April 28, 2026 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM
And with that we've established quorum Move to public participation announcement or public particip in virtual participation guidelines. Welcome to the Ameds Community Advisory Committee meeting. Public comments are welcome and encouraged with three minutes given to each speaker. After the committee discusses each item, members of the public will be invited to comment. Housekeeping item For virtual attendees, please keep your cameras off unless speaking. For those attending by phone, please press star six to mute or unmute yourself. AMS committee meetings are, are audio recorded and posted on the AMS YouTube page and there's a YouTube link if you have the agenda. And so the next one is approval of the agenda. And it sounded like we had a last minute item that, or Christine, do you have some additional context?
Sure. Just that I had, I guess the, the issue is just that I had timely sent the letter to Christine to be able to get posted for the agenda a week ago. And, and, and Christine forwarded it and I guess staff is willing to let us consider the letter just because the, you know, it was timely sent in. So
Perfect. Okay. Are there any objections to adding it to the agenda? Hearing no objections. It is added to the agenda. So now are there any objections to approving the agenda as amended hearing? No objections. The agenda is amended. The next we'll move to approval of previous meeting minutes. So the 2 10, 26 minutes were sent out. Can I get a motion to approve those minutes?
Okay. It sounds like yeah, everybody jumped on that one. That's why I think I heard. Oh gosh John, I think I heard John jumped in there right away. Perfect. Do we have any corrections? Hearing none. Are there any objections to approving the February minutes hearing, hearing? No objections. The February minutes are approved
I can brief you if you'd like and then I think Aaron's going to take over a little bit. But this, we've always been kind of discussing what actions the committee can and can't do on their own. Traditionally everything had gone through the TAC and the pc. We now have a practice where if you're submitting comments on a project or plan that's out for public review that can go directly to the project team. But the policy committee, as we were reviewing a letter that the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee had written at their, and it was going through their April meeting, they asked us for a little bit more clarification on what subcommittees could do with or without it going directly through to the pc. And so we're trying to outline those and bring them back for consideration to apply policy committee, but we wanted to bring it to the subcommittees for their review and recommendations as well. And so staff has working on trying to outline those. I think Aaron is gonna pull up a little decision tree that we have going just to kind of guide the conversation and you can give us your feedback on that and any other thoughts that you have.
Perfect. Hey everybody. So yes, we had met as staff to kind of go over this because you know, when we actually got into it, it became a little more complicated than it than it seemed or I think we were making it more complicated than it needed to be. And so staff met internally and we kind of came up with the decision tree that you see hopefully in front of you. And we wanted to keep it really simple, really basic for everybody to give the committees more kind of autonomy on what they send without having to go through the policy committee. You know, the first thing we wanted to ask is, is there an open public comment period right now? 'cause if there is an open public comment period, then that should give the committees their, the ability to submit their comments in without having to go to the policy committee for approval.
Mostly because of time and because it's actually an open public comment period. So that's a pretty easy one there. But then we got into, what if it's not an open public comment period and it's just on a continuing item like Vision zero or policy guidance, other things like that that became a little more complicated. But what we settled on and what we're recommending is if the communication is going to elected officials or federal staff, either appointed elected or just regular federal staff, those kind of letters, those kind of communications have to go to the policy committee for approval. So what's an example there? The mayor of Anchorage, the governor of Alaska, the Secretary of Transportation for U-S-D-O-T, those are examples of communications that have to go to the policy committee to for approval before they get sent out. If you don't have elected officials or any federal FI officials on there, then we go to our next decision which was are those elected or federal individuals on the CC list?
There's a missing thing here, but it's the cc. So are they included on the cc? For example, the BPAC letter was sent to the regional director of DOT who's an appointed position and the muni traffic engineer who are appointed positions. So you're good there. But on the CC list it had assembly members and the mayor of Anchorage. So then it became, okay those kind of communications again have to go to the policy committee 'cause you're still including that kind of higher level threshold of individuals on there. If you don't have anybody elected official or a federal person on either the two or the cc, then the committee is free to send out that communication without having to go through the policy committee. A couple of notes here is all communication will have to come from AMATS staff that is what we're recommending and am a staff will have to review that communication before it goes out. 'cause a couple of things you can't commit am a s to funding decisions in your communication. That is a policy committee level decision. You can't use def define defamatory language. We all know that, but we just have to put that out there. You can't make policy decisions for amass. You can recommend them to the policy committee, but you can't send a letter to the original director of DOT and say AMATS is committee to X, Y, and Z policy without the policy committee reviewing and approving it.
And if it's a gray area, staff is going to defer sending it to the TAC and policy committee for decision until that decision is made and then we can move forward in the future. And it's not a gray area anymore. So we wanted to bring this forward to see if you guys had any comments. I know we didn't send this out beforehand, but we were kind of finishing it up on our end and we're not planning on bringing this back to the T-A-C-M-P-C until July at this point. So there's time for additional communication if you guys want like a special meeting to sit down and talk through this. But if this kind of goes forward, it will require a change to the committee bylaws as well. So happy to take any questions. Thank you.
So Aaron, just for clarification on the background, completely lines out with you, but on the action requested am a staff request the community advisory committee to review the committee bylaws and provide suggestions for policy defining the types of items and process that the subcommittees may follow. So you just proposed a, a workflow for sending out items. So I'm just, I guess I'm also seeing a second narrative here in the action requested right there by laws and provide suggestions for policy fin types of items. Items or the process. Okay, so basically we're commenting on what staff is proposing to the policy committee, but ultimately if the policy committee adopts this workflow, we have to amend our bylaws or will they automatically be changed if they're not, they're not conforming to the policy committees
We'll have to do. We're gonna basically, we have to do 'em at the same time. 'cause right now your bylaws outline what you can and can't do in terms of what you can and can't send or take action on without the policy committee approval. So we would have to update the bylaws based on whatever comes from either this decision tree or some other whatever is ultimately approved by the policy committee. The reason we're presenting this decision tree to you guys today is because this is our first stab at it by staff and we want to see if we're heading in the right direction or if there is some red flags that we missed that you guys can think of that we may not have thought of.
Got it. So really the focus is on this workflow right here and recommendation comments for this workflow. And then ultimately what comes of this workflow based off of the policy committee potentially adopting it then will trigger the revising of our bylaws to align with what's adopted.
Yeah, that's one element. I think also the bylaws are only agenda today. 'cause if there is anything else that you guys see, because there's some aspects of the bylaws that aren't related to this decision tree that if you guys have comments, questions, concerns or anything. 'cause you know, we like to periodically update the bylaws or make sure that they're, you know, fresh. So if you guys have any comments on those, we would take those today as well.
Thank you Mr. Sharon. Thank you Aaron for the presentation. I guess my, am I muted? Nope, I'm not. Okay. I guess my, my first question is just to clarify the intent of this, this is basically to define official communications of the CAC and who we can communicate to and whether we are communicating as the CAC or as amass. Is that kind of what you're trying to clarify?
No, because you, you, when you communicate as CAC, you're part of AM a, so there's no distinction there between that. What this is trying to define is what you as the CAC can send out what kind of communications you can do as a committee without having to go to the policy committee for prior approval or approval of that communication. So you can set it out directly without having to go through the T-A-C-M-P-C
Unmuted now. So I read through the bylaws really quickly and one thing I noticed under the membership of our committee, it talks about a nine year maximum term. And I just was wondering does is amac, do they track our terms to know when we are not eligible anymore? And related to that it says that the, it should be staggered so that not everyone leaves at the same time. So I was just curious about that.
Yeah, we are trying to track this better. I think we haven't done a good job in the past. It's kind of just organically that nine year limit kind of made it where people come and go as they please and they've just kind of been within that nine year limit anyway. But we are trying to track that better now moving forward and have it all in one one place. So between the three subcommittees we can organize membership and interim limits.
Thank you. Just looking to see if I have any other, so I guess the, I don't know if there's a clear way of doing this, but I love seeing the, the grassroots approach with getting new committee members. So community councils have just been a great way for grassroots community involvement. I sure, like if we have some type of way to tie community councils to giving recommendations for candidates to be approved by the policy committee. So, so just talking about timeline, Christine or Aaron. So we, it sounds like in the very near future we're going to have a a, a bylaws amendment if there is specific changes that of members that wish to propose changes. Because I'm assuming that they would have to have, I can't remember the notice requirements for bylaw amendments. Do we have any, is there any idea of timeline how committee members would potentially bring potential amendments forward?
For the bylaws? We could probably treat this as more of an introduction and then bring that up in the, the July meeting. If we're not coming back to the technical advisory and policy committee on kind of the, the essence of this decision tree. The bylaws will come in after that. So we could, we could table that discussion, take a comment back and forth right now. But if for formal recommendations we could put that on the July meeting and then ask for committees to submit those a week prior to, to posting so that you could all see.
Just two thirds. Oh yeah. The bylaws may be amended by a two thirds vote of those present provided a quorum is present, present and all committee members have been previously notified by the intent to amend the bylaws. The bylaws amendments are subject to ratification. So as long as we meet our notice requirements and we have a two thirds majority, we can amend bylaws.
Yeah. And this, I think the bylaws, we flagged them just in this discussion because the first part of the bylaws kind of there's an A, B, C, D and that kind of outlines what you can, what you should be focused on, what you can and can't do. And, and we assume that that is probably where whatever comes out of this decision sheet, that those things would be specified in the bylaws.
That would probably be where it would vary, yes. 'cause some, like on the freight advisory committee, those are more appointed by the specific seats that they represent. Same in, but the same in this committee and in the bicycle committee, there are particular seats that are appointed by those organizations if they have a seat on the committee. So we would just be gathering feedback from all the different committees and trying to compile that together.
No, that's a great point, Diana is, you know, I I guess I would assume, unless there's a specific policy committee rule that the bylaws relatively are amendable. But that brings a very valid point, is there are certain portions of the bylaws we can't touch. Yeah. And so Aaron, I did have one kind of looking at your workflow. I think you had a very well thought out process when it's not a a public comment period. 'cause I think definitely writing to public officials, especially just as you said hypothetically, if there's communication coming from the CAC that is AMAs, it might not be the policy committee. So I do appreciate your routing on, it's outside of a public comment period. I, I do have concerns about if it is a public comment period. I think there's, I think striving for a harmonious relationship is important and optics do matter. And so when we have a, a subcommittee that could potentially adopt something in a public comment period that could be inflammatory not having any blinds or sensors if the policy comm committee didn't, because I mean, what I'm hearing is if it's in a public comment period, the the mayor, the governor, all types of public officials could be CC'd or sent to.
Yeah, I mean, yes, it's a public comment period. So it's a lot more flexible than anything else. So I don't see any reason why you couldn't include those individuals on there as you're providing it as part of the public comment period. And in terms of inflammatory language, well that's why we commented. You can't put anything in there that's defamatory and everything has to be reviewed by amat staff before it goes out. So it's not like something will slip through the cracks. That's a, a hugely problematic language issue. I don't see that as a problem. I trust the subcommittees to do what's right.
I would just see that you have inconsistency of, you're using the public comment period as the justification to have whatever communications and you're trusting the subcommittees right there, but yet if there's not a public comment period, but there's an issue that could be serious that the subcommittee wants to make note of or communicate with, it seems like a double-edged standard with your workflow.
Not at all. Public comment periods are open comment periods typically on projects. Very, very little is done for like policy guidance. But there's some, like, for example, DOT and PF has a policy for tribal consultation out right now and they're asking for public comments on that. The subcommittees under this would be free to send comments in on that policy without having to go to the policy committee because those comments are adjudicated through a process. It's open and fair for the subcommittees to be sending those comments in without having to go to the policy committee. I mean, if you want, we can go ahead and add a little proviso in here that you can't send comments to elected officials or federal officials either, even if a public comment period is open.
That might be a, that could be, that could be a good route. Yeah, I don't know. I just think, I think your workflow on outside of public comment, right there seems like a, a very logical workflow. I think there should just be some extra steps in a public comment period. But
That's just, I mean, the reality is, is if that's the way that we want to do it, then you're probably never gonna get comments submitted because there is not enough time for comment periods for you as a subcommittee to meet and then to have it go through the TACM policy committee for final approval before it's sent out. So just keep that in mind.
No, that's a really good point. Yeah. Aaron, there's a documented one second sj, so if there's a documented email that's for all public comments, absolutely could be sent to that. But it's when we start going outside of the designated spot for public comments that I'm putting in question sj
Yeah, I I thank you Mr. Chairman. Aaron, I really appreciate kind of the distinction and was gonna point out just that, I mean Matt, Matt and other commission members, when there is a public comment period, we have a limited amount of time to speak to it and to take action and those comments become part of the public record when we submit them to a project, whatever project that is. And so being, you know, there's no reason why we can't distribute those comments to elected officials, you know, if it's the CACs comment on, you know, project A, you know, whether it's say Seward or hell or, you know, or something like this that, that that Aaron mentioned. So I mean, this gives us a little more flexibility to actually make that comment. And it just recognizes the fact that when comment is made for a project during a public comment period, those comments are made public. And so, you know, there's no real reason to restrict the fact that restrict us from sending it to other elected officials when we decide and approve those comments. So I, I actually agree with the decision tree that they're proposing there.
We're, oh, sorry. Just because we are considering changes to the bylaws, you know, I don't, you know, obviously we're not gonna be able to notice them again, there's not notice to make any changes today, but Yeah, I know, I know. I, for one would want to chew through the bylaws a little deeper. You know, at first blush, I don't really see anything worth changing, but that's just a on a skim. So I assume you want us to just submit those proposed changes to the bylaws to staff and then they'll get distributed to the commission for notice.
So similar workflow, I, I think Christine, that's what we were saying is so for, unless somewhere in this meeting we have a sooner meeting, our next scheduled is, is it June or is it July? July. But, but after this meeting we'd have some type of notice sent to, to review the, the bylaws to send them to Christine. And then once we do the, the notice of the agenda, it would include all of the potential bylaw amendments. So we would have, but the intent is just really to give everybody time to comb through the bylaws and provide some recommendations through it and just nod on the, the spot right here. Does that align to, is there any changes you wanted to do with that process, Christine?
No, that seems good. Yeah, people could start reviewing 'em now. We, I can outline, I can review it and outline some of the things from Diana Evans, you know, making sure the things that you wouldn't wanna change or aren't allowed to change. But once this, the citizenry process has gone through, through, we can update that part as well. And then for your next meeting when we're posting the agenda, it would also have everybody's suggested edits so that you all could see those edits and then come prepared to take action.
Yes, thank you. I just wanted to say I agree with SJ that when the public and, and with the proposed distribution for comments submitted during a public comment period, I think elected officials, if it's a big consequential or high profile project, they're looking at the public comment record and they're looking at the breadth of public comments and the depth. And if we can get our comments straight to them, I think we give a certain depth that is important to those elected leaders. And again, they're expecting comments, so we should send ours straight to them or you know, CC them.
Clear. So the way I guess was staff we're gathering comments right there. And so when, I guess that's, no, there was no hard actionable item other than sj like you and Nancy saying that you support it as is, it's providing feedback to staff to move forward with recommendations to the policy committee.
Yeah, we can, I mean we can just mention what we heard or if you want to be official and say this is what the CAC recommends, then yes, you could, of all the things committee members make, you could decide what you want to submit as your recommendations officially.
Yeah, we're, we're kind of finalizing the tree, so it may not be right away, but I just wanna remind everybody that you can't really submit comments as individuals on the CAC, you would have to do it as a group. So you would have to do it either at this meeting, which I know we didn't get it to you in time, or you'd have to wait to the next meeting or hold a special meeting. So it could be one of those things that you review it, you have comments, you provide it to Christine, and we just bring it back as part of the July meeting and have that discussion then.
Nine year term limit for someone that serves, like in our role as planners at JBER, it's, it's normal to work a 20 year career and there's currently three in our office, which one is an unmanned position. So it's, it's unlikely, but the potential of someone needing to serve over nine years would exist to have anybody of knowledge of planning requirements for the installation. I want to think about this a little bit more, but it's in the, in our role, it, it, it could be an issue. Thank you.
Good. I, I like, I liked what Aaron said is if we have comments on this workflow, we can send it in after this meeting and then in the, our next upcoming CAC meeting we can have all those comments potentially submitted and we can take official action on supporting the workflow. So not hearing any issues with that. Yeah, I think that was a good idea, Aaron. Thank you. Okay, and next we'll
Nope, that's good info. So it sounds like there is a provision that if the policy committee does wanna extend a specific member they have. Just curious, Chuck, when you read those or maybe Aaron or Christina knows this, is there a specific limitation of the policy committee extending the, the terms?
Yeah, there's there no real limit to what the policy committee can do to the bylaws and the committee members themselves of how long they stay on. It's just typically, or that nine year limit is really for the groups or the, the public members or the representatives from the district and stuff that we wanna make sure they, we rotate through when there are, you know, viable options out there for other individuals to participate. If it's an agency like JBER or the Muni or some other groups that have more limited and constrained people that can attend, then I don't see any reason why we couldn't bring the recommendation forward to the policy committee to extend how long they stay on the committee. So I think there's an option there.
Thank you Mary, do we have any other committee comments before we open up to the public hearing none opening it up to, are there any public member comments? Are there any comments from the public hearing? None. We'll move to five b. SJ had submitted A-H-S-I-P letter. Can I get a Hi.
Sure. I'll tee this one up. You know, for members that don't, aren't familiar with the, what has happened with the H CIP programming recently a number of projects got removed without explanation by the state from the H cip and then a handful of them have been returned. I mean our, our neighborhood Fairview is kind of up in arms of the, in over this pedestrian barrier that got, that got kind of put into the H CIP while other other h CIP projects that that would've kind of improved life in the neighborhood, have not been added back in or are on a longer term programming. And so, so yeah, the comments were basically to kind of recognize that some projects have been returned and that we believe that other projects, especially lane reductions, need to be prioritized. It's a letter to the policy committee from our committee and then also just kind of calls out the, the kind of failures that, that pedestrian barriers really represent in dense urban environments that include heavy pedestrian usage. So
Great. SJ, I was wondering if we could clarify your intent under the first category or first page last paragraph. It, you know, there are two things here I guess. One is we were, it says we were also very concerned that the adjacent intersections are more dangerous now since, for example, two pedestrians were killed on Minnesota and Northern Lights in 2025 alone. I guess I'm, I'm a little hesitant to, to declare that the intersections are more dangerous without knowing the circumstances of those pedestrians death. But I think I would be more comfortable saying this has not resolved pedestrian safety since, for example, I think that pedestrians killed.
I, I think that's, that's an appropriate change. So I'll, I'll I could we could wordsmith that a little bit better. Yeah, my, my intent was that, you know, kind of the pedestrian barrier on Minnesota was intended to kind of stop pedestrian deaths or was, was proposed in reaction to pedestrian deaths and, and strikings of pedestrians and has clearly not not ended those. So yeah, I think that's, I think that's fabulous wording. Definitely.
Alright. And then one more possible change the paragraph continues. The safety funds for this project would've been better spent improving the intersections for pedestrians rather than making it more difficult to walk. We should not repeat this mistake on fifth Avenue and other corridors within neighborhoods. So are you specifically saying you would, that you're, are you asking the committee to oppose the pedestrian median barrier and if so, whatever action you're actually doing. I think I'd like it to be more specific than we should not repeat this mistake and, and then whatever it is the action, move that up to the, you know, to the top of the paragraph.
Yeah, and you kind of get at it. You say they're not acceptable and should be reconsidered, but I'm wondering if you're saying something, you know, a little more specific, like they should be a last resort or Yeah. Are you really, they're, you're opposing them I think. Yes. So anyway, I just would like some clar clarification,
Yeah, a couple of things. One about process just for us, you know, we need to ensure that we ask for public comment before we do motions on action items. So I believe you did a motion and a second on this. So just keep that in mind as we move forward. Unless I misheard you.
I did do a, a motion. So Aaron, just remind me on process right there. So if we're discussing an actionable item, don't we need a a motion a second but we can't That's right. We need to have public comment before we can make a final vote. So how, remind me, do we just have general discussion without a motion and a second on it?
Yes. So what you do is you typically start with introduction of the item. So in this case SJ speaks on the item and why is bringing it forward? And then you have committee discussion where you can say, well what about this, what does this mean? Why did you do this here? That kind of stuff. General discussion, not we wanna change this here, we wanna do that. Then you go to public comment and say does anybody have any comments on this? Because those public comments can feed into any decision that you make later. Once public comment is done, you close it and then you get a motion for action or whatever you want to do with the second, then you can make edits
What you're saying. Aaron is, so I normally, so Aaron point made, I get exactly what you're saying. So normally you'd have to have, if it's an actionable item you'd make it. But with am e specifically it's very important that we have the public comment ability right here. And so before we take any actionable item, item will have a slightly different process of just general discussion of the item. The public has the ability to comment on the general discussion. Then we actually go into the motion where the motion is not open to the public when we do our first second discussion amendments and approval. Is that correct hearing? Yes.
Okay, good. So we don't need overcomplicate this. So we're just back in general discussion. So there is no motion on the floor. We will be taking action right here, but we're going back to a general discussion. The committee members will be having the discussion and then we will have an opportunity for the public to comment if they wish, then we will take up action. So my apologies on messing that up there. Nancy, you had your hand up?
Yeah, I had another question or point of discussion, which is the last substantive sentence in the letter. DOT&PF should also make the chief engineer's lane directive analysis public through Ammas and post it on its website. So is this not, I mean are they, are they withholding it? I know I saw a copy of it through Ammas, so I think Ammas has it. Are you asking Ammas to post it on Amma's website? Are you asking DOT to post it and Aaron, you know, is this something that DOT is withholding or do you know? Can we, yeah, I just need a little more information as to the status.
This is sj. I'd be, I'd be happy to speak to that as well. The, you know, at the date, which I submit the letter, the lane directive or the lane analysis had not yet been made public. It was still being held by by DOTI believe it's out now. I haven't seen it but if Aaron wants to speak to that.
Yeah, kind of following along with Nancy's comments on some of the language there, but the statement that pedestrian barriers are not an acceptable pedestrian safety improvement. I think that's pretty broad and you know, in some circumstances that is probably the best way to go. So I've really not in agreement in making blanket statements like that. And you know, Aaron in the past has said to remove personal, keep it professional and using terms like cheese grater creates in a hostile environment is not professional being in a, in a statement from this committee. You know, so, you know, then the barrier, you know, anyways, it's just the, just the general tone of the letter I think needs to be a little more needs to be cleaned up. So make those comments. Yeah.
Thank you Chuck. Do we have any other comments? The, the cheese grater language did catch my eye. You know, I, it'd be nice if we replaced it with, it should be a welcoming corridor rather than erecting a concrete barrier. Sorry. The CAC encourages treatment that maintains fifth Avenue as a safe and welcoming corridor while improving pedestrian comfort, visibility and access across the roadway. I was trying to play with some other language right there. It seems like the letter, I guess my comment would be the letter has definitely a lot of tone in it. Demanding, what was it? I think there was DOT&PH needs to advance this project. ASAP in 2026. The cheese grater hostile environment. Like, I don't think the points you're trying to make are bad points and I can understand the community council taking issue with them, but it definitely seems like I, I I kind of echo what Chuck said is I wish that the tone was not so quite so aggressive.
Mr. Chair, if I may to, I mean just to speak to the timing issue, there is a, an undergrounding of utility poles scheduled I believe for 2026, or at least the money is programmed for 2026. And so the, the timing is really actually specific to that because if they tear up the sidewalks and tear up, you know, basically tear up the sidewalks and redo the curbs in the same place without kind of considering lane reductions that have been removed out of the H cip, then we're basically paying to get these sidewalks done twice. And and quite frankly as a neighborhood, we feel that if, if the sidewalks get torn up and then put back into the same place that they were before and then we're going to be stuck with the same lane configuration for the next 20 years. So I mean, it, it, the timing issue is something that, that that we do take very seriously. You know, I don't know how to ex I guess I'm totally open to expressing that differently, you know, so that it's a little more tone neutral but it's a very important issue.
This is Nancy. I think Este just, you just did express it clearly and gave the rationale and I, I know that it make the letter letter a little longer, but if that could be spoken to in the letter, that would, that would be the addition that would then avoid just, you know, but it would explain the imperative and the urgency
Not hearing or seeing any other committee members with their hands up. We'll move to public comment. Are there any members of the pub public wishing to comment on the letter regarding HSIP projects? Not hearing any members, making sure I go through both pages here, not hearing any members of the public having any comments. So we'll move to action. Do I have a motion to approve the letter regarding HSIP projects?
It's Aaron. So I actually have some edits that I would recommend for this letter as well. Just a technical, so I think this sentence here that said the AMATS work session on HSIP is scheduled for blah blah blah. I think that can go away. I don't know that it is needed for this letter 'cause you're speaking about HSIP program in general. I think it's just extra information we don't need at this point. Nothing has changed on the bullet points from the HSIP work session, I did wanna point out that the Mountain View Drive safety improvements is actually underway. It received funding in FY 25 and they're currently looking at getting a consultant on board for that project right now. So it doesn't fit within your bullets there because it did receive the funding. It just had the 2027 funding moved because they were, or the 2026 funding moved because they weren't gonna need it at that point 'cause they had gotten started late. So if you wanna keep Mountain View drive in there, you know, you might wanna mention, you know, support for the project continuing to move forward or something.
Yes, we're in discussion. So if there's any technical spots like Aaron gave some recommendations, this was where amendments would be proposed and I would, the more we can keep the amendments so when someone has amendment, if they can go through all their amendments, that would be always preferred to keep the meeting going if they want to break apart them because they think there's a item that could have a bit more discussion. I understand that, but just want to, it's a lot easier if there's a bunch of small amendments that aren't gonna have much if there's simpler amendments just to group them together. But yes, SJ you have the floor if you wanted to make an amendment.
Oh, I'm, I'm, I'm just gathering amendments right now. I haven't, I'm, I'm, I don't, I'm, I'm just listening at the moment and trying to just make sure I don't lose any of kind of what people are proposing. So I guess to that end, so far I've heard kind of a reworking of the discussion of pedestrian barriers, recognition of the motion that's happening on the mountain view drive, pedestrian safety issues and a change in the reference from cheese grater to something else and possibly some more clarity on, on the importance of the issue of timing for the, for the Ingra/Gambell couplet. Are those kind of the changes that I've heard discussed so far?
Yeah, that's the link to the directives themselves, but I didn't see any of the actual analyses that were done. I don't know actually, I'll be honest with you, I don't think that would be something we as Aats would post on our website. It should be on the DOT's website so we can maybe leave it more generic and say it should be posted on a website for the public to access and then leave it up to the groups to figure out.
Great. I think that makes sense. Okay. I am furiously typing and, and I guess just because we're not in the room together, like I I'm, I'm gathering all of these amendments up to just propose a single amendment. Should I just put them in the chat or send them by email? What's kind of the best way to get that in everybody's hands right now?
I think, through the chair. If they could be verbalized one by one, I can amend the document after this meeting. But we need, everybody needs to be clear on what they are voting for. So if you could go one by one and say what you're going to change it to, we could approve the letter as amended.
And SJ just mentioning that cheese grater language what I had. So what does it say? It should be a welcoming quarter rather than erecting a concrete barrier and cheese grater that creates a hostile environment for pedestrians. So what I listed here was the CAC encourages treatments that maintain Fifth Avenue as a safe and welcoming corridor while improving pedestrian comfort, visibility and access across the roadway.
So replace it should be a welcoming corridor rather than erecting a concrete barrier and cheese grater that creates the hostile environment for pedestrians with the CAC encourages treatments that maintain Fifth Avenue as a safe and welcoming corridor while improving pedestrian comfort, visibility and access across the roadway.
Great, thank you. The second amendment that I'm proposing is in the following paragraph, I will would propose that we replace that entire paragraph with the following. The CAC opposes the use of pedestrian barriers as a first solution to pedestrian safety in heavily pedestrian dense urban areas. The barrier of Minnesota Drive was proposed to stop pedestrians from crossing the road and improve pedestrian safety as we have had two pedestrian deaths in 2025. This clearly has not had the intended impact. We believe increased pedestrian crossings and safer, more accessible crossings will better result in in the intended outcomes of the HSIP. We believe making it more difficult to cross will not help pedestrian safety in the area.
Do I need, and I guess I'm wondering if I should add an action item there or not, but I think that's fine. Third issue would be after the period or after the bullet point for mountain view drive safety improvements, just add the CAC recognizes the work that is being done and encourages continued investment in this project. And then the fourth change, the fourth amendment or part of this amendment would be the DOT should also make the chief engineers lane directive analysis of lane reductions public, I believe. Is that, does that cover it, Dan or Nancy, did you have a better way of kind of stating that?
Yeah, I was just gonna say that the mountain view drive bullet should actually just be moved out because the par that that whole, that section right there says that DOT needs to fund the lane drop projects that previously programmed in the HSIP plan, which are now anticipated for FY 27 Mountain View Drive is underway. It doesn't have any funding shown in the TIP for 2027. So it's confusing having it in there. So it should be its own thing.
My apologies then. Yeah, I would, I would just say then I, I'll change that third, the third amendment to just say the CAC recognizes and, and encourages the mountain view drive safety improvements to continue. And that'll be a separate line after the bullet points. And then the last thing, the last thing would be DOT or CAC requests that DOT&PF make the lane reduction analysis conducted for the above projects public. Just full stop. I think that covers it. Yeah, so I'll put that out as the amendment and, and, and, and yeah.
Okay, sure. Okay. Then that's a fifth part of my amendment that I'll put forward, which is that everything up to like the, from the AMATS work session on HSIP da da da to where, to where it says the DOT&PF. We will delete everything up to DOT&PF and, and we can write in its place the CAC therefore submits the following comment on and then DOT&PF revised HSIP plan from January, 2026.
Yeah, the, the Department of Transportation and pf needs to fund the lane drop projects. Just as a general, you know, we, we need good efficient movement of vehicle traffic to and from the Seward Highway to the Glen Highway and that the lane reductions is gonna impede the efficient flow of traffic. And until there is a project that, you know, enhances that connection, we shouldn't, should not be reducing the lane at this point, at this time. So I guess it is a general, I I'll be voting against the, the letter.
Hi. Thank you. I wouldn't, if I may respond to that, I, I wholeheartedly disagree with that analysis, both in the Gambell street redevelopment project where we hired Kittelson to do a lane reduction analysis of traffic flow, which proved that all of the inputs into Gambell Street, at least I didn't see one for Ingra, demonstrated that there's enough capacity in three lanes to handle all of the inputs onto that road. And then I'm assuming also in the analysis that has not been made public for these lane reduction that are, you know, which is outlined in our letter. You know, I haven't seen anything to demonstrate that there is not enough capacity to, to handle it. Both the Pell, the Seward to Glenn PEL's analysis as well demonstrated that lane reductions can happen now without negatively impacting traffic flows. So yeah, I, I completely disagree with Chuck's premise, and I think I've got data to demonstrate that I'm right.
So, and yeah, if there was, if these, if these land reduction analysis had been made public, you know, we'd have a better idea of whether or not kind of the other work that's been done is correct. But all the work done so far, both by the Seward to Glenn PEL and by the Gamble Street redevelopment project, have demonstrated that there would be no impact, like outside of maybe a 32nd delay in traffic on, at peak flows coming in on, I believe fifth and sixth and fifth and sixth aren't even part of the projects that are considered in this letter. So I will be voting for this letter.
They're called in the, on HSIP. They're pedestrian barriers. And, and the issue there really is that the, the, the proposed barrier goes from, from Karluk all the way to, let's see, I can't, I believe it's all the way to, it's either Reeve or, I mean, it's a really long way that we're expecting people to walk if they need to get across, you know, I mean, the fact that there's not more crossings that are safe is really the, you know, kind of what the issue is. And what I've, what I've, in my experience with this population, especially that are crossing in that area, you know, they're trying to get to like the, the convenience store across the street from basically there's a homeless encampment there and, you know, kind of having a barrier there is probably going to, you know, just result in more people trying to find ways through it, which means more people kind of on the street for longer. You know, I just don't believe like a real analysis of the, the pedestrian use was factored into, into the design of that project. And I, I mean, I put that in my comments on the HSIP, but, or on the actual project itself.
I guess my only concern is, is there, you know, there's a, we have an issue with people crossing across and additional walkways would improve the overall situation, but the barriers are meant to mitigate for people crossing over wherever. Are they perfect? Are they ugly? Yes. But they're still meant to mitigate, and they agreed. They probably don't, of course they don't solve everything, but it's still some level of mitigating. 'cause even if we had walkways additional places, which would help definitely improve the issue, I still think it's likely that people are going to cross wherever they can at the easiest spot. So the, I guess that's my one concern is I, I, I don't think it's the, the sole solution by any means, but I definitely think we are trying to mitigate a problem that has no good solutions. And I hate to take such a hard position on the barriers right there. And I know they're not very,
I believe I, I appreciate that, Matt, and I believe I've softened, I mean, the, the way I wrote it was the CAC opposes the use of pedestrian barriers as a first solution to pedestrian safety. You know, I mean, basically the, I mean, I, I, you know, I've been on the project website for the fifth and sixth pedestrian barriers, and I, I didn't see anything in there about increasing lane crossing or increasing crossings, you know, I mean, it was, I don't believe it was ever considered. And I guess that's, that's really kind of the issue that I'm taking up is like, their first answer is, oh, we need, we need an aggressive pedestrian barrier. And so, yeah, I, I believe the wording really kind of achieves that compromise. But, you know, I'm open to alternative wording if you want. It's
Are you, well, I pick, I would just say I, I think that the la I think the language is, is, is, is appropriate. It wouldn't mean that there wouldn't be any pedestrian barriers, but if they're, you know, first we're looking at how do we get people safely across, and then how do we keep them from unsafely crossing? I think we've achieved that with the language.
Oh, I did. May I marked. People gone, right. Okay. So did I have, I'm looking at my, did Kathleen join us? Yes, she's here. Yes. My apologies. Kathleen, I made a little note when we were going through the agenda and I forgot to update it when, so my apologies. How do you vote Kathleen?
All right, I'm gonna share my screen. Go back to the first slide here. Alright, how we looking? Can we all see the title slide there? Great. Yep. Yeah. Okay, fantastic. Alright, so my name's Galen Jones. I'm going. Good evening everybody. I'm with the Alaska Department of Transportation and joining me is Steve Noble, who's the project manager from Dowl, who's been hired by the department to perform design, environmental and public involvement services for the project. Today we'll provide a brief update on the Tudor road interchange project. We'll talk about existing issues, public feedback, and the proposed preferred alternative that we're gonna advance into the environmental document.
So I'll start with the project area. Here we're showing the interchange location, which is at the Seward Highway and Tudor Road. It's one of the busiest corridors in Anchorage and the state serving both regional and local travel. And you'll notice nearby we have a lot of parks and other sort of community resources trails. We got Fish Creek going through there. But you know, really most notable is the Hele Louise McDowell Sanctuary, which is up to the northeast corner of the interchange at shown as number one. And I don't mean just most important overall, but I mean, it's just the closest to the project.
So the purpose of the project really is we got three sort of main categories here. We'll start with the bridge. So the bridge is aging. We're gonna replace that. We wanna increase the vertical clearance on the bridge or over the highway that'll mitigate bridge strikes, which we, we all know this bridge has been hit before. And then we're gonna widen the bridge to accommodate the needs of all the different user groups, so vehicles and non-motorized users. And then while doing so, we want to take this opportunity to improve traffic flow, reduce crash risk for everybody, and reduce vehicle queuing. And then in terms of active transportation users, we wanna wide enhance the facilities on the bridge, and we wanna improve safety and connectivity down acro along Tudor Road over the Seward Highway. So we'll talk about project funding here for a minute. So we got a combination of state and federal funding for the preliminary design and environmental document. It's mostly federal funding, but to get the project started earlier on, we did get a little bit of state funding to get that started. And then future project phases, such as final design, right of way acquisition, if it's needed, we're not sure about that yet. Utility, relocation and construction, those will all be federally funded.
So here's the schedule. Right now we're doing public involvement and then we're in this preliminary design and environmental stage, the orange line. So you know about the first quarter of 2026. We'll wrap that up later this year when we have an approved environmental document. And then we'll move into final design. So that's the red line, and then we'll do environmental permitting and then right of way acquisition if that's needed. And also work on utility agreements with utility companies at that time. And then we'll roll into construction hopefully by summer of 2029. And it should last a couple seasons.
So we'll talk a little bit about the existing interchange conditions. So, you know, why, why is there, why are we doing a project here? So, and then what, you know, what are the conditions that help inform the decisions we're gonna make? So Seward Highway, we got roughly 50,000 vehicles per day quite a bit. And then on Tudor Road, over 36,000 vehicles per day as well. So quite a bit of traffic, especially compared to other areas in the state, in, in the city. So it's a, it is a pretty old type of interchange that is really not contemporary anymore. It's, it's, it's from the 1970s and it's a diamond interchange. We'll talk a little bit more about that later, but it's a compressed diamond, which is not a very efficient or common interchange type. And then the non-motorized facilities along the bridge are super narrow. There's no separation between vehicles. You know, everybody that's crossed this bridge knows that it's not a comfortable crossing. And so that's one of the major things we're gonna improve with this project. And then also the, the, the crossings across Tudor Road and the ramps can also be challenging.
A little bit more background, you know, there was a AMATS corridor study this, this established Tudor road as a, you know, a major connection in Anchorage. So, you know, we all, we all know that. And then midtown congestion relief PE study in 2020 identified this as one of the most congestion and crash prone locations in Alaska. And, you know, recommended the improvements that we're embarking on now. So the 36th Avenue interchange, which is also a project that's in design is nearby. We just wanted to let you know we are coordinating the Tudor Road interchange design with the 36th Avenue interchange. So a couple of highlights on, you know, how that integrates are shown on this slide. So just wanted to mention that that 36th Avenue interchange design does include north direct northbound connection between Tudor Road and 36th Avenue. So you won't have to get onto the Seward Highway and then back off, it'll just be that direct connection.
And then that project's also proposing non-motorized pathways. So shared use pathways between 36th and Tudor on both sides. Those are shown as the orange lines on the slide. And then currently the design has braided ramps and they're down near Tudor Road, which means that the Tudor Road ramps on the north side of Tudor Road that go onto the Seward Highway on and off of the Seward Highway, will go over the 36th Avenue ramps with a bridge structure. And then just wanted to let you know that the construction for 36 interchanges would be, is anticipated after the Tudor Road interchange is built.
So we talked a little bit about how this is a compressed diamond. It's really an old des type of design. It was built in the seventies here at this interchange, but it's from the fifties and sixties. It's a media capacity, the signalize intersections, they're not close enough to really be efficient and they're not far enough away from each other to be efficient. So they're in this weird, awkward phase, only 475 feet apart. You know, it poses lots of issues. It's difficult to coordinate the signals, the traffic platoons break down and kind of spread out between them, so it makes it less efficient. And then the, the, the angles on the ramps can be especially problematic for large trucks. So, and then we talked about how the overhead clearance is not tall enough over the Seward Highway. So we got active active transportation facilities and in the area, and here are some considerations.
So, you know, the 36th Avenue interchange is proposing that connection along both sides, which is a much needed network connection that's in the dashed orange lines there. We talked to already about the narrow facilities on the bridge. We got unmarked crosswalks over to the east on near MacInness and Shelikof Street. That's, that's particularly a large problem because there are bus stops over in the area without adequate facilities crossing facilities at those locations. You know, we're gonna fix up the curb ramps and things like that to meet a DA standards and then there can be challenging crosswalks.
So the safety performance there, there have been a number of fatalities and major injuries here, but I just wanted to highlight on this slide that these three intersections that we're showing are, they have assigned crash rates and they're all at or above the statewide average for their respective types of, of intersections. So, you know, just highlighting the need for safety improvements here. And then, you know, you can see crash clusters also at MacInness Street and Shelikof Street, if you can see my mouse. So MacInness and Shelikof. So a couple of views just looking at some of the operational issues on Tudor Road at the interchange there. So, you know, a lot of times we'll see queuing that goes through the intersection. Can't really, it's not really shown here, but a major problem could be queuing that goes through these intersections and then it blocks the other turning movements and then that just sort of compounds with the congestion.
So a little bit about the alternatives analysis. So we look at four different types of interchanges in our alternatives analysis. So there's a single point interchange, the diverging diamond interchange, the displaced left turn interchange, and the, the, the last one we'll talk about later, but it's the tight diamond interchange, so it's similar to what's there now. It's just a tighter form. So we did a compatibility assessment. I'm not gonna go through every single little one, but kind of the, we looked at different parameters on the left side and then compared it with each of the interchange forms. And you can see, so blue is optimal, how it performed, and then orange is fair and red is it performed the lowest in terms of the, the, the context of this project. So, you know, as you can see, the tight diamond performed the best overall out of these different interchange forms. But you know, we looked at maintenance, constructability compatibility with 36th avenue interchange ramp to ramp movements, which are important 'cause of the frontage roads and to the south. And then active transportation, suitability how big the footprint was, you know, if it was gonna require a ride of way, and then how much capacity it had so we could perform, improve those operations because traffic has grown substantially since the interchange was built in the seventies. We don't, we're not really expecting much growth from now, but it has grown substantially since the interchange was first built.
We had an interchange workshop and an open house to present all of these alternatives and gather feedback. So, you know, we, we showed, we talked about the purpose of need, but we got a lot of good feedback. I'm not gonna go through every single one, probably getting short on time here, but you know, just a lot of things we've talked about already in the presentation were brought up at by the public and stakeholders here, you know, regarding safety, pedestrian non and non-motorized comfort, things like that. So heard a lot about that. So this is the preferred alternative, which is we're advancing into the environmental review stage and it is the tight diamond. So it's, as you can see, it's similar to what's there now, but we can run the interchange signalization a lot more efficiently. We'll widen the bridge to have a lot wider pedestrian facilities across the bridge and then make other improvements, you know, for operations and safety as we go. So that's the presentation and happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Yeah. Just a real quick question. I've, I've got a kind of long-term interest in seeing a direct connection between the Seward Highway and International. I've been told by engineers in the past that there's not enough room because of the size of the interchanges at Tudor and at Dowling to kind of fit a connection to International Inn. And I'm wondering if, if this project would have any impact on that? And if you could speak to that at all.
Yeah, that connection is a, it's a really interesting idea and it, and it probably have a lot of benefits, but I, I'll just say that this project isn't going to preclude any sort of potential future connection for the Seward Highway to international. And because of the close spacing, you're right, you know, any sort of interchange at where international intersex, the frontage road there on the west side would not be able to be, you know, have, have full access in every direction. So it might be similar to maybe the 76th interchange where, or, or Diamond in Minnesota or 100th of Minnesota where there's sort of like a, a split diamond situation where you don't have access in every direction but you, so you might have to get off on a, one of the interchanges of the north and south to then have access. So, but that would all get figured out at the time. But nothing that we're doing here would impact the ability to have the most and best access for a future interchange at international.
That's a great question. So we're currently wrapping up that alternatives analysis memo. I, I received a draft and made comments and do's finalizing that and we'll post that on the website pretty soon here. I, I would imagine within the next week or two. That should be up.
Okay, and with that we'll move to six B letter from FHWA and letter from Alaska DOT on MPO authority. So if, I think I heard context was requesting staffs interpretation of it was pretty long and technical letter, it was kind of a staff what this means or what the interpretation or what implications, I dunno if Christine or Aaron,
This is Nancy through the chair. So my understanding is that FHWA has issued a, an opinion letter that says that AMATS is the final arbiter of projects on the national highway system or in general all projects within its MPO boundary. And you know, I've heard at the recent plan PC meeting that you know, DOT disagrees with that. So where, where does that leave us? What is going to be the process for, for decisions, final decisions where DOT and AMATS disagree AMATS policy committee disagree?
Well, where that leaves us is just where we're at right now, which is we continue forward with our process as outlined in the federal regulations. So if there is a back and forth between DOT and FHWA on that, we'll just have to wait for that to be finalized. But we're still moving forward with our tip and our MTP as we are required. So we don't have anything more than the two letters that we posted on the agenda.
This is Bob French. I guess I, could you say a little bit more about the, the conflict and that did come up. I'm not sure that I have all of the, a good understanding of where it is that AMS and FHWA have and DOT have, I guess had differing interpretations of the regulations here.
Well, I just, I where, where does that leave the Safer Steward Highway project, which still extends from into the AM a, you know, within with inside the Ammas boundary and it's not on the MTP, so AM a S isn't consenting to it, but DOT is still forwarding an environmental assessment that includes that part of the project. Where does it leave that? Does AMMAS have any, I guess Ammas isn't gonna take any action as Aaron said, but you know what, if you can tell us anything about where that project stands as a result of this disagreement on authority, I'd like to hear.
Well, as was mentioned at the policy committee for the Safe for Seward specifically right now, that can, that project is apparently be considered non-par, which is non-participating. So they don't get federal participation on the funding that they've spent to date until it gets put into the MTP and OR tip. So outside that, I don't have anything else. It would have to be DOT, probably the commissioner's office that would speak on where they're at with that project.
Yep. Hello everybody. So quick update for you and a timeline for this update. So since we last met, we are now doing a minor update to this MTP that is due to the federal requirement to have an updated MTP with the approved boundary from the 2020 census by the end of the year, I believe December 28th is the actual date. So that has sped up our process significantly. So with this minor update, we are going to be completing a model run in June with updated socioeconomic information as well as projects that the M-O-A-D-O-T PF and AMS have put are wanting to put into there. We are having a work session in May, the third week of May. The date is yet to be set, but during that work session, the parties involved will decide what projects will go into this update with the available funding. As I think I mentioned in the last, in the last meeting that I partook in that this update was keeping the projects in already that were going to be there.
So this isn't a huge change to what we were already planning in June and July. Between June and July we'll have our first workshop, there'll be one public workshop, there will be one held in Anchorage, one held in Eagle River in August, we'll have our draft plan to the TAC and PC with hopes of releasing that plan for 45 day public comment period in September. The second workshop with between Anchorage and Eagle River Chu will happen in September. And then the final plan will be taken to the committees in November for approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Rhiannon, I I had a question with just community councils and CIP projects, so I understand we have a, a large queue of projects that's likely to feed this next MTP amendment, but just question on the, the community councils, when they submit their CIP projects, do you have any context of it, of there, if there's a workflow or a process that ever puts those projects in the, the queue,
I can't speak on their end about their, their process for those actual CIP request nominations. We do get a list from PEPM and E that has essentially been parsed down to regionally significant projects. And those are gonna be part of the discussion in this upcoming work session about what's going to be included. Typically, if they're not being federally funded and they're not regionally significant, we don't need to include them in in the MTP. So we'll be working through that for this round.
Yeah, for the last MTP update, that's what we do is we, you know, when we do our nomination process, which is not what we're doing for this go around 'cause of the short timeline, we look for the CIP projects that are on the community council list or no, sorry, not CIP projects, but the projects on the community council list and we take those and include those as part of our process.
No, we are not doing a project nomination process this go round. We have a tight timeline. We have to have this MTP done by December of this year. So it is gonna be a much tighter timeline. So we're gonna be working off the existing project lists and any new ones that committee members want to add. And by committee members we say TAC and policy committee. Yep.
So going forward, we're actually going to set up, and again, I'm not sure how this is gonna work with the CIP and because that's theirs, but we're setting up a rolling call for project nominations. We're working through that right now where we'll have a page or a section on our webpage where people can go interact with a map or write in their suggestions and we will keep a running tab and list of projects so when the next update comes around, we will have things to pull from. And so people don't have to panic as well if they miss the period to, to, to give a project. So that's the plan going forward.
All right. So we're on just to, just to make sure we're still on six C. Okay. And then, yeah, is there any, are are there any other mission questions or comments on that? Okay, hearing none. Are there any public comments? Hearing none. Thank you guys for the update. Next issue is the funding tip amendment process. I don't know who's gonna, who wants to take that on?
Yes, at various TAC or PC meetings that I have listened in on. There's been comment about the bottlenecks and getting projects out actually started and I remember it from one meeting and I did not go back and, and listen to the minutes, but from one meeting Erin mentioned that, you know, there was a growing, I guess you'd say pool of funds that had not been able to go out. I believe this had happened a couple of quarters or a couple of years in a row. And so I wanted to hear just as a general point of information, a little bit more about what is happening, whether there are bottlenecks that are causing projects, funds to go unspent and to roll forward. And then if there is this pool of money, what is the process for reallocating it and how can the public be effectively involved?
Because I don't, I don't know, you know, when these tip amendments are going to come up and then I have trouble getting community council attention on them. In fact the community councils that I'm not a member of in my district seem to show no interest at all. So anyway, I'm trying to figure out that those, those things is there, is there a pool of money that's accumulating because of it can't be spent on time and then does this precipitate amendments and if we're into a lot of amendments, how can the public be more effectively apprised and involved in commenting on those?
So we have one amendment a year for the tip and it goes out for public comments starting in January. That is our schedule staff starts working on it in October. It comes before the committees in December for release and it'll go out for public comments starting in January. In terms of the pool of funding that's available, yes there is funding that is carried forward from year to year due to project slips that are happening. The projects are slipping and have been for a couple years now and a lot of it is due to the limited staffing at the Department of Transportation. Department of Transportation is required to do all of these projects through the process. And so we're dependent upon them to keep them moving forward. There are efforts underway right now to try and get stuff moving forward by having the municipality take over some of the projects and helping with that process.
But that is still underway right now in terms of getting the funding reallocated. That is a decision that's made by the technical advisory committee and policy committee through the tip amendment or admin mod process. And typically it's staff's recommendation that comes forward based on the needs for existing projects. And if there are new projects that need to be added to help fill in that gap, then we bring those forward as part of the amendment process so the public can be involved when we put it out for public comment or when we bring it forward to the committees individually.
Great, thank you. Are there any questions for Aaron? Okay, I guess I don't hear any, I, I would note that, you know, we do find ourselves as commission members always thinking that a project should be added to the tip and that, you know, kind of like this process is really, you know, there's always the question of what do you want to remove in order to add your project. And so this is kind of the process that we can get in there with. But thank you Aaron and thank you Nancy for bringing that forward. Next issue we're on six e coordination between AMAs and the MOA on infrastructure funding. Who came forward with that issue? I guess there's a, a resolution in front of the I did. Okay, great. Nancy, do you wanna take that on?
Yeah, this resulted from my awareness of the last minute laid on the table Administ assembly resolution 2020 6 0 0 8 0 I believe it was, it was a request to the legislature from the assembly for $30 million in infrastructure funding intended to accelerate residential development. And it didn't pertain, I mean it didn't specify, it mentioned in the body of the resolution, a couple of projects and I can't remember exactly what they were, but then attached was a list of about five or six projects divided up by Assembly District. And in looking at them, it occurred to me that they don't follow the municipal priority for infill and redevelopment and for transportation efficiency. For example, in my district, which I'm most familiar with, it mentioned a hundred and a big two big parcels, like 140 acres in Bear Valley and some smaller parcel like, I don't know, 30 acres or something like that in upper Potter Valley.
And if you're familiar with this end of town, those are really far flung and it would take, I don't, I don't know, you know, if you put in subdivision roads for those parcels, you still have several miles of substandard steep dirt roads or roads with no shoulders. It just puts and then, you know, rabbit Creek isn't going to be updated until after 31 because it's in the illustrative. It just makes no sense to me that, you know, the muni might get funding for infrastructure in places where it would put a lot of pressure on other parts of the transportation infrastructure. So my question is, is am a s giving any input to the assembly and trying to ensure, you know, efficient, multimodal safety oriented investments or not? And if, if not, then you know, it's not too late. The money hasn't been approved yet. But I'm just wondering, it seems like Amat should be involved in this if there's a potential windfall.
Yeah, so no, AMS has not provided any input to this. AMS has not been coordinated with on this and it's mostly focused on the housing aspect of things and for like utilities and other things I believe so I, I don't have anything for you. I would recommend that if you have questions or comments about it, that you reach out to the project sponsor who I think was the chair of the assembly chair constant. Well
Thank you. And I would, I would, I would point out too that chair constant is done as of like nine o'clock this evening. So, alright, let's see here. Getting back, do we need to give, is there any members of the other members of the community or or of the commission that wish to speak to this issue? Okay, hearing none. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak to this issue and hearing none. Great. We're open to section seven committee comments. Anyone have anything they wanna bring up that we haven't covered so far? And Matt, if your internet's back, I'd be more than thrilled for you to take back over. So
It's weird right when I passed it on my internet started working great, but I was like, you know what, I don't wanna say anything, I'm just gonna jinx it. Yep. So no, you did a great job committee comments. I think we talked about a couple of items that are gonna be upcoming. Is there anything else? This would be a great time to bring up, not hearing any, so we'll move to public comment. Are there any members of the public wishing to address the board not hearing any? Can I get a motion to, oh, oh, sorry.
Before you adjourn, I was just, just to note, your next committee meeting is July 28th and I believe in January you guys talked about maybe wanting to have one where in person was an option. So one a year. I could try to make that one, make the room available on that one if you would like just something I was gonna maybe just make that a hybrid meeting and try to get, I believe we can still be in that room after hours. We just have to set something up with security. If the committee, that would be amazing. He's interested in that.
Yeah, I think that would be at least once a year right there. Actually I was just talking about that today. Wasn't sure if we were gonna be actually doing that or not. So that's really cool to hear you say that. And Christine, so after this meeting, the workflow will be sent out and the, some type of notice about bylaws will be sent out
Quick question if I may do the chair. Yeah, go ahead. Could maybe Christine could send out a poll and see how many people would be likely to be in town on just summers are busy, so would July or would our fall meeting be more likely for in person attendance? Might be worth asking.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.