May 18, 2026 2:30 PM - 4:00 PM
So as Aaron says, this work session is for the committees to come together and discuss what projects should go into the the MTP based on the fiscal constraints. So to begin, this is an expedited MTP process. We do have to have our approved plan to the FHWA, I believe December 29th of this year. The plan was originally supposed to go into 2028 or the, the actual planning of the plan, but that has been expedited significantly. So for this work session, what I'm really hoping to get out of it is for a list of projects, either projects that were already included in the 2050 MTP, typically they're gonna be the unprogrammed projects. Those were not included in full analysis for the 2050. So those are up for crabs or brand new projects that you all are going to bring to the table today.
So just to give a little bit of background about the, the fiscal analysis, the, the plan does not put a specific dollar on a specific year for those projects. Rather it is it tallies the whole estimate and for the capital cost for those projects in 2020 $6 for the first 10 years of the plan, or essentially from 27 to 41. Because the tip, the tip is what? The tip is. We apply a 4.5% inflation to those project costs to try to mimic real world costs. And then the, the back 10, which is actually 42 to 52, we have a 3.5 inflation applied to those projects. So within a year, within the analysis, you'll have the total amount for all the projects, the inflation applied to it, whether it's 4.5 or 3.5 from where it falls, whether it's a short term prop, short term program for the short term or program for the long term.
Included with that is the projected revenue increase. So we have that set as 2.4 right now that's based on the consumer price index. And we take the revenue from from, from the deducted revenue from the project costs and then keep moving those from year to year to year. So at the end of 2052, what we need to see is essentially zeroed out budget or a little under, we can't be over, that's the fiscal constraint portion of it to get. So on the back of this, the memo, we have what's available, not available under for complete streets for M-O-A-D-O-T, and H. So these are the numbers that we're going to try to capture with the projects that we're putting into the plan. Again, it can be projects that have already been scored and ranked and are listed in the project list, the draft project list here, or brand new projects that you, you're gonna bring today. I do wanna say any new projects that are brought today are going to have to be scored and ranked and then before they can make it into the modeling.
So I know it's a lot to go over, but I'm hoping that by the end of today we'll have a pretty solid list. I know there's could be some things that are up in the air, but due to the lack of time, we do need to get our list to RSG to get the modeling completed so that we can actually bring the draft forward in August. The plan is to bring the, the finalized project, this fiscal analysis to the TAC and PC in June. And then that's RSG is gonna be doing the work in the background. And then like I said, we'll have some time until bringing you the actual draft plan in August.
Does anybody have any questions so far? So to get to these project cost estimates, it were the, our estimates were developed cooperatively with the MOA and DOT. And again the projects are listed in 2020 $6. I did provide a capital revenue source and methodology sheet here. This kind of gets into the nitty gritty of how we got to the revenue for each sort of bundle. For municipal funds, we were provided with CIP information, we used a six to 20, 26, sorry, 2016 to 2026 to come up with, with an average for 27. And then CPI is applied beginning in 2028. Again, that's that revenue inflation for state funds. We reviewed the capital budget program and use the sort data there to either come up with averages or as you can see for example, for the state go bonds, we have received those very infrequently. So we did not think that it, including those was real world in this at this time. And then for the federal funds, we used historical data provided to DOT from DOT to essentially do the same thing to come up with an average and then inflate that going forward.
So again, on the back of this memo, we have the funding that's available for short term and for long term for MOA & DOT and apex. I wanna point out that these are static numbers. So if you add something or you add projects to the long term, the short term number is gonna stay the same. We, we broke them out in that way so it was kind of easier to know what was happening and when, if your number is in red, you're a little bit over and we'll have to adjust in that in that sense. And the rest is funding that needs to be used.
So I did provide the draft project list. Again, this is gonna include everything that's currently in the 2026 through the 2027 and 30 tip as well as CIP projects, NHS projects, all of that you'll get, so everything is broken down, whether it's programmed from the tip, short term or long term. And that's where they fall into those funding buckets. So I guess what aaps did, and I'm hoping some of you did as well, was put together an initial initial list of projects that we thought we could use our funding for to either move from the long term into the short term unprogrammed into programmed as a starting point. And we tried to get the funding to as close as the, the numbers that we have available. So we can use this sort of as a reference point to while working through these drafts or just in the discussion in general.
So yeah, I can definitely answer questions otherwise I'd like to just open it up the discuss the project discussion at hand. (Member Kohlhaas - Is there a reason that I saw something about the brevity of this, this update is, is this sort of just trying to capture what's in the 2050 and so some small changes versus our chance to really start completely fresh and say lots of new things.) Rhiannon Brown - Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. Okay. So yes, this is, we're keeping essentially, like you said, we're doing small changes, the model's being updated with socioeconomic information. We're updating the project list because we did extend those years for the funding. But otherwise we are essentially keeping the same goals, performance measures, objectives and the carrying forward. The same, the same projects that were in the 2050 as programmed. We just don't have time to score rank any of the above for a whole, we don't have time for a whole new MTP at this point. So that is, that is us going forward changing and updating what we can where we can. And then the next, the next one will be a big full update, a robust update. (Member Kohlhaas - what year timing would that whole new robust change, like when would that be, that would a couple years from now?)
Okay. And as far as projects go, kind of going forward, we're going to build into our public input an area where people, it's gonna be open full-time for people to go in and suggest projects. So instead of having a small window to nominate projects for the plan, we'll have an ongoing list that will review, we'll update and use for the plans going forward.
2028 would be the fiscal year. So it would be October of 2027 when we would get the funding in place and get things started. So you know, we could move it to 27 but that would put us into October of 26 that we would have to get started, which is in a few months. And so we, you know, by the time we get done with this, it'll be halfway through the 2027 fiscal year already. So I'll be honest, 2028 is the soonest we can get started.
So this plan or this, this project was originally a huge chunk of Lake Otis. It was from Northern Lights to 68. Oh yep. All. And so with the funding that we had, we sought to break that down into smaller projects. So this one is broken down from 36 to Waldron and then Waldron to 68.
Yeah, HSIP project for Mountain View Drive. So that one is not in consideration now, but as far as AMATS funding goes for short term, we could essentially choose either of the first two or what we were thinking was moving this complete CPS 129 into short term. So we think that that might line up a little bit better with the Cal.
So anything that's left over, would it still remain in the non programmed project? It would stay in the project list. It just wouldn't be as, it's not like we're wholesale deleting everything else out. It would remain, it just wouldn't be programmed down to the fiscal constraints. So basically this project would be broken into three more or less the probably four, four
If there's anything we could do. I, you know, things maybe envisioned in the past if, if there's an opportunity to either advance this project. I mean the roadway condition is so deficient. I feel like it's dangerous. I've been traveling it, I see people veering around different levels of, of, of asphalt condition and I'm sure street maintenance is very challenged by it. I don't know if we really need that spot treatment at 20th Avenue as far as the signalization, we have 3 million in there. Could it be looked and reallocated differently to say starting a project as a complete start as a complete street versus just at that particular intersection with $3 million, could we get a project versus right now I see the $18 million is not programmed just to get started because it is problematic. I'm sure people challenge, I'm sure so many things could be maybe even envision differently. Whether do we need all of the things I, I dunno. But I'd bring it up to the group. So is that, is, would your intention be to move it to the short term or
So Project 152, lake Otis at 20th Avenue. No, I mean I'm looking at 'em together because I'm, I'm thinking of the corridor in itself. I mean I do see something that says program for 3 million on project 152. And the reason I eyeball it is because if it's programmed, is that really the scope, scope that is needed versus could we reconsider to get different scope just to get going on it.
Okay so for Project 153 actually it's the Debar to Northern Lines project. The next one down that you mentioned is not program. That's one of the ones that we have listed on the AMATS list recommendations that we're recommending be put into the program and funded.
It was one of the ones Rhiannon just mentioned. We were recommending moving it into the short term to get it started to match up with the CEL efforts, the work that is being done there. But that could be one of your guys' discussion points today if you think it should be resolved.
Yeah, I agree. That would be a good compliment to sell projects short term. Are there any other L projects that, do you have a list? Yeah, no we were gonna bring these up today. There's a, there's a suite of projects that we have there. A bypass to projects on projects on Gambell. I think the, some of the work on hide is already included in but DOUBLECHECKING and making sure that's aligned analysis that's done Style, style and cost estimates. And so with this format here we can provide it in the same format that help you guys and then get those in. Great. I dunno if we wanna run through those projects one by one or I'd be good to walk through 'em individually today. Just just as a reminder, any of the new projects would've to be scored and ranked and we would have to make sure to get that done before the June TAC meeting. That's why we've moved the TAC meeting to the 11th to give us a little more time for that before you walk through those just is there any certain sorting or order to this table?
I was looking for project numbers and jumping around lot by score. Yep. Because we have it in there ranked by score. So then we just go from the highest scoring on down how staff selected projects going, okay, here's where we stopped last time. Let's go down to the next highest scoring project and make recommendations based on what we have funding available. You can see that there are some projects that kind of skipped lower in the score that got moved in that was based on input from the committees that said yeah this one scored lower but we think it's a priority to move it into the program now. So you can do that with projects and if it's programmed you didn't bother to score it because it's already in there. It yeah, if it was a project in the tip, we basically didn't score it 'cause it was already in the tip. But that's something we're gonna change moving forward with future MTPs to where anything put into the MTP has to be scored with the MTP criteria. So there will be a score next to it. Yes. Not this round. Yes. Any new projects for this round. But going forward, anything that needs to be put in, whether it's in the stick or tip already needs to be scored and make sure we have a score. So when you look at the list, you don't see blanks on there.
Do you have cost estimates with the the projects you were gonna go over Luke? I do yet. Great. If you could note that as well, we can keep track of that and kind of see where we're at. Yep. Overall sounds good. So I'll try not to put everybody to sleep that I read through a couple lines of spreadsheet here. So the Ingra / Gambell, couplet lane drops, I believe this is already in the pe but reducing the eight lane couple to six lane couplet on Ingrid Gamble cost estimate for that. The latest one is 12000002nd project. Is there a comparable one already in this list or Yes, I believe there is. Yeah it's already in the MTP
Next project they Hydra or Hyder pedestrian Boulevard. That one, the estimate that we have here is 1.5 from the 2050 MTP. So assuming that's in the spreadsheet as well. Which one is it? Hyder Pedestrian Boulevard. That one's already in the tip as well. That's the lawn motorized one. So if the other one was 12 million and this list says 3.32 that say that it just we to get increased, have additional insight into what that not the explanation is to, I think it depends on how you do that lane diet and I think a lot of that needs to be worked out through public involvement through design in curve. It's gonna increase the cost, impacts the utilities, drop inlets drainage. If you are just leaving the curve where it is and doing with striping you can do it a lot more affordably and stuff that we'll need to communicate. Okay. This to move forward. So where it says FHA barrier, you're customized assuming curb.
I don't believe the barrier palatable to the community. But again, yeah, that's just the description says on, no I don't Yeah, no I've seen the detail there and I don't that be very popular for sure. Shared that widely. I agree. I'm just wondering if somebody asked why they going up so much if it's oh not actually barrier. This is just specific curve. That's a good like data validation. Yeah and I, I don't know exactly what's in the 12 million there. Is it, do you know if it includes utility foam removal? Because that's a separate project in the current, that's a separate project so, so that shouldn't be included. Okay.
One of the recommendations from the PEL was the downtown Fairview ed bus route, which I don't think that needs to be included in the P but I'll refer to staff on that. It's a recommendation that was coming up. Let's see, so the, the Fairview bypass is broken into three different phases. The first phase, let's see that was broken down, maybe we just go 1, 2, 3. But phase, the first stage of that was estimated at 19.5 million. The second stage of that, which it says middle here so I'm assuming it's the stretch that would be between Merrill and regional 60 million. And then stage C, third stage, hold on, I got too many stages here. The next stage is estimated 45 million.
Fourth stage, I apologize, there's four stages here is estimated six, what was the first one? 19.5 60, 45 and 96 that listed in order of where she would build it as a or just geographic on one end to the other. The, the team on the panel has had a lot of discussions there and at the Fairview Community Council would on how they would like to see it staged. And so the staging is in line with the Fairview community capital desires and I believe also the municipality. So if we could design, start looking at it and other considerations might come up but we're really trying to work with the community to make sure that it's staged appropriately for impacts. What numbers you listed that's theodor of the CG I believe so the largest one would come, that's the stretch that is on the, the south end there. So that'd be the connection. 20th long 15th. So a lot of the trench section there, a lot of the bridging over crossings there between know north and south side of of 15th. That's Yep.
Next project is Inger Street conversion of that of Ingrid to a two-way three lane with the middle turn lane and that's estimated at 23 Lane Gambell Street, two-way conversion. So one lane in each direction on middle turn lane, main Street scenario estimate there is 20.5 million. Just so you know we have projects already in the MTP for both of those. So we'll have to update 'em based on what the current understanding is. 'cause I think we were thinking differently. So we'll have to verify the costs because I think they're close to what you listed there but Okay, sounds good. How do those integrate with our four lane to three or couple?
Well the idea is we keep the utilities out to the, to the right of way with anything we're doing. That's just common practice for us. And so hopefully they converting from three lane to either for Grove which you already drop it to three lane and you're going to a two lane, two-way traffic. Probably not that big of an impact signal equipment. That's two way signal. Yeah. Yeah for Gambell, three lanes with two lanes wanna move curb there, kind of change the field of that street. So probably maybe involved there but hopefully with what we're doing with the suite of HSIP projects right now we can avoid there. Sure. Next project, 16th Avenue extension extending 16th over to Ingram for what? We'll be extending it to the east I guess and that's a 10.5 million fifth sixth lane drops and complete Streets 30.5 million.
Inter? I think all those would, well there's a couple of those that are already included in here but the, the bypass projects are not included And then it's my understanding 16 extension is not included there. Correct. Okay. I think everything else is in some way shape or form and we would just need to update it what the current cost estimate and description is. But it's really the bypass section and the 16th avenue that are not in the mtp. So this would be brand new projects. Are there any tip implications, things that the TIP needs to do to make progress on recommendation? Well I think, I think one of the things we've always identified as we're moving through the P is there's gonna be a time gap there where we get the projects that are recommended from APPELL into the MTP and into TIP. And during that time we can't spend federal funds on at ways to maybe state funds to kind of bridge that gap and, and work towards initial design efforts. The sooner we can get in M tip, the sooner we can advance and everything it sounds like is part of that that if at all go smoothly. All of those projects dp, that'd be our goal.
I was kind of happy to see on the memo there, the second page there that we've got a gap there on the, the near term DOT funded of 364 million. Okay. So I think it fits well. So if it absorbs that 360 4 doesn't affect the long term, like you said, right, the long term is, yep. You still have 65 million in the long term to utilize and those are, remember $26. So it's actually more in the long run if you actually look at the program. But it's in $26, you've got 65 million long term to utilize.
And the short term is through 2041. Yes. So so you think that the be done by 2031, that's, that's the goal is to get out there, get our environmental done on enter into right of way phase advance as possible. If there's any of those projects that can't be done that quickly, does that cause conflict regards to like the funding question or, or is it just something in the short term that doesn't get used, can roll over the long term? What do you mean? So if you have a funding that's like short term versus funding that's long term they're separate.
Up. But all this will be subject to the stip fiscal constraints as well And if there's any changes to delivery year, that's the time that will be okay. Like all projects I when it comes to the, the bypass, the four suites there, the first one is actually the design phase reconstruction phases but the 19.5 plus all the phase two and estimated for that. So there, there are quite a few not programmed projects. Yes. Were those and but this is from the MTP where they previously programmed and now they want or
No these were these anything that's not programmed was either nominated through various ways last, last go round. And obviously they're scored and ranked. So they're listed in here. They're not fiscally constrained but they would be pro projects that could be easily pulled and put into the short term because they are already ranked, scored and ranked.
Yeah 'cause I think last time we got like 800 projects total and we obviously can't fund them all. So anything not programmed would've been those non-funded ones from the last TP update. Okay so this table that that you provided, that showed remaining budget, that includes all of those from the 2050 MTP that were assumed to be part of 2050 MTP and it shows the after those ones, this is the funding that's left if you haven't like moved anything in or out? No,
Oh I did, yeah. Okay, go ahead. Oh I was gonna bring up one program of projects that we've been advocating for for all of sensor regions. Not just the hay mats area but it'd be a stiff project similar to our PM pot. But we'd be looking at drainage and I don't know how the PM program is shown in the MTP but we'd be looking at something similar where if our MO folks get additional resources to go out there and report over, prepare culverts, storm drain, that sort of thing. Or if we can set for for ditching or different things. But I guess I wanted to make sure with this opportunity to amend the MTP that get that into the MTP so they don't include drainage in the MTP drainage project so I don't think so. Okay.
Yeah, maintenance and operations is kind of its own side section. It's just whatever money goes towards that, we utilize that to determine and keep the program up and running if there is a desire, typically we do like rehab projects and kind of above, we don't do pavement preservation projects. If you want us to include a separate line item for drainage work, we'd be happy to, we would just need to make sure that we get the funding appropriately matched up with it, how much it is, that kind of stuff. Okay. Yeah and some of that work too, I think it would be replacing in kind but it would be, some of it might just, you know, necessitate a capital project as opposed to Yeah. Is that funding that's been no longer available for other projects or is it just funding that you have another source that it's a matter of showing versus not showing? So I mean it would come out, it would be part of the fiscal constraint instead be federal.
Yeah, I mean if you showed it as an individual project, the MTP, it would be part of the fiscal constraint. So it would impact the available funding for other projects. Didn't show it but you wanted to do it, you can still do it. Right. Does it require to be in the MTP? Yes, typically. So it depends on what kind of impact it's gonna be. You know typically what we look at for the MTP is, is it gonna have an environmental impact? So is it a categorical exclusion or not? Is it a regionally significant project or not? And if there's gonna be an environmental action that you need to take with it or not not or like air quality, sorry, air quality analysis you have to do. Typically pavement projects are not, I think drainage projects typically aren't, you know, don't require air quality are typically a cadex.
So they kind of fall outside the realm of what we're required to really directly show in the MP. And we typically have items in the MTP that's just like generic support for set project if it needs to be called out individually in the TIP. And a lot of the drainage work that we're doing right now is underneath that data bridge money just be breaking it up separately. Similar program. So I guess it was the name MTP. It sounds like the only implication would be there's just that much less money that can be assumed another subject in the MTP which maybe is more accurate.
Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. And I don't think we're talking about huge dollars, especially the percentage it would be huge dollars for the region as a whole. So it would be a fraction of that coming to Anchorage. That would be, that would've a flow year to year depending on where the needs are. There are plenty of needs in Anchorage. So would it be similar to your guys' current pavement and bridge line item that you have in the tip right now? 'cause we don't show that in the MTP facility project because it's covered under maintenance and operations. Correct. And we would just do the same. My recommendation is just do the same. Okay. Yep. Perfect. For the drainage one, you'll have the money as you need. It just doesn't affect the fiscal constraint. And what projects that money, right. My recommendation is long as if it starts like $50 million a project, we should probably have a discussion about what that means for the fiscal constraint of the MTP. But if it's like a couple million here or there, I'd assume that's part of the normal maintenance and operations and this, this would be, this would be the smaller step if we start getting into big capital projects, it's probably gonna beand kind of like what we do now is if it becomes a bigger one, we pull it out as an individual project and make sure it's called out of the MTP too.
So I had a chance to flag a couple for discussion and some, and I need some help from my friends here because I don't know if it, if it requires a change but I thought I would just mention 'em. So I'll go through line item on the complete streets line item 10 with Academy Vanguard and it's showing the 13.7 for timeframe. I'm just not sure if we're ready. The project is ready to expand those dollars in. I didn't know timeframe that matters or if it's the amount or if any adjustments necessary. And again, I'm not the project team but I did hear there's still some questions about being informed by, you know, the Seward Highway -Dimond to O'Malley project and looking at how, you know, are we still wanting to know more about it's gonna be an under that, under busing going look like more cars, less cars, more just pedestrian facility or whatnot. I don't know if that the, the 13.7 is tied to just design money still or is that part of construction money?
It's currently in the 23 through 26 tip. So that's why we have it listed there is because the 23 through 26 tip is, is still currently active right now. So we have to reflect it in there. Okay. I'm just looking and I'm fairly certain that was one of the projects that we pulled out
Yeah. So you know I not what we had done for that one, which you just see in there for, there are two phases. One is the TIP, which is the 4 million in the 23 through 26 and one is the 13.7 in the short term. So that means it's outside the current years of the TIP. Okay. So it's beyond 2031 at
Yeah we just referenced what document it's coming from. So I think what we can do is update the reference documents to say 23 through 26. It's not in the 27 through 31 TIP. So we can't say that it's, it's a little hard but we're just saying where is this project coming from? So people then can go back and reference it if they have it. Not that we're necessarily gonna expend the money in the column before it. Is it, is it a Lester tip in an app that you say yes maybe if you just put in parentheses less Yeah that has very specific connotation and if we use a lesser tip in here, that means it's not in the fiscal constraint. How we have it has to be this way. It's either in the tip short term or long term in order to be in the fiscal constraint because it's, while it's a illustrative for the 27 through 31 TIP, it's still within the short term of the MTP. You wouldn't want it to confuse and think it was a lesser tip. That's a bigger problem than Yes one that we just solved. Yeah. 'cause if we put that in there then the feds would come back and be like whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a illustrative. It's not in your MTP stop. Like you're gonna have some issues there.
Okay. So it's probably fine as is. My next one was 15 to get way, just kind of the same question as far as where we are in the timeline. I know that we're kind of just getting underway on that project, so don't know if there's anything, it does say short term so that means, but it's not expected to be expend within this timeframe. That's all I 25 and 26. On the next page, page two, these were the two that added because we are applying for grants. We found out that we were not successful on this round but nonetheless we're gonna keep trying. So I don't, I don't know if that has bearing on needing a change. No. Okay.
Yeah. Okay that's, that's great. The next is on page three for Denali Street 28 and 29. I mean right now it just shows MOA is the funding agency and in all, when I'm looking at well over $20 million as being funded by MOA, I think there's something else. I think this is nominated in AMATS isn't it?
20 minutes The different cost estimates of make phases or something? 'cause there is the current years of the tip and then there's outside the current years of the TIP Denali is in the 27 through 31 TIP or a couple of phases of funding. So the majority of it for construction is outside of it. So we need it in the current tip and also in the short term. The first, sorry, the first few years of your MTP are the TIP, so they're fiscally like ultra fiscally constrained. After that you have a little bit more flexibility about what you could show. So the timeline of 29 say short term then instead of tip.
One related funding question, the municipal fund, the road capital, this is on the like shows the methodology know that there's different bond amounts every year. Is that what this is taking is like what there are and checking out what mutual looked like? Is that what that's doing?
That varies on what the assembly and the mayor goes than that. Just be curious what these financial assumptions are based on for an annual bond package, something know kind of what the basis is. I'm sorry, which one are you looking at? That one there. Road capital. Road capital. So the assumptions for this basis of these numbers for the uni amount, just curious what the annual bond assumption is so that if this is based on a 55 million that's different than if it's based on a 30 million a lower one. This year we're gonna continue. So MOA road capital for bonds starts at 9.1 million and 2023 Oh I just, sorry, hold on. So, and to open it, it just takes a really long time. Excel.
Okay so the MOA road bond starts at 7,000 in 2026 and then goes up to be above average of 10 to 20 million by 2052 a year. Sorry, it starts at 7,000 in 2026 and then goes up to 10 million, 10 million, 11 million, 11 million, 12 million. And then it kind of slowly progresses its way up to about 24 million by 2052. The reason it's like that is because it's the average. So we're trying to flatten it out so we know kind of a rough estimate. Some years are gonna be higher, some years are gonna be lower. So you're, you're looking at, you're using historical data and extrapolating from that and you're taking out this, these are only road capital projects, so not drainage, not design, not lighting, things like that. Not our program funds. Yep.
How do those numbers sound? It varies so much Chelsea you said. Yeah, no this year was pretty low so that's why we had a pretty low number for 26 7 million. And where are those numbers you're reading? Which they're not in front of you guys. They're in the Excel, which we did not print off for you. But it's basically us taking the information that we're provided from the muni from the CIP averaging out from 2016 to 20 20 26 and saying, okay, on average this is what we can expect per year for projects. It's what we do for the federal funds for DOT. They give us the historical information, we average it out and say starting in this year it's about this much and then we apply CIP or CPI to it, state legislative money as well. We did that with but there's very little, so we had just smaller hits every like five years or 10 years, something like that. So the muni bond and am a s and then the federal programs are consistent year to year funding sources.
So there's probably been a bond fund every, every year for the past have we had any, there's been a bond every year for maybe one year in the nineties it didn't pass so it passes every year. But it just varies. It varies to what it's going towards, whether it's road capital or drainage capital. But if you got the numbers, I mean there's no other model other than looking at history and extrapolating. Yeah, I mean I guess it does vary a lot and it is interesting to think about like being able to say as as as the CIP is being developed for each different year of this number also affects our assumptions in MTP as we look at what, what we can assume is this we thing I hadn't necessarily thought about too much with each of those year to year bond packages. The one that we've had in there before was Safer Seward, it came out, what all do you need from us to get it back in?
Yeah. With just including the, those four Fairview bypass product projects and the 16th extension, you're into about 23 or 231 million of that short term. That's without updating the cost for these other projects. So it would be essentially the, the body and, and you all how you want to use that funding.
And I'll just throw out there talking to FHWA, they expect that the entire project will be included in the MTP, not just the portion within the MPO boundary. Well the funding that you've shown here on this table have to cover the entire project even if it's not in the MPO boundary. We'd have to work with DOT to come up with the numbers for outside of our boundary that historically go to those projects in that area, that specific area along the Seward Highway, how much historically has gone to projects and determine if that is enough to cover it. If it is not, then we'll need something in writing from DOT that's more or less acceptable to the committees. I don't know what that is. It's up to you guys that says yes the funding will be available, here's where it's coming from, here's how this is gonna be paid for, et cetera to determine whether that is acceptable for you all.
So the, the committees tend off the committee can determine if something as is can be assumed part of a fiscal constraint. So EOT has a program that's statewide but some of it's within the MPO boundary they have to put higher statewide program. Yeah, I mean they just have to be able to demonstrate that they have enough money to fund projects outside of, outside of what 'cause we, what we normally do is we look in our boundary for the funding that's historically utilized for projects and that's what these numbers are. If we're talking about projects outside of our boundary, we're gonna have to find the fiscal numbers that are relevant there. And so what we would need is a list of information from DOT historically, how much have they spent on that corridor in that project location.
And we would use that to determine if there's enough money for the project. If there isn't, then we need something from DOT that says where that additional funding is gonna come from. Alternatively, DOT just split the project into two projects, have a Safer Sewerd Highway and an Extra Safer Seward Highway. One is inside the development one is not, doesn't matter. There's a couple of problems with that. One, their environmental document includes the entire project so you're gonna have some issues there. And two, it's a regionally significant project. So even if it were not in our boundary, it's touching our boundary and it impacts the MPO and FHWA has indicated that we will still have to include it in our MTP that work on last if it's regionally significant, what's the definition of regionally significant? What trips that? Well we don't have a definition as AMATS, but there is a federal definition and a project like the Safer Seward would trigger that there would be a bigger discussion on how the project's funded or what timeline the project's funded and outside of historical averages for the a AMATS area or the AMATS area plus the extent of that project, there may be some issues where we fund what we can in the MTP and what's documented in say the next four years of the STIP.
And then if we get to a point where we don't get to the best dollar amount we could, thinking of layaway details, I don't know. Sorry but I mean that this is a big challenge when it comes to these larger projects, right? And you, you're not gonna bite off safer sewer highway one one project and so it would be, you know, how do we fit it into the STIP on a regular basis? How do we avoid that detri being the detriment of the overall program. So I guess some more discussions to follow there. But if it's not fully funded in the MTP, we would have to come back and do a method to the MTP when we justify or when we can show fiscal constraint on how we're gonna fund the next programs. Do I have that? I'm sorry, I feel like I'm rambling a little bit but try to talk through this.
I guess it depends 'cause the project team for the Safer Seward has always asserted, it'll be done in like 20 years. So that covers our MTP timeframe. So, so you would need to fully funded in the MTP if it's not gonna be done in that 20 year timeframe. So beyond 2052 you would not have to include that portion in our MTP I think. I don't know. Okay. It was done as a PEL would that be different if it was done as a PEL? That's a study so Well yeah, would construction would still need to be shown in the MTP if there's, if they did the PEL, like the Seward to Glenn PEL and it said here are the distinct phases that you need to do all those phases would need to be included in. I guess it depends. It's really because of the environmental document. Understood. I'm just looking at the structural differences between the two.
So if there was a distinct phase one that they wanted to put in and fund and not the others would, would that be something that would have, I mean does the whole thing have to be funded or just phase of it? Last I talked to FHWA, the whole thing would have to be in the MTP because their environmental document says a specific range that they're gonna be doing and when they're gonna be doing so. So if like windy corner needed, you know, the cutting in the highway there and with that portion half, they can't do that unless the entire safer Seward highway project is in the MTP. Yes, because of their environmental document. That to be all of our all document that was proof is my understanding for Windy Corner. So they could, they proceed that?
Well we'd have to reevaluate that thing. I'm not sure what kind of regulation changes have occurred since that document was approved. So, which I don't think windy corners within the AMATS boundary. So it's not, it's not and it wouldn't be a regionally significant project so it wouldn't be something that would be But it's under, it's under the same umbrella at this point. Yep. Was Safer Seward scored? No. If you wanted to add it back in, we would need to score and rank back in and score. Yep. Because it was officially removed from MTP by the policy committee. So if you're wanting to add it back in, we would've to score and rank like any of the other projects we would add. Is, is this score a prior score or is it a new score? There was no score for it previously. You mean the ones that are on the table right now?
It's kind of twofold. We don't have the time just, it's just not possible. But also I thought that it was wise to keep things in already. It already scored just with the, how long it takes for a project to actually be completed. It seems strange to put 'em into a program and then put a whole new set into the program, set it and then nothing actually gets completed.
If it was in the initial, have a score that was consistent with these scores, that same method. What do you mean? If every Seward Highway was part of the 2050, it didn't have a score? Not have a score. No. Typically what we would do if it's a project in the tip, we didn't score it and that's a area of improvement we are gonna be doing for future. So that we have I think about 15 minutes left. I think we live until four. Yes. So, so when this comes to us is one of the asks that we identify which additional projects we would want to be added 2052 but as a recommendation or put as like additional project to absorb the rest of the available funding. That kind of, yeah,
So I'm hoping whatever comes out of today then goes into the list that hopefully because we've already discussed it then you all would then approve in the meeting and RSG would like things sooner rather than later. So if there are some that we really know, everybody agrees this is what's gonna go forward, I can let them know sooner rather than later so that they can start working on those things. But if anything is really up in the air and we'll come up for discussion in the committee meetings, I won't include that with whatever. So they don't have to undo any work. So, and then also just hopefully shorten the discussions during the committee meetings.
Based on the conversation that was had was moving the Lake Otis to short term and using amass funding for that, that would take out about away about 18 two of MOA and then these two additional projects, just the status finale street would move from MOA to AMAs depending on the funding. And that would leave about 10 over still for MOA.
So those movements to AMATS, they are there over 20 2022. So what does that do to that? We'll probably have to talk about moving some projects from short term into long term. So it's fine if our short term is not zeroed, it's our long term number that we wanna make sure is as close to zero, would that be two of them combined? Basically our long term is any carryover from the short term into the long term. So if you have like 10 million over in the short term, that's fine if you want to do that. 'cause it's recognizing that you're gonna be carrying some projects over into the long term. So as long as the long term number, like in this case it's 70 million showing on this table and 52 in the whole, in the short term are still fine, it's still 18 comfortable. Like a buffer. Is I reading that right? So it'd be fine if this was what was, it's still fiscally constrained. Yes. Because your long term you are still under your funding and it's fine to be underfunded it, it's totally okay to do that 'cause you're like ah, we're fine with this. Just as long as that number's not read then we need to deal with that. So like the non-motorized, that's a problem because it's red.
So it's just a matter of just moving long term short term to fix those two red numbers because you've got the budget on either side and then you've got a little bit of, little bit left over on both. Yeah. At this point if we didn't make any other changes, all we would have to do is move some from the long term, just the short term and delete some long term projects and everything would be fine. Okay. Obviously we wanna use some of the money that's there, but we do that and I think what Brianna was saying is that there are two, we basically went through the non-motorized list and already moved projects from the long term into the short term. 'cause we were actually even over the 10 million we saw there, I think we were like 70 million plus. Yeah. And so there was like 10 million remaining and so there are two projects that we're recommending being removed entirely out of the program to just zero us out on the non.
So think it's zeroed out and there would still be 65 million available in the short term. Yes. There's even more. We could move technically from long term and short term if you wanted any of the non-motorized be moved somewhere else like into another pot. Yeah. AMATS, I mean technically because we use amass breakout, our funding based on non-motorized versus Complete Streets. No, unless you wanted to change it to a Complete Streets project and redo the scope, we could do that. Not that I want to. Just curious about the, this is the differentiation between non-motorized and other modes based on the percentage policy conversation we had a couple years ago about how much of our funding's gonna go towards non-motorized versus motorized. Yeah. And I think we're at 25%, 25 to 30%, something like that. So is that non-motorized? Is that AMATS Non-motorized Sorry, go ahead
We do have funding, so AMATS has a dedicated non-motorized percentage that we put towards it and then Muni has some as well. There's some state funding as well. And so we break it about that but we don't separate it out between DOT Muni and AMATS. I think just 'cause it was easy for us to have it at the one we did that for Complete Streets only.
I flagged a couple more and it has to do with the Safe Streets for All grants that we got for Bragaw. And so I'm seeing a couple of things that I wanna ask you guys about since we had the $25 million grant and then we're gonna be providing match, there's gonna be somewhere of, oh I don't know, six to $10 million that we're gonna provide and match items 48 on the non-motorized list and 60 are related to that project. So I don't know, I mean they're shown as desired project elements but there, but nonetheless we are moving forward as a whole corridor project. So I don't know if it's good to keep 'em in there because that shows the history of what was important to the community. But if they're gonna get folded in a different way, I don't know if we need to substitute it and show the SS four a project itself, number 48 and 60. So 48 is a multi-use separated pathway to drive We maybe some of that is actually going,
It actually goes a little further. So maybe it's not captured by our project footprint. So leading it in there is probably Okay. Okay. Okay. The other one on 60 is non-motorized crossing at the intersection of street and I think those are both gonna, and that's 15 million.
Yeah. Okay. So and then if I go back to, so that list is fine as far as Debting with that one and if I go back to the Complete Streets, that's on 1 49, page 12, there's a Briga Street and Devar Road at Costco. So it's looking at how the project and the boat interacts at that parking lot and we are planning to address that in our project. I don't know if that's or not, does not program
Yes, in some fashion we, we went through it through particularly the non-motorized and determined if the intent of the project was satisfied in someway already. Okay. And that's the, the majority of the completed projects there. Then I have another one on page 20 or see page three, non-motorized list number 27, 20th. Just that one changed to
We just didn't do that in the the, we didn't do that for the 2050 MTP. I don't know if we'll have time to do it for this go round just because how stressed we are with getting it done. So I'd recommend maybe waiting until next go round and break that out. Well I guess to that point, the key most essential things are if there's projects need to get worked on in the next couple years started kicked off those ones Absolutely be here further. That's really the next MTP that's gonna be, yeah, it's hard point. No, that's fine. I understand. And if it's something that's, you know, needing to be, be kicked off in the next few years and we move it in the MTP, it'll be something we'll have to do a tip change for the later date. So we flag that so it'll be essential for you guys to point out these need to get started. We need to get it into the tip as well. So we know
A sequencing question. So 143 and the complete street list is three six Avenue Corridor Study Denali. Then we also have where did it go in the spreadsheet I world, but then we actually have a full, so number 124 is a full rehabilitation for 36 Avenue. So I'm wondering in terms of sequencing, wouldn't we want the corridor study to happen before we did the rehabilitation? Both of those are long term I think. Yeah, they're both in the long term. The sequencing is just the score. How they scored is why they're, why they're sequenced different. So the 36 that and 124 that scored 82 and then the other one scored 64.8. So in the list it's just further down based on the score. But they're both programmed for long term. So would that be, would it be in our best interest to move the for risk study to the short term as opposed to the long term different funding sources also, right? Like the rehabilitation is funded MOA but AMATS is the corridor study that is the will that would seems
Yeah, it seems like it would be helpful to have something that moved along later projects. So I mean I, I would be in favor of moving that moving 143 from long term to short term. And I think I feel similarly, especially since the price tag on these is relatively small, I would feel similarly about 147 and the supportive development quarter strategic implementation planning.
Good question though is their dollars in the table aaps has more long term money. Short term money. So guess moving into short term, just an exercise in like utility overloading, what really can't be done? Will that mean that where will it fall relative to the other short term project and the more important than what's already in there Because it could just make it harder to make that prioritization decision. Yeah. With the updates that we got today, we're probably gonna now be over in the short term and we'll have to even in the long term, so Okay. A discussion on how you guys want to handle that. I would look at the other short term that this is more important than those we're suggesting short term.
My last question is do we have a a map out of the non-motorized projects and how we have that spatially located somehow? I know you're getting real tight in me asking that question. We do have a GIS layer of the the current projects that are programmed. That programmed. Okay.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.