March 19, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Yes, real quick. So we've talked about this a few times, but AMS was made aware that there may be some available CMAC funding for this from the state, about 18.6 million. And so staff at DOT and AMASS have been working together to try and see is it possible for us to utilize some of that money to help with the Anchorage Downtown Transit Center that the municipality of Anchorage is working on. So there was some back and forth discussions and then DOT said you need to make a formal request if you would like this money. So before you is that formal request. We recognize that the state may have needs for other things for that could utilize this funding. So while we would love all of the money available, we recognize it may not be possible to get all of it. So any level of funding would be appreciated to help with this.
As a reminder there, it's about 25 million for the efforts for the downtown transit center. So anything from the state would be really appreciated. And just as a reminder that any difference between what we get in the CMAC funding and what is the need for the downtown transit center. AMMAS is intending on making up with our STBG and or CRP funding to utilize all of that funding. Were possible. So the intent here is to get the Downtown Transit Center funded. Just as a reminder for this, the Muni Public Transportation Department was gonna seek or is seeking a grant for this. Those typical grants are 80 20 split. So it would've been a 20% match, which was about $5 million. So utilizing the AIM or the state CMAC money would help offset the amount of money that the Muni would have to pay for the downtown transit center by about 2.5 million. So it'd be a pretty big benefit all around for it. So technical advisory committee reviewed this CMAC funding request letter, recommended approval as is to the policy committee. So it is here before you today. Thank you.
I'll say the mayor has sent a very similar letter to the commissioner. We got a really wonderful positive response. So excited to be working with you all to figure out how to save the taxpayers some money and get some federal dollars obligated. I don't know if you wanted to add to that.
Yeah. Thank you. So we are getting ready to put out the RFP for design and engineering. So that'll happen in 2026. Be ready for construction late 20 27, 20 28. However, with this funding, we can obligate it any time. We can transfer it to FTA with just a, a simple pen exercise and get it obligated very quickly. And then it can sit at FTA until we're ready to use it.
Excellent. And from the, the state DOT, we're going forward right now with our statewide transportation improvement program. That'll be out for public comment within the next week, week and a half. So we're, we're just pending conversations right now that are happening with the legislature to understand a bit more about our state match and there may be some movement that happens on that. So we'd love for that to happen ahead of our 45 day public comment period. But so we're looking in that document to, to evaluate the CMAC funds that are available and any carbon reduction program funds that could also be used to help with the capital cost of a project like this. And so we'll, we'll respond, I think through programming of that and in discussions over the upcoming weeks to, to see what we can do. So yeah. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from the committee? Questions or comments from the public? Okay. What's the of the committee?
Hello, R and Brown, MTP coordinator with Aass before you. We are bringing back the second amendment for the 2050 MTP. This is following our 45 day public comment period. The, the, the amendment was released January 1st and was open until February 15th for that 45 day review. And just to give you a bit of background of the amendment, the first item that was updated was the description for the Seward Highway, O'Malley Road to Diamond project. That was based on the actions taken by the policy committee in October of 2025. So again, that was just updating the project to match with the tip. The other two projects that were added during this amendment are safety and access projects that the MOA is seeking grant funding for. So again, we released this for a 45 day public comment period. We would've received 21 comments total five of the comments will be carried forward for consideration.
Future MTP updates, three comments require guidance from the project team or other agencies. We will be following up with them. Four comments were directly related to the HSIP projects and the funding program. So those are being addressed. And one comment was just in support of AMS whole. Notably there were eight comments about the Seward Highway project. Mostly concerns. So we've highlighted those as comments that we're asking for the app, the committee's assistance on. So during the technical advisory committee, they recommended approval of the amendment with no changes. Staff did as well. But they do have concerns about the eight comments that were brought up about the the sewer highway project. So the official action that we're requesting is approval of amendment two with no changes based on the comments. But the technical advisory commission or committee, sorry, did request that the policy committee have the project team come in and report present to both committees to answer the concerns and questions that were brought up in these comments. They also requested that should you all set that meeting to set it as early as possible in the timeline of the project. So again, the formal ask is to recommend the approval of the amendment with no changes based on the public comment period. Thank you.
Just really quickly? I think member Gerker, glad you're back to this meeting. I think number one was the compromise. We came up with former Director Holland to keep that project moving and sort of let the project team have time to think about solutions there. And then really excited to see both the life safety access roads in here. I know that's a really big priority for the mayor. Making sure folks don't die in wildfires 'cause they only have one way out. So lots of clearly you see in the comments, there's a lot of needs there. So glad we're getting started with these two.
Okay. So moved by Mr. Gerker, seconded by Mr. Downey. Any objections to approving the motion? Okay, so the approval of the MTP amendment number two. Thank you. Okay, the next action item is C. This is the 20 23 20 26 funding program. The transportation improvement program amendment number four. Aaron will be presenting on this.
Yes chair, this will be me. So as you may recall, we have an amendment number four. It is our last amendment for the 23 through 26 funding program. And I'm proud to say that this is one of the few funding programs I've seen from beginning to end. So it's, it's a little bittersweet to see it ending but I'm very excited for that 'cause everybody's done a lot of really good work with it. So this amendment does a lot of changes. You see 'em listed in the memo before you. We have talked about a lot of the changes. A lot of them are just keeping projects moving forward where possible. There are some delays in this amendment just based on the current project schedules and staffing availability, which we have talked about in the past. I will let you know there were four additional changes that came in as part of the public comment period that we had to put the amendment back out for additional public comment period.
'cause they met the amendment threshold. So we put it back out for 15 day public comment period. I'm gonna go through those four changes really quickly. The first is in the non-motorized table. Table three, it's for the Campbell Creek trail grade separated crossing at Lake Otis Parkway after the project got started. There's been considerable evaluation by the project team on this. There is gonna be a pretty significant amount of impacts to housing in this area if we continue forward with a grade separated crossing only 'cause it has to be rather large to cross over Lake Otis in order to meet the A DA requirements for it. So with that in mind, the recommendation from staff, the project team is to remove the grade separated crossing aspect of the project and just have it as a crossing for Lake Otis. So the idea would be to do an at grade crossing possibly if that is what is decided and get something done now and then long term work with the municipality of Anchorage as the area redevelops.
Try and make it suitable for some kind of overcrossing to help us meet that. I recognize that this is not what everybody would like to see, but in this time of limited housing stock, it would be a challenge to procure the housing away from people in order to build this project. So hopefully if you all agree with this, we can move forward with something at this location now and in the future. Next is the er de Glenn PEL showed an additional 200,000 for funding needs in FY 26. Just as a reminder, this is not for additional work, this is for work that has already been done. The project team did do a lot of additional work that they needed to get back, paid for basically a lot of additional analysis, public engagement, review of comments and everything. So request was sent from DOT to for this additional money 200,000.
And we can easily accommodate it in the program. But the reason it's added in here is the project was originally removed from the tip 'cause there was no funding in the 23 through 26 cycle. So we had to add it back in and show the 200,026. So that is why it's on this list. Next is under the HSIP table. It is the Tudor Road at Wright Street and Dale Street Vulnerable Road user improvements. This is one of the projects that the policy committee nominated for the HSIP cycle. And I know that the municipality and DOT worked really diligently to get this one funded in 26. So we really appreciate it from staff's perspective that this project is moving forward is a high need here. So we're really excited for it. And then lastly is in table 10, it is the Radio Tower Road North Fort Campbell Creek culvert replacement.
We got a request from DOT to put this project in 'cause they found some money for this culvert replacement, which is sorely needed. So those four changes were put out for a 15 day public comment period. In addition to our normal 40 to five day public comment period. We received no additional comments on those four projects or those four changes. However, in our, in our initial 45 day public comment period, we received 40 comments and responded to all of them. 15 were clarification from staff in the response 13 were showing support for programs. There was five for carrying forward. And then we had some four comments for the project team or other agency for guidance. And three comments expressing concerns over delays on projects in the program. So this came back before the technical advisory committee. At their meeting they recommended approval of the air of the amendment for air quality conformity demonstration and tip tables with three additional changes that came up as part of this.
The first is the seniors and youth ride free project that we show in there, the 23 through 25 funding, that that project is not actually eligible for federal funding that we utilize as part of our program. The public transportation department was made aware of this and we received a request from them to move this funding all into the downtown transit centers project and FY 26 to help pay for that project. Then the Glen Highway Mile post Rehabilitation airport heights to Parks Highway parent and final construction. $3 million was needed in FY 26 DOT brought this up as a need at the technical advisory committee and then the 32nd Avenue project. There was a quick update to the description to remove the two current collector standards from the description. The reason for that is 32nd Avenue is not being upgraded to a collector, it is remaining a local road.
So we need to eliminate that from the description. Now there is one other change as well that I need to alert you to that I found out between the TAC and policy committee meeting, it is on Fireweed Lane Rehabilitation. There is 3.25 million in 2026 for design and right of way work. At this point the project is not far enough along to request that money in FY 26. So my, my comment to you all is we'll need to make an edit to zero that funding out for Fireweed Lane and FY 26 and as we work on the 27 through 30 tip and as the project continues to move forward, we can look at reprogramming that at a later time. I don't have the information right now for you of when we can reprogram that. We're gonna have to wait until later on down in the fiscal year as the project moves forward. So this is before you all today with those recommended edits for approving of the de air quality conformity demonstration and the tip tables. Thank you.
Just a, a comment between 45 day first period and a, a following 15 day period that's clearly a lot of work and a ton of changes here that have been incorporated. So just thanks for all the effort on this. Thank you. I know there's been a lot of back and forth to, to true this up so we can be on top of it for the summer season. So thanks to everyone. Okay. Any comments from the public? Alright, what is the will of the committee
This is chair. Okay. So as you may has, I just noted the 23 through 26 tip is coming to an end. So we need the next one moving forward by the time this fiscal year ends, which is September 30th of the year. So we need it in place by October 1st in order to keep projects moving forward. So staff had two work sessions with the technical advisory committee and policy committee to go over this. We put it out for a 45 day public review period. We received 70 comments on it. 33 of those comments showed support for projects in the program, which is pretty good for us. I will say compared to past tips that we have put out, we had a pretty significant and robust support for a lot of the projects that are in the program. So I, I want to thank everybody for their time and effort who spent putting it together as well as putting all of their comments in 'cause it is a lot of work to do that.
We also received some additional comments for clarification that staff provided or guidance from project team or other agencies that we'll send forward. There are two things that I would like to point out for you in the comments. So in the public comment response there was one comment provided by Rabbit Creek Community Council regarding the Rabbit Creek Road rehabilitation project. They submitted a comment saying we recognize that there is a limit of funding and staff time, but we would like to see that project maybe scaled down to smaller upgrades, focusing on maybe some of the intersections or safety improvements along that area because they, so they cite poor site lines, steep grades, numerous driveways and no amenities for active transportation. So they're requesting that the policy committee, a AMAs look at scaling it down to a smaller project that can maybe be more achievable in our 27 through 30 program with the limited funding that we have.
Staff's response to that is we're not sure if that can be accommodated. So our recommendation is to forward this on to the project team, sit down with the project team and identify maybe the best path forward and come back to you all with a recommendation on what to do with this project. So at this time we don't have a recommended change for it other than to do some more investigative work to tell you, okay, how much is it gonna cost? What kind of improvements can be done? How much you know, scheduling is it gonna save for something like that. And then lastly, there were some comments that we received regarding a new project to be added in. And this is on the Eagle River Road out to the Nature center. So Ames has a project for a little while in there to rehabilitate that portion of, or that road, Eagle River Road from Eagle River, Eagle River Loop Road to a ryner.
And that was removed from the tip because of cost. It was an estimated 60 million plus to do that project and it was far too expensive for us. However, a portion of the pathway was kept into the program and that is the portion from Eagle River to Mile High Avenue. The community is requesting that the rest of the pathway be done from mile High Avenue to Ryner. I hope I'm saying that right. I never seem to get it. Staff originally was saying we can't afford it, it's gonna be too impactful. Just as a note for everybody, there's a cliff on one side and there's a mountain on the other side with homes, driveways, that kind of stuff that would be impacted by the project. However, at the TAC staff discussed with the TAC that maybe as a compromise, what we can go ahead and do is put an illustrative project in the 27 through 30 funding program to study that area and find out what it'll actually take to put a pathway along that roadway. You know, how impactful is it gonna be, what is the cost, what are we kind of looking at here? Because it was just based on preliminary work that had been done in the past by Ammas to put like a shoulder in that area. And so I think it would be really beneficial if we did something like that. And the big thing about that is we can put in the illustrative so as money comes available, it's right there ready to go if anything is freed up in the future.
So I just wanted to kind of note those before I continued. So you're aware of those. The technical advisory committee reviewed the 27 through 30 funding program narrative and air quality demonstration, recommended approval with two edits. One is to add the illustrative project for doing the study for the non-motorized pathway along Eagle River Road and then also to update the tip narrative to correct the third avenue signals on lighting project name to the Third Avenue reconstruction name, which was what we currently show on the tip. So I'll just note on that last one, staff will have to go through the tip narrative and update a few other items as well. So we have noted that or that we have it noted on our end. And as a reminder, now that you've approved tip amendment number four for the 23 through 26, any changes that were made as part of that, that would impact the 27 through 30 program we're gonna update as well.
So you know, name changes, project description changes, termini changes, any kind of funding changes we'll make sure are also reflected in the 27 through 30 program. We didn't pre-make those changes 'cause we didn't know what you guys would approve and we didn't want to make 'em all and then have 'em not approve and have a lot of work for no reason. So just as a reminder there, we will update that if the 27 30 program is approved. So this is before you today for approval of the narrative, the air quality demonstration, the funding program tables with the edits outlined in this memo. Thank you.
Any questions or comments from the committee? I have a couple questions. Being that our, our step for the state 20 26, 20 29 has come out. Have you been able to look at the fiscal constraint between what was proposed in that as a pre-release version In like the 10 days that it was out?
Yeah, I was gone for six of the 10 days I was out of the country and then I came back very ill. And so I'm actually on antibiotics now for it still. So I have not had a chance, but it is on my list of things to do. Yeah, I'll be honest, in the past our fiscal constraint hasn't been too out of whack with the stip because we are the only TMA, so we get a set amount of funding and it's always been pretty consistent and we work very closely with central region planning or Anchorage field office planning, sorry to make sure that that is okay. So it is on my task to do and I think we can easily accomplish that once the step is out for public comment or now if it's still available.
Excellent. Yeah, that true up process has always been something that's been a struggle and I think each time we're getting a little bit closer, but hopefully within that 45 days we'll have a chance and perhaps it can be an agenda item at our next meeting is being able to look at that, make sure that the stick, once it's submitted as final matches and aligns with the tips and we have perhaps in the next amendment for the tip for any changes that are needed because trying to slip them off as best as we can. Okay. All right. Any other questions, comments? Any comments from the public? Well, is there a motion to take action? I,
I would move to approve the narrative air quality demonstration and funding program tables with the edits outlined in this memo, including the TAC recommendation of Eagle Road and the name change to Third Avenue signals and updating projects based on changes to the 24 to 27. No that that
All right. Any further discussion? Think one point of comment from the state perspective is a placeholder and this relates to the MTP as well as the 23 to 26 tip. So there's still ongoing conversations between Federal Highways, federal Transit Administration and the state about how we manage those regionally significant projects and other critical safety improvements such as the the safer Seward Highway. And of course that's been, you know, a significant debate within Ammas MPO. But I, as we move forward just with future meetings, understanding what actions we need to take as those things resolve themselves between federal agencies and the state would be important for us to include as we move forward. So we're certainly approving the tip itself to proceed over those next few years, but just with the understanding that we still have some pretty significant issues that we'll wanna discuss looking ahead so that we don't stop momentum of projects that are underway. So with that being said, we're excited to see the next look ahead. Okay. So what would the, will the committee be for the motion on the floor? Anyone objecting to it? No objection. Okay. Motion is passed. Aaron did you get it all written down as stated? Yes
Nicolette then I'll just remind everybody as we start these, we have 10 minutes for this presentation and then we will be keeping time so when the 10 minutes are up, I will let you know just in the heads up in the future we may have like a nice little clock or something so people can see what their 10 minutes are. Well this one's somewhat inaccurate but yeah I, I'll go ahead and start it on my phone once you start speaking. And the 10 minutes includes annoying committee member questions. Okay. I didn't say that in any way, shape or form. Just, just please note for the record go ahead if you want to introduce yourself
Please. Hello, my name's Nicolette Dent. I'm a park planner with Anchorage Parks and Recreation and I'm here to just introduce the draft recreational trails plan. So the recreational trails plan is a long-term framework for how parks and recreation and our partners will prioritize recreational trail development over the next 10 to 20 years. And this is an update to the 1997 area wide trails plan. So since that time, Ammas has adopted a non-motorized plan that has a transportation focus and the re recreational trails plan was developed as a companion doc document that really narrows in on our recreational trail systems, how those connect speaking to mostly land managed by parks and recreation. And it also discusses management and maintenance considerations and design considerations as well. So the two plans, the non-motorized plan and the recreational trails plan, both under AMAs are intended to mutually support each other.
So you can go to the next slide please. The public engagement we conducted over the last two years included general public input along with technical stakeholder perspectives. We hosted four public workshops in Anchorage and Eagle River. We did an online survey and received over 2000 responses and we shared an interactive online comment map. We hosted over 13 stakeholder interviews with our neighboring land managers and trail maintainers. So the key themes that we identified people want to make trails safer. Many of the concerns we heard focused on the different speeds of different types of user groups such as e-bikes and walkers. We heard about trail etiquette and those conflicts unpredictable people on trails and that people feel unsafe when they're crossing roadways. So those at grade roadway crossings maintenance, this was the most frequently cited issue overall people mentioned surface conditions of trails and winter maintenance issues that they wanted to address. And connectivity was our third biggest theme. So in the survey, 43% of respondents said that closing gaps between our existing trail systems was the highest priority that we should be working on over the next 20 years. And when people talked about building new trails, we heard a lot of support from multi-use trails over single user trails. Next slide.
So our draft plan is currently in a public comment period open at the end of January and it will be open through March 31st of this year. We have an online project map that's interactive that talks about our proposed trail projects. It shows them in three different categories, high, medium, and low. And these categories are informed by municipal ownership of the land, the gaps in the system and the population around those gaps and the severity of need. So is the asset broken? Is there a major maintenance need? We also included a supporting map of non-motorized public comments and public priorities because throughout this project we heard a lot of comments about non-motorized facilities and things that would typically fall outside of parks and recreation. But we do intend to share those comments with Ammas, memorialize them and hope that they're incorporated into the next non-motorized plan.
Update for the next slide. This plan also introduces a trail classification system that our department can adopt. The key addition in this is a introduction of the trail class six. So this is a, a design that provides separate facilities for people going different speeds basically. And it it's meant to address user conflict concerns by providing lanes for cyclists and lanes for pedestrians. So we have two implementation options that are detailed in the plan. One is a parallel separate facilities. So things that are actually separated by like a green buffer could be maintained differently in the winter or a single wider trail with lanes to show the delineation of where different users can go. So this is meant in direct response to the safety and operational issues that we heard throughout our public comment periods. And with that, we're currently going through the comments we've received so far both from the public and from our stakeholder agencies. And after that we're gonna start incorporating those into our document and the approvals process will begin with us visiting the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Eagle River Togiak Parks and Recreation Board of Supervisors. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the committee? I mean, thank you.
Please? Yeah. Hi, I'm Marnie Isaacs, I'm representing the GaN North Star and South Edition Community Councils and this has to do with what Sister Lagoon has done. Great work for us in helping us get through all the loops here. But I just wanted to update the whole policy loop here that we have North Star and GaN Community Council have just passed resolutions unanimously that we'll be getting into. You have gotten into you already and South Edition will be coming up here in the Bible week. And for those of you that aren't familiar, we've encouraged consideration on a priority basis and as a short term basis to improve to Class six, the trails that lead from the Snack Shack or the playground there at Westchester Lagoon. And you know, going in each direction about a 10 minute walk and make it a class six. It's becoming quite congested. You have multiple users and you also have access at Forest Park Drive and Street to get access for the handicapped. We're also now using the trail more and more frequently and I'm just here making a plea to keep this on your radar 'cause we think that it fits into the Westchester Lagoon Master plan goals exceptionally and and are careful. It, it, there's pending serious accidents down there. So I just wanted to get, get my, my voice in there for you and thank to Network help me out. Any questions? Thanks.
Thank you. Any other comments from the public and I don't know if it's possible, but it might be great if we could like zoom in on the QR code just in case like for the public when they're watching this on Zoom, they could perhaps get that QR code. But because the comments are being open through the end of March, correct, I
Well that'd be great. Yeah and the clearly you've got a lot of comments already, which is amazing numbers of comments and responses. So yeah, please keep those comments and good luck. Thank so much. Thank you. All right, next on our agenda six B, this is people mover transit on the move.
Steven. Hi. I guess for the record I'm gonna share my screen while I'm trying to talk. My name is Steven, I'm the transit planner for People Mover and here to present transit on the move updates as we've gotten them for since we started this project re refresh and update back in January of 2025. Okay, so for a quick super quick highlight transit on the move, it is the public transportation department five year plan, three to five year plan. It is something that started it back in 2019, which was prior to or after the system redesign in 2017. And the Anchorage Talks Transit was in 2016. So a lot of things built up to this first version of Transit on the Move, which is on the screen right now. It was a, an award-winning document that was produced by some folks in this room anyways. So what it basically gives us is a prioritized list of projects to work on as a, as a department that is basically fueled and involved from the community partners and and organizations and community councils and anybody who cares about public transit in Anchorage, whether that's bus service, paratransit service or our rideshare product, which is commute through enterprise for commuters.
So it gives us a, again, a prioritized list of projects that we have been working on over the past five years. The reason we have Route 85 service to Sac Library, Wisconsin Street and Old Seward Highway all the way down to Huffman is because of transit on the Move 2020. We have a security department now because of this plan, it was ranked number two as a priority for our department to work on over the past five years. So we have done things from the 2020 plan and we are updating it to make sure that we are in line with what the community needs for the next five years. So our timeline of our project, we started the updating the scope back in January of 25. We spent a lot of last summer or most of last summer engaging with the public in our phase three survey, which I'll go over quick highlights of, I have paper copies but the table back there is full so I'm just gonna leave them back there for you afterwards.
I do have it on the screen as well. But basically we spent all of last summer asking the community what people value in public transit services. We went to 75 different events across the muni from Chugiak all the way down south of Huffman, trying to cover a lot of different places and events and activities last summer to ask people that one question and get their feedback. The main survey question of those, of that phase three part was what you value and the three options were accessibility, which means access. Do we provide bus service where people need it, convenience and reliability. So the results are on the screen 10% more people say we need to focus on access adding bus service on roads that don't have them. And that is also the same percentage of people that we interacted with in person. There were more people that voted with us in our little token booths at our tabling events across the muni last summer than took this online survey.
But we still had 1500 plus survey respondents and the percentages are identical. More people say we need access. So on the paper version for you in the room there's more detailed and descriptions of why people said they chose what they chose. I'll go over that 'cause we're limited on time. But what this turns into for us is we've spent the fall and early winter defining what the comments are and what the suggestions were and what the, what the community said where we need bus access or what we need to prioritize for anchor rides services and how we can expand rideshare commuting program. So there's our final survey is out right now and it's asking people to choose five projects and that were identified and consolidated and then rank those five projects in your personal preference priority. So we're not asking the PC to recommend anything specifically, but just to make you aware that this is happening, the update is happening as we continue to engage with community councils and other public events through the end of April for this update.
So on the screen right now is one of our new project ideas, which would add add transit access onto J Bear. The, the route would start and end downtown at the transit center and then it would go through the government hill gate and either end at the VA clinic outside of base where it would connect with our Route 25 or it would end at the Richardson gate further northeast or the D street gate. So this has been brought up by several community advocates, folks that come to our monthly meetings and request or want to have some kind of service or access to get on the base. Other communities across the United States have bus service, public bus service that goes onto military bases. So it's not a new concept. There are other new route ideas. There are route alignment or realignment ideas through this process. And then there are kind of an extension or an expansion of the, the idea that was brought in 2020 called micro transit.
And I'm gonna skip a couple of these slides. So the 2025 version of transit on the Move has five different areas of the muni that will, that we're presenting as a micro transits zone. If you're unfamiliar with that concept, it is basically like an Uber or Lyft service. So a shared ride service that operates for micro transit would operate within a geographic zone. So it's defined by road boundaries. The vehicles would operate within that zone and can go anywhere you would like to go within that zone. So it's either designed or intended to connect you to buses if you live too far away from them or to get you into those spaces wherever you would like to go. Within that again defined geographic zone. So northeast Anchorage, Midtown and Southwest Anchorage and the other two are in the Eagle River and a combination of Birchwood and Eagle River itself.
So those are the five zones that are being presented in this update. There were two that were presented in the 2020 version. So again it's, it's trying to give people transit access without putting a bus and the infrastructure for buses on maybe windier roads or neighborhood roads that are, are hard to get big vehicles down so it can connect folks to and through those areas or connect folks to the buses that can come through those specific zones. And so again, there's new route ideas projects that are carried over from the 2020 plan micro transit zones and then there's some priorities on the survey for anchor rides itself on what they should focus on for their services as well.
I will leave it at that. I know I've presented this to a bunch of people in this room already at many other places. So thanks for bearing with me again. Our public engagement ends April 26th, that's after the transportation fair, which is a big event for a lot of us in this room. So we're excited to be at that event and have that kind of as the the book end of when we started our first public engagement back in April of last year for the summer involvement period. Thank you. Welcome there. Any questions or comments from the committee? Thanks for all the outreach. Really incredible work. We've made it so far to more community council so far this year than we did last summer, so I'm excited about that. Getting, getting into newer community councils, I still still have eight or nine left throughout the next six weeks. Any comments from the public?
Yeah, hi Mark Eisman Acres area planner for DOT Steven IIII, I'll be honest, I haven't looked at the timeline really close, but do you know when you probably would come to us at DOT for potential projects? Because I know we have an agreement about moving bus stops along DOT owned and maintained routes and I know our safety traffic and safety engineer was, was looking at the mapper, which is brief by the way, about some potential new stops safety concerns might pass. I don't want you to have like proposed projects then we have concerns later on.
The next step is we would have a final document that we would present to the public and then we'd start working on the the project. So if it's, we do have, we were already working on a our next route, but with this prioritization, if that changes then we'll we would focus on Bart's still online and can correct me if, if I'm speaking incorrectly on this. But we would go out to, most of the projects have different options so a route could start in this place or this place and then connect here. So that's when we would seek out funding from the FDA for bus stop construction for design and engineering for all that stuff. And then we also need staff. So some of the projects are fair related that don't need FDA funding. Some of them would be assembly budget increase requests and you would be the person to reach out to to try to set funding. Yes. Awesome. Thanks. Thanks Mark.
Thank you. Thanks for having us today. So just quickly, so this is a project update on 32nd Avenue. The project limits are from Minnesota drive to Lois Drive, our team. So DOT is leading the project, administering the project. This is AAPS funded project and we also have the municipality on board who is also managing the municipal portion of the project. This is a uni local road. Tanya h is with us here with municipality as well. So next slide, project description. So this, this project was essentially part of a previous municipal project which was lowest, a lowest drive and 32nd avenue and was pulled out into the tip in order to upgrade 32nd avenue. That previous project had issues with the overhead electric on the north side of the project. It, it could not be undergrounded on that previous project. So this project is considering undergrounding that overhead electric line on the, along the north side in order to improve the roadway facilities, non-motorized facilities, lighting and storm drain upgrades on the project.
So our current schedule, we kicked off the project September of last year. We're moving to finalizing our environmental document later this summer and then moving into plans in hand and P-S-E-P-S-E review, which is 65 and 95% in 2026 and 27. And we're looking at construction in potentially in summer of 2028 slide. So our public involvement to date, we have had several public and agency meetings to date. We've met with the aquarium charter school November of last year. We had some agency and public stakeholder involvement earlier this year, January and February we had our first open house just last month and we've met with the TAC earlier this month. We're meeting with the policy committee today and then we will be meeting with the Spenard community Council tentatively August, 2026. That might, might move up. But we do have a meeting scheduled with their Spenard corridor Task plan, task force next month planned.
So existing conditions of the road. This is an existing strip paved road. It's about 20 feet wide. The pavement throughout is in pretty poor condition. You can see some of the pictures out here. There's limited storm drain facilities only along the east end. So during breakup and and rain events, they do get ponding and, and puddling. There's quite a number of potholes in the area. There's a, a limited non-motorized facilities in the area that are along the north side west of the aquarium charter school. And so they just end there and they don't, they don't continue on to Minnesota drive. The area does experience congestion and queuing during school pickup and drop off, but it is limited to that time the rest of the day. It's pretty free flowing through there. Excellent. So here's an image of of the roll plot that we took to our open house last month.
This is depicts some typical sections through here that fit closely within the right of way there. There's three distinct areas that we're looking at the West end, which is an intersection, the intersection with Lois Drive that's connecting into the the municipality's lowest drive project. We're looking at either a mini roundabout at that location or a four-way stop. And then in front of the aquarium charter school there's about 60 feet of right of way available to the property line of the school there. We're looking at I improving the non-motorized facilities and providing snow storage space there. And then on the east segment in front of the Anchorage Sands apartment that's next to Minnesota Drive, there's only 30 feet of right of way available, pretty tight. There's houses on the south side and roll up parking to the apartments on the north side. Next slide.
So these, these are some the depiction of the section on the west side. So what you'll notice in all of the typical sections, in order to accommodate improvements for both the motorized and non-motorized facilities, the utilities have to be underground without impacting the right of way in the area. So you can see here we've got a section that shows 30 foot, the 31 foot street width that accommodates a vehicle travel in both directions. A pathway on the north side, a sidewalk on the side, south side and buffer space for snow storage on both sides of the street. And then space for light poles and signs outside of the, the typical section for, for the facility, there's a, a potential for including this is a 25 mile an hour local road for including shero on street bike striping. And then this section doesn't preclude on street, on street parking.
So for instance, an example would be during pickup and drop off hours, parents would still be able to utilize that north side of the street to, to park and drop their kids off or pick them up and maintain two-way travel upon the street. And the next slide, this is the east end. So the, the, the picture on the top is a depiction of the east end fitting the roadway section within, within closely within the right of way as we can. So this is a 24 foot street with, in order to accommodate travel in both directions, like I said, there's a parking roll up, parking to the apartments along the north side. This would include a rolled curve along the north side so that the apartment folks in the apartment can still access the apartments and their parking areas. And then the south side would include a, a, a barrier curve and a a five foot sidewalk.
And then we're looking at potentially acquiring right of way here to provide space to, to add signs and, and light poles in this area. And then on the south, or sorry, back back to the, sorry, the bottom, bottom picture here should, this is what we're weighing our alternatives against a full d muni DCM criteria, typical section that would accommodate travel in both directions and then a dedicated on on street parking lane along the north side there. This would narrow up that buffer space and, but, and you would have five foot sidewalks on either side, but this would would on that e segment require significant right of way acquisitions in order to fit that. So next slide. So to date the feedback we've received, so there was some agency stakeholder feedback regarding consideration of making 32nd avenue, part of it over the whole street, a one-way facility.
Our current scope in the, in the project includes analysis of up upgrading the existing two-way facility and the current alternatives that we've developed to date have been with going under that the scope, initial scope of the two-way facility. So analyzing a one way facility would be an additional, that would be an addition to our schedule and the budget on this project. We would evaluate one way alternatives, develop them and analyze them and their impact to driveway operations, neighborhood circulation, winter maintenance and then impacts to the adjacent streets and intersections. And then also not noted on here, also fire access and other emergency service access is something to consider. We'd update our traffic and safety report to formalize that analysis and then we'd recommend doing more public engagement 'cause the public has not seen a one way alternative yet. So an additional open house, additional communication with the school and the sans apartments to com communicate a one way alternative.
In discussion with the project team, we, we approximate about a four to six month schedule addition to this from notice to proceed. To do that this could potentially shift the construction year from 2028 to 2029. So that's the one way alternative. Next slide. And generally other feedback to date from the state, from other stakeholders in the public. The, the public generally supports an improvement out here that upgrades the existing facility. They understand there's roadway and drainage problems out there, they'd like to see those improved. And then also accommodating the non-motorized users in the area is a priority for them as well. The school is supportive of improvements on this project. Their major ma or main concern are impacts to parking and circulation for the school is what, what they noted as their number one priority. And then lastly, winter maintenance and snow storage. And this was generally from everyone that we've spoken to is a priority. The existing road tends to narrow in the winter time and as travel through there can get tricky at times. And next slide. Here's our, our contact info. I do wanna make a correction here. Tanya is the project MLA project manager on the project. But if you'd like to get a hold of us here, there's a email contact phone and thank you. Thank you. Questions or comments from the committee?
I've got a couple. I'll try to be fast 'cause I asked this to be quick, but I didn't see a PD on your outreach list and Minnesota Park is a really significant site of a PD enforcement activity, so I think you need to add them to your outreach list if you haven't already or no, if you have already,
Yeah, I think that I don't see a ton of room for snow storage in the proposed cross section. I see a five foot buffer on one side. I think moving forward we always need to see winter cross sections just in general. And I think we need to plan for snow storage on our roads, especially since that was the stakeholder consideration. And I, I don't think the gold curve in front of Anchorage Sam's apartments seems consistent with Title 21 with our site access code. I don't know our planning director might be able to weigh in, but generally we're moving away from having un unrestricted access to the street. So I think that's something to, you know, also consider in the design. And then I think, you know, I, I hear you, you know, being concerned about scope creep and that's something we need to really think about seriously as policy committee.
But I think we also need to be able to build in responsiveness to projects. Like we can't just have the policy committee say, Hey, we kind of think you should take a look at this road. And then 18 months later we get a design that's locked in stone. And I think that just creates a disingenuous process for the public. We need to be able to take feedback and act on it and not have that always cause six month or nine month delays or year delays in projects. So I think that's something maybe for us to think about in terms of how we scope our contracts to make sure we're building in the ability to respond to public comments and technical feedback staff. I hope in this case, you know, talking a little bit with our staff and if anyone wants to weigh in on this, there could be ways for us to help speed that up and make sure that it doesn't cause a significant delay if we want to move in the direction of a one way. So hopefully we could, you know, bring some municipal resources to bear, maybe have some analysis on our side and then maybe ultimately get cost savings by building a smaller, cheaper facility. So, sorry, I'm trying to make it fast, but lots of thoughts. Obviously appreciate all the work so far. Yeah.
Through the chair? So from speaking with the school, they're, they currently utilize the gravel area that's in front of the school as somewhat of an overflow parking during pickup and drop off times. Generally outside of those times there, there aren't generally vehicles parked in those areas. Aside from that, the, at the open house and the, the folks that we've spoken to, there wasn't, there wasn't any other general concern about including on street parking or de or dedicated parking? Either way. Better. Either way in favor or not? Yeah. Wasn't an issue. It wasn't an issue. Got it. Thank you.
Great, thank you. Hi everyone, I'm Lindsay. Hi speaking as a Spenard resident and just wanna thank the project team for being available to present to this Bernard Community Council and our upcoming committee since I know that wasn't a plan at the last open house meeting, so appreciate that the additional public engagement will be going on. And just wanna speak to the request to really analyze a option for this road to, to be this early on in a project and having different alternatives to address the different concerns, I think is really important and should be part of every, every design process. And I heard the team say there would be considering right of way acquisitions potentially for signs or lighting. And I think a one-way option could be a way to address that issue on especially the east side. The concerns about losing parking at the school, especially in the gravel area in the right of way, could also be addressed if we are looking at a one-way option.
And if snow storage is serious, that could also be addressed with a one-way option. So I don't think it's outside of the realm of trying to understand the existing conditions, the challenges that we have to have different options to address these issues. The current cross sections and a couple examples have some good elements in them. And I think we could go further to be really serious about making this really small little connector in the neighborhood something that is really more usable for the community. So I think if the, what I heard from the project team at the open house was that they needed more guidance from Ammas policy committee and technical advisory committees. And I think it's really important that we do explore this option. I don't know that it's the best option, but I was just surprised that it wasn't even on the table when, when we're so early on in the process. So just wanted to really stress from the community perspective in order to address a lot of the needs. This could be a way to get there and so would recommend that the policy committee urges this forward for the project team to consider. Thank you.
Yeah, so as of right now for April, we have two action items that we're potentially looking at the railroad transit asset management targets. I'll still have to work with the railroad to see if those, those will be available for April. And then we have a bpac letter that was revised and coming back to the committee for review and action. We have two informational items. One is the HSIP Minnesota lighting update. At the last meeting there was some discussion about getting some more information on crashes in that location before and after the lighting work was done. So DOT has put together a little bit of information that they will present on that at the TAC and policy committee meeting. And then there was a request from a policy committee member to have the recent letter from the department of law on MPO authority on the agenda as an informational item. So those are, those are the only ones I have on my list as of right now. As just a reminder for the committee members, if you'd like an item added to the agenda, please just send me an email with it and we will get working on that. Thank you. Alright,
I do, yeah. Okay. Well I think as we look ahead at the next several meetings, maybe not just this next one, but perhaps Aaron, one thing we could try is, you know, even the next four or five meetings out to map out between now and the end of the year, specifically how we're gonna get towards the MPA boundary that is amenable to all of the parties that we could submit to the governor for approval. And I, I think from previous discussions, we still likely have some things left on the table that we wanna work through. So that's, that's one item that perhaps we could take bite size items at each meeting to address and just begin to work through them in a systematic way. Same thing with the operating agreement, because we certainly had an understanding that, you know, for a while we're gonna not talk through necessarily some of these things until we had greater clarification on what the, the state, as we've been reviewing the operating agreement, you know, we've seen some things that we just wanna clean up to ensure that we're compliance with state statute, just update signature items and some consistency things.
So I think, again, not that we, it has to be one item, but I think if we look over, look ahead that through the end of the year even, what we can accomplish, what are the things that we'd like to get resolution on so that as we have challenging topics that are projects where there's disagreement, which of course there's gonna be, we just wanna make sure processes and our own procedures allow us to, to have those discussions. So I think not necessarily a action item at the next meeting, but talking through perhaps a, a roadmap of what the committee wants to accomplish over the next year would be great. And then finding the milestones that would help us get there. Yeah. Any, any feedback on that could be easier to hear what other policy related items that this committee would like to work on?
No, I completely agree. I think if I was gonna break it down, it's probably, and you know, it'd be really welcome your feedback on sort of order of operations and, and also Aaron, yours as well. But I think, you know, you know, as the step comes out in the next week or so, aligning the step in the tip, the boundary agreement or the boundary methodology, the operating agreement, and I think I'm missing one. Is that it? Those are the big three. Yeah,
Yeah. And I think the other thing I'd put in there is, you know, part of the step and tip conversation will be safer sewer, but it'd also be the Fairview solution and, and also the downtown roads. Yeah. So thinking about, we're thinking about all those things together, but Aaron, do you have thoughts about the, the sequencing in which makes sense to try to tackle first? I
Think the item of greatest concern is the boundary. I have an approved boundary because we, we do need to have an approved boundary by the end of this calendar year. So December, 2026. And without that then there's could be some consequences with funding that comes in to the MPA. So we, working through that is, is a high priority. There's certainly project level priorities that having a a line stick tip would impact, but that, that's one, that boundary conversation is a high priority. And it's also one that I think we can just begin to work through in a, in a systematic way, just going through where we left off from last time and what was previously agreed to and approved by the policy committee. And then, you know, where, where there's areas that need largely just need greater, greater clarification legally descriptive, bound of the legal description of the boundary. I think that would be a big one.
Give Jared a chance to, well, I guess on the boundary one, I think potentially the next step would be if we could get a, a letter from you all from, from DOT from or from the attorney general about sort of what the specific concerns are with the, either the boundary process or, or the selection of the boundary. So that we could, that would I think, be a useful starting point for the conversation. 'cause I think the last letter we got, we did, we had a, the policy committee approved the response from municipal attorney Joe Busa. So if there are different concerns then it'd be great to just get those on the table and make sure we're all talking about the same thing at the same time. Does that seem like the right next step to you as
Yeah, I was just gonna let you know, you know from staff's perspective, we have an approved boundary from the policy committee. They approved it already and we sent it forward. So if there's a desire to go back and re-look at that, we will need an action item. 'cause we are moving forward with the MTP update with that approved boundary. So if there's a desire to not have staff do that, then we're gonna need some kind of action from the policy committee. And that puts us in a precarious PO position because we have to have our MTP updated with our new boundary by December.
Yes, exactly. And that, that's the concern schedule wise because the MPO itself doesn't approve the boundary. The policy committee approves it to move forward to the governor, but it's the governor that actually approves the boundary. And we do not have that approved yet. And there's several reasons why, which I think is exactly why we need to sit down and go through those reasons and then just get to resolution on those. However, it adjusts the boundary if it does. But we do still need to go through that process so we can get it approved.
It actually is, it's too approved the MPO O'S approval and then the governor's approval. Correct. So the MPO does approve the boundary Yes. For the MPO use. And then it goes to the governor for their, we've heard difference of opinions, but the federal law specifically says approval by the governor. Correct. So we've done the one but not the other.
Yep. And so I think having feedback from attorney General's office on what the, where we need clarifying details is the goal and it, so being able to get this on the agenda and start to work through this would be very helpful because, so, so Aaron, on the MTP, when you're working through that next iteration of it, you wanna have it approved by when?
Well the MTP update's already started, so we need the tomorrow if you guys want it different than what the policy committee already approved. 'cause we have that and that's what staff was gonna be moving forward with. And we have a very strict timeline to get it done. So back out is, you know, we would need it already at this point.
I think the recommendation will have to be focused on what's in the currently approved boundary because until we have an approval from the governor, it's not an officially approved boundary, even if it was recommended and move forward by this committee. And, and that's just very procedural. But I think we can all work together to get that approval expeditiously. And so it's largely, that's where I have urgency as well. Like please, let's get this on the agenda so we can talk through these things when we don't talk about it, we're not making any progress. And then it's the public that's gonna not see the benefits of having us on the same page. So yeah, that's
Yeah, and I'm not sure if we want a formal letter, we can probably get that, but I, from my perspective, it's being able to highlight, looking at a map and we're all looking at it together. Being able to narrow in on what the concerns are. Like Atch State Park, for example, is an area of concern just because then we have different state agencies jurisdiction over property that we have included in the MPA. So then there's just some, again, perhaps it can be addressed procedurally, but we just have some issues we have to address before it can go to the governor's office for approval.
Would, I think it would be great if we could get, review a letter and then perhaps during the technical committee there's an opportunity to, maybe there's portions of it that we can align with, we can make sense with, or if it's a more clear description of where that boundary terminates, if we could then approve that as a policy committee, perhaps we can begin to make progress on any updates that are needed. So it could be at least some act, some action could be taken.
I think if I was gonna make a recommendation, I might recommend we start with an informational item and then if the, if the body has a, if there's a clear action, we could take them, we could sort of make it into an action item at the meeting. Yeah. And that way it comes with an informational item. We're getting I think the perspective of maybe the attorney general office would even be willing to present and then the policy committee can take that under advisement and decide, and then we don't have to make a decision in that moment in response to one legal opinion. We can kind of take a little bit of time to figure out what we do about it. Yeah, I like that. Yeah.
Okay. So informational items would be fantastic and, and I understand the urgency of MTP and getting those updates in, so I, I think if as a committee we can commit to having the conversations and working through it, we can, we can get there, but I, we just wanna, it's something we all have to tackle.
Municipal traffic engineer and chair of the technical advisory committee. And as I'm hearing the conversation about the boundary, if DOC has what they would like the boundary that they think the governor would approve some things on a map would make it a lot easier for the technical advisory committee to be able to talk through and understand. We provide feedback to the policy committee, so I would just suggest that whatever comes before us, have some clarity so that we can provide good technical feedback.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.