not, we have heard that, that there are concerns from at least some stakeholders that perhaps there wasn't public engagement and public opportunity for people to comment that people would've, that some user groups may have expected. We've heard that, again, not saying that that's a hundred percent accurate, but we've heard that from, from various user groups. Again, there's really a strong interest in looking at the range of design solutions that might be available to, to address these problems.
And, and as member Baldwin, Day very eloquently said, there is a high interest in ensuring that the project does not take away opportunities for other work to happen in Anchorage with, with federal funds such as NHPP funds. That, I guess my my last comment for now is looking at the letter we received yesterday evening from Commissioner Anderson there, this member Baldwin Day noted, there's 30 pages of responses to comments both from policy committee members and from AMATS staff that were made back in February. And I haven't even gotten halfway through that document. It's, it's been, I haven't been able to go through the whole thing, but I did note on a comment from Member Baldwin Day regarding specifically related to run off the road crashes and the department response, I'm not gonna read it, but the department response says that the four lane divided concept accomplishes curve correction, improved shoulders, clear zone, site distance access management.
And it strikes me that, that that response is accurate, but perhaps not comprehensive because certainly a three lane section or some other design solution could accomplish many of those same objectives. So those are my comments. I, and I guess a question for staff, we seem to be a little bit out of sequence now. We were gonna work through individual items and then take a, we're gonna take up the Complete Streets as a total and work through them. Now we have on the table a motion to include this specific project in the MTP, but then we will back up and look at the broader Complete Streets package. I, I'm, I'm unsure how that functionally works.
So yeah, it, it's kind of a, an interesting point. So for staff's perspective, I'll just remind you in our memo we list kind of the remaining revenue available for each group to utilize. DOT has about 269 million based on the historical information provided as the Safer Seward components in the MPO are 525 million. There is a little bit of an issue there of a discrepancy in how much is available to fund those projects. So that would need to be discussed as part of this and figured out how exactly that funding gonna come available. If it's more funding will come available that's above and beyond the historical amounts. We would just need something in writing and a commitment that that's gonna happen. And we can put that in the MTP so people know where it is. If that's not an option, then we would need to move projects out that are DOT specific to help free up that funding. And so that could be done as part of this or a discussion. If you want to go back and talk about the Complete Streets list as a whole, I mean, we'll still need to deal with the Complete Streets list as a whole. 'cause there were some changes in there about adding in the Seward Glenn PEL projects, how those are gonna be funded, et cetera. That still needs to be dealt with, including the cost increase for the Seward Highway Dimond to O'Malley as well.
Little confused. Yeah. At this point, member Baldwin Day, instead of discussing the issue at hand, would like to divert the topic and the motion to something different. The complete Streets one through seven. So the motion on the floor is the amendment by substitution for Project one through seven. So do you have a comment on that specifically? And then the other comment at this point would not be
So, okay, so it's an amendment by substitution to essentially move forward projects one through seven for now. Okay. So I, I I think what I will say is that is something I'm more inclined to support. I I do wanna point out that the project, the, the Safer Steward Highway piece that did go through the planning and zoning commission process here in Anchorage. And I think that they had a lot of takeaways and it sort of speaks to what Mr. Kool has was pointing out in terms of, you know, are we really looking at redesign options? And their recommendation was to return this project for redesign. They had a lot of concerns. If you look through the minutes, one commissioner said that it didn't look like the three lane option was adequately evaluated another commissioner who is a traffic engineer, said the project team needs to do more math and data. That was their comment in, in the record.
And so I, I guess I am interested in, in, in breaking apart one through seven and, and sort of addressing maybe eight separately. The other thing that is catching my interest is number six. We've had a lot of back and forth about that project and I, I, if I'm not mistaken, that is the Seward Highway to O'Malley or the O'Malley to Dimond project, that reconstruction. And we, we've, we've at one point moved to eliminate that project entirely. That that did not pass. However, I mean this, this is now a years long conversation where we settled sort of compromise for that was a, a right sizing or a reduction in scope. And that was the, the deprogramming of that project to, to 32 rather the, not say deprogramming, excuse me, the, the reduction in funding to 32 million. As I seem to recall at one point that project that the full package there, and I know construction costs go up, but that full package was around, I want to say a hundred, 111 million and we're, so now we're moving back in that direction. I don't know, I would be interested in a, a division of the question and taking up projects 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and seven. I think those are less controversial. And then taking items six and eight as separate amendments. So I really need to hear the justification for why we are essentially doubling that project budget when we've already had substantial conversation about what it is we are actually trying to accomplish there. Thanks.
Thank you member Volland, if I can time. Thank you. So my, my interest here is, is really in the interest of time, it's 1123, which means we have, well 24. So we, we don't have much time left in this special session. And I, I think at this point it would be constructive for us to move as many of the points of agreement forward as we possibly can. And then, you know, given Mr. Jongenelen comment earlier that we can amend the MTP at a future date, potentially the more controversial or contentious questions could be taken up at a later time. And again, I, I would love to be able to do my own due diligence with the 30 page memo that we received last night from the commissioner. And I would also love to see, you know, more of the, the technical breakdown or the project descriptions for each of these pieces of the, the corridor phasing for the safe steward. So that was the genesis. Really the impetus behind my motion is to, to move us to what can we get completed in the next 36 minutes of, of this special session. So with that in mind, and given Mr. Volland comment, I would, I would like to amend my motion and say I I would like to amend my substitution Complete Streets approval of Complete Streets one through five and seven.
Okay. Well is it from point of conversation? I believe we all know where we're at with Safer Seward Highway. I would encourage us to like, let's please just have a vote and move forward with the rest of the projects at hand. I think there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't prohibit us later from having a more extended conversation on this. But yes, I encourage us to not accept this amendment. Go back to the original motion and vote down that, and then move to this very important motion as amended and suggested by Member Baldwin Day. Any other further questions or comments on the amendment before we call to a vote? The amendment? Okay. Let's just do a roll call. Vote member Baldwin Dave? Yes. And this is again, to amend this high substitution safe pursuit highway to include one through five and number seven of Complete Street. Correct.
I am talking about the ones that are in the policy memo. So under, under TAC Action. Okay. And if that amendment is adopted, we can take time and discussion and go through that specifically. So the vote at hand is to accept the amendment by substitution member Baldwin Day voted yes. Member Kohlhase?
Okay. Member Volland? Yes. Okay. And Member Frank? No. Okay. Myself votes No, but the motion Amended Amendment passes. So the motion on the floor now is to accept, incorporate in the MTP, the Complete Streets Project listed on the brief on the item overview, not on the Excel project list. So Member Baldwin Day, would you care to amend further the motion on the floor to specify that? Sure. Would it be helpful for staff if I enumerated the, the titles? Sure. Okay, thank you. Yes, happy to do that. So this would be for adding the Seward to Glenn PEL project, 16th Avenue extension, also the Port of Alaska Freight Routes Reconnaissance Engineering study, removing the project on line 144 Lake Otis Parkway to 20th Avenue, updating the project on line 145, also Lake Otis Parkway project, and an update to the project on line 137 to update the termini increasing budget for projects on line 54 through 55. And I believe that is one through five and seven? Yes. Yes. That's clear to me. Thank you. Right second please. Just on the clarification,
So, so I just stated for clarity, I, I I don't, I don't know that that was a formal motion, it was just clarification of the, the what I was actually talking about in terms of which projects we would be approving for placement on the MTP. And so our vote now, if we were to take a vote, would be to formally incorporate one through five and seven into the MTP.
Is just making changes to the project list that is before you, these changes that are on the screen that Aaron, the member Baldwin Day went through, those would be added to the project list. That project list still hasn't been voted on about whether you guys wanted to move forward into the MTP or not.
Needs it. So we voted on a component of the Complete Streets. Now I imagine that will have some discussion on the Safer Seward project, perhaps the other one. Then we'll vote on that entire Complete Streets list and then we'll move on to another list. Correct. In 30 minutes. My, so I, I would, one more question for staff and I'll stop for now. And I hate to suggest this, but we've spent an hour and a half on I think very important discussions and we're not gonna be pressed to make, you know, significant progress and vote on some very important items for final inclusion. Is there an opportunity in your mind as far as scheduling on staff for a, a second special meeting of the policy committee if needed? And if so, when could that happen?
Yeah, you can either extend the meeting today if it's not possible to extend the meeting today. Yes, we can do a special work session or special, another special meeting, sorry, not work session for the policy committee. We would just need advance notice. So seven days notice. So at this point we could do next Wednesday. 'cause we could get it out today to do the notice. Just as a reminder, next Thursday is the regularly scheduled policy committee meeting that has three important items on there. So just kind of keep that in mind. We would just need seven days notice. So I think if you were looking to do a special, another special meeting, it might be best to sit down and figure that out now so we can get it scheduled since you're all here and we can talk about schedules.
And if I may, one last follow up question. I said that was my last one, this is my last one on this. Anything that we vote on today, say we don't vote on the final adoption, but we vote on, on complete streets. Say we solve complete streets scenario, we solve non-motorized today, those would carry forward to the special. If we have another special meeting, they would carry forward as approved and then the vote then would be for the remaining elements that are outstanding.
Yeah, whatever's not completed today, we would bring forward to the special work session unless you guys said otherwise. But I think the idea would be if you complete something today, then we don't have to readdress it at a future meeting. We've already dealt it. And so staff would take that and incorporate it into the document and make it available for the version you're gonna see for release to public comment.
So we're identifying what we can say yes to so we can cross that off our list. And right now the at hand is saying yes to one through five and seven on the brief. And item six and eight, we're not at this point rejecting Correct. And we're just saying not in this motion. Thank you.
For item seven, I did not have the opportunity to talk with, with the transit staff on this. But I see your note here, Mr. Jongenelen, staff needs a direction where the funding was come for a lot of AMATS projects and that total looks like 1.8 million over the 20 year life of the MTP
You guys both to approve it as is staff would do our best to make a recommendation on what that would be. And you would see that with the final version of whatever the Complete Streets list is, if you guys have an idea of what project those, those can come from. 'cause right now the AMATS program or the AMATS funding is basically constrained. So we don't have room for number seven current program without moving something out. And a lot of what we have is pretty tightly called for in most of our existing programs and projects. So there is not a whole lot that can be moved out. Yeah, I don't, I don't have a recommendation for you at this time.
Yeah. Given that I, I suggest, and I could hand the gavel to you, but if we amend the motion to remove seven, we, it would be smart to have a look at the fiscally constrained project list. We can make that recommendation. Yeah. So for right now, if we could accept one through five that would help you if you so choose to make such an amendment.
Okay. The seconded by member Kohlhase. So the motion on the floor for discussion is now to accept recommendations of the TAC items one through five of the Complete Streets Project list. Any further discussion on this? Okay. Hearing none, any objections to adopting, incorporating one through five changes in the MTP. Okay, so the motion passes. Mr. Jongenelen, do you have any further clarifying questions needed on this motion? Are you clear?
Yes, please. A comment, then I'll make a motion. Given that it's taken now an hour and 37 minutes to get through where we are now, I would move that, we calendar a, a follow follow-up special meeting to resolve any items that we have tabled today that we don't get this in the remaining 24 minutes of the meeting. You need a date suggested Mr. Jongenelen
15th, right? 15th. Oh, I was stink. 15th Wednesday, July 15th. So any, any discussion, any problems with that date by the committee members? At least afternoon of the 15th. Works great for me. I'm curious with, for Amma's staff, is this room available next?
So Member Volland and I have a housing and homelessness committee meeting that is 11 to 1230. I would love the opportunity to eat lunch before we come and do this work. So could we do something in the neighborhood of like one 30 or two? Would that be all right? And I don't know what's on Member Volland's calendar. You might have other, other commitments
Okay. So technically that was an, an amendment second on that. So we can, oh no, he's, he's free to amend this motion and I, I my second stance. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any objections? Thank you. Hearing none. Aaron, please do what's needed for three hour meetings. We're doing it now, two to five and really hope members of the public and are, are able to attend and participate. Thank you. So with that, back to the topic at hand, I wonder if we might move through full of lists quickly in the 18 minutes available. So I would like to move that we prove the recommended change to the MTP under the transit bullet on the policy brief, which is to remove project on line 13 through 17. Second motion on the floor is in the memo transit section. We'd like to remove projects on lines 13 to 17 in the MTP transit project list.
Any discussion from the committee? Yeah, I, I think I would just like to say that it causes me some heartbreak to remove, I'm sorry, go ahead. Sorry. We're just procedural note on public comments after this. I, yeah, we gotta do public comments technically before the motions, but apologies. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Yes, please continue. And then we'll Yep. But we'll invert the process here. Just, just to note to say that it, it does cause me some sadness to see these removed from the transit project list because they are, they are all very important pieces of our transit system. So I, I hope that they, that's on future point. Any further dialogue on the committee? Let's please any public comment on this topic of the transit removing these five projects from the project list. And sorry, we are out of order, but any comments? Please let raise your hand. Bar
Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Bart Rudolph, director of the public transit department. I just wanna address Aaron's comment that these projects are just duplicates. They are, they will remain in the MTP and other project line items. So you're not actually removing any projects, you're just removing the duplication of each line item.
That. So, okay, thanks. So motion on the floor is to remove duplicate listings, which are MTP transit project list numbers 13 through 17. This is accepting the change recommended by the tax brief for transit to remove these lines. So any objections to this motion? Hearing none. The motion to remove project list number 13 to 17 is potentially, we might have time to, to deal with the Alaska railroad items as well. Let's, let's do that. Perhaps this time. We the right way in one second. Mr. Jongenelen, can you remind us quick overview and then we can go to public comment? Yes,
So at the technical advisory committee, the Alaska Railroad did speak up that there were some changes that they would like to make to the projects that you see in the memo before yield. I believe they, they were unable to provide 'em to us in a time because they, it was last minute. Everything's been crazy. We understand that. So at the meeting, they had a discussion, you see here, zeroing out project costs for line two project on line two. That's the Alaska Railroad number two project preventative maintenance 53 0 7. I'm just trying to increase the cost for projects on line six. That is the fleet improvement support, oh, oops, sorry, I'm on the wrong one. I'm on the transit one. I need to do this. Project six, the bridge rehabilitation 53 0 7, decrease the cost for project on line 10, which is the preventative maintenance. 53 3 7, decrease the cost for project on line 11, which is bridge rehabilitation 53 3 7. And then remove projects on 14 and 15 for the facility rehab 53 3 7. And the railroad technology infrastructure 53 3 7. So those were all recommendations that came forward from the Alaska Railroad Corporation itself and the technical advisory committee recommended approval. Thank you.
Yes. Is anyone from the railroad on? I I know typically Brian, Lindamood who does attend when he can I just one, one note that it, I mean it does raise my eyebrows a little bit when we talk about removing 14 and a half million from preventive maintenance projects on the railroad. I, I, I would assume that the railroad has reasons for wanting this project cost sea road out. I think I'm, I'm not clear, you know, I if this is a fiscal constraint question or if there's funds reallocated elsewhere. So I think having that question answered at some point would be, would be really helpful to understand why there's 14 and a half million leaving the, leaving the MTP for preventive maintenance. I could offer some comment just in my experience in working with the railroad as they program send us their program of projects for the STIP, they do have a statewide programmatic project bucket preventative maintenance and where they spend the funds just shifts on the particular project that they have at the time. So some would be within the boundaries, some outside, and then their schedule waxes and wanes with, with where those needs are at so that these projects are kind of ongoing and they do the best that they can to forecast how much is needed at any one time.
So I, I just, just say that they're, these are the same project and program lists that they have on all of the MPOs as well as the STIP. And then they try to portion it out where they think they may need it at the time, but sometimes they're more reactive needs. So like our payment and pres big preservation, we try not to identify larger projects, but just able to take care of those needs as they arise. So. Okay. But we should request an update.
Don't, yeah, I don't, certainly don't wanna presume to know things about railroad operations. I'm happy to go with their recommendations here. But it would, it would be helpful to understand what that preventative maintenance, I, I do know that the source funding is the 2023 to the 2026 TIP. So I'm wondering if this is funds that are being moved around a different way. But yeah, I would, I would love to know that if we could get that right. Thank you. So no further questions or comments from me. Well at this point are there any objections to the motion on the floor, which is incorporating changes item one through six in the Alaska Railroad Corporation section of the MTP. So any objections? hearing none. The direction to staff is to please make the changes as suggested by the tac and also please reach out to the railroad for just an informational item.
Can I ask a procedural question about staff? Yes, please. Thank you. So for one of the, one of the items that came up at the last policy committee meeting with a non-motorized plan was item number six on the brief, which was sort of a wholesale shift of projects from short term to long term to accommodate the Hyder Pedestrian Boulevard project. I'm wondering from staff perspective, if, if a member has an alternate proposal for how we might accommodate the Heder project without sort of wholesale removing these particular lines, would it be appropriate to send that information through staff to the rest of the committee in advance so that everyone can sort of consider, consider a forthcoming amendment? Or is that something that a member would need to do simply in a meeting?
I think it wouldn't be a problem as long as there was no discussion in the email. So it would just be for informational purposes only from staff that this is something for a future discussion for you to be aware of. So you can come in preparation for this one. If we get it in time, we can actually provide it as part of the agenda to post it. Okay. If a committee member can provide it to us so then the public can see it as well. That would be my big concern is the public wouldn't have an opportunity to see it. So if we can get it from the member, we can post it to the agenda today like it is today. Like as soon as we're done.
Challenging. Right, of course. Okay. Yeah, I wanted to give folks plenty of time to be able their alternatives. Okay, great. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay, well with five minutes remaining to do any of the main members see a quick motion on any of these items that we'd like to make before closing? I don't either. I think everything is gonna be a bit. Do we, do we do public participation at the end?
Excellent. So going back to our original agenda, just wanna, I note that we do not have any informational items as part of this agenda. So with that, I'd like to go to the committee first. Are there any closing comments from the committee members? Member Volland, member Frank, if you have any comments, please go for it.
Great. Nothing from me. Thank you. Let's go to the public then. Any comments from the public? Okay. Anyone online that's missing? Nope. Don't see anybody. Great. So with that, let's adjourn until we pick up again on the 15th. Two o'clock 15th. Two o'clock in this room. Same place. Sorry. All right. Thanks everyone for Thank you. Bearing with us on the procedural nuances of this.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.