August 05, 2022 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM
Thanks, Paul, does anyone have any questions about the minutes or a need for a clarification hearing? None. We'll go keep moving right ahead. The first item for, is that kind of the report of the board share? Very, very brief report, basically just kind of getting back on my feet after trying to cut my finger off and you all remember the exploding sewer out in front of our house. So just catching up on being a one-person shop here. So there's definitely like to spend a little bit more time on some of these items, but it's just not possible, especially on short notice. So I will keep it at that. And if there are any board members, if you would like to, you have any information for the, for the board or to go to the public, you'd like to bring forward now would be a time. And I would just remind everyone to please just raise that goofy little hand so that I can call on you and we can all be hurt. So I would start and I see Wanetta has her hand up.
Thank you, Shirley. Well, I'm glad everybody's sort of in one piece still and send out words of caution to the rest of us to stay healthy. One thing that became apparent to me since the last meeting is that there's a profound amount of information about the IIJA funding and particularly with regard to the Alaska Marine highway. And I really think that it's in the best interest of the system. Obviously, some of the federal guidance is just coming out, but I think there's a vacuum that exists now between when the act was passed and how the money is going to be put on the street and how it might be programmed within the state. And so I just think that I haven't looked on the OMB website, but perhaps there are some informational pages that could be added to an AMHS and DOT in general, to identify how the funds are likely to be used. And the timing of that. And I, I think that would hopefully alleviate the vacuum that exists and the lack of information and the narratives that are being developed in people's minds that are not based in fact, thank you.
Yeah. Thank you. And I believe that we asked James mark, he was going to put together a short white paper, a list of summaries of kind of, exactly where we were on that. We had some kind of ugly surprises at the last meeting, and that definitely changes some of the things that are on our short-term plan. We'll be talking about it later. And there was something else that we'd asked as well, but I won't figure that out later, Mr. Carpenter.
Thank you, Madam chair, a couple of things there. First of all, Ed, thank nice to meet you. Likewise, welcome to the team, and to assure Wanetta, I hate to hear that there's a vacuum. We're trying to be very actually communicative in all our efforts regarding our STIP amendment. We are reaching out to communities and AML, and really trying to get the messaging out there on our program. So we'll certainly amp that effort up, because we're really trying to make sure it's a big deal for us and we're trying to be very inclusive on the Marine highway side. I would say that there are quite a few things to figure out still. So you're maybe not hearing messaging there. You're right. Some of the NOFO just came out at the rural fair. The NOFO came out on the rural ferry program, which is quite challenging to work.
You know, we're working through how that actually affects our most recent budget past and planning how to integrate it into ours, all our efforts. For example, just yesterday information came out about, our ferryboat discretionary pot of money. It's almost, I wouldn't say doubled, but it's up a lot, maybe even a little more than we expected. And you know, that's just another piece of a giant puzzle of funding that we're trying to put together for all these needs we have at the Marine highway system. So I'll stop talking there.
Sure. We have a handful of people called in. If anybody would like to participate in public comment, you can press star three and we will activate the call for you. We'll hold on just for a minute to see if anybody raises their hand. Okay. I see someone from phone number that ends in four, three, nine, three. I'm gonna go ahead and unmute you.
I'm sorry again, Aaron. He can hear you now. Can you hear me? My name is Aaron Brakel. Pretty much a lifetime general resident. I work with the Southeast Alaska conservation council and I just, I didn't know if this was timing, appropriate, timing to speak with regard to cascade point. I would that the Southeast conservation council does not support the construction of a ferry terminal at cascade point. It won't benefit the environment, in berner's bay. And we see that there are really significant problems with having a ferry terminal at the far end of the Juneau road. And keeping that location in Auke bay is far better. Perhaps pursuing something like a battery feeder fair between Haynes and Skyway would really solve some of the potential issues with the 12 turnaround time. But we strongly feel that keeping the Marine highway terminal all located at Auke bay is the best way for the community to move forward. Accessing the echo code location is, is just gonna be problematic for a number of reasons. And while it may benefit gold belt corporation to construct a dock there, it's not in the Alaska Marine highway's long-term best interest. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and then go right into new business. We have just one item under new item under old per our discussion at our last meeting. And this was the draft stip amendment number four, comments for review by the board. One thing that we did hear loud and clear when we talked about this, the process is that federal highway funder money funders, you know, really look to make sure to see that there's support for projects. So individual support is always good as well. I know norm has written in on behalf of Pelican and we talked about this and I'd suggested that it might be, it was a good idea for the board to weigh in on this process. And when I sent that email out to, you all just kind of a reminder that you know, the steps, it's always an involving document and I, if it's not on the step, it has no chance for the federal funding.
Thanks, is she back on the list now? Is she being proposed to the list because of the new funding that's available, that this was a project that would have helped AMHS be more efficient on that route with both cost and service, but it just really wasn't financially doable? Deputy Commissioner.
I think this is another terminal development we're exploring again, revisiting you're right. A lot of what we did in amendment four was to get things itemized out so we can pursue grant funding because there was a requirement they are listed in the stip to pursue the grant funding. So we were thinking let's brain brainstorm things we want to pursue evaluating. And then if we indeed want to go after grant funding, it was included so that was the goal. So we're just starting to reevaluate that, that new south Tongass idea to revisit it. So that's kind of the idea why it's in there now, I would say.
Okay. Thank you. I mean, it does sound like there very well could be some efficiencies for operation and costs there. So again, the reason that I did not put that in there is we'd never even seen it. So we didn't know it was an option. If there's no objection from the board, that would be something that could be listed as supported to be in the stip to give it the opportunity to go through that further review and possible grant funding.
Yeah, I can third that too. I agree. That's a good idea. But also, if you look at the report in the short term we haven't got into this and you talk about the grading that they gave our terminals. I forget where that is just in Southeast. I'd have to get these ratings explained to me when we start moving forward, but
You know, you're talking about things that are a nine, nine being the best. And a lot of them that are, I would say, 70% taken care of. So again, we're talking about building new things, and building new things takes money to upkeep them. And we're not doing a good job of that now. So I don't see how, I mean, we need to talk about it, but adding more to the list right now to me is not the direction we need to be going. We need to figure out how to make what we have run more smoothly. Thank you.
One of the challenges is that there are usually way more projects than there is funding available. That may not necessarily be as much the case this year as in years past. But I mean, and projects go through stage gates where there's feasibility, and then it could or could not move forward. But I guess I would just concur with the idea that more on the list is sometimes proven to be problematic and can pull funding away from other higher-priority projects. And granted there is one commenter among many, and the shuffling process generally takes place at statewide planning with,
Okay. I agree. Thank you. I think we all agree on that one add, did you wanna put a bow on the ACF getting them into service and the docs? Katherine, you made some changes to the language there and we will definitely start there. Definitely want to make it supportive.
Oh, okay. Thank you. I did see that. So last go around. Does anyone have any questions about the proposed amendments, the number four amendments to the stip before the AMHS projects? I think we're all on the same page. We will go ahead then. If that's alright with everyone, I don't see any hands waving saying no to old business. And this was the draft of a short-term plan, which will need to connect very stringently to long-term goals. And, and I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Katherine
Yes. This is where we were hoping our team could kind of pick up the slack for Katherine a bit. We were kind of thinking if you didn't have direction necessarily on how you'd like to proceed with the plan itself, that we could talk about the table of contents, and maybe just hit each of the items on a high level and to get the general feel of what we're trying to accomplish before we drill down into anything further. Then if there's things the board see are missing, or maybe things that shouldn't be on here that we could proceed, kind of like that, that would be acceptable.
I think it would, I think it might help too. And bear with me folks, cuz we do have some time. Can we go to page three, not just the introduction because there are some things there and captain Hillard brought this up earlier when he mentioned the purpose of the AMHS short-term plan? I thought you made real good sense there that we have to remember the purpose of this plan. It's to describe how we get to elements of the long-term plan and we've yet to sit down and really lay out a framework of what a long-term plan is. We've got other systems, Washington state ferry has done, and what BC ferries have done. We have sent it out an email, which of course can't find right now, laying out the basics of items that should be in a long-term plan.
But we also know that it's gonna have to include recommendations for the operating and capital budgets fairly quickly to submit to the legislature. And they are also going to want descriptions of the Skiller and gaps in the board. And we're just going to have to have that ready for the legislature. So in looking at this, if we can go to page five where it really just starts to get in the need, it's deliberative and it talks about what we have now. You know, what jumps out at me is, it says that AMHS includes nine active ferries serving 35 points. Well, we don't, we've got seven active ferries hub and county. And we have no idea when they will be. There are several elements in here that need updating, which was kind of the conversation we had before with updating the modernization plan. Because since we started talking in February, things have changed and there are several things on here that have changed, as Wanetta pointed out the overview of the IIJA and short-term setting opportunities. Those are completely different than what's on this page. So some information we just got at the last meeting, so this definitely needs to be updated and understood.
I'm just gonna expand on, on your directions here. So we're gonna take 6 through 17 and anybody on the board. Should we should comment, make questions, make requests for more information, anything we need, anything that you might need so we can come through and put pages six to 17 possibly to bed at our next meeting. And move ahead. Is that correct?
Yeah, I'm sure I like the discussion about make sure we're a short term plan cognize, the long term plan that's compatible and not consistent. And, and so I, I'd also suggest that we look at the long term plan over the next week or two, we're going this decision because then I wanna go 180 out from the long term plan, unless we also say the long term plan, we don't agree with you. I guess, but if the long term plan makes sense, then the short term plan should be aligned with that. You know, they could be diametrically a Pope, which doesn't make any sense. At that point, we got a conflict, which maybe because we don't think long term plan's right. But I think at the end of the day, we probably need to be line to some degree. So at least I'm gonna pay attention to that. The long term plan, then I should make sure that the short term plan helps, helps us get there. So that that's kind my 2 cents. I think that discussion we had earlier about the long term plan makes a lot sense.
Great point Captain Page. One portion here is actually tie in the short term plans goals to the long term plan. Our planning division is doing a lot of work right now to create the long term plan update. Well, actually there's one doesn't exist. So we're creating the long-term plan, but it's a much bigger process. And, we have some high level identified values and goals already that we're gonna try and, blend into this short term planning effort. So they are aligned, I guess, just like what you were saying.
Yeah. So there's actually 12 planning plans ongoing at this at this time that are in some ways going to connect with our plan. But we we've been talking about putting together a long term plan of simply elements for several meetings, just to get something up on the screen, you can look at, maybe it's just vessel modernization, maybe it's terminal, modernizations, maybe it's performance measures, levels of service, customer satisfaction, safety, financial stability, all of these things and then start placing these short term elements will all fit under there. So I think, we're a little behind the eight hole on doing that. And, and I hope we get back to that.
I'm not going to change directions, but talk about a little bit about operation here and about like cascade code point in going forward. What they'd like to do based on what I know the Lacante is too small. It does not meet the service out of Juneau, whether going up to Haines and Skagway way or out to who and Gustav and the things going forward. Because one of the questions coming up is when do we retire the Lacante and the Aurora? The Malaspena was put on the Lynn canal run back in. I wanna say 2009 and ran for three years and ran pretty much 70% full.
Many people tie up the boat, you know what routes do they run? What's number one, is it safety or is it reliability under reliability? Is it reliability for ferries? Is it reliability for vessels? We just need to walk ourselves through that because we have not done that. And, and we all, I think we all really need to, so yes, I will take a stab at it. And again, I would encourage all board members go and look at the plan, BC fairs, their last business plan and the Washington state, their plan as well, even though it's a service restoration plan, there's some good elements in there that we have to look at and just come back and have some ideas. And if you have questions or if you have ideas in the next week, shoot them to me, let's make sure that we get something to Katherine in a week so she can look at it and understand it.
Shouldn't be much. We're not asking you to do all to do work on this. We're just asking for a chance for us to sit down and say, what we think is the most are important elements of the long range plan and that we're going to be looking for those elements to sit into all these other plans that are being put together by things we have absolutely no control over, but we're doing it in cooperation with, and I know that sounds muddy because it is muddy. But until we sit down from a business side, a grow operation side, what are the elements of that you think that make a sustainable, healthy system, you know, captain Hillard what do you see from your perspective is most important? Let's get them down on paper and just stop throwing darts at the wall. Because that's what I feel like I'm doing. I don't wanna do that. So are we in agreement for very focused agenda next meeting?
No, I was just gonna say, I'm okay with the, that game plan. I think this is tremendous amount of information that the staff is working 40 hours a week and a whole bunch of staff are doing that. So we're really in the business of vetting some of these ideas and fresher perspective and we see something they didn't quite catch perhaps, maybe that they might revisit because our input, because they're looking from a different color lenses, that's great, but we're never gonna get in depth as far as they ever get. We're not gonna get there. This will add some value, having a fresher perspective and maybe sometimes seeing the force from the trees, or at least given endorsements. So there's a fresh perspective saying, yep, they're right on the right mark. So strategic plan, the long term plan is not gonna be very prescriptive.
It's gonna be more goal oriented, but that's okay. It's good to know that and say, that sounds good. And does this support that or you don't? I don't agree that long term plan. So I think starting what we're talking about next week sounds like a good way to just focus on and do some of our vet role, so to speak and look at things. And then if we have, we don't have a good enough information. Maybe we make more decisions, maybe just someone give us more information so we can make a better informed decision. You know, we're really looking at the executive summary reports versus entirety report and get right down to anyway. I think let, I like a game plan. I'm good. And take my hands down.
I just looked at it the last couple days and I'm gonna agree with Carpenter there too, but that's part of why I'm making a motion to put this on the agenda for our next meeting is that gives us time for everybody to read this, everybody to ask questions, we should be able to tackle 22 pages in a two hour meeting between now and the next meeting and come up with comments I'd like to see us maybe be able to, if we only got to October, I would think by the next meeting, we need to have this, this short term plan at 50 or 60%. So otherwise we're out of time. And if I'm reading that wrong, I apologize, but I think we're starting to get under a time crunch here. So I'll let you guys hash that one.
No, I agree with you. And that was the plan that was our homework for the last two weeks was to do that. So that's how I was starting this, just to go through this, these different parts of it, to look for areas where we had needed clarification or had concerns or additions that we could then come back at the next meeting and just tackle them specifically. But I don't know that that's gonna happen today.
Yeah, thank you. I, as before and deputy commissioner just said it, that this is their plan, we're gonna make recommendations on it. And I appreciate the opportunity to make some recommendations as we go through. And as they go through trying to develop what their plan is. And, but I don't wanna be forced into rush, because I don't wanna see us rush into something. And then we turn around and say, okay, well, that really wasn't what we intended to do. And so I understand the deadlines that the department has and I understand where they have to get to, but we're making recommendations. We're not writing it. And so there's a number of things within this thing that I've seen. And some of them deal with some of the information, for example, the draft DOT statewide long term plan, which are they're taking their goals as outlined in.
And I have a hard time finding that information by going online myself would be nice if the department would provide us those highlights within that are outlined in the draft DOTs. So we can compare the two and that's most referred to both on page three and on page six, I believe I also think that as we go through the short term plan, we cannot forget in lose sight of the long term plan and how it applies this short term plan. It's going to apply to the long term, and we have not taken the position on the 20 year draft modernization plan that they, that was presented to us months ago. And there's a number of different things in there that a lot of those applied to your short term plan. So I think we need to make sure that we review again the 20 year plan compared to what were written up here on the short term plan.
And I also think that at some point in time, because we don't necessarily just make recommendations on the short term plan, we will make a report to the legislature ourselves. And in that report to the legislature ourself, we're going to be referring back to what stuff we are doing and also report to them our views on, on the long term plan. And now we're going to make sure that the last Marine highway system is viable and make it makes it through the future. So all those things, I think, have to be taken into consideration as we have this discussion and look at it, I've read this short term plan that sent to us three or four times. Now I'm probably in the fourth time. Anyway, I think the amount of information here is great and gives us an idea of where the department is going, but I'm also, again, am more concerned on, they did an interface with the long term plan when we were done.
Okay. So I understand for next time, you're going to draft a framework and kind of show what that looks like for what you want to discuss on the long range plan. Then you're asking for a one page or, executive summary, which is great on elements of the short term plan. If you could perhaps specify what you'd like to focus on, we could narrow it down, we certainly have versions of that around, so it wouldn't be hard to do.
I'll resend the email because it really, and I'm not trying to be argument if I'm really not. It's just, I was really hoping just to get that modernization plan that the board got, that we looked at and read, it was easily understandable and followed to just look and take some things out that were no longer going to be happening. That kind of changed financial needs that we had. And just give it back back to us. It was just a really good document that Matt made. And I was just hoping to get that updated by Matt and sent back out. And has, I understand that elements of it are all in here somewhere, but it's just more difficult to see that. And I will resend I'll resend the, the email,
Yes. Because we've had questions. We talked about the modernization plan several times is kind of the basis of where we started with looking at long range planning and short term priorities that had to happen. And then things shifted and changed since that plan has been written. So it's just not longer, it just needed to be updated and, and clarified. That's all I'm asking for. Matt. Does that make sense to you?
Yeah, we could certainly come back with a summarized document, which includes what the capital program is looking like. It won't be the same document you're expecting, but we can work with you on what information you would like to see in a short summary. And that would be a very valuable tool.
Okay. Thanks, deputy commissioner. And before I go on it, this will look like anyone has their hands up, but I would be remiss if I didn't also welcome captain page to the am. He's probably forgotten more about planning for maritime and most elements of maritime, the maritime environment on the water and with his very long term coast guard track, and then being one of the founders, founders, and CEO of the Marine exchange, which just absolutely changed the way traffic is handled in through the bearing sea and up through the Pacific and really strengthens Marine safety. He's done more planning that anytime there's a planning document or something that had to happen with like NONAG vessels, everybody's just kinda like, okay. And using his considerable experience with strategic planning and writing planning, he's able to do that. So he's a very strong addition to this board.
He lives in Juneau. He spends most of his time on his water, even though he is kind of retired, he gets to do some things now. And I worked with him for five years on the Ellucian island risk assessment board and was very impressed with both his common sense and his ability for critical thinking and getting very swiftly from way over here to wherever it is that you know, kind of we needed to be. And it was very, very helpful. So Ed, thank you so much. I know you have a lot of things to do. You're very happy doing the things you like to do, but we really appreciate your taking the time to do this. So welcome over.
Oh, thanks for the opportunity. I hope I can contribute. I can tell you one thing for sure the Marine highway system is always in my mind and my sight because I live on the water in rock bay and I see a ferry all the time and we are both playing Dodge and TV sailing or kayaking and rowing out there in the ferry. But I always give them right away and pay post attention to rule nine and narrow channel road. What have you, but I'm a big fan highway system, all the Ferries involved in many, many years. I first came to Alaskan 7,300 coast ferry cutter, but ever since then, most of my time's probably on ferries and other ships, but so I got 50 years of maritime career and I felt maybe I contribute a little bit here in this end, but I'm a big fan of Marine highway system. And I wanted to continue to thrive and, and be well in our future. So I hope I can contribute to that effort. So thanks for the opportunity. Anyway.
It can be either partial, federal funding or full federal funding. So it's a big deal for us as we have so many items and getting it into the steps just starts to split it into a deeper review process. And, and then, and then the DOT, they actually then kind of rate them to figure out what, what are their top priorities to ask for the funding you are muted? So I was looking at, you can see that on the draft comments that I made were I went back and I looked at minute meetings from the last four meetings and my notes from the last two meetings on things we had talked about and which is why it, it says what it does. And we have not at this point or supported the cascade terminal, terminal, new terminal, and lease payments. And also the one another item, I didn't feel comfortable putting in there is, was the, oh gosh, the new south Tongass terminal.
And that's just simply, cuz we've never talked about it. And you know, when I've gone back to its first re-iteration was back in 2012 and it's gone nowhere. And, all that time, that's a fairly long amount of time for a project to not move into a step. So I thought it would be helpful. I mean, if captain Falvey or Rob or Matt can step up with a justification and background information that might be helpful for the board. Cause they might wanna include this in the letter so that's where I am on this. So I would entertain any questions or reviews or criticisms or comments or additions. And Alan has hand up,
I missed this and I didn't actually leave until this morning. And I just recently sent you a comment on the cascade point first off. I think that that's good that we do this letter. As far as the recommendations, I don't agree with you. That cascade point is not a good project. When you take the long-term view of what the Alaska Marine highway system is and how it's gonna survive in the future, I believe that shorter ferry runs and longer roads are part of the equation. And when you start looking at how some of the roads in the state of Alaska are taken care of, there's a lot of roads that are class three that don't get taken care of in the wintertime, they get close. So I don't see a problem or a negative aspect of that as far as this being a summertime only because that's your major project or your major transportation and the number of people moving back and forth.
Yes, it's gonna be expensive. Yes. It's gonna be a total adaption to make the thing work, but I believe it'll create new businesses. I think it'll create a lot of different things. That'll happen during the season that it can be running. So I hope that we don't take a negative position in this letter of the amendments. I do believe that we need to have a longer, more in-depth conversation about cascade point and in the longer future of what we want to see the ferry system should look like.
Good afternoon, everyone. I am sorry I missed the last meeting. I was out on a ship looking over the short-term draft. A couple of the items that have come that I highlighted here is the connecting that the part of the job is connecting communities that are cut off, reducing the cost of living by giving residents of smaller communities, access to lower prices, goods, and services available in larger communities. And if it says the fleet of vessel weights operates year-round. So trying not to look at this as an open mind for both going forward for a short and long-term plan. I, I want to go back to 1963 for a minute to win the talk and the Matanuka and the mal were delivered. And they put on in the workhorses, they were back in the day, how the system was set up and designed to run, which has been proven over and over and over again, that the way the, the system works really good with those.
In fact, that later on, you know, we went back and they LA the mal and, and the Matanuska so they could handle more traffic and move more goods and services. So in with Fe design and in with things, when we're moving forward here, there are many things that we can consider. You can consider designing a vessel that has better speed that could make the journey from Auke bay up to Haines, maybe get two trips in a day, there's a lot of, there's a lot of different what ifs. And I think that one thing that I'm grabbing here as being one of these board members is the amount of change that happens from meeting to meeting. And our job here is to grasp all this and try to try to throw it into a nice meter, neat ball, or nice neat paper, one called the short term plan, like on the long term plan and seeing how we can get this set up to, to move forward in a logical progression for the state and, and the people of the state I've said from the beginning coming in here that we're not satisfying the public right now, not doing the job the public wants us to do.
The short-term plan is about operating year-round and providing the service that we need. So with that being said, I think the difficulty that I've had recently, excuse me, cuz I'm sick is that we're building vessels and we're talking about building more vessels. And I want to caution you about getting away from the way the Marine highway does business. We're set up, the terminals are set up.
According to this paper, we have 33 terminals currently we're talking about adding another one. I don't know if you guys are aware of that recent landslide again in Skyway yesterday on the fourth, there's gonna be changes that need to occur up there based on that, Skagway wants to move our terminal now, but their long-term planning. So, it's a balance of trying to figure out what's best. And I think that we've done a great job and I think the information is there. And I would like to see us keep moving forward with this short-term plan and come up with something that we can present to the public to see if we have the support. There have been many studies on the Marine highway. It's proven through these studies that, that we provide a very good economic impact to all the terminals that we touch.
So based on that and, and design things like, with the new information coming up and the money that's there, that's available and stuff to us cascade point might have a role in the long term plan. I'm not sure it does in the short-term plan, but also we don't know exactly how we're gonna rebound from the COVID the traffic, the mistrust of the public, and, what's being able to go forward. And that is part of the things that we're starting to talk about. I think here on the agendas today, which is the late fees, the no-show fees, the other things that, you know, we're gonna comment about. And I, would like us to see that make, to work diligently on this draft in the time that we have and try to get something at least towards formalizing a short-term plan in our next few meetings. I think that is what's critical.
So, that's a good discussion for the short-term plan for sure. For right now, just for the stip comments, you know, the board talked about getting some comments in on the items that AEO TPF has put into the step. AMHS has put into the stip in order to support them. And the letter that I drafted took a stab at doing that based on past discussions that we've had. So
We have a lot of folks online with us for the first time for one of these meetings, not all of whom I'm familiar with by name. And I'm just wondering if everybody could properly identify themselves if they are with DOT and we do have one person online, that's simply identified as L I don't know if that's norm or someone else, but would be good to have people properly identified
We brought in several people that are good with our communications, Danielle, Tessen, Shannon McCarthy, and Jocelyn Swindel are people you probably have not seen on here before. And then you have our Marine highway staff of Matt McLaren, Dan Haskins, John B. And I agree with you though. I don't know who L is.
The way that stip prioritization process works. I'm just wondering if our comments need to be a little bit more granular in nature to be impactful, or if it's just going to be taken as a check mark for a project with support and a negative for a project that isn't supported, but it it's, it does seem to me that maybe our comments need to be called out a little bit more with a little bit more granularity to align with at least the way that I'm familiar with the stip project process working. And I just will say, I, I do think that the cascade point project has not proven itself either through public or through the presentation of economic impact or other. We have some broad generalities, general generalities. Okay. It doesn't sound right. And I think that I would have a difficult time supporting that project with, without additional information. Thank you.
Yes, I agree with the letter, the only comment I'd like to add is the Mananuska project. I'm in agreement that we have to do the work to satisfy the coast guard. I do not think the 11 months out of service, I think can be worked on for something better for the public 11 months out of service, I think is not acceptable. That's all.
You know I'm not gonna support the lower half of this comment and I couldn't have agreed more with what Alan said. And I almost felt like I fed him some notes, which I totally did not, but you know, this is something the department's very supportive of at the moment. And, I don't disagree that we're still working out several things on it, but we are pursuing it. And I would hope that you, the board would be more open-minded to the concept, and see how it fits into the system in the longer term. So thank you.
I am going to agree with Rob on this point right now, and also with Wanetta that we just don't have enough information, and I'm glad to see us working on this short-term draft, and I'd like us to kind of stick to the schedule we have set up today so we can keep this moving forward and that's it.
Okay. Thanks. Can I make a recommendation? It sounds like what I'm hearing from the board is if AMHS is going to put forward comments on the stips, they should be more specific in focus to the individual terminal modifications crew quarters on Tazlina morning improvements, Matanuska project quarter project, criteria, and just leave out what we're not at this point supporting because we don't have a business plan for this. We don't have a fit for this in the long term or short term. This was proposed by the reshaping group when they met, because they also said at that time, if you did that, you would not have to put crew quarters on the ACF, but as we all know now, and everyone agrees without that, those ACFS are not flexible to work in the system. So, however, it sounds that we don't support this just simply pure things with sports. And here is why that Hillard.
I agree with all that you just said. And part of that is this is a nonpolitical group. So we shouldn't be looking at it in that perspective, and why I will agree to keep an open mind about things going forward with cascade point. I want to point out that if you take this into the political arena and we're looking at things, we got a hub, and Tazlina not because Marine highway requested that it's because that was a political decision that drove that forward. We're now living with these two vessels and trying to make them work inside the system. This goes back to my earlier comment every time we try to change the way we're doing business then what's been going on is been more of a hindrance. The Marine highway, we need vessels, we needed two vessels, like the Taku to do this. It would've helped Sitka. It would've helped the Prince William sound, it would've helped all over. So we're still trying to put this together in our long plan for the long plan, we need to look at making sure that we're using this money wisely to move forward and build ships and terminals that are in the best interest of the state of Alaska. That's all.
Okay. I agree. So you can see the modifications to the letter now with the second paragraph removed and the items that are still in. And if I can, I'd like to ask captain Falvey, can you just go over a little bit about the south Tustumena terminal at the idea has, I mean, that study was done in 2012 on it, the idea of being to shorten the route that, so the vessel could make more runs between the community, do some midday runs. And also, so the Litoya could overnight instead of the vessel being in overnight. But the crew has to be taken over by launch and back, which is very time-consuming, expensive, and somewhat dangerous. So could you update on that a little bit? Is this, is this a priority for AMHS?
No, I think what you just said is in essence accurate. The shift to the terminal will shorten the run and has always wanted to be able to commute back and forth to work. When we get the Litoya running again here in a few weeks, we are gonna extend the day from nine in the morning to 5:15 to try to take another bite out of that to get more time and those coming across Ketchikan. It's very inconvenient to be leaving the Litoya. We have certain requirements, especially in the winter when the wind gets too bad. We'll either bring the boat over here or get a watch on the boat that becomes inconvenient, and potentially costly. With a launch, we do have a launch service that takes the crew back and forth because they all catch a can based every day. So, I think that's a general idea, but I believe that was a general idea quite a few years ago when we had initially looked at it, basically allowing that without a commute.
Yeah, that's kind of how I feel about it. I think new terminals even know I'm all for it in terms of increasing system efficiency and achieving sort of the long-term goal of less run time, and more efficiency for this system. But I think the system is challenged as it exists. And the question is, does another terminal under consideration? I mean, we've already dismissed requests from other communities that are seeking new terminals. So I'm hard-pressed to understand why we would endorse this new terminal project. And I've already stated my opposition, but I would just say indifferent to the cascade point project.
I guess I would say, because I have taken some time to look into the progress and I had talked about this several years ago as well. And it came back to efficiencies and it came back to what was said, as well as the shorter routes on the water. And in this case, it actually drops people off in a place that's easy for them to get to where they have to go. Even though yes, I know they have to go through town now to get to Walmart, but it's also business for the people in Ketchikan who live and work back and forth. It's a much shorter trip. So it's fuel savings and avoids having to shuffle people from Ketchikan over. So for those reasons, I think that it deserves to be further reviewed, and then you're right.
It's gonna have to be prioritized. And there are many modifications and upgrades to existing terminals that we need to do with the ACF. So having said that, why don't you let me give it another shot and we'll take those items that are being highlighted right now, and add the south Tongass, as deserving further review? And I'll send it back to the board members. And if you all can, let me know what you think, and email me. Let's see, I think the 15th is the deadline by close of business next Friday. How's that deputy commissioner
I was just going to add to what you said there, but the very last statement, these modifications to the existing terminals are really our higher priorities right now. We want to make sure all our ACFs can access all the communities that our 235s can. So those are very high-priority projects. And then these other projects are exploratory like the south Tongass.
Well, we certainly intend to. And in fact, I don't wanna say when, because our brewing situation is very challenging, but that is the only reason she's not running she's she will be mechanically coming out of the yard here around October 1st I believe. And prior to going into her CPP project, we may with have the intention to run this winter. So, but again, to be determined, Columbia is in very good shape and getting in better shape, especially after the CPP project. And yeah, we do have the intent to run her, but again, challenging, very challenging right now with crewing.
Okay, no worries. So if nobody else has any questions, this is just, again, a deliberative brief overview. If we could go to the next page, that's a little more interesting because it's the funding. So that's going to have to be updated so we understand what the new, the new language from the feds that we heard two weeks ago was not helpful to us. We're not assuming Alaska's gonna receive 180 million per year is no longer a safe assumption. So we need, we need to better understand that deputy commissioner.
My intent is still that that money is ours and I don't want to get myself into trouble, but I believe the intent of that was clear it was Alaska money. It was for the Alaska Marine highway system. And so that is how I'm pursuing it. That as in DOT is pursuing it that it's a hundred percent ours and barring waivers and stuff that go against the congressional intent. I hope we all fight against that. So thank you.
Thanks. I think it would help to explain that a little bit more in this short-term that this is one of the things that makes it so it's always made it difficult and then it now makes it even more complex is a language that restricts the funding, federal funding to a number of entities and also is allowed to cap. And then the language on the use of some of these funds. And I wasn't sure if it was the 1 billion, the 1 billion or the construction of fair boats and ferry, terminal facilities, money that we had thought that we're using right now if I'm not mistaken for operations instead of general fund monies, but now cannot be used in the future. And then I have a further question I'm concerned about that if we can't forward federal funds, and we've got such a problem now with the business side of AMHS being on a calendar timeline instead of the fiscal year like the state is, do we look at going back to fiscal year with all the reporting in the payments.
I'm actually asking for those changes to be made in the draft short-term plan, so that members of the board and anywhere else who's looking at the draft short-term plan, can clearly understand that we really are on some gray areas, but this is our attempt, instead of just saying, we're gonna get this money when we don't know if we can, yes.
And that you're absolutely right. We need to clarify a lot of this stuff. We need to update a lot of it. And it was more trying to get the structure in place before we flushed out a lot of the updated detail. So I would hope you'd try to keep that in mind as you're working through it. Yeah. Thanks
Yeah. I would like to make a motion based on that, that we put the next meeting completely just on this short-term plan, get this kind of moving forward and going. And I'd also like to make that where it's just the board I'd like for us to spend just a couple hours on this, getting things moving ahead. And if I can direct your guys' attention to page 19, I read over this pretty diligently the last couple of days, trying to get ready for this meeting since I did miss the last one. And if you look at where we're at with total hired versus resigned, retired, and terminated, we're still very low on employees. And I think the question to ask about Columbia that was asked earlier in which I believe the answer is no.
Can I'll put this out to anybody that's on here that can answer? Can you run the Matanuska and the Columbia at the same time? Matanuska, Columbia, and the Kennicott. And I think the answer to that is no. So you're talking about running the Columbia for the wintertime, which is fine and great, but that does not solve the problem of managing traffic for next summer. This summer we've been turning reservations away, left, and right. All the ceilings out of Bellingham have been refusing people. So once again, I'm gonna go back to say, we're not serving the public. We're not doing justice to the communities and this hiring thing and pay payroll is still a big issue. I know it's not an agenda. I'm not gonna go into it, but I've heard a lot of complaints recently, still about payroll, which has led to people quitting. So moving forward on this, I would really strongly like to suggest to the board that we spend a couple of meetings just on the short-term plan and move forward with this. So we can not get this to be a draft to get this, to be like 90% complete. That's it?
Yeah. Thanks Madam chair. I, I was gonna say the same thing, you know, we had talked again, this is a, this is statutory D O T project in consultation with the board. So this is our start. We took the modernization plan that to Inc it in here. We all agreed. That was a good idea. And so, yeah, you're I, captain Hilliard, let's get it figured out. We have a goal internally of like October 1st, given that that's how the budget kind of timeline would work out to where something like this could be submitted to the public. The legislature, governor it'll have budget recommendations in it, both operating capital. So it's August. So this is the start. And I guess we were hoping structurally without diving into every detail at this point, that it's starting to look like a path that the board is supportive of and maybe what's missing, or, and, and, and maybe that all comes about as we start walking through individual sections, but you could almost say let's like the next meeting let's tackle item.
I can't see the, the, the table of contents material. Let's just say it's facilities, let's tackle the entire facilities and terminal section and walk through that for two hours, you know, and just start not checking off components of the plan would be our recommendation. And, and if you had something, if we, as a board said, the next meeting, we're gonna talk about a shoreside facility considerations and everything under facilities, then D O T would flush that out thoroughly as best we could before we brought it to the board for discussion, that would be how I could envision it working. Thanks.
Not the last meeting, but the meeting before we, we talked about this in the outline of what the operation boards was. And on page three, it says, according to house, bill 63 in consultation with the operations board, D O TPF will prepare a short and a comprehensive long term plan that, and you guys can finish reading the rest of it. I don't want us to rush into making decisions. I don't want us to, to jump the gun, but not saying anything and not putting a stance down, like how long it took us to say, we want crew quarters on the TAs, cuz it makes it a vessel that can be used anywhere. Took a long time in, in house bill 63, it says we're gonna have to come back and redo this. We're not, we're not being held accountable. We're not, we're not being, we're gonna make mistakes.
There's no way that you're gonna get around that. We're gonna have things that are, that are not gonna go well. And that's our job is to, to analyze this and move forward as best we can. And I, I think my frustration is as we keep having a lot of, a lot of information presented, which needed to have happened, we've had various discussions we've bounced around on topics to topics. Right now we have 22 pages in front of us. And I, and I know this is the beginning, but no, no answers out of the committee to me is almost almost worse than, or inaction of the committee is, is, is worse than, than, than taking no action or delayed action. There's a lot of, a lot of information in here and, and a lot of money being spent, you know, some, you know, all of it, I feel that we should be discussing and doing this. And you know, I'll, I'll go with making a motion again about keeping going with this. Thank you.
Thanks. Maybe then a recommendation that we look at that the board agrees to take the next two weeks and to dig in, basically in here you have two major, major elements of this plan, the asset management program and the operating program, everything falls between one of those two items. Got it. So if it's the next meeting, we do a deep dive into the asset management program, starting on page six, up to the operating program, which ends on page 16. And then the following week do the operating program, asset management, its specials, it's fleet status, its capital projects, shore side facilities, timelines funding. Then the operating program is your goals, operating considerations, principles, performance measures, et cetera, and operating recommendations. And we can divide it up that way. If that gives you all more time to look at it to, to really review it.
I would like to ask the, ask the administration, Ken, can, can we run the, the Talina and the LA next summer and see what kind of traffic counts we get. See if they're full, see if they're used, how can we, how can we move forward in the short term to prove that your ideas of building cascade point is viable? I would think that that would be something that you guys would be striving for to show the need for it and that the traffic's there and that the buildup is there and how that is gonna work out towards the long term. You know, with that being said, how, how are we going to move forward with this work on the Matanuska and not having enough employees to run the Columbia and the Kennecott maybe next summer, how's that gonna affect things?
There's, there's all, there's a many, many, many, many, many, many conversations that need to happen here. And I think we're making a good start by taking a, a chunk of the next page, dedicating that to this next meeting. But as the chair has pointed out and as others pointed out, we've got two boats, the Talina and the hub that are now what, five years old, the five go on six, I think. And how many operational hours do each boat have on them? That is that that's a question I would like to know. So basically we got assets that are sitting there that we're not putting to use and really do we need to, do we even know if these assets are gonna be able to fit in the system and work? I mean, we know right now they don't because we're already talking about doing terminal improvements to make these boats workplaces. And, and again, the Marine highway has been doing business for a long, long time and I kind of feel, and I know part of it's political pressure and doing different things where we're looking at, there's been attempts to change the way the Marine highway does business. And I am not before I was taking the stance on some of the stuff that I don't, you know, and that's not a good idea. I am open to anything as long as it makes sense and it is best for the community and to go forward.
I think that along with this, you know, the next meeting's on the asset management program, the next meeting, after that, on the operation program, I believe we need to, we need to have a meeting too about operational, what we're gonna look at for next summer. And also a meeting about again, about employee satisfaction and retainability and hiring a lot of these plans are, are not gonna move forward unless we address that hiring issue, which was on, I forget what page it was on. And I, I, I don't want to be keeping the stick in the mud. Sometimes I feel like I am, but it's, it's, it's imperative that a plan be figured out. So as we talk about, you know, we're talking about measures, how are we gonna, how are we gonna document what's working and what's not, how are we gonna move this forward? And this is it it's if we, as the board cannot come up with some parameters to set with the hiring, with the consultants we're hiring and things like this, we're gonna have a very hard time putting together a long term plan.
And I, I understand the huge encompass that this has and in a task that we're asked to do. And I, and I guess like commissioner carpenter, are we, what, what is your projection for like next summer? I mean, are we gonna do, do we have an idea of what boats we're gonna run? Are we gonna be turning customers away again? You know, do you guys have a plan for a mass hiring? There's a, a lot, a lot of questions. So, and I know I'm throwing a lot out and I'm not, I don't need the definitive answers, but I, I think for us as the board, this is part of the problem that we're gonna have is juggling all these pieces together and, and putting 'em together in a timely manner. And anyways, those are just a couple more concerns that I have going forward. Thank you.
Yeah. Thanks and chair. I just wanted to comment a little bit on the process for how this short term plan is being developed and some appropriate stage gates. That would be really helpful to have engagement on when the short term plan was created really, as we discussed just, you know, a couple weeks ago and the intention is to be that repository of information, which is constantly changing right now. So one, I, I love the idea of focusing in, on topics and then next week picking a topic. However, when we talk about it being a final products, I, I'm not sure that that's the goal over the next couple weeks or even months, because a lot of these are, are requiring more extensive evaluations of scope schedules and estimates, which really aren't created right now. And we are doing a lot of work in the background, which we're excited to share.
And, and because of that, I think if, if we could, you know, next week I think targeting the asset management, especially if you could focus on vessels or shoreside, I maybe recommend picking one and we could have that prepared and then propose at that point. What's what makes most sense next, because as we have shared with all of the ongoing concurrent planning processes, there's gonna be a lot of great material to share with the board that will help inform the short term plan with metrics on Manning and other things that have been brought up. And so I think having the short term plan as that platform and retainer to continually go back to will give us some structure while we, we work on the long term plan and other things. So I just wanted to keep that in mind that, that this is a tool that we will have a final document, but I think it's value right now is in facilitating the conversation. And so if we, if we start with the fleet or you start with shore facilities, we could have goals and metrics through that discussion and, and look at what we're proposing and perhaps offer greater detail. Then we could kind of go onto the next one. It's just, we may continually update information over the upcoming couple months as we get more information back from Elliot bay and other planning efforts. So yeah. Thank you for listening. I just wanted to share like our, our intentions of the value of this document.
Yeah. Thank you. Ma'am a couple things first off I wanna go back to, and I've mentioned that numerous times when we talk about short term versus long term, is that the, the legislation that HB 63 does say in it, and if we read it in, in, in the way it's written is, is we will put together a short term plan as goals defined in the long term plan. So we don't have a long term plan, so we're gonna be doing this now. So I think that my point earlier on about making sure that we take into consideration of long term plan as we write this short term plan and how it interfaces and how we'll we'll interface.
One other point I wanna make in reference to the short term plan. And I think that we need have a conversation about, and maybe the department needs to take a look at in your 20 year modernization plan that was written and presented to us. There's a lot of conversation about if we have a modern efficient fleet, what are the savings and how much money can we save and how much money would it cost us less to operate in the future? I think that that type of information and justification for what, what we're gonna be doing with the Alaska green highway system needs to be put into the short term and long term plan as a preface to why we wanna do a lot of things. We wanna do the whole discussion about what we would save was more efficient fleet could be in this thing and including replacement of vessels.
If we replace vessels faster, how much money can we save? How much better will the system be in the long term, all of the costs for maintenance that we've been going through that you've been going through and the reductions that could take place there with the modern fleet should be incorporated in here someplace so that we do have a pre we, we set up it up front, exactly why we're doing what we're doing, or why you're doing what you're doing. And it's basically laid out in the long term plan or in the 20 year modernization plan. So I don't think it would be much to pull something like that together as a starter of this, of this plan, I'm not opposed to, and I brought it up one point in time and nobody wanted to bring up discussion, but if there's that much savings by having a modern fleet, is it worth the state of Alaska's time to bond and build a fleet faster, a new fleet faster? I think part of that justification would come with the conversations in reference to the money saved with the, with the fleet. I don't know how far that would go. I've not talked to any legislators about it, but I think it's a conversation worth having both by us and maybe with the legislature and with the governor's office. But again, I I'd like to see us or see you as the department put some kind of headers or something on why we're looking at what we're doing with the thank you, Madam chair.
Thank you, Shirley. I, I may have lost the will to live while I was waiting. I, I think I just wanna caution my fellow board members that I respect that everybody brings a certain skill set and base of knowledge to it this enterprise. But we, I, I just, I just don't wanna get, spend time in the weeds on detail when I, I think that really what we're supposed to be doing is setting the performance metrics by which the system will be measured. And it feels to me sometimes, like we're trying to write we're, we're trying to write to a level of detail that it would not being asked to. So I, I just, I, I, I feel, I feel that, you know, we would have some success if we got a, my, my interest is in the long term. I'll just say that. And I, I think that whether, whether we focus on the short term plan or not the next time, it, it does have to conform to some sort of long term strategic view of the system. Okay. What, what is its its mission? How will it fulfill its mission? What are the measurements that we will look at to determine if that is the case? And I do feel like we're getting in the weeds again and we need to, we need to pull back on that. Thank you.
I'm gonna disagree a little bit with that. I've been riding cruise ships all summer. You can go on one ship of one company and you can bounce the next ship of the same company. And they're pretty much exactly the same. In fact, they are just as short staffed as we are. They're able to bounce their officers around a lot more effectively. They built multiple boats off of one design. Some might have an extra deck, some might have a deck less, but they're all basically the, the, the, the same and the metrics and the judgment that we need to be looking at for the Marine highway is really not gonna be there until we, until we build some new boats and get things going. We are in a crisis mode. We are managing a crisis mode. And right now I don't see an end in sight of the crisis mode because all we have scheduled to be built is the replacement vessel for the testy. I would support Alan's comment 100% to be effective at any long term plan. We have to have the ability to have ridership. We don't have the ability to have more ridership. We don't have a place to put 'em. We don't have vessels to carry him. So how do we design metrics when we, we don't really have an system to design that and
Respectfully captain Hilliard, I think we're all aware of those details. I, I, we under, I, I think that we're all aware that we're spending time regurgitating information that we already know rather than focused on what are the tools, you know, getting down into the weeds on some of the operational detail I worked in the cruise ship industry. So I, I don't, but I don't wanna, I don't wanna burden the board with that. I want us to focus on the outcomes that we're supposed to be creating. And, and so I just, I want, I just want us to, I, I, I am that the process is, is being stalled out and I want to move it forward. So
I will agree with you on that. That's why I read on page three, that in consultant with the board, we develop a short and long term plan. I, I very much want to move things forward, but when we talk about things and people interject things and make other suggestions, there's a lot of stuff that we need to deal with. And I don't know how you can deny that there's many facets to this board that we need to talk about and move forward on. So,
And again, with all due respect, I'm not in denial about how complex this is. I have said many, many times that this is a multi criteria decision making matrix. It's complicated. What I'm, what I'm suggesting is start somewhere, do something, figure out is that the right thing, and then work our way around some of these other issues. We're just, we just keep on regurgitating and talking about all of the complications and whether we should do short term or long term. And I'm saying, I don't even care at this point, pick one thing and do it.
Well, I did make a motion. I did make a motion to move forward on this. And I would like to see a second. No one has seconded that we've, we've, we've talked about that about, we can set up our next few meetings. I'm in the same thing with you. I think we're spinning circle.
Okay. Let's hold on for a second there. Then we, we spoke earlier about breaking out the elements of the short term draft plan into two different discussions, but in the midst of this discussion, as, as in past discussions and, and I'm one of the four now I think four board members who keep going back to the long term elements of a long range plan and just getting that framework set out, which is not. Yeah. And when I talk about that as an exercise, I don't mean we're gonna sit down and say, exactly what's gonna happen in the system, in the future, and exactly how it's going to work. We're going to say it's important that these things are elements of the long term plan. And once we have those set out that framework, we take pieces of the short term plans that fit, and you put them in there to show you how you're going to get to the vessel modernization or, or the rightsizing of the fleet or crew recruitment and rejectment et cetera.
So maybe the thing that we need to do at the next meeting is just go back to what I've been ask suggesting as well. And Alan's been asking for obviously, and that is to just have a discussion about long range planning and elements of that performance measures direction for the plan there, there's all those elements. I'll, I'll, I'll resend just for fun. I'll resend the email that I sent out about a month and a half ago with some elements, looking for input, looking for, you know, ideas of where we could go with that and go back to probably the first step and under. And I do understand deputy commissioner and Catherine, I do completely understand we all do that. There are multiple planning, long term efforts going on in your agency at the same time, but we have to, we have to start on our timeline and, and put our framework out there. So we, so we have a better understanding of, of what we're working with as we go through this whole process. So are we gonna come up with a long term plan? The meeting? No, but should we come up with a framework with it so we know where things need to go? Yeah, we, we really need to start that this, this, this meeting is just proving that deputy commissioner,
Hey, thanks, Madam chair. It's funny you say that. And maybe this helps James Marks just before this meeting was asking me, they're about to put out the RFP for the long term plan. I, I think specifically for Marine highway and he was asking if it was time to, you know, he wanted to share that with the board specifically, you Shirley, I believe you asked for it even. And I was just like, well, there's a lot going on this hot second. So let's hold it for a minute, but it sounds like something we need to get to the board and perhaps a discussion on the elements of the RFP and the like, you're, you're talking about the framework. Maybe the RFP framework can give address the framework talking about possibly not if that actually makes sense, but it might be worth discussing. And I, I just wanted to comment on the, to, I keep wanting to call him representative Osterman to Alan board member Oman, that, you know, the, the, the modernization plan, that the, how we, we, we were talking about that plan internally and what its purpose was.
And that's where it sort of the short term planning effort again came about is that this was what was required. So let's take that the elements of that modernization plan and put it in here. And, and we're hoping that that gets covered along with a lot of other information, of course, in planning efforts. So if there are things we're not addressing, I think you mentioned them, Alan, like the, the efficiencies from a modernized fleet and this cost savings from a modernized fleet, make sure we get that addressed in this planning effort. The only reason, again, we abandoned that plan was it didn't have a, in D O T it didn't really, there was no reason for it. And here at this statutory reason from HBT 63 gave us the tool we needed to incorporate a lot of that information. I feel like I'm rambling, so I'm gonna stop, but I, I hope I helped a little bit there. Thanks.
Okay. Thank you. So we're, we have a timeline today is August 5th. We have a meeting two weeks from now, and then we'll have a meeting in September, and I believe it's September 9th, that grant applications for funding for a lot of the items that we're looking at are due. I don't know that we, as the board need to try to take the time to weigh in on those. I think that that is something that D O T is doing. We should allow that AMHS allow them to do that instead of it. But then we have an October deadline because we have budget coming up, trust budgets, coming up for the state. So we have, we do not have the elements of long range plan yet, but we're starting to understand what we think needs to be in the, what, what needs to be the headliners. And we can start to see from some of the short term planning, what, what are the, you know, below the headliners that are, how do you get there? Do you, if you want more reliability in the fleet, what does that mean? What do you need to do to do that in terms of vessels, in terms of terminals, in terms of crewing, et cetera.
So do you want to have a standalone meeting our next time on the elements of long term planning? What belongs in a long term plan? Or do you want to look at the elements of long term planning and try to add in asset man management program as captain Hilliard suggest and see where, where elements of that fit in? I mean, I think that's a little tough for me because this group has not sat down yet and articulated basically probably 7, 7, 7 simple elements of what a long, long term plan is, and then adding the things that will all fall through to it. One,
Thanks. Think Shirley, you know, in our discussion here, we are talking about these as if they're kind of one and done in a linear process. And this is really a circular process. The long term should be informing the short term. And the short term in term will, would require a review of the long term. And so it's not a one and done process. It is necessary that we continually review the planning documents and the performance of the system to provide the advice that we're asked of by the legislature. Now, that being said, I, I have not been a great advocate for meeting in person, but I just kind of have this feeling that we need to have an in person meeting. So I'm gonna leave it there.
Yeah. Thank you. Two things. I'm still a little confused about what the department's requirements time requirements are for the short term plan. And if it, is it something that they you're going to use along with their budget request or partly to support their budget request? And if so, you guys tried to get us to do a resolution for September the 15th, which under meeting every two weeks, we're not gonna meet that type of a timeframe. So it would help to know where the department is as far as what we're doing here.
Thanks, man. You know, I, I, I, I guess my internal timeline was like, you had mentioned chair that, you know, we, we have operating in capital budget planning efforts to go to O and B in the governor and for consideration of the December 15th budget to put forth right recommendations. So I had set an internal goal of October 1st, you know, it's a goal, but the idea being that this short term plan, which would include those recommendations in it could be done then and support that effort so that when the budget came out, maybe it would be based on what, what was in that recommendation.
That's not to say. I think Katherine actually was freaking out a little bit when I said that, cuz she started realizing that's not very far away and maybe the entire plan itself doesn't have to be done by then. But so I, I don't know. And the statute doesn't mention a deadline and it's up to us really, you know, again, we're we, as the department are producing these in consultation with the board and we very much want your, your consultation. So, but you know, like you said, when we do it is up to us and we're just striving to kind of meet some goals budget wise, but that doesn't mean it has to be done. I hope that makes sense.
I, I think, I think y'all are hearing loud and clear that, that this board is it just, we need to, we need to make a shift in direction and go, go to long term. We need to sit down and start. And if that takes off, we need to have discussions with Matt McLaren as the business director with Carrie again, you know, in terms of scheduling vessels, we've got, I just, there's so many moving pieces. This is going to be a living breathing document. There's no getting around that. Shouldn't be seen as a problem. It's just, it is what it is. But we have to create a framework that says here's what is important in the future of this system? Here's financial stability. Sustainability is important. Crew retention is important vessel, an updated modernized vessel maintenance process is important. And, and until we get those things down, we, it, it's, it's really being difficult, fitting them in.
I can look at short term elements and say to myself, I know exactly where I'd put that long term plan, but it's doing it kind of backwards taking the long term. I'm not gonna say long term plan, cause it's not gonna be long term plan for a while, but a long range, strategic framework of which to build the short term plan. And, and we can certainly work with D O T and the timeline for the budget. I mean, you know, if that's going to be fairly simple, y'all are gonna have X amount of money and AMHS is gonna put together X amount of service. And that's, that's how that's gonna be. The tricky stuff is the, I, I J funding the capital funding, the use of those funds really drilling down. So, I mean, it would be help. We don't wanna make the decisions on what happens with the mat news code, but it would be, it would be helpful to just be a little more comfortable understanding how things shift so much and why it makes so much sense to keep her in.
We, and we all get that now, but you know, those, those are one of those things. The Matt Nuka that falls under a long range plan is that your reliability of services is not just being on time and staying on schedule. It's being able. It has having a vessel. That's able to cover a route when the other vessel can't. And you know, that's a short term rule that we would have in their Alaska or Washington state fairies. You know, their plan is interesting, but their plan is fully, it's just a COVID come back from COVID plan, cuz they're a very different system than we are, but they're struggling with a lot of the same things. But one of the things that they decided to do in this plan, a major part of it was they're gonna have to prioritize routes because of the number of vessels they have and the people they've gotta decide, we're not gonna try and do everything crappy.
We're gonna pick things that are important. They need to happen. We're gonna do 'em as well as we can. To me, that's an element of a long term plan that you can start to add the short term changes that you need to it. So, so I am, again, I'm recommending that instead of doing what we were first looking at, which was taking a deeper dive into the two different elements of the short term. And so let's just hold off and everybody please really read that, really look through it. There there's good things in there. And there are things in there that just don't belong anymore or just kind of, there's not a good justification form. And I understand a lot of them are placeholders because we simply don't know yet, but really take a look at that and, and take a look at BC fairies has a really good business plan from 2018. I think it was, which of course has changed now because of all sorts of things. And, and, and you'll start to see in Washington state Prairie, you start to say that there are elements of framework of long term plan that just keep coming back up. You know, it's not rocket science, we just gotta pick 'em as elements and then start working through them. And I, so deputy commissioner or Catherine or captain Sal, is there anything you'd like to add to that or, or any questions you have or concerns or ideas
I will say while I don't disagree at all with the long term planning effort, I said this kind of before is the strategic decisions. We're making some strategic decisions now in the present day that affect the long term of the, of the fleet of the, of the system, right? And, and that's where I think the short term planning effort, even though we're calling it short term planning, there's a lot in there that is longer term strategic effort, and we will continue to work on that plan because we are required to and be. And because I think it's a great tool. It's gonna be a great piece of work that I'm actually excited to have when I speak to the legislature this year and to have page 17, we, we worked with the board and addressed that very comment Senator. So and so, and, and here's, you know, anyway, so while I appreciate the desire for the long term planning, I think they're almost in my head, they're going together at the same time. So that's all thanks.
Yeah. I, I hear you. I just, for this board, I've heard it over and over and over and over and over. We need to have a framework. We need to understand where these things are gonna fit in so we can understand better. And I think that'll help us keep us out of the weeds as well. Quite honestly. And, and so this, you know, the idea I'm talking about for the next meeting is we don't sit there and hammer, okay, here's the long term plan to be last Wayne highway system for the next 20, 30 years? No, it's just a framework. Here's what the longs on that plan here are the things that are important that, that these short term priorities, and maybe you call them short-term priorities are meant to accomplish to get down this road. And, and as things shift, whether it's with funding, whether it's with administration, you know, whatever it may be, you know, we, we have to go back and revisit and, and shift those.
And we would do that based on the best recommendations of the people who are running the system themselves and the folks at ADT. So I just think we want at the board at this point, what we want to do is sit down and have a discussion about long, long range plan. And if we can do it in person, that'd be great, but that's, you know, it's only two weeks away and that might be very hard if not, we'll just do it by zoom, but, but we need, we need, we need to do that. You have things you need to do. That's what we need to do,
But this is Katherine. I'll just suggest that, you know, maybe that's a process that the members could decide how we can facilitate that. You know, we, we have an RFP, we'll be bringing in the team for the long range transportation plan. And that timeline has been communicated when that is two weeks from now, won't it won't be on board. So if you have things that you'd like to discuss at that meeting for a framework that you're envisioning, I would appreciate it. If you could take a stab at that agenda and what that looks like as to how that's, and then just so we're all aware, the long range transportation plan that D O T is charged to produce will be starting up, but that is gonna be, you know, weeks, weeks away. If, if not a couple months, by the time that RFP is released and scored.
So that process will be starting. We're doing what we can right now to prepare for that by collecting baseline information, we're consolidating information. And we're trying to share with you what that is, so that when they come on board, we can hit the ground running. So they need this information just as much as you do. I don't think I clearly understand what the deliverable is with the framework, if it's a table of contents or something. So if, for us to be able to help you, if, if you could perhaps start with the, with the draft or what that looks like, that would be really helpful. Otherwise, I fear we won't be able to take action on that because I'm just not sure what you're, what you're asking to be honest. Cause we have table of, I mean, we have a process, the it's been shared the steps of the long range transportation plan, and we have requirements for what that consists of inform that. So beyond that, it, I would really value having that to look at what, what it is that you're talking, you know, what that framework actually is, would be really helpful. Thank you.
I agreed. And, and you know, I go back to that, the email from July 11th, just vision and mission goals for fleet size and ability, performance measures for service across the board updated version of the maintenance plan for each vessel and a plan for vessel replacement, rate structures and scheduled reviews, things like that. So they're very, they're very broad and wide open. And I would encourage the board members, cuz this is basically for us, this is y'all have a lot on your plate that you're required to do statutory you're required to do so do we? And we are approaching it from a different way as volunteers who, folks who come in this with, with different backgrounds and, and different levels of understanding of the system. So it's important for us that we, we have this discussion and we at least agree that whatever plan that we see for in the future for the system, we think that element, these elements are very, are, are extremely important and, and need to be addressed in the plan, not what kind of fuel do they use?
Just a real quick comment on what you've said and I, I agree with you, but I really think that what we're talking about is trying to come up with a basis for a long term plan. Let's figure out where we think we should be going in the long term. We haven't had that conversation. We haven't had a conversation about what that modernization plan talked about, what we should have six vessels or 12 vessels. Those are the conversations that would set us up on the direction that we would wanna go. And I would appreciate, and I I'm gonna do it. I'll sit down in this week and I'll draft my thoughts on paper and, and share 'em cuz that makes it a little bit easier trying to cover the things that I wanna think about or want us to discuss and get 'em out on paper. But if everybody can do that, what do you think the basis is gonna be that we're gonna be discussing and, and trying to get to that discussion? I think it'll lead us right to the short term plan. Thank you. Ma'am
Yeah, that would be great. And I think the only thing I would ask then for is from, if we could ask from Matt, you had the, the modernization plan that we had looked at fairly early on and it just needed some updating because some decisions had been made Matt Nuka Talina get crew quarter. We think a few other items that that would change things and clean that up a little bit. If you could do that and send it back out to us so that we have that again, to look at and that, and I think I read also that you put out a financial plan, a 20 year financial plan as well with the modernization plan. I might have that a little goofy, but that, that would be tremendously helpful as we go forward. And you could send that out anytime. Thanks Juan.
This is Catherine. I'm just gonna mention that that modernization plan has been updated into the short term plan elements of the modernization plan that you're referring to right from back in March, no longer reflects the status of the system and neither nor does it include elements that need to be considered as part of that from the asset management and the operation side. So I, I just wanna indicate that the information that was in the modernization plan is certainly in the short term plan and the financial analysis that you're looking for is going to be pending while we're coming up with decisions on the federal funding and what that means for the budget. Once those decisions are made, we can update that financial plan, but I please don't expect it in the next couple weeks cause I, don't not sure that those decisions will be made yet.
Okay. And, and I appreciate that, Catherine. And I do realize that I, I absolutely do the thing about the, the kind of, it was, it was about a two page white paper, maybe a three page white paper on the modernization plan was it was just very specific to ideas and assumptions of things that were going to be new that we wanted to move forward with. And Matt did a really good job of laying it out. So it was real simple to look at. I, I know that, you know, y'all kind of put it in the, this, this longer long range plan. It, it just made it a little more difficult to see just the real simplicity of the modernization plan. That's why I had asked to get that just, just to have that few different things updated that we could and send it back. Cause this is a really good working paper for the board to, to really look at for quick information.
All of these pieces fit together as part to make the puzzle of what is the, the system. And I, I think that's what, you know, we have these long term short term and ag discussions. And in fact, what, what I think as long as we figure out the long term framework and then figure out what pieces we already have and start plugging them in and what may be missing the department's doing what the department does. But there is a a, as I said, a hierarchy and a cadence of plans that fits all under the same structure, should they should be informing the long term strategy should be informing all of those subsidiary plans. And that's really the question. It's it's again, it's not a linear thing. It's going to be iterative until it feels right. And I think that's what we have to get comfortable with.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well Sam's looking, can everybody be sure to send me, you know, send me whatever your, your priorities, your thoughts, your concerns, ideas for elements of long range plan. Just again, we're talking about a framework framework moving forward, you know, 20, 30 years into the future, that would be real helpful. And I will pull together them as best I can and put them in what I hope is a cohesive framework style, and then send them, send it to Catherine to be in the packet.
Okay. Okay. I let's go around any members of the board have any comments they'd like to make before we leave any members of D O T ad O T or AMHS okay. Hearing then I just wanna reiterate Catherine. We hope you, you heal soon. I'm really, I'm really sorry to hear that you were injured like that. And I really appreciate you taking the time and somehow, you know, soldiering through this meeting and never easy. And we, we really appreciate you being here.
So good afternoon, everybody. This is Katherine Keith, captain Page, It's really nice to meet you. So just a heads up to everyone. I had a bit of a bike accident last night and have some broken bones. So today's meeting is gonna have a teamed approach to run through the material. So I, I hope you can be a little bit patient with us if we're slow in our transition, but I think we have a really solid plan lined out for today and, and we're looking forward to the discussion and everything on the back end here is ready. We are solid on Facebook and on our public engagement portal. So on our side, Madam chair, we're ready to go when you are.
Present. We just made our require. Thanks folks. The minutes of our prior meeting, which was, I believe July 22nd and folks have had a chance to we all, we all did have a chance to look at those review and go ahead and get them posted. But if I could have a motion to approve in a second, we can look, see if there's any clarifications needed, move
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.