July 28, 2026 5:00 PM - 7:00 PM
This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.
Perfect. We've established a quorum. Next I'll read the guidelines for public participation and virtual participation. Welcome to the AMATS community advisory meeting. Public comments are welcome and encouraged within three minutes with three minutes given to each speaker. After the, after the committee discusses each item, members of the public will be invited to comments. Housekeeping items For virtual attendees, please keep your cameras off unless speaking. For those attending by phone, please press star six to mute or unmute yourself. AMATS committee meetings are audio recorded and posted on the A match YouTube page. And with that we'll move to item three on the agenda. I'll move to approve the agenda. This is SJ Klein. Perfect. Thank you. Sj. Can I get a second?
A motion. SJ I'll second. That was Tor & SJ. Second. Are there any objections, discussions or corrections that need to occur? Hearing none, are there any objections to approving the minutes? Hearing? No objection. The minutes are approved. Next we'll move to five. A, subcommittee autonomy item, brief decision tree. Is this a separate page? Right? I think Aaron had a introduction.
Okay. Hey everybody. So we've talked about this already, but just as a reminder. So at the April policy committee meeting, the PC asked staff to prepare draft policy defining the process. But the subcommittees may provide comments without requiring policy committee approval. So staff worked on kind of a decision tree for determining when those communication needs approval by the policy committee. We posted that decision tree as part of the agenda and we've shown it to you guys before it was at the last meeting. And so this item is before you again. So the intent here is just trying to help with flexibility on the, on what you guys can review and send without needing policy committee approval. Because it is kind of cumbersome to have, to have everything come from you guys to go to the policy committee to get to approve, to be sent out often means that there are times when public comment periods are missed or other things just kind of delay the process.
So the decision tree is before you kind of, the basic idea here is we wanna just start out really simple. And so if there is a current existing public comment period that is open, you are free to submit your comments without needing policy committee approval regardless of what the topic is, as long as it's related to what we're dealing with. Obviously transportation, you don't need policy committee approval. Staff will submit the comments on your guys' behalf once they're approved and then we'll send a notice to TAC and policy committee letting 'em know. However, if there is no public comment period open, then things get a little bit more complicated And we parse this out. That is the communication to elected officials or federal individuals. So anybody, staff or elected officials on the federal side. If yes, then it has to go to the TAC and PC for approval because it's kind of that higher level threshold.
If no, then we have to look at it again. Are those individuals on the CC list? Because we recognize you may send like a letter to the commissioner of DOT or the Deputy commissioner of DOT or something like that and then CC the mayor on it. Well, that's still at that kind of trigger threshold of somebody who's at that kind of higher elected official office. And that would have to go to the policy committee for review and approval. If elected officials or federal individuals are not on the letter or communication in any way, shape or form, then it can be submitted by the CAC without requiring policy committee approval. And so we followed the same process once the policy, once the CAC rep approves it, staff would send it out and then we would send an email to the PC and CAC to communicate the information so they know don't.
So our kind of initial review of this is we felt that this was pretty flexible and open, but we'd really like to hear from you guys. We've heard from the bpac on it, the FAC unfortunately is, hasn't been meeting so we haven't gotten their input on it and we probably won't get their input on this as that committee is probably gonna be on hiatus for a little while. So we're here for you today. What we've also done is posted the bylaws 'cause we figured we'd probably do it at the same time because if you're gonna be making changes on how you communicate, we're gonna have to update the bylaws to reflect that. 'cause the bylaws specifically kind of set out that everything has to be approved by the policy committee and what you kind of have to review and look at. So we'll have to make changes there. I believe we got some edits on the bylaws. You guys chat about that. And then I'm really here to help with any questions that you may have on the flow chart or the bylaws themselves.
No. Once we get to the bylaw changes, that was my intent to bring up this proposal. But this is just a general discussion right now. If we had questions about the flow chart, this would be a great opportunity to bring them up. So one curve ball is, I can't see when people have their hands raised. So I'm just gonna pivot. So first, just a general question for Aaron AMATS boundaries, MPO. And on the flow chart, is there a public comment period open?
So I think you already know where I'm going, but if there is a public comment period that doesn't relate to our MPO, let's say there's a project in another MPO, maybe a bad example. Would this flow chart still apply? Does the CAC, can we public comment on any public comment period within the state? Or is this only to things relating to the MPO?
We don't know. That's never really something that we've kind of dealt with in the past. It's really been, we, we've commented on statewide specific things that relate to the MPO exist. Yeah, it's something that's entirely dependent upon like another MPO's jurisdiction. Yes.
We typically don't comment on that because it is outside of our purview. But Ida wouldn't, if it is a subject matter that's related to what we're doing. Say there's a project up there, say they want to do a $10 billion project up in Fairbanks and you're like, well we have some concerns of what impacts that might have in the Anchorage area. 'cause the fiscal constraint, we'd have to figure out who your comments want to go to. If there's an open public comment period, there wouldn't really be any limitation. You could still send it as long as it followed the same process as everything else.
Perfect. And clarity is there is not a limitation. It is not necessarily specifically designated for the MPO. If there's some type of, any type of correlation, even a funding correlation with how much funding the state's getting and how allocations are being used by DOT in a different area, that could be enough subject matter relation
As long as it's transportation related. Yeah, that would be the only thing I would highly recommend to that, that we're gonna put our foot down as staff on that. It has to be related to transportation. So you know something totally outside the realm of what we deal with, we'd probably ask you guys to focus in on transportation.
Perfect. Sj, did you have a question? Sure, I did. I had two questions. I guess for, for you Aaron, the first kind of going through the, the decision tree, if there's a public comment period, even if that the, the document that is being worked on is up for federal review and submittal. You know, I mean most of these documents are FHWA kind of eventually get there. So you know, I basically CAC can still make comment under this decision tree on federally reviewed transportation documents. Is that, am I correct? As long as there
Great. And then how about when we wanna make, make comment to the policy committee? You know, I mean I, you know, every, like I think last, was it last meeting, two meetings ago we wrote a note to, you know, to the PC kind of taking a position on something. I assume that that just, I mean that's kind of an internal document anyway. Whether it doesn't need review all, it'll be seen by policy. Yeah.
Since it's going to the PC directly, that would be fine. It wouldn't need policy committee approval obviously to send it to the policy committee. The big thing is, are you CCing like the mayor on it, right? Are you CCing the president of the United States on it? If you are, then there may be some questions about whether you can do that without policy committee approval. And my my approach is no, you wouldn't be able to CC them. You really need to keep it to the policy committee and then relevant parties.
Yes. First a follow up question, could we send it public comments in directly to that agency that's having a public comment period and then if we wanna CC an official route, route them through the PC in order to CC somebody so that we wouldn't miss, we wouldn't wanna miss a comment period de and that rerouting takes a while.
So the CAC itself would send the comments directly to the agency or the group doing the public comment period. If you want to send it to the like elected official, we could route it through the TAC and PC. It just may miss the public comment period. So you mind, but you as the CAC would not be able to send things directly to those individuals. They would still have to go through the process.
Right. So my question was could we go ahead and send it, submit them during the comment period through the agency that's got an open comment period. 'cause we're allowed to streamline in that case, but we want our comments eventually to directly reach the desk of the mayor or state legislators. Could we also then have a separate process, make sure our comments get that publicity to pass the, you know, go up the chain? I, I wouldn't see why we couldn't.
Yeah, so what we would submit would be your comments without it being CC'd to the mayor. Right. And then we would've a separate thing that we'd bring it to the technical advisory committee, policy committee and say the CAC submitted this, they would like to submit it to the mayor directly. What do you guys think? And we would get their approval. So we'd follow that. So yes, we would have two processes to follow.
Okay, great. And my other question is, in looking at this tree, is there any reason why our advisory committee has to go through the technical advisory committee? They are also advisory. Sometimes they don't seem to have a lot of technical input on the things that are brought to them. Not, I shouldn't, I retract that they're technical, I respect their expertise, but they're also advisory to the PC. It really slows things down because of the scheduling. And you know, we have the agenda out if they had, if we have to go through another advisory committee before we get to the PC. So can we just, is it possible to send our communications just to the PC and not have us, you know, a second advisory committee review our advice?
No. Why? The TAC is the top advisory group. So it's the TAC and then the sub-committees. Everything flows from the TAC to the policy. We have that outlined in our public participation plan with our flow chart and our technic our operating agreement also outlines that the technical advisory committee reviews things for the policy committee. So the policy committee can go ahead and make that change and say things don't need to come to the TAC before review. But we would need a similar type of flow chart. What doesn't go to the TAC for policy committee review. Things get pretty complicated. And so staff's approach until told otherwise by the policy committee is everything goes through the technical advisory committee for review.
Go ahead Chuck. Well now we're gonna be reviewing the bylaws. I looked up online there, you know, what controls the bylaws of this committee and the agreement between the municipality of Anchorage and the state of Alaska, the intergovernmental operating agreement and transportation and air quality planning. It says under the AMATS community advisory committee is to provide transparency on a com community perspective. The CAC is responsible for advising AMATS policy committee regarding planning program, et cetera. CAC also serves as a conduit for information between the policy committee and the public members of the liaison between the public and the policy committee relaying information between the two groups. So in this agreement with the state of Alaska, there is no third party for the policy committee or the community advisory committee to go through. It's a direct communication to the policy committee from this committee based on the state agreement.
That's not how the process has been handled in the past. And like I said, if the policy committee wants to change it, they are welcome to direct staff. That'll be different. And if they want things directly coming to them from our subcommittees, we can go ahead and do that. But that is not how the process is.
Perfect. And I guess I want clarification is, so I've seen a lot of redundancy and bylaws for, let's say you have a, a community council that's a good example, that has elected reps to a board and then that board also falls under statute of what the terms are, for example. And so you have a community council that says, terms shall be this. And then you go to that organization and it says, terms shall be this. And then you get to that third one and it says the ultimate is they can't be more than three years. I'm just giving it as a sample. So we're adopting this in our bylaws with the, the CAC, the TAC is gonna be adopting it and the policy committee is gonna be adopting it. But if the policy committee makes any tweaks, it now automatically debunks the, the flow chart right there. Why don't we just have the, whatever the policy committee's adopted procedures is the accepted procedures and not included in the bylaws. And instead of having to do revisions with all of the, the groups to match the flow chart,
Perfect. Okay. So that's a misunderstanding I had right there. It sounded like the, the TAC is the biggest thing that would need to be updated in the bylaws. 'cause our current bylaws say that we have to transmit through with the TAC for any public comments. That's the portion we would have to focus on with updating bylaws to match to.
So this is a good discussion to give feedback to staff for the flow chart. But ultimately what we need to have the perspective is when we get to the bylaws, we need to remove the barriers so that we could utilize this workflow for dissemination. Just giving context to, to relate.
And then if I may, just to, to the chair to answer kind of Nancy's question as well. And maybe for clarification, when we make comment to a public comment period, those comments are then public. And so what individual members want to do with that comment is different than what the committee is doing with that. You know, we, we can't send it to the mayor without going through the policy committee. But once we've sent it to, you know, the, the Seward to Glenn Connection project or something, those are public comment and you know, public comment is, you know, but it's not beholding to kind of, you know, us some more. So,
Thank you for that distinction. Yep. So can we also, if once we send our comments to the policy committee and they're available on the AMATS website, can we then in our personal capacity forward a link to an elected official saying this is what, this is what the policy committee has received?
And what staff is going to do on our behalf. Who are you representing? So if you signed as a CAC member right there, it'd be extremely inappropriate. But if somebody on a personal capacity wanted to take their own personal action that's separate out of this body, that doesn't have anything to do with us, the activities we're taking in here.
Sorry, I wanted to clarify something just so you are all aware. When we say everything goes through the TAC to the policy committee, I want people to understand that even if the TAC says no to something, that doesn't mean it stops at the TAC level. Everything goes through policy committee because everybody is advisory to the policy committee. I know there's been some confusion on that in the past. We like, oh, TAC says no, we don't want to send this out. That's just the recommendation. So everything will still get to the policy committee. It's just reviewed by everybody before it gets full
Okay. I have not heard any actionable item with this. I've heard comments and so not hearing any actionable item, my intent is to move to the next item, which is bylaws. Okay. So the next one is CAC bylaws. So I'm assuming that it's just a copy of the link on this agenda to have a copy of the bylaws. Is that correct?
Okay, great. So if there's not any objection, I'm gonna take o we're, so we're on the different proposed changes to the bylaws. So we have one, two, and three. So how I would like to do this is take each item separately. There's no objections. So hearing no objections. Does someone mind making a motion for item one? I can pass the, or
So item one, holdover provisions for expiring members. The recommended locate. So add a new section to 2.2.5 immediately after section 2.2.4. And the proposed bylaw language is holdover service. Upon expiration of a member's appointed term, the member may continue to serve in a holdover capacity until the AMATS policy committee appoints a successor. A member serving in a holdover capacity shall retain all rights and responsibilities of membership, including full authority. Holdover service shall not constitute appointment to an additional term and shall end upon the appointment of a successor. The member's resignation or remove or removal by the AMATS policy committee. And the justification is, I think it would help to maintain continuity and prevent seats from being left vacant while the replacement process is being, the replacement process is being completed. We also make it clear that the member continues to have full voting authority during the hold over period.
Great. So it staff had I put something together, but I think that was one of the recommendations is we currently do not have any holdover language in there. And the distinction I did have in there is I wanted to make sure that we had still voting rights and intent is a big believer of representation for the different communities for different organizations right here. And I don't think the organization or the district should be, should suffer because they have a period of time that there's no representation. So wasn't the intent to make it indefinite terms, but it was trying to create a process that would at least give representation until a replacement response.
Period, which obviously there's not yet, but you know, if the, you know, and then obviously when there's new, when there's new membership every year we elect a new chair and vice chair. I guess I'm wondering about kind of like, and this is more related to officers I guess, but are the vice chair and chair positions related to the actual seats or are they related to the individuals? You know, because for instance, if you're a holdover and the group decides to select you to continue as chair because nobody else wants to do it and you're doing such a great job, you'd have a vacancy. We would have a vacancy then in the chair. So
Oh, public comment. Then we do the action. Okay, I'm gonna make a flow chart of, okay, so do we have any members of the public at which to comment, hearing none? If there's no objection, I'll make a motion. So hearing no objection, I move to adopt the listed holdover provisions for expiring members in full.
Normally what it's supposed to be is just like general questions. Yep. You're not really supposed to be discussing or being like, how am I gonna vote? Then you go to the public, then when you do the motion, it opens it up for like the in depth detailed, the normal discuss the normal discussion.
Good. So the next one we'll move to is item two, community and organizational support for appointments. Recommended location add a new section to 2.1.7 immediately after existing Section 2.1.6 under membership proposed bylaw language. And so 2.1.7 appointments support requirements before an individual may be considered by the AMATS policy committee for appointment to the committee, advisory committee. The following minimum support shall be documented for seats representing organizations identified in 2.1.3. And that section lists all of the different organizations. The nominee shall be selected for endorsed for an official vote of the organization's governing body. When an organization does not have a governing body capable of taking such action, the nominee may be designated by the organization's authorized appointed authority for a seat representing an assembly district. The nominee shall obtain an official vote support from at least one recognized community council located in within the assembly district.
The nominee would represent written documentation of the required vote endorsement or designation shall be provided before the nomination is submitted to the amass policy committee for consideration. Satisfaction of the satisfaction of these requirements shall not guarantee appointment. Final appointment shall be the authority shall final appointment authority shall remain with a amens policy committee. And so the justification is, my intent is to make sure members have documented support from the community organization that are being appointed to represent the final appointment decision would still remain with the policy committee. So I submitted this one and so I tried to find kind of a balance point. 'cause a lot of these assembly districts have multiple community councils that they're covering. So it didn't list all of the community councils because there might be, not all the community councils might be on the same page, but at least having one community council of support, I thought was a, a good buy-in to show that there, there is support by the community for the nomination of this member. And then the second one is, I think it's important that for chamber of commerce or planning and zoning, I, I think it's mostly occurring already, but just having the requirement that either their, their board is selecting them or if there's not a board that their executive director. And that's why the board couldn't vote that there would be someone that could designate but just create an official capacity for the representation there. So that was my intent on this one. Questions
Make certain, yeah, I guess my question, just kind of thinking about like our council really the president of our council has the ability to appoint people to positions. Mind you, you know, this is something that's district-wide. I guess I'm just kind of curious, curious about like, when you're talking about community councils, you know, I'd
Yeah. It's trying to, I can relate. There's a lot of breaks. And if you had to have just that group right there, having some level of appointment in place. So keep things going. And again, ultimately the policy committee might say no, but at least it shows the support from that community that there's some backing behind this individual.
So I would like to, these are representation from different districts and are supposed to be the representation from the people in the community. Right. So I've, the intent is, like, my intent is to tie that you might have a, an individual but does not necessarily have the support. It's pretty easy. I'd assume if you went to community council and you showed your backing and there's no representation that they're very likely gonna support you if you have an aptitude. And, but again, if it could be the opposite too, right?
I think it is a good idea. I reached out to all six of the community councils in assembly district six. Only my community council has ever given me any feedback. So it's, at least, it's good to have at least one community council that they're, you're trying to represent. So,
I guess I, in thinking like my, my district has nine, I think nine councils and I, I prefer, I mean, how about tying in your assembly rep? I mean, I, I would feel more comfortable if that assembly rep back to you than a council because the same council could be supplying that rep on a continual basis because who am I gonna know to try to get another person to step up after me, people in my neighborhood? And so you kind of get a isolated continuing stream of people from the same general area, instead a really broader support from through the whole assembly district if the assembly rep was involved.
So here, just a process thing. So I'm trying to keep on this, the structure. So I think asking questions is really good. You hit on a major point, Diana, that I think we should bring up once we take the actionable item so we can have the, the discussion and dialogue back and forth on that. But more just, I, I guess good point to bring up right now. I'd like to prevent the back and forth discussion yet, but you brought up a great point.
So the, I think the purpose of this committee is to bring the perspective of our individual communities. And so I think it is a good policy having the community councils involved, that the, the people would be familiar with what are, what issues are important with that community. So that's why I do like this policy.
Guys, I love how we have two discussions. Like let's try to avoid, if you wanna make general statements, that's one thing, but let's try to avoid the direct dialogue and back and forth yet just more general commentary. I fully support it and I think it'll be good. I just want to get to that section before we actually engage in it. Is there any more general comments or questions? Hearing none, unless there's any objections I'm gonna move to adopt. Oh, is there a Go ahead.
Okay. In response to Diana Evans comment that maybe the assembly person should endorse a nominee, I think the assembly all per people already have their direct channel to the policy committee because they have two seats on the policy committee. And I think the intent of our community advisory committee is that via more grassroots representation. And I just think it's like they get too, you know, too much influence that they, they have their assembly, they, they communicate through their two assembly representatives and they're also able to select who advises those two assembly people. Let them do their own direct communication with the ams PC voting members.
I guess this doesn't limit just one person from that assembly district from applying so another person could apply and get another council's endorsement. So I don't think, like Nancy had mentioned a difficulty of getting just her councils representing five, getting a second one, they don't know who she is or anything possibly. So I think just getting one council is probably adequate and if there's other people that wanna like get multiple applications, you know, the more the better.
And my intent, I mean I I, to be honest, I'd support the assembly member I'd support to where I came up with the one note. I was just trying to set a bar low enough that at least you have some level of involvement. But both those, I mean I could, I could go along with actually either one of those other ones too. It's just creating that connection right there that it shows that they have the support right there.
That's who I would recommend. Thank you. Just so there's a clear provided to AMAC staff to be included in the information that's provided to the policy committee. So then it's not a nebulous, do you provide it to the TAC? Do you provide it to this or that so everybody knows.
So just a a point that is a change to what's presented right here. So we do we actually do an amendment? I mean, I mean is that scr? I'd consider that Scribner's. Is there any objection to amending for the amending that actually I don't want to, is there any, I'll make a motion to amend for to make the discrimination. Okay, we've got a motion. Second. Second discussion. No discussion. Are there any objections to changing to staff? Hearing none. So the version in front of us now says staff provided to staff. Yep.
I'm also in favor of this amendment. I would be shocked to aall if somebody was representing my organization that wasn't endorsed. And I think about the assembly districts that may have multiple community councils. If there was a competitive lineup for people to be in these seats, that would be a lovely problem I think to have and perhaps no issue with the holdover over travel. Right,
Do we have any other discussion or official amendments? Hearing no additional comments or amendments. Is there any objection to approving section two? Community and organizational support for appointments? Hearing none, the motion carries Bylaws are adopted. Moving to item three. So item three, advanced distribution of action items. For this change, I recommend updating existing agenda material requirements rather than adding a separate section that could overlap with it. Recommend location would be replaced existing section 2.3.5 under meetings. Current section 2.3.5 committee meetings shall be advertised on the AMATS website at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting date. Agenda material for the meeting shall be posted on the website no later than one week prior to the meeting. Supplemental material shall be provided as soon as practical. Practical, sorry. Proposed replacement language 2.3.5 meeting notice agenda materials action item committee meeting committee meetings shall be advertised A as website at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting date. The meeting agenda and reasonably available supporting materials shall be posted on the website no later than one week prior to the meeting. Any items for which the committee will be asked to vote Issue recommendations, adopt a formal position or approve a written comment
Clearly identified on the agenda as an action item. The proposed action draft recommendation, draft written comment supporting materials for each action item shall be provided to committee members and posted with the agenda no later than one week prior to the meeting. This requirement shall include proposed committee responses to significant public comment opportunities including comment on major amass plans, programs, studies, projects or amendments. Supplemental material that that do not substantially change the proposed action. Supplemental material that do not substantially change the proposed action may be provided as soon as practical. When the proposed action or sub substantially when the proposed action or substantially revised supporting material are not provided within the required period, the committee may defer action until a subsequent meeting. The committee may take action on an urgent matter that was not distributed in advance only upon a two thirds vote of the members present and provide a quorum is present. Justification, I think was give members time to review the information before being asked to vote. Prove written comments or adopt committee positions. This is especially important when committee is responding to a major public comment period. So really my period as
I guess just speaking to it, during the time that I've been chair, there's been a influx and sometimes everyone's done a really good job of submitting their comments in advance for the committee to review. And then there's also been the other side of it last minute and the items have not been distributed and being put on the agenda. I like the intent of everyone having the opportunity to review the material in advance to be able to do their own research. And so we do not have anything in the bylaws currently that prohibits this activity. But I also recognize there are urgent matters that do come up and the committee does still need to like put something on the agenda we just found out yesterday. So I also tried to build in a metric that would still support but build a framework so we're not having this back and forth is clearly outlined of the expectations of submitting comments beyond a week in advance so they can be posted with the agenda. Questions, comments? Go ahead.
Yes, I I I like the very much that this pre provides the opportunity for people to do their own research and deliberate without Yeah. Feeling any time pressure. My one question though, what happens when a sponsor of the submitted action or somebody else wants to come in and make major revisions?
And I'm hoping that this won't preclude that kind of thing. And as an example, before us tonight, one of the items that I submitted originally I was addressing the mayor, but I didn't really have time to pass my idea by staff and get guidance. And now I'm thinking I would just like to address that to the policy committee. So the substance is still the same, but there is a major shift as to who I would direct it to. And that would require definitely, you know, word changes in the, in the letter. So it could have been somebody else who came in and said, well this looks good, but you know, let's not pick on the mayor, let's direct this to the policy committee. Or somebody could, you know, say it looks good, but I wanna add something and it's a substantive addition. I would like to not handicap that ability to make substances changes provided, you know, the foundational material and the issue has been put out there and the community knows there will be action taken.
Would make it easier because just I think two thirds really should be reserved for like the bylaws or something really, really that level. I think asking for something to be added to the agenda at last minute is just a simple vote of the members who are present is my comment to you all.
You. Do we have any other members of the public or staff that wish to comment, Christine? No. Okay. Okay. Hearing none, assuming there's no objection that I make the motion, I'm gonna move to adopt section three, advanced distribution of action items. Can I get a second? Sure.
Okay, we're in discussion. Anything, hearing none. Are there any objections to changing the two thirds vote to a majority vote? There are no objections. The motion in front of us is now a 50% majority to add additional content before the, if you were past the one week of posted material. Okay. So now we have the back to the original motion. Do we have any additional comments or amendments?
I'll, I'll kind of respond to Nancy's point or, or bring up Nancy's point. The, the first, second, third, fourth, the fifth paragraph. So the first or the first paragraph in the last page kind of talks about a little bit about what happens when you have kind of some substantial differences. And it strikes me that it's, it's it it's a natural course that, or natural that in the course of deliberation on an item that there are going to be differences of opinion and therefore changes to a document. You know, that's, that's the whole point of this. We're not a rubber stamp organization, we deliberate organization. And so I'm wondering, Nancy, do you think that we ought to rewrite that section, the supplemental materials or when proposed Aspen or substantial revised supporting materials not provided, do we need to, or you know, do do you think we need to kind of change the language to be able to accommodate actual deliberation? Because I think what you're talking about is you're bringing something forward, we're going to deliberate it and we're gonna change it. You know, we may change who we want it to go to. We may change what we say. That's the point of this organization. And so, you know, do we need to be explicit about the fact that changes are gonna happen when, when we deliberate? I don't, I don't know that we do.
It's the committee's. So I will say it's the committee's full authority. If we have something in front of us and the committee wants to change the dissemination or change the language in it, it's the committee's really the intent is if you send out I like A, B, C, and then the day before you change it to I like de whatever it's really meant of what is being sent to this committee for consideration. But once we take it up for consideration, we can absolutely modify it and change it an amendment to it's, it's intended to the item that is before the committees that every member of this committee has an opportunity to review the content before action. And again, if there's something that deviates quite that deviates that much, the proposed version now in front of us would just take a majority vote for consideration if it was a substantial change to what was originally submitted. So our starting piece is substantial. Right?
Yeah, supplemental material. I guess that line could be added but to the, but you know, it's up to the committee. Once you know this issue they could postpone it. Well we want more information or wanna deliver it next, the next meeting. But I don't know if you need the last two paragraphs necessarily.
It's, it's the supplement materials section. The only thing is, it's just how it's written is strange to me as staff. So I'll read it out loud and see if maybe I'm just being dense. Supplemental materials that do not substantially change the proposed action may be provided with some practicable when the proposed action are sub substantially revised supporting materials are not provided within the required period. The committee may defer action until a subsequent meeting. So just reading this and not trying to read into it too much, it doesn't say anything about the proposed action or substantially provide the materials being provided to you as soon as possible. It just says supplemental materials that do not substantially change. It will be provided as soon as possible. So then what about the material that is changed substantially? When do we provide it to you? An opportunity here to change?
This might just be materials will be provided as soon as possible and then you can say supplemental materials that do not substantially change it do not require necessarily a delay. If it's substantially changed, you guys could defer action or something like that. It's more meant to just give a general thing to staff to be like, when you're provided something from the committee members, regardless of what it is, get it to us as soon as possible and then you can talk about whether it is you want to defer action if this a substantial change or not how it's written. It's a little confusing when you want us to provide that info.
I guess my question then for you, Aaron, if I may through the chair, you know, as, as a, as a member reading this document as a way that we conduct business, I agree with Chuck that it seems kind of redundant or unnecessary, but in terms of like as to provide instructions to staff as to how we want things brought to us, I mean I think it makes all the sense in the world. So, and yeah, I'm, I I think his changes or his recommended changes make sense. So let me do some quick scribing.
So we had two versions. One is to get rid of it and then one version is to modify it. So I'm gonna read it out loud just for everybody. Supplemental materials that do not substantially change proposed action may be provided as soon as practical. I think I meant to make it practical, but that's okay. When the proposed action or, or substantially revised supporting material are not provided within the required period, the committee may defer action until a subsequent meeting. I think the main intent right here was if there's additional supporting documentation to a position that's being made that's not substantially changing the original position that's being taken, that that can be included.
Yeah, so I think just really maybe if all we do is change that first sentence, you know, instead of supplemental materials that do not substantially change the proposed action, just supplemental materials shall provide to committee members as soon as practicable. And then from there, then when proposed action or substantially revised supporting materials aren't provided, we may defer action. You know, so just basically, so I'll make a motion to amend that first sentence to read. Supplemental materials shall be provided to committee members as soon as practicable and then leave the rest.
Hearing no objections, the amendment is adopted. So back to the original motion. Do we have any other amendments or discussion items? Do we have any objection, are there any objections to adopting section three, advanced distribution of action items as amended? There are no objections. Motion carries. And then the last one, which we don't, is it another page would be great. Okay. So is this Aaron the, the intent, so we looked at the workflow and there's some specific things that we need to modify in our bylaws, but we don't have anything directly in front of us right now. Is the intent that we're gonna defer or would it Okay.
Yeah. So we would take the work the flow chart through the policy committee and whatever changes they have, the TAC on the policy committee, whatever changes they have, we would have the final version and we would bring it back with the bylaws again and kind of walk through any changes that we think need to be made to reflect that approach and kind of work with you guys on that.
So I think we're, just so you guys know, we have a lot going on with AMATS, right now we have two work sessions that have to be done in August for the technical advisory committee and Policy Committee. We also have potentially our regular TAC and PC meetings happening. We're not sure. There's a lot up in the air. And then September is exceedingly full with a lot of things like the MTP, the boundary, the REC trails plan, bunch of things. So as it stands right now, we're probably gonna have to push these out to bring 'em to the committee members until October. Same with the flow chart.
Okay. Nope, that sounds good. So sounds like, and just so everybody's tracking online, I think they heard that conversation, but we can either move to the policy committee right now to formally adopt the CACs adopted bylaw changes right now. Or we can wait till our next October meeting where there will be some additional recommended staff changes to align with the adopted workflow flow chart for dissemination on public comment and out of public comment. And so the, unless there's any major objection, we'll wait till all bylaw changes are together, or a single adoption at the policy committee. But the, the one implication is this would not go to the policy committee until probably past October. Right? It'd probably be a month. I mean, we're talking November probably. That was a long time. Well,
Would, I, I would say to that end, and I realize we're on discussion of a, an issue that we've already taken action on. But you know, we like the out of the items that are on here, you know, filling empty positions, establishing, you know, two related to filling empty positions. And one is kind of like mostly about how we want to deal with staff and, and how we as a body take up items. I don't think any of those are time dependent.
I don't think they're time dependent. I think my only, I'm good with it. My only point just don't want it to slip to the cracks that we don't pass. Like we go to the next one, we send that to policy committee, but we forgot that we've already made changes right now that also have to be included. That would be my only concern. You guys do a fantastic job. I don't think it'll slip through the cracks, but that would be going so it sounds good. Policy committee will hypothetically take up all potential bylaw changes in the November, November 15th meeting. So we're good. Okay. So with that we'll move to CAC letter in support of proven traffic safety measures. And that was Diana, or was that Nancy? CAC Letter in support of proven traffic safety measures.
Okay? The, it came to my attention that the, at the federal level, the Federal Highway Administration has proven safety countermeasures, a list of those. And that in the last month, without any announcements or intended publicity, the Federal Highway Administration removed five of, I think they're like 20 measures. I can't remember exactly how many measures there are. There's a list of several dozen. Couple dozen. And those safety measures are data. Whoops.
They're data proven. They're well established. And in fact, here in Anchorage, AMATS and the municipality have been very eager about using some of the safety measures as we try to achieve our vision Zero goals for and, and reduce, yeah, improve safety and the deletion of those measures from the federal highway administration's list doesn't mean that their invalid or that DOT can't apply them, but I think it's worth encouraging DOT to keep applying them. Of the five that I've listed here, there are at least four of those that my end of town has, has been interested in. The speed readout, cameras, bike lanes, variable speed limits, especially for the Seward Highway and speed limits that are appropriate for vulnerable road users. And there's several road diet projects that AMATS has promoted or proposed in other parts of Anchorage. So I just, in a burst of energy, did a little research and, you know, verify by citing various studies that yes, indeed these are effective and in some cases cost effective measures. And we should continue to use this whole toolkit. We should let DOT Alaska know that we, through AMATS, wanna continue using these safety measures. So,
And then I've got a question for staff related to this as well. If FHWA doesn't endorse these items, I know like the HSIP, Highway safety improvement projects, you know, as we've seen with the fifth and sixth thing that they're doing, the, the barrier wall or whatever, you know, they kind of cited FHWA approved countermeasures for safety. So if there, if these items are not in, in their approved lists, does that, I mean does that kind of impact whether or not we can use HSIP funds for them? Would you know,
I am not the HSIP expert, but I will do my best and Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that is correct. If they're not part of the approved countermeasures, there is a higher hurdle that you have to overcome in order to be able to prove HSIP funding for them.
I was gonna comment, I looked online at, you know, this deletion and, and one thing that came up was that there's greater emphasis on maintaining vehicle mobility and reducing traffic congestion. And I think there needs to be a balance between, you know, all, all these safety measures. I mean you can create a lot of congestion if you eliminate roads and reduce the speeds and the impact to commerce and anchorage and the ability to get a to and from using a vehicle from one part of Anchorage to another has a financial impact on the consumers in Anchorage. You know, plumbers, they charge, you know, substantial for service work and, and they're billing their time from the time they leave their shop to the time they get back. And that impacts the consumer if we create a, a bunch of traffic congestion to get around Anchorage for the vehicle
Okay. Thank you. Does it say, just, this kind of brings up a whole new question about how the, when someone is taking action, when the path they want that item, I don't see anything that really says how do we know what the intent, how do we know what the intent for routing is of different actionable items? That might be a silly question.
Through the Chair, when I, when I don't have house guests and summer travel, I try to talk to Aaron or the, the AMATS staff and ask sort of who should I target my intentions toward. I didn't do that this time. So I do look for guidance now as to who this might be directed toward.
Well you have a couple different paths. If you direct it to the policy committee, you guys can approve it today here and it gets sent out to the policy committee and the technical advisory committee for their information. If you direct it to others, say to the DOT commissioner or the mayor or other things like that, it has to go to the policy committee for approval before it gets sent out.
I have two items. One, just my word choice on number five. I just didn't like the, when I reread it, every traffic planner knows just sounds a little too something. So I'd just like to change that to say there's a solid documentation that there is an exponential relation and delete that every traffic planner knows
Yeah, I'd just like to respond to Chuck's comment or concern that these measures could cause what was it? Reduce vehicle speeds and create congestion. In looking at them, speed readout cameras are only trying to get people to follow the law speed limits that are appropriate for vulnerable road users and, you know, bike lanes and road dives, that's all putting a premium on safety. And I guess I think that that should be our premium in the urban area. And that's, you know, that's pretty much what we're, that is what we are talking about with our MPO.
In addition, we, we know that DOT is through their letter from the commissioners looking out very strongly to make sure that we know how this might affect traffic congestion and through traffic. So I'm not worried about that issue being represented. And finally, specifically on, you know, the variable speed limits, as noted in this, this letter, it seems that drivers could use some reminders when conditions change that they need to slow down. And you know, we have variable speed limits in construction zones and there are other instances where weather events on the Seward highway are certainly another reason for variable speed limits. Traffic should slow down even if it takes longer travel time. And I guess finally I don't see an anchorage where our congestion is anywhere near being a negative monetary factor. I mean, we're not talking about 20 minutes or 40 minutes extra spend in traffic in our MPO. We might be talking about 10 seconds, but it's really hard to put a meaningful dollar amount on that. You can put a big dollar amount on a, an accident that kills somebody or closest traffic lane. So that would be my response. I think all of these are very safety oriented and in our community don't pose a real risk of congestion or economic penalty. So
I could make another comment, Kathy McCardle, relative to that, I think commercial, including traffic, does take those considerations into account. I I agree that fatality that close with Nancy and the fatality that closes the roadway is, is a much bigger impact. But because this letter is not recommending advice on a specific measure and a specific area, I think the intent is to generally these options on the table if needed in specific in in any area or any project. I'm inclined to support from the inker she room commerce, the adoption of the letter, the employees that serve all of our businesses are members of our community too, and need to make sure we have a safe place to commute, multimodal transit, all of those mechanisms for every, every type of traveler.
Well, one comment, you know, I think, you know, a little more traffic enforcement, you know, speed is the problem and people are ignoring the current posted speed limits. That's an enforcement problem. Not, you know, that and the, you know, just the overall, you know, in the wintertime with our snow plowing, a lot of these roads are already reduced. We lose road lanes for snow storage in the roads and they're taking this further and reducing the road lanes. Where is that snow gonna go that they're currently storing the snow in? But you know, state law mandates that you drive to the conditions, you know, excessive speed just because the post road is posted speed limit. If it's icy, you're required to slow down. So I just in general, I think, you know, this is very broad overall, like you said, and you know, specifics projects I think can be, you know, warranted for these measures. But to take a broad brush to all of Anchorage, I think it's a little too broad, so I won't support this.
Thanks. Having been stopped and for well over eight hours on a recent fatality along the Glenn Highway and also having a, a close friend who just died in a plane in a, I'm sorry, in a, a car crash recently. I think that, you know, safety really is our major concern. I also know that when I'm driving the Glenn Highway, you know, every day on a commute, I will often have people who will come cruising by me, you know, at, at easily 10 or 12 miles over the speed limit. And then, you know, five miles later I will meet up with them at the first stoplight. So I think that, you know, speed as a, you know, and it having that or trying to keep that as a important measure is, is really counterproductive in a lot of ways. And I would hope that we can encourage DOT to still use all of these safety measures in their planning and their projects. That's my points.
Okay. The motion carries. Thank you everybody. I appreciate the back and forth discussion. Everybody did a good job, staying, I know there's a lot of representations, this community, different perspectives. So that was a very, that was a good discussion. Okay. And with the next one, we will move to CAC letter regarding AMATS policy Committee action on 2052. Transportation Plan MTP.
Very good, thank you. As I hinted before, I, I do want to redirect this and not direct it to the mayor, but direct it to the policy committee. But for background, I, I think it spells it out in the letter so I assume everyone's got it. The policy committee recently voted in the middle of July on a three to two vote to put the Safer Steward Highway Project back into the MTP through the pending MTP 2052 update. Previously, the policy committee had removed the essays, the Safer Steward Highway by a switch to votes, so the, the, the mayor switch votes. So that's why I originally was submitting this or drafting this thinking of the mayor. But I think directing it to the policy committee would be probably the better path.
We had a special meeting, I think most people here have participated in that and then did a very detailed and well researched letter opposing the current design of the Safer Seward Highway and critiquing at length, the database, the assumptions about driver behavior, the modeling, the scale of the project. There were a whole lot of concerns that we had, and I should say from an eMASS budgetary perspective, the price tag of 1.5 billion, which doesn't even include all the design details yet. 'cause the intersections haven't been designed, for example, the, the, the impact that has on the safety concerns and other projects throughout the whole region.
Those are all very salient reasons for opposing the SSH in its current form. None of those concerns have been addressed by DOT and I and staff, Aaron can chime in if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is there have been no documents or responses from DOT to address any of those concerns. And I did follow up by talking to a representative, the mayor, the, the chief of staff, you know, asking why the, the mayor's representative had shifted. And the response there was that they were told by DOT that they couldn't begin to work on any design changes or spend any money reconsidering anything
Unless the Safer Sewer highway project is back in the MTP. That's what I was told. I don't know if that's correct or not. Certainly as a member of the community who values safety, I want improvements along the Seward Highway, but I don't want this project to, to move ahead because it seems so antis safety, both in its design and also in its effect on other parts of the transportation budget. So I am, you know, I, the proposal, I don't know if it was part of the vote or not, but the DOT did submit a letter to there at that meeting. So I don't think the vote was mentioned on that letter, but there was a letter put forth that there will be a DOT work session to engage the public. But that's one work session. And it would be in, according to the letter, to explain to the public the design, presumably to explain the merits of the design.
So I don't see that as any kind of a meaningful, meaningful way to get any changes to the database design, the driver behavior assumptions. And I'm also really, I guess I should say not trusting that TOT has any intent to make changes because of what just happened with the, another Seward Highway project, the Diamond to O'Malley interchange project where Ammas scaled the funding way back and that no longer, and DOT went back to the community and said, we're gonna start over, we're gonna start from scratch and we're gonna redesign this project. And the committee, I mean the DOT worked with the committee for six months, nine months, something like that. And the community very clearly outlined that they wanted safety features along Brighton Drive Academy Drive, Vanguard Drive. And they, they were not putting any priority on a vehicle underpass to get them to Walmart faster.
And according to members of the committee who participated, DOT kept bringing that up and they kept bringing up an extra traffic lane on the sewer highway and the committees. That's really not our focus. So then when it was framed by DOT, if you had all the money in the world, would you want that vehicle underpass? They said, well, yeah, I mean, if we had all the money in the world, we might want that. And so DOT came back to the Ammas committee and got the, and said, Hey look, if we had all the money in the world, the community wants an underpass, so can we have the money? And the policy committee apparently voted another 40 or 50 million back into that project. So they went back and did their supposed community process and came out with pretty much the same scale and design. I mean, not, not it's better, but I just think that, you know, because the DOT tends to really stick with the design that we should ask for specific issues to be addressed and specific data deficiencies as we did in our earlier letter, but make that a condition of putting that say, sewer highway in the MTP.
Four places where we can amend things. The first is basically, except for the, the specific items. So yeah, the, the motion would be to amend as follows, where it says mayor change it to PAC and, and then there are two specific places where we would rewrite. The first would be in the first paragraph after members of the policy committee. I would say the Community advisory council respectfully requests that the policy committee reconsider its decision to include safer seaward highway so that that gets rid of any issue of the mayor's vote. And then basically there are a number of places where you change mayor to PAC and then down in the last paragraph of the first page where it says, therefore I'd say therefore, in addition to asking the PAC to reverse its vote, the CAC requests that the PAC and then provide the, you know, the checklist, produce the checklist or whatever. So
So this committee spent extra hours and has a special meeting to come up with a very well-documented list of concerns. And I think it is responsible follow up to say please DOT or to, to tell a PC that putting the project back into the MTP and moving it forward without addressing these concerns, nor any promise to address these concerns, it is ignoring our advice. So I think it is good follow up and you know, to reiterate that we have concerns and we would like them addressed before the project moves forward.
I just, I just wanna point out to make sure everybody's clear, DOT did respond to the AMATS policy committee and staff comments that were submitted on the Safer Seward Highway project. So they did provide a staff response. I forget the exact date, but we've posted it online so people can see those responses.
That's okay. It's came super last minute, so they are online for people if you want to review them. Just wanted to point that out. But there was no actual direct response to the CAC comments themselves in terms of any changes at this point? No, nothing has been changed. But I believe that they have that public meeting coming up. I believe Lauren Little also said, who's the project manager and she's the chief engineer at DOT said that they haven't finished responding to all public comments at this point.
To the chair on that basis, I would just reiterate that a public meeting is not going to address the comments meaningfully and without, you know, real substantive response and a commitment to correct things like the crash database is just as one example. And I think they had 200 and some crashes within this quarter. And when I looked at that, like 12 of them were not within the project area. So they had an error rate of, you know, something like not quite 8% or 6% in their database. So that that let, there are lots of errors like that. So I still think we should request that they have a, a checklist on the, you know, the main concerns, the substantive concerns. And I would point out that staff also has substantive concerns and it appears that there's no attention to really change this project. So I think we, we should comment.
So getting the project back on there, then the project can actually be something totally different but make improvements to the highway and through the public. I mean that's why they're taking the public comment period in the first place. And it could substantially change with the public's input. It would be my view and to, but if it's not on there, my understanding is that nothing is gonna happen. And so it seems like this letter asking to take it off of there, then things are gonna just kind of stay as is. So, unless I'm wrong on that, but I don't, it's like staff's input.
Yes. They are using, I believe, state money right now. And part of the problem is it not being in the MTP is they're not asked for, they're not able to ask for reimbursement from the federal government for that money because the federal program is a reimbursement program. So you spend it up front and then you have for reimbursement later. So they do have money at this point, they're just not able to ask for that reimbursement.
Their environmental document includes the entire length of the project, 98.5 to 118, which includes the portion of the MPO boundary. Yep. And then there'd be the question of is this considered a regionally significant project? If it is, and if it directly impacts the MPO boundary, whether it's in our boundary or not, it would still have to be included in the MTP as a regionally significant project.
Hey Diana, you're not mute just for your information. No, you're good. So currently based off the policy committee vote, they voted to support to add it to the MTP. So the project has not been, the project has not been, trying to think a different word. The project's still alive as long as it's on the MTP, this motion is requesting to take another vote and to basically vote no on the project to stop the entire project until concerns are addressed. That's your basic intent of
That'll be me on, I'm trying to get to the, oh I don't really have anything on this particular item. So remember Weber asked for some updated information on a policy committee item from five from May of 2026. Sorry, my internet is going super slow where the Ammas committee submitted a letter of support for the Safe streets for all application for the Northern Lines Boulevard Safety enhancements. So the municipality Anchorage is seeking a safe streets for all application for some improvements on Eastern Northern Lines Boulevard. And so the policy committee sends a letter of support for that. We have not heard back from that yet. So I don't have any updates for you all unfortunately.
This is another request to give an update on the project nomination. So again, back at the May meeting, the policy committee submitted an item with requests or support for HSIP projects. And so, sorry, I'm just scrolling down to that one. So, so Central region DOT drafted nomination concepts for one one in two of the items for funding consideration. Sent me, sorry. CR DOT also submitted a number of systemic treatments that included locations within the AMATS boundary for consideration, including high constituency intersection treatments, enhanced crosswalk treatments, pedestrian conflicts, reduction in signaled intersections. So the headquarters people reviewed the regional nominations, DOT central region received feedback in mid-June and further tailored the nominations. Some nominations were not able to advance due to needing additional information not readily available for this funding cycle. And so there's more information that needs to be done. So DOT is anticipated to give more details, updated information to AMATS in the fall on these HSIP nominations. So we'll hear more in probably a couple months. Thank you.
We're, we're running into some issues here 'cause we'd also have a work session for the boundary discussion and then we possibly have the TAC and PC meetings happening. So we have four meetings for the committees and that is a lot to get scheduled. So we are working on that right now.
So basically we have to update the amass boundary after every census to reflect any changes to our urbanized areas. We've been going through this boundary update for a little while now and DOT has had some concerns regarding our boundary and have indicated to us that they will not forward it to the governor for approval until we work through those concerns. So our boundary has been held up since 2024, I believe is when we was submitted.
Nope. We added 0.8 of a mile in the southern portion along the Seward Highway. We made some small changes here or there for parks to get them in our area because Trailhead in a lot of locations. And then we did make changes based on some adjustments to the urbanized area, but they were relatively small in the Anchorage Bowl. So that is what we have been dealing with.
I'll be quick. Matt, Mark Eisenman, Anchorage Area Planner for DOT. We are currently still updating the LRTP. We have frameworks, vision goals, technical report is comments closed Friday. So, but there'll be plenty other chances to come on different portions of it. And it's still looking like at 26, end of 26 for final review. We're also starting up a freight plan update. I don't have any other information on that. It hasn't kicked off yet, I don't think. We have a Glenn Highway Wildlife Vehicle collision study, which just kicked off, so that'll be picking up steam here in the next couple months. And TIP Admin Mod 8 got approved, so
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.