July 01, 2022 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM
Minute. We're trying to make sure everyone has access to the Facebook live screen. Got it. This is Paul. My camera. Isn't working, so I'll just be on audio. Okay. Thanks, Paul. Okay, well let's go ahead and get started. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Like to go ahead and call the am ho meeting of July 1st, 2022 to order and ask Tara to do a roll call for members present
We do have a quorum. So the first item under our business are the minutes approval of the minutes of our past meeting. They're fairly extensive minutes. If everyone has had a chance to review those for clarity and see if any changes need to be made, if not, if someone would like to make a motion to approve
Just wanted to get it on the, on the table. I, I think there was some discussion that there were changes and I, I apologize. I wasn't able to track the discussion if those updates had been made and I believe the discussion was that some commentary was attributed to the wrong board members.
Yes. Yes. And yeah, they're just, they're just off a little bit. You, it's kind of confusing that you have to go over to the left hand side for the speaker and just go up one, one spot. Are there any clarifications needed for the minutes? Any questions from board members? Okay. Hearing none. We will consider the minutes of our past meeting. Oh gosh, June 3rd, I believe as approved. So as you can see, we've kind of got a little bit of a different agenda going today. We're trying some different things. We'll talk about that a little bit. I'll start out off as the report of the board chair last Friday in, I met with commissioner Anderson, deputy commissioner Campbell and Katherine Keith at the D O T office at the airport at to talk about the upcoming agenda. And at that meeting, there were a couple of items that I raised and in some, some changes, recommendations for changes based on quite a bit from board comments from the last several meetings and, and just some little bits of confusion that we've definitely had.
So in, in changing the agenda towards this way, there, there were several things that we didn't talk about in that meeting. And I'll just go back to my notes. One was that I, I really wanted to add to discussion of presentation today, the am in all these different planning efforts ongoing by, I think we're up to three now by my account, based on this, this agenda. And to just go over again, just language and HB 63 and how we fit into the different into all these different processes that are going on to create this long term long range plan with short term strategies. Some things are going to have to be decided long before the 12 to 18 month D O T long range plan for AMHS is out for public comment. So that's one of the first things that we're going to just go over just briefly under new business.
The second item I ask is that we have a lot of ancillary information that is good and helpful. A lot of it is data driven, and I requested that that gets sent out to the board members outside the meeting process, unless it's directly attached to a discussion or an action item so that we still get the information, but we're not having it as in presentations, cuz it's, it's just eating up, has been pointed out by several board members eating up a lot of our discussion time. And so we wanted to change that. So one had suggested possibly a Dropbox for all that information to go to. And I believe that Catherine is still looking at that. So, and maybe just a simple email every Friday out to board members, you know, saying check the Dropbox there's new information in there would be really helpful and, and help us spend our two hours also more, more successfully. The third was to start kind of a discussion and, and maybe this goes back to, you know, our role with all of this planning going on, but recommendations in, in the pursuit of the modernization plan that we've looked at multiple times and the use of the II J funds for construction of vessels.
Now that we have 30 million in the budget to, to start that design process and the, where that, that may fit in today into this meeting in some ways, but we just really needed to start that start laying out that what would you call it? The framework because there are going to be things that we need to respond to the governor and to the legislatures here in, you know, fall when, when budgets are, are brought forward. So that was the third. Then let's see steps. And that included yes, steps forward for the FY 24 operating and capital budget looks like that timeline that we're on. And when we can discuss this more later is September 15th timeline for the board to, to do so. And, and I definitely think that's do doable. And then I'd also talked about moving meetings to maybe instead of every two weeks, especially during the summer to every three weeks to give us absorb and slurry information and, and really drill down on the agenda items, keep them to keep them very focused on work items and action items that we need to meet via the timeline for am.
Ho so, and that's certainly up to the board as well. So we had that discussion and the agenda came out Wednesday morning to go out to the board and there, as you all know, there's a few modifications of it today. I just noticed some missing information on, on the item for the along the corridors, the Matt Nuka and the corridor replacement we needed. You know, I was looking for options of how does that change the service? You know, what are we going to do with prince Rupert while that is occurring? And you know, how does that affect the rest of the schedule? So those, those are things that we need to know as board members. We're certainly going to be asked that by members of the public. So we need to have that information. And that was it really from my report for my report, I will, I will say that I've been reading and rereading the, the white paper and the modernization plan from several years back. And just continuing to, to read that because I think we've covered quite a bit of the ground on that modernization plan. And I think we all realize it's gonna a little bit too. It's going to shift as we move forward and things get flushed out. But I, I believe that's one of the short term items that you really need to, to just go ahead and take action on if not at this meeting, absolutely at our next meeting. So that is all that I had.
The next item on the agenda is now instead of, I guess, board comments, you know, report report of members is the way it's phrased, but it could certainly be board comments either what you're looking for in this meeting or any interaction you've had with the public, things like that, about how this process is moving it's up to and open to board members. And if you can please make sure and raise your hand when you wanna speak. That'll, that'll make it very easy. And Alan has his hand up.
Thank you, Madam chair, a couple of things I'll start off with last month. And during the crab festival, I had the opportunity to escort Senator Markowski around and a number of different conversations I had with her during that period of time. But one of 'em led to her about the Marine highways and how things were going out of that conversation came her interest in how many people or how many military people are traveling on the Marine highway and the expansion of the military in Alaska and, and what effect that was gonna have on transportation of, of military personnel. She's very interested in that concept. And maybe even to the extent of looking at how to help the operational cost of, of the operation based upon the need for military transportation, I didn't pursue it any further than that. I bring it up today as a point of information and maybe a follow up by somebody on the board here for particularly probably the, the chairman have that conversation.
All right. Thank you. And excuse me, I'll just be brief, but there was two there's two items that I would really ask the board to take a look at the operational board. There's two operational issues that really seem problematic in the very immediate future right now. And that one is dynamic pricing. The interpretation of that and the implementation of that really becomes a disincentive for the public. It confuses the public, and I think it discourages ridership, except for in the few cases, when you have such limited opportunity ride, you get to pay whatever the ransom is, and it's different from everybody in line because the price keeps changing the other. So I would hope the board would make a recommendation to the commissioner that regardless of the financial impact, because there are funds available to cover whatever shortfall might be created by that action, which I think could be overcome by marketing.
But it's, it's a, it is a policy that I think should end. The other issue is the change fee order policy. Right now, there seems to be hundred dollars to change the ticket, no matter what the, what the issue is. And it is really problematic. You have folks that go to Juno or catch can for medical. They have to stay over an extra day and they've gotta pay a hundred dollars for a $68 ticket. On top of all the other woes they're having, it becomes something. I talk to somebody who's practically in tears. It also feels becomes disincentive because some people just simply don't even notify AMHS because its more hassle and not gonna get any money back. So then that causes more issues with knowing who's actually going to sale and taking up spaces that might otherwise be available. So, you know, certainly a change fee is in order whether it's 20% to 50% of a ticket, but should never be 150%. So I'm really ask if the board would take a close look at that and make recommendations so that the Alaska green highway system can be serving the public and not, not, not embracing owner's policies that are disservice to the public. Thank you.
Well, hi, my name's Gabriel Bayles. I grew up in Huna riding the fairies regularly and now I'm the captain. I'm the Columbia. And I'm listening this meeting cuz I'm concerned about the direction that we were going with the cascade point terminal. I personally think it's a wrong direction. Now back in the 1960, when they designed the new system, there were small boats running around to all the small towns and back then they knew it wasn't a very good system. So they made one big boat that went round around Southeast and they knew it was the most efficient way to do it with this
And this kind of goes to reliability is if we believe with the ACS, that, that we could do six days a week service, that that's another big benefit. I, I think having a reliable service, you know, will also match the, we believe it's the demand for it. Now we're proposing summertime service here at cascade point, and then, you know, it enhances off bay off bay will again, serve for the wintertime that that's the current plan. So that was where, where we were with that. So, so that's really in a nutshell of where we're at with that. But I think, you know, with, with this proposal in terms of constructing the infrastructure and how this would work, I, I would turn it over to gold belt and they have a presentation. If we could, before we have questions to allow them to give their presentation and go forward if that's okay. Madame chair.
Thank you very much. Madame chair. This is MCK Pierre. I'm the president CEO gold belt incorporated. Thank you so much to the board members for allowing us to share. I do have a presentation. If I have the authority to share screen, I'll, I'll give this to you and, and we can go through it very quickly.
Thank you very much. So in a nutshell, gold belt is Juno's Alaskan native corporation, and we function very much like a village corporation and every other community and every region. The only difference is, is that we're an urban Corp. So we don't share that natural resource revenue money. So that goes directly from the regional Corp into our shareholders and, and the corporation gold belt does not touch that. So we function purely as a business to the benefit of our shareholders and roughly 70% of our 4,000 shareholders live in Southeast. So transportation is a very important issue for us. I'll go to the next slide. And I only have a couple. And, and what's really important here is that we are trying to promote a hub and spoke environment system that provides reliable, low cost, dependable transportation for our shareholders. The biggest thing that that we're hearing is that people can't get to medical appointments and it's, it's allowing communities to suffer as a result.
And we're trying to fix that. So again, about 2,700, maybe 2,900 of our shareholders live in Southeast, and we really want to respond to their needs and make sure that their life is rich and full and healthy. So why Northern Lincoln canal? I think the cascade point is a, a low hanging fruit that we can help lower costs and provide predictable transportation to and from Juno and Hanes and Skyway. And then as a result, we, we hope gold belt hopes that there's lower costs that can be then spread across the rest of the system to allow for greater transportation access through all the other communities, not just in Southeast, but in Southwest and across all of AMHS.
And, and finally, why gold belt, like, why are we even promoting this? We have a history of, of running ships, running boats, running docks. We currently have a facility in downtown Juno where we serve significant amount of the small cruise ships. So we understand the logistics with fuel, with transportation, you know, on the road system to support that with all the support efforts, from electricity to water sewer. And, and we believe that we have the right history to allow this to be successful and allow the riders to have a successful experience and an enjoyable experience with AMS. Again, our, our purpose here is to provide a better life and, and a better opportunity for our shareholders and for the communities that we represent. And they live in, we represent Juno primarily, and we have shareholders all around Southeast, and we wanna make sure that everyone has a fair chance to go to their doctor's office, go to their dentist, to build the lives and, and support their family and allow everyone to pursue their goals with a healthy and happy environment.
So thank you for allowing us to be a partner in this. And we truly see ourselves as helping D O T reach these goals, but we're not in this to fleece the state. I've had a lot of people say, geez, McQue, you know, the, what, you know, you know, what the state has in money. This is gold belt did $500 million in revenue last year. This is a very, very small piece of business for us. We do this because we love our communities. We love our shareholders, and we want to do everything we can to enrich and benefit their lives and the lives of everyone living in our communities. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Que I think that we need to just, you know, make sure that you understand as well about that for this board, with our task of looking on a long range plan, that's viable, sustainable that provides better service and keeps costs. That that's really, that's our vision, what we have to continue to, to look toward and it's yeah. In terms of scheduling and whether there's going to be more service or not, that that's still actually quite an unanswered question. And a lot of the information we have is, is quite old. So that's the, that's the lens, which, which we have to look to each ones of these projects. And that's what we're just trying to understand. So I appreciate you taking the time.
Are there any questions from board members for commissioner Anderson? Okay. I think let's see I'm missing my two screens right now. I can't. There we go. And I can't tell if, oh, no, those were discussion items. So thank you. And I think when it comes to cascade point again, in order for the board to really have a better understanding of how that fits into the long range planning, it, it comes back to, you know, we keep hearing there's going to be more traffic or there, there can be more trips, but we haven't seen that. And, and it comes back to options and recommendations, particularly for a facility that's only going to be used in the summer. So I, again, this was just a discussion item. If board members have any questions or looking for clarification later on the next several days, please make sure and get those to Catherine through the chair.
Yeah, go ahead. Okay, just captain FY. I know we're running a little late, so I'll, I'll, I'll try to I'll I'll try to be quick here. Put my camera on here. Yeah. What I want to do right now is talk about the Talina and our thoughts on cabins. And then I will switch over to the Glosson report on the dead and corridors on the, on the ska. We, we here at D OT KCO re highway D O T on one team we feel, and, you know, we make the recommendation that we should continue on just like we're doing with the hub. And that project's actually going very well. We're, we're pretty much on track with that, you know, getting the cabins installed on the hub to also install co cabins on the Talina that will give us in general, a lot more flexibility. We're also potentially looking at SD system for sewage that would add to the flexibility of the ship.
You know, you saw in the report, you know, potentially looking at, you know, different sensors and whatnot to evaluate the fuel consumption, things like that. That's something for us to look at. There's a lot more technology out there even, even in, in the years, since we installed the develop control systems on the mainline shift, a lot more technology. So we think that's worth a look, you know, and also worth a look, you know, as to how to build a ship for potentially self mooring. There's a couple different ways to do that. We do run with, you know, some of our ships that the, you know, the smaller ships that run to the unmanned ports, we do have self mooring, mooring line systems installed that can, you know, be worked on the ship and, and, and the dock, which is also a lot of new technology magnetic and, you know, dock suction systems too.
So, you know, it's all, you know, it's all, you know, stuff that, you know, we're gonna look at, if you, you know, look at the report closely, we, we think we're somewhere around 18 million for the cabins and then potentially 23 million to, you know, add the, you know, you know, the extra items, potentially the MSD system and, and whatnot. So we, we just think we'll get a lot more flexibility, you know, out of the, the TAs Lena with, with, with the crew cabins. So I don't know, is there questions like to answer questions or just keep on going and check?
Okay. Thank you. Captains, captain hill, you. Yeah. So this, this is a good example here of, of decisions that were made outside of gathering all the facts. Do we, is there any been any talk with the coast guard that, that have you guys, do we have a certification for the hub? How much crew it's gonna need to run up in a principal town?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, well, what, what I'm trying to do is, is, you know, of course get, get the cabins installed and, and we're working, you know, you know, pretty diligently to get a captain and a chief engineerer board. And we're actually very close to that. And once we do that, then we plan to start working on documents and COIs and all those sort of things. So I, I mean, it's, we gotta get some crew board before we start heading down, heading down those trails, but that that's the plan. And we eventually wanna get a full crew on there and, and get it certified COI. And
Okay. So this is, this is before us as an action item and which makes sense, cause we've discussed it multiple times and the resolution, as you see does not, it, it talks about modifications, including the crew quarters, but it, you know, this resolution is approving all of the changes and in the newer larger number. I think captain, Hillary's making a really good point and also one outta two,
I, I would be willing to vote yay on this, but I have the same question that you did. Madam chair is they're talking about 5 million in digitizing of operations. And I would kind of like to know what, what the plans are for that. Cause it's gonna be stuff that all end up getting stuck operating. So we got a lot of automation on the Madoo when it came out and we got very, very, very, very little training on it. And that's not something that's recommended by ammo.
And, and I wonder if that's a reflection of the way that this resolution is written. So it, what it's asking is if the board supports putting this project into this step where it would then start to move forward, certainly with the crew quarters. But you know, there would also be more time to, to understand and review the other operational changes to the system and, and hear that.
Yeah. Thank you. I'm as I indicated early on in a couple different times that that the modification plan, the fleet modification plan that was presented February 25th as the draft covers these issues. And we've not taken up that draft modernization plan and discussed it or approved it or disapproved it or agree and concept. I think that's the first step we should be doing rather than piecemealing each one of these little things together. Now I understand because it's gonna take us a while to put together a long range plan that the department has to move forward. And if this is necessary, they need to move forward on. If they need to go put cascade point into their plan right now, they need to put it in there. And we not in a position to write that wrong reach plan or help write that long reach plan at this point in time.
Okay. Thank you. The motion passes eight to zero. We will go ahead and move forward to item 11 and we may have to, oh boy, we're already a little past our time and I know folks have other things going on. The, I have a question for the Matt Nuka dead end quarters. Is there a timing issue where the board would need to sign on to that? I, I just think this might be a bit of a longer conversation. I am not sure. And we still have other items, a couple of other items. So I guess, I guess I'm asking the will of the board captain Hillard.
Yeah. I'd like to make some comments on, on this. So it's my boat. We're supposed, we're scheduled to come outta the shipyard this year on December 16th. This will be our last CLI. So December 6th, 2023, that votes out of service and no longer available under its current organization, without doing some kind of upgrade to these I'm in a little disagreement with the, with the company and the state on whether the they porters are actually needed to replace kind of like the same thing with the Taline and the hub they have, haven't officially asked the coast guard for what is needed, but it's not my money. But so secondly, on this too, there's, I mean, it's not gonna hurt doing it. It should make them a lot nicer for going forward. And the other question I have about this, which I would direct of FK is on page on page 20, it says that plants and specifications have been developed for the modification of the Cav deck. These plants have been submitted to and reviewed by the abs and us coast guard Marine safety center. I've been asking for those plans for two years, how come you're not taking any input from the crew and the engineers?
Well, Kevin, this is Kevin. We had one year to produce those plans, which we did. I'm sure we can get those from you. I mean, you know, we, we can get them to you, but that was a few years back. It was a few years ago. And part of the second amendment on the requirements that we were facing at the time, of course, this is a pretty complex document. Glo Austin is very familiar with, with this project. They took us through the repower. They took us through the major conversion. They took us through the gap analysis. They are very educated in the situation and they're pretty sure about their recommendation. So, you know, we, we made the, we made the best decision. We felt that we could make at the time and not spend another six months in that yard. And we'd already been a year and a half, you know, so as you know, is that's your ship, but you, you also know that there's a, there's another date in there of 2027 regardless.
And the entire major conversion decision points were based on 20, 27 being that's it. And, you know, had we gone down the trail of just alarms smoke, detectors, lighting and whatnot, Glo Austin feels very strongly that we, we would've, you know, gotten to 20, 27 and then faced more scrutiny from the coast guard on more major conversion. And we would've been forced to do the dead end corridors anyhow, and probably a lot more. And that to get beyond 2027, doing the dead end corridors is, is probably the best and, and the least expensive process to take, to get beyond 20, 27, which we're probably gonna need to do with, with the Matt ska. So, I mean, yeah, that's and, and things changed when we were, you know, you know, trying to make decisions on the fly because this made you conversion kind of came at us from right field, came at us when we were in the re power, we requested a waiver, it was denied coast guard in DC, and we were having to make some hard decisions on the fly. And
And I'm sorry, before I, I captains, I'm sorry. I should have turned this over to you at the start of the discussion and that's okay. I didn't, so you could walk through, so I'm going to do that now. I, I do see two hands up, but captains, I would like to turn it over to you because if you could just, you know, the best recommendation that Kio has for the keeping the vessel on the water and why, how long it will take and shipyard to do this item, what we're gonna do with prince Rupert in the meantime, is Kenne cut, gonna try and cover, or are we going back to nothing? If you could just give it us an idea, walk us through the, the decision points that you all had to make. And then I'll go to Rob carpenter and then to LA, but
Madam chair, we feel, yeah, Madam, we feel our, our, our, our best, our best way forward now is, you know, doing the dead end corridors, you know, fixing the cabin deck. What we don't know is really cost cuz we don't know what we're gonna get into as far as potentially wasted steel. You know, there's a lot of fire boundaries and whatnot we have to deal with. And, and so, I mean, it's, it's, it's until we make a decision that we're gonna do the project and we really start putting it together, then we'll get a better idea on, on cost and, and time, you know, there's been some thoughts on cost depending upon how much discovery that we run into, you know, it could be eight to 10 months. Maybe I, it just, it just depends. And our goal would be to try to, you know, run the kennecot into rubric and you know, on a, on a, on a rotating type schedule out of felon. And that, that that's how would cover Rupert.
Our, I think you, I mean, we, we feel our best way forward. I mean, we've gotta do something. Okay. Right. We've gotta gotta to do these lights, alarms, smoke detectors, all this stuff. That's millions in costs, longly time, more months in the shipyard or the dead end quarters and everything has got an end date of 2027 because that's what the major conversion decision points were based on. And, and Andon feels, you know, and we haven't gone. The coast guard Buton feels that we are better off at this point to get beyond 20, 27 as reasonably as possible. The best maneuver right now is to do the dead end corridors as the second amendment provided for.
Thanks. Manager chair. Rough Ture. Yeah. You know, just to add on to what captain my, my personal, I think a lot of our views in the agency, but you know, when we started talking out bringing a TRV online and then another main liner online, down the road, you know, the construction timeline, we, Matt Nuka to get us there. The sad fact is we need our ships to last a pretty long time because the, you know, design and construction is not quick. Right. Unfortunately, so, you know, we're like, okay, we, you know, it's, it's a hard build swallow, but we put a lot of money into the Matus re power and we're gonna have to, you know, unfortunately put a little more just to get us to that next stage of the, of the fleet and, you know, regardless of what our, what we plan to doper, which we have full intent to maintain Rupert as a destination.
And I guess I would add onto that is I'm. My goal is to either get a permanent waiver of sous requirements going into Rupert or a temporary waiver. I'm trying once again, to bring that up with the Canadian government, cuz we have a pretty good working relationship with them right now. And to somehow modify this international rule when it seems to be obsolete in regard to at least servicing Ruper from Alaska. So that would solve quite a few problems cuz then we could bring any number of ships in there. ACFS whatever we want. It's it's not a difficult run into their nor a risky run. So I guess that's all I had to say on that. So thank you.
Okay. Thank, thank you Rob. And the point being is that until we get main liners, new main liners in the fleet, we really need the mat to continue to serve. And she is, I mean, we're in a, you know, a position with, with the coast guard and was solu at this point. And I appreciate all the information from G really laying it out. You know, it looked like 6 0 1 half a dozen, the other definitely in some ways, but, but it, something needs to happen. So captain Hilliard, you had your hand up.
Yes I did. So Rob, no disrespect here, but last meeting in one breath, we, we talked about Heder and it was like, no, we're not gonna discuss Heder we're not gonna do this, which would drop all the SOS requirements you're talking about. Cause we're not going to foreign countries to we'll build a terminal, a certain price up a cascade point for a little bit. I'm not sure what the best interest way to go. That is. And, and I'm gonna quit arguing the points with the Maduka. But the, the one point I will make is I've seen over the years, AMH and, and deal key, make decisions without going to the coast guard. First, they're here to be our partners to make sure that we're safe and doing the right thing. And we have not gone to them to say, we should already know exactly what the crew is for the hub. We should already know exactly what the crew is for the Palina and we should know exactly again, are they gonna be calling the Matt disk, another major modification? What other upgrades things we're gonna have to do? I, I fully expected this is probably the boat's gonna be gone for a year. So it's gonna make a big difference of when we start that. And what's available to cover going forward for the, for the board to look at a short term plan.
Yeah, I, I believe that yes, we have to do the mat NOKA to whatever it takes to keep it running. But I think we need to also include the coast guard with the changes, which is we are expecting funding for a replacement vessel and that we are working on a solu waiver and I would agree to anything needed to keep it running, but not improvements. That's all I got.
Well, Madam chair, well, no. I mean, I, I, I think, you know, when I, when I talked about steel discovery work, I mean, we, you know, you never know until you get Karen into things, you know, and you, and, and that's when you start, you know, discovering things. Now, I, I will say, you know, there's, there's less chance of a lot of cost structurally when you get up above the decks. Now that's, that's, I'm saying you can't get into it, but it's not like the kind of discovery we got down deep into the engine room of that ship when we, to that engine room totally apart, down around big web framing and, and, and you, and you can get into a lot of, you know, heavy duty steel replacement down there, and a lot more cost and a lot more time, as opposed to up way up high on the cabin deck.
I mean, it's, you can run into it, but you know, not, not potentially, you know, as much, you know, like we talking about how much do we think we're running to, you know, and, you know, as far as the timeframe that we can run that ship, that we can run that ship until September 20, 24, that is the date. Okay. That's how, and the, before we do something with it, either either those lights, alarms smoked and all that, which we don't think is the way to go, NORS exhausting. We, a lot of faith in them. And the one way to get this ship beyond 2027 is to, you know, get the dead end court done. And then hopefully we don't get drawn into another major, major conversion situation beyond 20, 27. Or if we do, it would be much reduced having done that cabin deck. And
So captain, can you explain the 2027 timeline was set back when discussions with the coast guard when this project first came up? Yeah. In other words, we should not gonna time out in use in 2027. It's just that, that was the timeline that card said, you'll either have this done or you're well,
Sorry, sorry, man. I couldn't find my mute button. I'm a little worried on the timing here because, because we keep having this issue of getting material, you know, well juggling our existing jobs and this getting materials for this, this board, and then having enough time to give advanced notice on the materials before the meeting date. So I would hate to, if it, if our next meeting's in two weeks and we need to get materials to the board, say, I don't know, the Friday before the, the Friday of the next meeting that doesn't give us a lot of time. And that that's my only concern. So, I mean, I know unless we're taking small bites, then maybe that's, that's the T we take, those are my comments. Okay.
Thank you. I, and I, I think these are small, very focused bites because we do have a modernization plan. K CEOs had one for several years. And obviously just because of some of the things that we've talked about in discussions and decisions that they have made along with D O T all I'm asking is that they update that modernization plan for us to have back before us. And, and I'm not suggesting that we put, we're putting together the full short term plan and the long term plan, but we need to start to look and see what a framework would look like. And I think the modernization plan is a start fat, and I'd be more than happy to work with, with Catherine on, on that. And, and just bring that back to the board. And then it's up to the board to start kind of fleshing it out.
So can I at class clarifying please, just for Katherine's sake and maybe Catherine jump in here wanting, I mean, we, I know we have the prior drafts of this modernization plan that you're talking about. You just wanna bring it back before us in, in its entirety or update it somehow with some new actions that our agencies or that DOT's taking help me, or maybe Kathy, you, you have an idea.
Yes. I would. We'd like to see it updated things have changed since it was written certainly. And there are new things, new changes that are underway now. So, so the plan that we saw before I was at least a year or two or three years old. And so if we can update that, bring that back for the board, that'll help us give us that place, that foundation to start on, on what a framework would look like, and just start putting large elements of the framework out and out new vessels for this, you survive by AJ money, all sorts of pricing. You know, these are all gonna be D elements with the long term plan, but I think we just need to start get something on paper so we can look at it and start plugging, plugging things in and see where they lay. And we're gonna need that updated modernization plan, I believe to do that.
Thank you. I think waiting three weeks to do our, our job is too long myself. I think that we don't spend enough time when we hold these meetings or scheduled for two hours and we spend the first half hour doing all the things we need to do with the public and our own comments and all that stuff, which leaves us an hour and a half of discussing important projects. And I don't think we can, we can do it. I just, I don't think three weeks is a good thing. I really would prefer. We meet every two weeks and we, we make it a three hour meeting instead of a two hour meeting and actually give us time to get more depth discussion on some of these issues that we wanna, we wanna do. And I, I think that well, things like whether we should be having a resolution, putting the, a date and time on some of the decisions that we need to make needs a lot more discussion and flushed out as to whether that really is the short term plan that we're trying to put together, or whether it's actually working with the department on trying to get their budget together.
Thank you, Alan. And I am just suggesting three weeks for this next meeting, because I think there's still more refining to do with the agenda. And I agree, I think, and, and Katherine and I, and Winnet as co-chair can certainly talk about that, but we can save quite a bit of time. And we just started doing that with ancillary information being provided without being a presentation and staying focused. And I think if we give the three weeks, because it is the holiday, because there's a lot going on that, and we keep it focused due to very specific, deep discussion items that we're gonna be far better off, and we're going have more time to speak to that. Then we can go back to the two weeks and continue with an agenda that's more refined and more simplified. And, and, and we're just gonna change the way we do business a little bit here. And
Yes, I agree with the changes that you're making. I'm glad that I'm, I appreciate that. But we went to catch can, and we had a lot of information with no action points, two days of, of meetings and information, but no action points. Then we put off our meeting for a week and a half or so, because we had that two day meeting. We didn't need to meet again in two weeks. So it, it just it's I, to me, it's funding us further behind. Thank you.
If you get a chance with Senator Markowski the second thing I wanna bring up is some of the stuff you just talked about. Madam chairman, I am concerned with some of the things that we have on our agenda today, as resolutions, when we have not made a determination ourself, on what direction we wanna go. I believe the modernization plan was an effort by the department to bring forward a concept. And I've mentioned several times that I think that we should approve that modernization plan based only in concept, not in detail. And then from there, ask the department to bring forward recommendations, to implement their modernization plan on the long term. And I think that's something we should do, whether we do it today or not, I'm gonna have a hard time voting for moving forward with items by item, without having a long term concept in front of us. And so I think that's something we should bring up today and have that conversation about your discussion, about having the meeting every three weeks and discussing these items for an hour and a half every three weeks. I just don't see us getting anything done. I just don't see us getting forward in implementing what we need to implement.
Thank you, Ellen, Juan. Thank you, Shirley. I just wanted to comment that. Well, first of all, let me say thank you to the project manager for the TRV and I'm blanking on his name right now, but he did follow up on a introduction in connection with mayor Branson and Kodiak and the city manager, Mike thingy. I think they actually ended up meeting with the assistant city manager, Josie Banky and mayor Branson on the particulars about the vessel modifications as they exist now. And the docking arrangements in Kodiak, just to connect people who may have changed during the planning process for the vessel and to just make the connections that are necessary to assure that everybody has full information and are satisfied that things will be working with the new vessel in Kodiak. And I hope that's true for other communities as well, that are intended to be served by the Sina either on an ongoing basis or on a, a temporary basis.
And I just will say that I appreciate the approach with this agenda. I'm looking forward to hearing more details about some of the items on the agenda. And I will concur with Alan that I I'm concerned that a three week planning, cadence, especially given everything else that's happening during the summer. I mean, I will say I, I wish we weren't meeting today the Friday before a national holiday, but at any rate, I do think that the, the meeting cadence probably needs to pick up as opposed to stretch out. But maybe that means that we need to continue to modify the agenda, to take things in more incremental measures, to dig a little bit deeper on a narrower group of items on the agenda and Quicken the pace to get towards that deadline. So that's my thought. Thank you.
Great. So if there's any members of the public that are interested in speaking the directions on how to do so are on the screen currently, if you are watching the Facebook live, you can dial into that number and then you will hit star two. If you wanna just see the voicemail, but star three in order to request to speak. So if you're on the phone right now, please hit star three. I'll see that your hand is raise and we'll be able to unmute your line. Okay. So the phone number ending in zero one seven seven. Can you please try to speak?
As a walk passenger, like let's say I I'll travel to Haines and I walk on and sometimes I'll have a double Bob stroller for my kids, Costco groceries, a dog and a Kim. And it's hard enough getting to ox bay and to get on a gold belt bus. I think we're really moving away from where we wanna go as a system. I think where we should be simplifying things, not making them more complicated. You know, when the ACS came out, there was a lot of things graphed on Excel spreadsheets that seemed to give dollars and numbers and real information. But I think they neglect reality particularly with the fast ferry concepts, complete failure, ACS complete failure. But anyway, that's why I'm listening in. So thank you for your time.
Okay. Thank you. We will go ahead and move forward to our next item. Oh golly, which is item 6:00 AM ho rolls, six aha roles and responsibilities under new business and that's informational. And has that be listed as is providing information, but what I was looking for, and I don't know if this is a Judy question or if it's a commissioner Anderson question of how we fit, how is is going to fit through this process where it looks like we now have, unless I'm mistaken, three different planning processes going on the long term, a O T long, long range planning that includes the Alaska Marine highway system. We have the RFP that went out for the review of the operations and management of the system. And now, and then RC going out for the technical writing to put the plan together that we'll be looking at here later in the agenda. And we have HB 63. So I know there had been some S made that it was up to the am ho board that it's, it's our plan to write.
And that I, that I do not see in the language of the HB 63, but our role is to walk through this whole process with a D T with the public, with AMHS and it's, it just feels like it's getting a little, a little murky, a little muddy. So that's the kind of information I was hoping to look for. And, and maybe we'll can have a chat with that on the next item with Andy mills and, and with Judy. So does anyone have any S I know it seems kind of broad. I, like I said, I asked for it to be on the agenda because I was expecting, you know, presentation to us as a board of kind of how we fit in, in, in all these different moving pieces. Alan.
Yes. Thank you. In reading the agenda item six were the duties of D OT. It seems to me that if you read HB 63 correctly, that it talks about doing a long term, a sharp term plan as defined in a long term plan. I'm having a hard time understanding why the first item there is develop a short term plan annually and then develop a long term plan. That seems to me, that to develop a long term plan would be the first thing. So you can develop as defining that plan, your short term plan. So I'm having a little bit of heartburn with trying to do this, including what's been proposed by the department and, and on the budget. How can I write a budget or talk about a budget as defined in the long term plan? I don't have a long term plan and I understand the need to have something for the governor for OMB by September. And so they can move forward with the process. But if the department wants to write up what they did last year and add it to us and say, okay, what, what are the recommendations you have? I'm glad to do that based upon what we need to do, but I'm not gonna spend a lot of time developing a budget for this for am a case without knowing what the long term plan's gonna be. And so I'm having a very difficult time trying to rationalize my mind, the steps that we should be taking. Thank you.
Thanks. Thanks, Madam chair. And I was just, you know, trying to refocus this again, but I, I know we have commissioner Anderson on board and also gold belt corporation, and I'd really hate to waste their time today. We're already 15 minutes off schedule and skipping item eight seems prudent at this point. So, and if we're not gonna make an action on this item, perhaps we table it for now.
Well, thank you. I, I wouldn't wanna table it because that kills it. I think my only consideration that I have is, and then this just goes back. First time resolution shows up in front of a group of folks. The first time they've seen it and it's language it's been written by someone else. It's, it's very difficult for me as a chair to ask for them to, to take action on that. And we have this discussion on Friday. I, I, I warned y'all that it would be problematic to bring forward resolutions when we haven't had full discussions on these items yet. So having said that, I think that the long term plan RFP that you want to skip, is that not going out to bid in very shortly?
Well, hi, Judy, hold on one second, please. Okay. A Alan, you have your hand up, cause I, I still wanna stick to what we're, we're supposed to be discussing as well, which is a timeline for short term, and then a long term plan. It's not the perfect plan. It's not the end plan, but it's a Alan,
Thank you. I, to the agenda item in front of us, I I'm, again, as I indicated earlier, I don't have a bit of problem talking about the budget and helping out the department with recommendations on what is gonna be including the federal dollars that we're gonna be spending. But I have a problem with the way this is written, cause this is written no later than September 22nd, we will put together a simplified three to five year capital expenditures. I'm I'm not, I'm not ready to put together the three to five year short term plan without a long term plan to base it on. And if you want to talk about next year's budget, that's fine. Let's talk about next year's budget, but it's too early for us as a board to write together this plan to show long term plan and try to implement something in the middle of that without having it I'm why would we have a resolution to set these dates, to write a short term plan? I don't agree with that. I think that we need gonna, we wanna put together a conversation about the budget, looking for recommendations about it. Let's do that, but don't tie it to a short term plan. Let's figure out what we're gonna do in, in the long term before we get there.
Thank you. Madam chair. I just wanted to state cuz the, the legislative world is where I try to reside. And the open meetings act is Alaska statute, 44 62. And the open meetings act is what requires work by this board to be done in the public purview. So I just wanted to give that to captain Hillard as they, that, that there is a statutory requirement of the legal requirement and that that's what that is for reference. I did wanna note just as a frame of reference for this conversation, and we certainly anticipated in writing this that, that you all would amend this, the change, this, it wasn't meant to be written as a, take it or leave it certainly or, or discuss it and, and bring it up at another time. Once you've had more time to consider it. But I would say for D O T as a frame of reference, the step, our state transportation improvement plan is set for a four year window.
Yeah, it's a little, I mean, the, the schedule I had put together was more like two years, but there may be some ability to compress that if we can get this moving quickly, another piece of this, as I'm sure you're aware is we're trying to hire our AMHS planner. We have about four people we're gonna be interviewing for that. So we wanna get that position filled quickly so they can be of, you know, of help getting, and I'll be involved as well. So, yeah, I mean, everyone realizes this is a, this is a super big push, but a real important one. And we wanna, you know, there are a lot of moving parts and other plans out there. We certainly want to be efficient and not do duplicate efforts and, and draw from the conclusions of those other efforts without, you know, recreating the wheel and doing the same thing. So there will be some coordination involved in this as well with that.
So just, just real briefly before I go to a, regardless of, if the board likes the language in this resolution and is comfortable saying that they support $900,000 for address scope of work, that really have only had a couple days to look at and is, and is, like you said is very broad and open right now. It's going to happen anyway. Correct. I mean, it's part of what has to happen, is that correct?
By my read of the HP 63? I think it, I think it needs to happen. I mean, I think we need to move forward and I think there's enough time for incorporating comments and, you know, ideas or issues in that final scope of work that it would be better to move forward than to delay at this point.
Yeah. Thank you. Ma'am my first question yields with back in April, we had a RFP put before for AMHS evaluation, scope of work, operation efficiency and efficiency analysis. Is that, was that already done and put out and so put, was it be incorporated into this or are they two totally separate things where we go out on you're going out on contract on, I'm not sure exactly how much is out there and where we're headed.
Yeah, yeah. That is a separate effort that is currently being negotiated or maybe has been negotiated with the contractor, which was Elliot bay, as I understand. And it does include a lot of the background information that this effort will need to collect. So I, my vision or my thinking on this is, yeah, we don't wanna, we wanna pair with that and understand what they're doing and be the consultants and, and us need to all be talking together. Catherine's working on that one as well. So I think, you know, within D O T establishing a, a group of folks who are partnered and teaming on all these different things going on, so that we're not duplicating those efforts, that we're using the information coming out of the comprehensive evaluation for the long range plan and the short range, capital development plan, those things are really important. So there will be a lot of communication necessary coming up because of the moving parts, which you pointed out.
Okay. My question here, talking about the modifications we hear in this, having this resolution is specific, what we've been discussing, which are the crew quarters. And now there's new modifications that if I understand correctly would take the cost from 18 million to 23 million for some new technology for hopefully what could be fuel savings on the Talina. And I, I do not see that though, anywhere in the resolution here. So it's, it's kind of a, it's kind of a big change. The sport has been pretty, pretty articulate in the fact that they believe the TAs absolutely needs to get group quarter. So this is just kind of a new jump. And, and I'm curious as to how, how that occurred.
Oh, Madam chair, that's just, you know, you know, the 18 million for the cabins, that's, that's, you know, pretty much what, you know, we figure it's, it's gonna cost. And the rest of it's just been internal operational discussions here, you know, what else would be nice to have on the boat if, if we had the funding to do it,
Som I'm gonna try not to rehash anything here. And I just wanna focus on, you know, we, I mean, I've been engaged in a lot of discussions about the Alaska class vessels, you know, dating back really many years. But, but what I wanna say about the crew quarters is I I've been a skeptic about it in, in some respects, but I really am leaning heavily towards, you know, the standardization issue because I believe that what the system needs is the right vessels on the right routes and, and with the right versatility. And so from a, from a long range standpoint, I feel that we have to pursue standardization of the Alaska class vessels in order to maximize versatility community service and inter you know, inter oper well, versatility interoperability of the vessels. And it's it. I, I don't want to, I don't want to burden the discussion about what have may have been missteps when the vessel vessels were originally designed and originally in the boatyard, I think we have to focus our discussion and our decisions on what's the right thing for the future of the system. And so I am in favor of moving forward with the crew quarters on the Talina and the standardization of the Alaska class vessels for those reasons. Thank you. Winta captain Hillard.
Yeah. I'm ahead here, but talking with the replacement project and going forward there, and commons, we, we, we have there is, is keeping things the same we're we, as the fairies are very behind in technology for the bridge and keeping track of maintenance and that, that kind of thing. So as a, as we keep building new boats, we're gonna need to upgrade this technology into, into better stuff for, for here. So there's, there's a lot of pieces that need to go into this. You know, secondly, when you're talking about cascade points, cascade point, and these two boats and the Lacan and Aurora, it comes down to very simple, which is, you know, speed and time equals distance in what you can do. They probably could have improved the running rate to Hagen Skyway and offer more service by making sure they had a boat that would do 22, 23, 24 knots with cars and things like that. But I'm getting off this off the subject here, but attach should definitely get crew quarters, so it can be functional throughout the system.
So it's hard to look at this as a, as the plan that we're trying to put together that we're required to put together and, or, or to recommend, excuse me, cause it's a department puts the plan together, not us and I don't have a problem with TA. I think it should be done if that's what the department thinks it needs to have for continuing to have a continuing process and to get it into the step is the next step. And I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem again, is that we've not set ourselves up as a board and saying this concept of modernization plan is the right concept. So thank you.
Thank you, Alan. I do believe that this could be a good short step forward because there, there is an understanding on the board that as part of a modernization plan, we do need to have vessels that are as flexible as possible. And that can take over for the two 30 fives when they get pulled out of service. Laconian Aurora. So, and putting this in the step just gets it starting to go through the process and that process can make, definitely make changes to the modifications. And that will be up to, you know, AMHS staff and particularly to just let the board know what they are and why, why they feel that they are good changes going forward. And, and like Paul said, when we start looking at the newer vessels, the new mainline vessels that come in, they will be looking at that it at newer technology as well. So if captain, do you have a question specifically to this resolution?
Yes. I wanted to, to let Paul know, and I'm hoping like a lot of this stuff is electronic log booking, so you're not doing a paper copy, better maintenance, software, things that are bringing these boats up to the, to the at least 20th century. We're we're way behind on, on that, that kind of stuff. But that's the questions I have going forward is are they spending this extra 5 million in, in, in the right way? So that's all I, that's all I have. I mean, I'm ready to vote on this.
Seconded by one. And the, the resolution is recommending that D O T PSA M HS include modifications to the Talina and the next step transportation improvement amendment, which I believe is coming up fairly quickly. You may be captain Hillary. Do you have anything further to say to your motion?
Thanks Helen. Keith, you muted Keith. Okay. From my, from the last meeting and going forward, it was tough for me to look at how politics is deriving such a long term wedge in the Marine highway system and for a long term plan and things like that. I don't know if we need to be looking at like a, a railroad corporation, because currently at, at what's going on, what the letter norm had showed us about how the ACFS got morphed into what they are now, we're changing the way the last Marine highway does business cascade point is, is not the general point that we've or a model that we've been working on for the last 10, 15 years. So I, I very much agree with Alan when, when we're talking about, you know, long range plans and this, you know, this, this goes completely into that is how do we develop a long range plan if we're changing the way the greenhouse does business?
So we're, we're talking about bringing in a new, a new arena basically. And how does it that fit into the general model of what we got going? So I, I, I'm kind of frustrated in, in this thing about developing plans because I, I don't feel like we're, we're getting all the necessary information and what's happening kind of behind the scenes. So, and that's not necessarily a, a laying all with D O T but the, the short term effects of this is how do we talk about writing the schedule? How do we talk about doing things? And we don't know how this system's gonna lay out. If you're gonna go ahead with CA cascade point, how are we gonna, how are we gonna write this in the system? How is this gonna change what we have now, what we're gonna be able to run, what's available to run now, what's what needs to happen. So I think the parameters for doing what's required of us by the, by the, the drafting of the board is, is I think difficult to fit into this nice little package of comparing the short and long term plan with a limited amount of information we have. So I'll leave that there and comment later. Thank you.
Hey, thank you, Madam chair. I, I guess, you know, item seven here is quite a informative section that I feel relates to item six. I thought you were going to explain more of, you know, our responsibility as a board and the role and how we interact with D O T and I guess, item seven with Andy explaining the bill and walking through the bill and the section. I don't think we really seem to have a grasp on that. We seem to be, keep missing it. And I thought that was our goal today to walk through the sections of what the responsibilities are of D O T and working with the board and what the responsibilities of the Marine highway board are independent of D OT. And until I think it doesn't feel like until we grasp that we're gonna be able to do anything and to Allen's point, you know, it, it, the bill, I, I realize maybe you're having a hard time doing a short term plan without a long term plan, but I don't necessarily agree with that because I think a shorter term plan is what's immediately in front of us as far as, you know, putting those budgets together and what the, what the legislature needs for next session, what the governor needs for next session, and then working on, you know, maybe some immediate investment decisions.
And then again, that longer term planning effort, they kind of go hand in hand. And I think neither one is like a, a static document. They're gonna be fluid and change quite often. But, but again, until we understand the roles here, I don't feel like we're getting anywhere. We seem to be just going on, whatever tangent any one of us want to go on. And so I would please try to refer us back to the agenda and walk through, well, basically item seven and, and pull, pull the, what we're supposed to do up and try to get somewhere along those lines. Thank you.
Just a quick, I don't have a bit problem with going through and discussing what the, the, the needs of the budget are and the deadlines that we need to talk about for D O T or AMHS to submit those to OMB, but I don't wanna see an initial final initial short term, three to five years short term plan put out there that we're gonna approve without having, knowing where we're going with the long term plan again. So I'm more than willing to have that conversation and his reference to the budget's concern, because I know there are deadlines there, but bring forward that budget to us and let us talk about it.
Okay. Cynthia, did you have anything? I did not. Surely thank you. Okay, Paul. No, I have nothing now. Okay. Thanks. What Rob, I, I agree with your assessment and that's why I asked for this to be on the agenda. I don't know what the rule is. Our rule is right now. That's why I was asking for it to be presented to us by D O T. So we know where D O T thinks we fit, and we feel, we know where we fit with HP 63, cuz you're right. There's quite a bit of confusion there. So maybe when we talk to Andy and to Judy that, you know, some of those things might become clearer. And I also, while I, well, I do understand the desire to have a long term long range plan in place before short term. We can't wait for that. We, we can't, there are things that we know need to happen in the next year, whether it's just operating budget.
As Alan has said, looking at the operating budget that we had for this year and maybe, you know, making that a priority that we have the same level of service next year, as we do this year, we work through this system and what's come up before it's been very strong from ONET, which I agree is that to be using U GF instead of I, I J a money for operations. So we have that money for capital, for construction, things like that, that we will be able to, we absolutely have to be able to agree on and move forward. And again, it comes back to all these different plans, putting together a long term comprehensive plan from everything that I'm reading, it's been given to us, it's 18, you know, it's 18 months away. And, and we just can't, we can't wait that long that we just know there's things that we need to recommend need to happen in the short term, because we know darn well that they're gonna be part of the long term plan to modernize the fleet. There may be some small changes to them, but, but the general direction is we know what we've got to do. So let's see what we can do with getting some information from Andy and then Judy as well, and see where we go from there. Okay. Okay. So Andy, can we go ahead and turn it over to you for the discussion on am ho deadlines and deliverables?
Yes. Thank you. Madam chairwoman again, for, for those who I have not had a chance to speak with before now, Andy mills, the legislative liaison for D O T. And thank you for the opportunity to just as we were having conversations about session ending. And, and this is the time of year for, for us where we're looking at everything that passed in legislative session, the governor's enacted budget for FY 23 that just went in is going into effect today. And this is the time of year for us where we're thinking, what do we need to get done in the remaining months or the first initial months to gear up for that FY 24 effort and, you know, legislatively budgetarily. And so in our, some of our conversations, we were just thinking there is so much in front of this board to consider, to work through, to give input on that.
We wanted to bring back to its enabling legislation, what the statutory requirements are, because that at the end of the day, there there's a wide purview, but then these statutory requirements are really a, a guide for us to, to focus some of that conversation, as, as TTA was saying, how do we, how do we focus some of our efforts that, that does not exclude other conversations, but how do we keep on track to some of those statutory requirements and the meat of the statutory requirements? I don't, I hope members have had a chance to, to read through these background materials, but the meat of it, as I say in background is found in Alaska statute, 1965, specifically 19 65 11. And, and that's where you'll find in the, the statutes that HB 63 updated the short term and long term comprehensive plan. And I don't know about the rest of the members we're in a digital age.
And so Mo many of you are familiar with software development that often there's an alpha, a very rough cut on something that you beta test, something with far more folks to shake out the bugs, and then you roll it out to the public. At large, I would see that as, as kind of a good guide to wrap your heads around these requirements are so large and, and so much to onboard folks. I think that was contemplated with the six year terms that, that you really wanted a board to be in place for that amount of time to give them all that onboarding and ability to, to get that information. And so I think it's suggestive in the intent that you have all the time necessary to, to get up, to speed on these things. And, and in the interim, there are, when we get to the legislative session, there is no doubt, a question from transportation committees and legislators, because this is unanimous in its vote and signed by the governor.
What do we have to work with from this board who's been meeting for a year to, to work from for now? I think the long term comprehensive plan is such a large effort just as, as Alan was saying. And it does have dependencies nested dependencies for the shortterm plan, however, to try and take all of those is, is such a Herculean task. That it is a recommendation as I drafted, as we drafted in, in this draft resolution for you to consider to work through what are those timeframes so that we can build an expectation both for the board D O T AMHS the public, the legislature, and also put a resolution that, that affirms that we are, that this board is looking at doing something truncated or initial in its scope, that we are not trying to complete the full effort that we are giving it, this interim effort, this, this, this first draft, so to speak and, and software would be 0.5 instead of version one.
Right? And so we would, we would look to define that narrowed scope so that we can then focus. And as they say, a goal is a dream with a deadline, right? So we, we, we need to put some kind of deadline to help drive. September 15 was one that we put for the short term on this. It does not need to be September 15. I just thought that is the same type of year that the heads up meetings, the hums are happening with OMB and others. And that's a time when we're starting to get into that FY 24 conversation. It, the initial comprehensive long term plan does not need to be March 15. I just thought that gave enough time after the budget was out on December 15 and the legislature was starting to get in and have some initial conversations and some committee meetings that maybe that would help inform or, or give you an ability to do a draft of that initial plan with folks. So these are very fluid suggestions, but it was an attempt to give the board something to look at to one narrow that focus two, put some deadlines on it, and three acknowledge that there's an initial effort to be made before you do this full effort in the next year when you've had that time. I'll pause there for one moment. But as far as the bill is concerned, that section two of HB 63 as 19 65 0 1, 1 is the deliverables that this board has in statute. And that's the focus of this resolution.
Thank you, Andy, does anyone have any questions for Andy? And, and I agree with everything, everything that Andy just said, we have got to move forward and make some, some long term decisions that, that we can show to the governor and to the legislatures next, next year, realizing that there's a tremendous amount of information that we're absorbing and there's, there's, there's always kind of that human inclination to get in and start trying to make sure, you know, and getting a little bit into the weeds where, where we really shouldn't be, you know, instead of a broader term, you know, we wanna make sure that the communities that have been served in the last, you know, 10 years during the summer seasons are served again next year, next summer, and that we're using operating money and capital money and the best way possible the federal monies. So when I think short term, now that that's how I'm looking at it. So when you have your hand,
Thanks, Shirley. Yeah. I, I, I guess if I appreciate Andy's explanation and the presentation at least, you know, to, to establish some, be benchmarks and think about what those timeframes may be in regard to every planning effort, I think always ends up having this same discussion, this sort of chicken and egg, which comes first, the long term or the short term. Yeah. But in my mind, what I feel the board should focus on is defining the system of the future and the parameters by which it will be judged. So for example, you know, some, some, you know, a strategic plan by its nature defines, you know, goals and, and some parameters by which those goals should be met. And this, this chicken and egg discussion we are in the short term, perhaps making recommendations about long live assets that are part of a long range plan. And so I think that's kind of where we maybe where we get high centered, but I'll just give you a specific example. You know, one of the things that we hear constantly about the system is the, you know, maintenance issues, maintenance issues that could be addressed on board, those kinds of things. And so I don't want necessarily to talk about those from an operational sense. I wanna say the system of the future should have as little unscheduled yard yard time, and maybe there's a measurement that's, that's put on there to address unaddressed maintenance need.
And so when I think of a long term plan, I really am thinking that we're, I mean, the federal money, I think is isn't it five year money, I mean, or maybe we don't know yet, but in, in my book five years is short term money. So, you know, what, what I wanna see is a plan that says, you know, what's the problem that we're trying to solve? Who are we gonna serve? How often are we gonna serve them? What, what are our, our other service standards in terms of our customer interactions and what are the operating parameters that are acceptable for this system? Because what we've seen is a system under stress, not all of it internally generated, but a system under stress that is not delivering on customer expectations and service standards. So, so, you know, what's the problem that we're trying to solve. What's the information that we need to understand how to solve that problem. What are the options that we should consider and, and write down the options that we recommend and move on. That's my recommendation.
I agree if I could just, and I, if I could just add one of the things to this, I, I, I know it's been, maybe we haven't had much discussion about this, but I know in the past that I have recommended this, this is a complex decision making task that we have been asked to engage in, and we are providing recommendations, but unless the, unless D O T or AMHS has a system model that we have not seen, but in, in terms of making these kinds of complex decision, it's kind of an if then else model, if you do a, then these things happen, otherwise you have to consider X, Y, and Z.
And there, again, it is a multi criteria decision making question that we've been asked to make recommendations about. And we are looking at data and information incrementally, and I always get a little uncomfortable. There's one slide that we've seen multiple, multiple times about very complex, high dollar questions that I can tell you my gut check on some of those decisions, but it, if my gut check up here causes greater operational costs down there, I don't know that yet. And so I'm kind of loathes to really even consider making a recommendation in those, on those questions. So, so a question that I would have for the department in general is do you have some modeling for some of the decisions that are being presented or are, are these decisions being made in sort of a more analog way
I would say it's for both. I, I mean, again, I, I mean, I understand that some of these, some of these questions are thrown at, you know, system management because of changing regulatory environment, because of changing financial environment, all of those things are happening, but it, it just seems to me that each one of those decisions on that slide that we are all sort of familiar with at this point has a web of consequences that I quite frankly, I don't have the capacity to. I mean, even, even with, I appreciate the, I think the department and AMHS have provided us with a great deal of information, but, you know, I'll just, I'll just give you a, for example, one of the things that maybe a, a sort of a baseline premise that we've been asked to consider is that a mainline vessel should stop in a small community if it's sailing by, because the people in the small community will see it sailing by.
I'm not comfortable with that as a decision making criteria, because there, there are runtime costs, there are idling costs, and there have got to be other scheduling considerations to make a decision like that. And I haven't seen those data points. If, if you want me to buy into that rationale, that way of thinking, I would like to see what's our extra run time. What are we considering? And what are the, the, the scheduling implications largely for the mainline vessels. And here's why mainline vessels gotta make money for this system. And I wanna see all the communities served, but I wanna do it in the right way, the efficient way, the way that makes sense for the whole system to operate. And so that is the, that is the, that is the missing piece for me, the missing element of, of how we're being asked to do some of this is that, and, and to me, it's okay if that skillset doesn't exist within the system or the department, but I think it's missing from this decision making process that, you know, for example, again, and I, and then I'm gonna shut up about this.
But another for example is I've said this O other time other organizations or companies don't make multimillion dollar investments in assets that essentially sit follow for four years, that is sunk money. That should be generating revenue for the system, and it's not. And, you know, we've already heard, you know, at least one member of the public or the staff indicate that, you know, they, they view the ACFS as, as a failure. I mean, I don't even know that we can say that because we actually haven't seen them in operation yet. We haven't configured them in a way that they can operate within the system and generate whatever revenue they're going to generate, provide whatever level of service they're going to, to provide. Again, this is a basic transportation system that is not always going to be judged on revenue generation, but I think that we have to optimize this system to the greatest degree possible, make those mainline vessels, because they have been the backbone of revenue generation as efficient as possible. And look at the small feeding, the smaller communities with the smaller vessels as they come online. So those are, that's the kind of thinking that I have about this. And I, I just I'm I'm, I, I like, even for, you know, anyway, I'm gonna leave it there because I'm talking too much. Sorry.
Yeah. Can we go to, can you put up page nine, please? Catherine, page, page nine, dictate. I know I'm jumping ahead here, but it dictates the, what they're gonna spend to generate cascade point and what they're gonna put there. And at the bottom of the page, it says this concept plan includes accommodation for the Marine uses IE McKen city, mine show boat shoveled by gold belt. So
I don't, I don't wanna interrupt you, but can, can we leave that until we actually get that presentation? Because I do understand that it does tie back into our long range plan and to, to short term as well, but I'm a little concerned we're, we're gonna jump forward. If we could just stick right now, just to the, if the board wants to do something with this resolution, if they want to send the timelines back to AMH F staff who do a tremendous amount, they provide all the work to the consultants, all the information and see if these dates are, are reasonable. So we can just do this more than happy to entertain all of your questions on cascade point when we get there.
Well, what I was segueing into the longer, I I've been pushing to make some decisions of the board on some bullet points, previous meetings, and the longer we do not make a decision, basically they can run 'em up and do whatever they want. So if we're gonna have some type of shape in the future and doing things and making presentations to the, to the legislature and to the governor, we need to put, we need to put something together and put that out. It's we're never gonna be able to wrap, wrap this up at a nice, neat little package. It's a huge, they're gonna hire a consultant to draft a new, a new long range plan. So I was going to suggest that it's maybe it's time for us, if we can, to have a few meetings within ourselves, to the board to start trying to draft out a short term long two plan with the information you have. And that's all I got.
Well, yeah, the reason, the reason I was asking to go to the next page is, is one of the, the topics we've been talking about is whether we add proof quarters to the Taline and how that functions and I, and I'm on page 10. It already says that, that in the step that they're gonna add proof quarters and, and, and a lot of some kind of an automation on a Taline to collect much needed runtime data. So there's decisions being made behind the scenes that we have no influence on until we make a decision. And I don't think there's any way you're gonna be able to wrap this up at a nice, neat package ever.
We need to, to, yeah, we need to sit down and make a short term or long range plan with what we have in the information we do. And we're gonna be redefining that yearly, like pick to September date yearly in September. We're gonna be okay. Well, what we did last year, didn't work. We need to do this. That's the way it's gonna have to move forward. We're not gonna have the data to make decisions on cascade point until it's built. When is that gonna be? So at that point in time is the hover, and Calina gonna be 15 years old before they hit the run. Maybe it's it's, we're just gonna have to move forward before we got that's. That's what I think. And I think that we should meet as a board, maybe not publicly, but privately, and try to iron out some of these differences in coming up with a plan. And so we can have another public meeting. That's, that's kind of what I think. I mean, we spend so much time debating this online in a public forum, which I understand, but at some point we all need to get together and hash this out and try to come up with some,
Before I go to Rob carpenter, deputy commissioner, captain hill, we can't do that. It's a, this is public public money, and these are public meetings. We can't have board meetings. I, I think that we've got quite a bit of information that, that we need to move forward. And just what this resolution is saying, that we're resolving, that we're going to put the time on it, which, which puts that time target on us on D O T on AMHS to make sure that we have something a starting place. So I think that's getting to what you wanna see happen, captain Hilliard and, and, and getting started. So, but no, we can't, we cannot have private meetings without the public. Right.
And then it has amendments that we put on it and those amendments are thoroughly discussed, reviewed given input and put in place. So I, that is one more way to conceptualize doing some initial effort and amending it a as you reach certain points, if that's what you would like to do as well. And again, it, it does not need to be a complete plan. It, a capital recommendation for budgetary purposes could be as simple as we know for certain that there's that 30 million for the mainline ferry. And while we don't have the other pieces, we do want to put some out there and perhaps it's a completely different resolution, but that, that would be something along those lines as an initial effort. So I, again, it's all about focusing the conversation to provide guidance in the areas where the board feels comfortable. When we get back to the legislative session to budgetary considerations, by policy makers, that this board has given some kind of input. And that I think we're just making sure that we put that statutory requirement reminder and also the potential of setting a deadline, if that helps the board to, to narrow that focus and, and meet a certain timeline. But thank you.
Thank you. And even before I go to Winnet, I, I think I'm, we're clearly hearing the same thing that I think that for the, the deadlines for the, that for the resolution we've been looking at, nobody's ready to sign onto a resolution yet on the timeline, because we don't yet have a framework for how we're gonna put together a short in a long range plan. So I think that that one definitely needs to come back. However, I also agree that we need to, we need to start that framework. We need to start that framework discussion. And we have talked about that several times and ask for that somebody that's something that we can really focus on here in the, in the next month with probably maybe one or two other things so that we can actually come back with the timeline that the border's comfortable with, that AMHS staff is comfortable with and that D O T is comfortable with as well. So we may just need to move on from this, but one outta your hand was that
Yeah. Thank you, Shirley. You know, I just wanna say that first of all, I wanna thank Andy because I do think it's helpful to have a straw man proposal to consider, you know, various approaches. I just wanna remind everyone that our role is advisory and that the system is operating management is making decisions day to day, budgets are being prepared with or without us. And so, you know, the question we have to ask ourselves is what we can do to provide meaningful advice within a process that is moving forward with or without us. And so I think that's our challenge.
Did we get table? Catherine is asking if we want a table, an action item, a vote for, we're not gonna table this cuz the tabling, it kills it. We're not trying to kill it. The board is just not ready to take action on this item. You have it listed as an action item. The board's not ready to take action. So I think what the board is asking for is to see this come back at the next meeting with so just input from AMHS and, and just from board members as well to, to find something they're comfortable with
Motion if you want a motion on it, if you want to be formal, have a motion on it. The motion would be to, I believe correct me if I'm wrong matter, but table it to a time certain. So if you just table it, it just goes away basically. So if the motion is to bring this back, the motion is, bring this back with further information for the board after a review from the AMHS management at KCO and their recommendations at the next meeting is that acceptable to the board. A, your hand is up.
Thank you chair. I will make a motion to table this till the next meeting and ask the deal or AMF asked to redraft it based upon some of the discussion today and see if they can come to consensus. And if you wanna try to come consensus outside of the board meeting, that's fine. And then bring it back for a discussion. That's fine. But table it to the next meeting. I can second.
Okay. So without objection, we're going to go ahead and then bring, see this at a second meeting and true members of the board as well. Please be absolutely sure to send in any comments or questions that you have regarding this idea and this, this timeline, this framework to Catherine through the chair. Well before the meeting, so that there's time to really flush it out and make sure that, that the, you have a chance to, to really review it and become comfortable with it, make any changes. Okay. The question that I had about the long term plan RFP was, is there a timeline, Judy, a timeline on that?
Yeah, so it, it appears that we may be able to get it out on the street this week. And I guess just listening to this conversation, which was very informative and interesting. I would recommend we go ahead and there's gonna be significant negotiations on the scope that can happen. It's not locked in. And so I guess my recommendation may be maybe somebody from am ho sit on the evaluation committee as a non-voting member, but can participate in the discussion. And then we can, you know, select somebody, someone good who's very experienced and then work with them on some of the changes I heard Ms. Airs say that it'd be nice to have a model, for example, some modeling software that we could use to make more immediate decisions. Like I completely agree if we're gonna be making immediate decisions. That would be nice. We do have that, but it's in more of the, the phase where we're doing scenario analysis, like the alternative analysis.
So it's down stream quite a ways, but maybe we move that up closer to the beginning so we can kind of kick into gear for making some, and, and I get it. The short term decisions are not, it's not ideal to have to quickly make them when you don't know what the long term plan is, but we're, that's our situation right now. So I, I would just think we might wanna just get the, get the RFP out on the street. I think it would be good to have it be general, fairly general at this point with room for negotiation, with a good contractor, and then with technical information and advice from people within AMHS and others on the team with am ho we could, we can kind of work through that final scope of work with the consultant. So that's all I wanted to say. I know we're behind time and we could probably cover this in more detail next time if we needed to do that too.
Great. No, thanks Judy. I think it would be helpful if you could, in a nutshell, just explain why this piece is necessary. We've got, you know, D O T doing the intermodal long term planning with the H AMHS piece, which I'm, I'm looking at that we was presented to us a couple of meetings ago. We have the operational and management review, RFP that went out and now this is the third one, which is the, from the way I understand it, the technical writing, putting everything together. And, you know, it's, it's an awful lot of money with no scope yet. And that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. But if you could just in a nutshell, explain why that, why this is needed.
Yeah, sure. I mean, I guess the goal of long range transportation planning is to take kind of what the, the vision is and what the policy goals are for the system, whether it's efficiency or increased service or whatever the stakeholders come up with as, as the main goals for why we want to do this. And then in the end of this long process, with a lot of analysis, we will hopefully have a capital improvement plan that re that reflects those initial goals and policies and directions that the public and the stakeholders set out. So that there's alignment within the decisions that are made through the plan. And I imagine, you know, efficient operations would probably be a goal of the system. There could be some increased service goals. There could be some decreased risk goals of, of layups and things like that, of the vessels.
So there, there could be some of some things that, that we just need to discuss and sort of distill, and then apply some of the scenario modeling to it, of different configurations that could achieve those things. And so it take you're right. It takes a while to get through the process, especially with all the analysis that would typically typically go into it. But yeah, I think, I think there's, if we know we just need to spin off the shorter term decisions and be very efficient at that piece of it. I think there is a way we can try to get there, try to make decisions that are flexible, that don't limit to the extent possible. You know, when had said, you know, the a and the B and the C, if you do a, then you can't do B and C or the other things occur.
So we just need to be cognizant of that when we're making the short term decisions. It sounds easy. I know it's very complicated. This world is, is quite complicated. So there will be a lot of technical experts involved in, in figuring that out. But I know am hop will have a role probably on the technical committee and also likely we'll have a policy committee for this plan that would be a typical thing to do, and we can walk through it all together. The other goal of planning would be to be transparent and open with the decisions, make sure that everyone who is interested has a ability to see what we're working on, what we're thinking about, what we're doing. So there is that as well.
Okay. Thank you. My manager chairman, my comment then again, is that we as a board to meet and for an hour and a half every two weeks, and now we're gonna go to an hour and a half, every three weeks. I I'm concerned that this stuff and is being brought to us rather than just being done by end that
Because of dollar value of what we have for a budget ourself we're meeting by zoom instead of in person. And we were also in the process of hiring a planner for AMHS, I thought was gonna do this planning for the long term. So really this whole thing is, goes over way over a million dollar item that we're discussing here today. And I'm just kind of, I think we need to spend some time adjusting or digesting what this really is and how long we're gonna get. I do agree with the fact that the 24 months that she's talking about has probably a good timeframe for us to, to finalize a long term plan just based upon us meeting for an hour and a half every couple of weeks. So thank you, Madam chair.
Yeah. You're welcome, Alan. And the timeline was just something I just wanted to throw out to the board. It's difficult for me to really understand. Sometimes the board members want to, if it's every two weeks is too much or if it's not enough. So it's completely up to the board. Trust me, we can stick with the, with the two weeks because there is a tremendous amount. And especially if we're looking at having something to budget wise to give to the governor September or October,
Yes, that's, that's the better way to put it. So Judy, thank you. I, I'm not hearing, are there any board members who are interested who think that this is something that the board should be approving right now? Or is it just too much and too short amount of time? Okay. Understanding that this is going to move forward. Regardless. I think that the board at this point is not comfortable putting their name on, on approval simply because there are just too many questions for the draft scope of work and for the costs and how all these different planning attempts are all are all going to work together and not be redundant. So that doesn't mean that the board is, is not in favor, but I, I don't sense that there's any appetite from the board to approve a resolution. Alan is your hand up new?
Yeah. One follow up question would be to the department. Where's this money coming from? Is it in the operational money that the legislature passed or is the money coming out of the federal money for, for what we think is supposed to be construction of, of, of new ships? So I'm curious as to where the best where this money is coming from,
I believe, excuse me, that this will be coming out of our federal planning funds. That was my assumption. Anyway, I'm realizing that I might have been assuming and not having, I haven't actually checked back on that, but we have some state planning and research funds that come in through FHWA. And of course, Marine highways are a national highway system route part of it's certainly eligible for that funding. And so I, I believe it's our federal planning fund.
Yes, that's correct. Yeah. This is a long term planning funding is from the, the annual work flow program, planning money in the program development about Judy shop in James's shop. So this is not the Marine highway fund sources that you're thinking of the RFP going out for. You know, the, the in detailed analysis is from the Marine highway system funding sources and the planner will be partially funded with Marine highway money, but also partially funded with planning money from James and the, the planning department. So that's an idea of the funding breakout. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. I don't, I don't know if we, even if this was listed as an item, but the board has no action to take again, motioning, it seems super full because the, you know, this is going to go out on the street before our next meeting anyway, but I do, I think that if there's a member of the board who would like to serve on the RFP committee, I think that, I think that would be helpful, very helpful. And I appreciate that suggestion, Judy, so maybe
Hearing, hearing no objections, then we will go ahead and do that. And if, as a board member, if you have an interest on serving on the RFP committee, please make sure and let Katherine or myself know as soon as possible. So we'll go ahead and go to old business, which is cascade point ferry terminal. And thank you, commissioner Anderson for being here to present information, we have asked about this, this particular project and how it would fit into a long term plan. So I will turn it over to commissioner.
Okay. Thank you. And thank you board members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. And I just wanna say thank you for your time commitments and, and your work on this board. I I've been listening. You know, one, one thing I would just say is kind of a, a bit of a preamble here, just the frustrations with the long term versus the short term planning. I, I think board member errors kind of brought up a good point with the infrastructure investment in jobs act is a five year bill and we're going into year two here in October. And so we are making investment decisions cause in the, in the capital world, the project delivery world, you know, we'll make our, if we make an investment decision now we've still got a couple years to get that project ready to build and then build. So that's definitely on our minds.
And so, and, and, and the other part on our minds is we're competing nationwide for a lot of funds. And so the, the more, and the better we are able to make decisions now and move forward, the better opportunities we're gonna have to secure even more funds from that national perspective. So just, just so that in context, we, we don't mean to be running Uck or, or, or those types of things. We're really trying to make quick, faster decisions. You're gonna see a lot more focus on short term planning right now from, from us as we go through these things. So just a bit there and understand the frustrations I get the same. I get frustrated the same way. I like long term planning. I, I think it's super smart. We're just kind of in a, in an interesting time right now with lots of opportunities, I would say.
So, so today we wanted to put down a cascade point of a discussion item and that, and that really means opportunities to, to hear from the department we're gonna hear from gold belts today, but also, you know, that there's discussion to be had where, where we're here for that as well, understanding that this is a, this is a project that's that's of high interest. And yeah, it's, it's been around for a while. The kind, kind of the bigger picture on cascade point. You know, when I got appointed this position, there was a lot of discussion about Northland, canal and service. We heard from the mayors, this Skyway and Hayes, we heard from a lot of public members, people want better, more reliable service and then can now, and, and so from the, the planning perspective, you know, what are some strategies that we could increase service, improve reliability?
What are the, what are those things that we could do? One discussion topic that will be up next is settling a group orders. I think that's one strategy. And especially for wintertime operations, another strategy we've been using, and this is more tied to workforce, which I want to keep separate because that's, that's kind of our own challenge here, you know, along with this list of challenges we have, but we've been doing supplemental service in Northland to now to, to try to improve service, but we also have this concept that's been around. I, you know, I've, I've, I've been, you know, learning and learning more and more about this. And I, I think the stuff we've seen is goes all the way back to 2012 up cascade point and, and what that could do for service for north Lynn canal and, and for those communities of pain and gateway, as well as our connections to the national highway system for, for June one thing I, I would like to say too, when, when we're working through these things, you know, as a team, the way I think about D O T AMHS and our regions, you know, the team is am, is AMHS south coast region is a big part of the team and then the commissioner's office, and we're all D OT.
And, and so that's, I just kind of want to throw that out there, cuz it seems like there's kind of a, a thing where it's D O T and MHS, but at, at this point it's not, it's really, we're all a part of D O T I'm a part of D O T captain F's part of D OT. Rob's part of D O T that's. That's how we, that's how we think of ourselves and that, and that's important because these days nationally, we've been down, Rob and I have been down a few, these big Astro, multi, you know, disciplinary conferences, nationally states are going to thinking multimodal. And so it's not just one mode, you know, where it's, where it's highways anymore or varies or airports even it's how does these systems connect? And so when it comes to cascade point, I think that's important to think, you know, we're trying to think about systems, how they connect and what's possible here.
So for those of you that aren't as familiar with cascade point. I mean, I wasn't, when I first started this it's it's 27 miles north of OC bay, it's at the end of the glacier highway, I think it's mile, post 41. And OC bay is that mile, post 14. I believe there's a map in your packet to kind of show where it's located and, and then, you know, the different relationships to Haines and gateway and whatnot. There, there is a body of work that's available and, and, you know, we, we very much respect the operational the day to day folks and, and, and the experience that they've had and, and, and looking at these things and whatnot. But there's also this body of work that, that folks have gone through over the years since 2012, I believe that has a lot of good information about possibilities, future planning, those types of things. And I think it's important that we respect that work. We also, we also have a, a 20, 20 AMHS reshape and working group recommendation that it's, I think is important to respect as well, that that recommended, you know, we take a really good, hard look at cascade form, you know, since, since those recommendations and just a little bit of history here. So we, you know, kind of get us all to the same page and it took me a while to, to get the history down.
But after the working group recommendation in April of 2021 D O T and gold belt signed a letter of intent to further study this concept because at mile post 41, right there it is gold belt land at the end of the road at a site that's proposed for this cascade point facility. And that letter of intent is also in your packet. We wanted to make sure that was clear as well for everyone that that was out there. So, so that's, that's another piece of this now, since then, you know, with pandemic and some of our other challenges in the MHS, we, we haven't done a lot since that letter of intent was signed to really get to those points in that letter. And so what we're proposing right now is, is basically UN pausing. This thing it's kind of been on pause, to be honest, since April of 2021, but UN pausing, and really starting to look at these things in, in conjunction in a, in a partnership with gold belt of, of what's possible for cascade point and the infrastructure there.
We had the D O T team, you know, with AMHS and the commissioner's office and the south coast region on the, on the shore infrastructure. We got everybody together to take a look at the numbers of some of what was proposed from the M HS working group that reshaping working group, but also some of this other body of work that's out there. And, you know, the, the numbers are reasonable, basically. You know, when, when we look at these things, there's some public benefits, the cascade point, and one of them being cost savings, there would be a reduction in fairs for, for the public to, to do this. So about a 25% is, is a very round number about what people could expect. There would also be a time saving, you know, there's the times granted you have to drive further, but even with the drive, I think we came up with it's about an hour and a half, one way of time savings for the public to get to hang the other, the other big advantage.
Okay. Paul, did you have something? No. Okay. Are there any objections to the, to the, to the motion as made for the timing and the agenda items? Okay. Hearing then we'll do this for the 4th of July week and the motion passes. So I think we're down at the end of it. Catherine, do you need any further clarification from us what we're looking for for the next meeting?
You. Oh, okay. I'll reread it off my notes, but I'll also put it in an email and send it to you and CC all the board members. And if I'm off or if you want to clarify it even further, let, let me know, bringing back the updated modernization plan from AMHS and draft frameworks for budget discussions, short term projects that lead into long term planning. And I, and I'll definitely, I will definitely write up some, some more clarifications on that early next week and pass it by Winta as co-chair and Katherine. And we'll just make sure we're on the same page. Thank you. Okay. Does anything, does anyone have any last comments or items?
Well, we, we tabled the resolution cuz the board was not comfortable with taking action on those dates as brought forward, but putting it on, on the work session and I, at our next meeting to have a further discussion, what that would look like and what timeline is the board comfortable with and a staff able to work with. Okay. So we're not bringing the resolution
And you know, I, I know this is, you know, just my opinion. And like I said, no disrespect, but sometimes I think that there's a little backwards way of thinking. It's, you know, you're, you're, we're building the car, we're building the boat and then we're not, we're not, we don't know how we really want to use it yet. So that's the question I have and worry I have going forward is that this is gonna turn into a, especially like with the Matt new or the it's gonna turn into a where we're scrambling to get em fixed because we didn't have all the and Ts do before going in.
Okay. Thank you. This was, this is a discussion item because we did ask for information just based on how this decision was made for the mat. And I just don't see any other way to keep her in service and to keep her in service until she can be replaced with another main liner. And I know that this has been difficult. It's been ongoing for several years and, and I know that MHS and DT, they're just looking at the best way to keep service going as we move forward with a modernization plan. And this just has to be one of it, you know, cause you're gonna buy a new car, a new Porsche. You don't get rid of your Chevy until that new Porsche is in your garage. And if you need to do a little work on that Chevy, well, you wait for that Porsche for several years. You do the work. So I guess that's the way that I'm, I'm seeing it. Alan. And then Juan,
Thanks ma there's not really a deadline, Alan, we're working on step amendment four because it has a lot of the, I, I J infrastructure bill stuff in anti new programs, the projects that were included in the capital bill, this, this past session. So it's, it will be out soon this Matt new Mattus C dead and corridor project, actually won't be line items out in the step amendment because it'll be part of the ferryboat discretionary pot. You know, there's a, there's a chunk of money in there that has a, just a general ferryboat refurbishment component to it. And then you'll see some items that would be lined out. But this one in particular, I think will be just built in there, but not necessarily a line item, if you will. I hope that helps
Thanks, Shirley. I, I appreciate this discussion cuz this is a project that has been a bit of a mystery for me in terms of overall benefit to the system, especially because of sort of this bookend of 20, 27. And to first of all, I want to ask in the packet, the resolution that I saw seemed incomplete in terms of the, the fiscal impact. I don't know if another version of that was sent out. I may have missed it. I apologize if that's the case, but I I'd like to look at that. And additionally is, is the 2027 with, with the quarter modifications.
The other safety upgrades are not required is my understanding at this point. And does, does the corridor project extend 20, 27 in any way? And has there been a vessel survey that when, when was the last vessel survey? I mean, obviously, maybe before it went into the shipyard, but I I'm, you know, if, if steel wastage is going to be a deciding factor in pursuing any projects, is, is that what I'm hearing or is, is now what's the status on that? Because it seems like a big variable. If we're gonna be expending this money, I, I totally get investing in this vessel in order to, you know, have something on the mainline where we're waiting for new vessels to come on. But if 2027 is a hard drop dead date and this, you know, these are not insignificant capital expenditures. And, you know, again, it's sort of this multi-criteria decision making where if then else has not really been defined here. And that's really what I'm looking for. Thank you.
No, technically it will time out in 2027 without looking at major conversion. Again, that was all based on a 20, 27 date when we were into the 2017, 2019 re power. And the major conversion came just so everybody understands major conversion is all about if an operator spends enough money and creates enough change and disruption to a ship, you could fall into what we call a major conversion trap. Okay. Yeah. We repowered to Columbia and did not fall into that trap. Now you're gonna fall into that trap a lot quicker with the solar ship. And that's what we think was, was the problem, you know, or the challenge. And we put a waiver, went to DC with it, it got denied, all this was going on in the middle of the repower and, and you know, what are, what are the options? And we wanted to, to get that ship out of that shipyard as it was, it was there a year and a half. And had we done just the light smoke alarms with lead time in parts, we would've been longer because we weren't leaving without either doing all those lights and all that elec you know, electronic stuff and the lights and spokes and alarms, or we said, how about we do this, give us five years, we'll do the dead end corridors. We'll make all those, you know, corridor, you know, fix. Right. And, and, you know, we can run to 20, 27 and hopefully beyond that without a whole lot of cost.
Captain F you, thank you. That is definitely helpful information and you're right. That has just been a complex changing issue for years. And fortunately, and looks like we have some resolution to it as we move forward board real quickly. I, as we, as we close up here, what I wanna do just very briefly is, is tell you what I heard are two of the most with the most important things that I think that we need to address at our next meeting, which would be two, two weeks from now. And the first one is the modernization plan, which I, which needs to be updated because things have started to move forward on some of the items of that modernization plan. And so I think that staff needs to update that and bring it back to the board for discussion with that simply. And then what we talked about earlier, the timelines for budget information, in other words, Alan's right.
We don't, we're not putting together a budget it's going to come to us, but I think it's important that the board weighs in on operationally, what they think is important for that budget to accomplish in the next year. And then also a draft framework of short term, interim projects, or changes that seem to be a little more timely. And, and the start of it, looking at a draft framework of, of a long term plan to see where they fall and, and just start, we need to just start looking at it. And I'm just thinking just those two things they combine well, and they're just, they've just really been difficult. And I, I believe that service levels are a part of that as well when atta. So I think that's very important. So I would like to know if the board would like to expand the agenda for discussions at the next meeting, or if that sounds like something that would be good for us to really have a, just a good, solid discussion about with information to help us. In other words, not just a open discussion of what do we do. I would very much want to task staff in KCO and D O T to show us different options and what the, you know, for every, for every action there's a reaction. So what, what would those be? And just give us an idea of how they walk through looking at this long term planning. Cause there's so many elements to it, but let's just start getting that down.
It's just, how does, how does, well, I'm sorry, Rob. You're right. I, I apologize, but, but we're still late, but how does the board feel about going giving three weeks because of the holiday, because of this specific ask that we're giving. And I know we wanna stick with more than less information, but if that's, if that's what staff needs to, in order to get this information to us, are there any objections to that, to going of that? So going ahead and letting this one extend by one week,
Just not the first time that we have heard from the department that this works for the am, ho is viewed as other than their jobs. And I, I'm gonna tell you that that absolutely sets my back teeth. This is a legislative mandate. The rest of us are here as volunteers, and I get that your jobs are challenging, but this work is not other than your job. This work is your job. And if it's always going to be a low priority, then this board needs different staffing and perhaps consultants to do the work for us.
So I, I just, I, I gotta say that. I think you need to check that as in, in general, as a mindset in approaching this work, I don't think that there is anything in terms of data asks of the department that the department shouldn't already have in order to be able to make any of these decisions and this, and it is particularly as a volunteer, speaking as a volunteer who appreciates the work that you're doing, who who's been in very similar shoes as you as a public servant, but I got a job. I got a family and, and I've got public service that I do. And so I appreciate the work that you're doing, but I don't want to hear anymore that this is other than your job. And if that is the case, if that is a true statement, that this is other than your job, then this board needs to be differently resourced in order to meet the mandate that the legislature gave us. So it's one or the other. Thank you.
Yeah. Thanks Pam. Sure. You know, Ture, I, you know, that I did not, of course mean to imply this was not a priority of the agency. So if that was the way it came across, I apologize for that. I will say, however, there's no timeline mandate in HB 63, as far as how often we are to meet and the depth of every meeting. So I, I will say that Catherine is in the middle of IBU negotiations and there's a lot of strain on her. And so, and during session, during legislative session, which we just got out of, there's a lot of demand on the agency. So I, I guess I would ask that you be cognizant of that and understanding of that. And I, no way did, I mean to imply this is not our job. We, we all know it's our job. We're trying to point out that there's a bill that dictates what we're supposed to do. So that's where I'm at on that. And, and again, just trying to accommodate, you know, I'm trying to manage an agency and help get this board where, you know, help it do what it needs to do to help us do what we need to do. So thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Rob. And I, I appreciate that. And I forgot to add with that. I agree that here we are meeting on the Friday before a national holiday, and I agree that a three week timeline for this next meeting is fine as far as I'm concerned. And if the other board members are in concurrence and let's move on.
Thank you. Yep. I, I understand Alan. I think we're all starting to really finally realize where the gaps are, what the gaps that we really need to address and why. And it's just taken some time for us to get there because it's just so much information and it's such a steep learning curve for a lot of people, not just the board. And I think the more that we draw the folks at KCO into gathering this information, cuz they've got it. The more that we have them presenting information, when we need presented, then we can really get down into the nuts and bolts. Cause they're the ones turning the screwdrivers, you know, they're, they're figuring it out. So I'd like to go ahead and just suggest we go ahead and we just do three, three weeks this time in order to make sure cuz we're asking for some pretty, pretty defined information that we're gonna, and that's all we're gonna talk about. That agenda is not gonna grow and we're gonna shorten it up on the top end as well. And then we can go back. If the board wants to go back to the two weeks, we will do that. But I think the more that we refine what we're talking about and refine the information that we're getting and how we're getting it, the better we're gonna be spending our time much better and feeling much more confident about where we are in the process.
No, that's I, I don't believe, I'm not sure that we're ready for that yet because it's kind of an arbitrary like, like, like Bob said, there's, there's no timeline, but we do need to have information to the governor as he's putting his budget together. And we do have to have information to the legislature as they're going into session. But what I'd rather us do at this next meeting in three weeks is really talk, talk about what exactly does that mean to us? What do we, as a board feel that we have enough information at this point to start with some of those short term recommendations that the legislature's gonna have to, they're gonna need to hear, they're gonna need to see as they move into, into the next session combined with long term. And I think if we put it down on paper in a, in a framework, then, like I said, again, we can start plugging items into that and, and seeing, you know, some short term items say its a Taline crew quarters, where does that fit in the long term plan? You know, is that part of the flexibility for this fleet and serving smaller villages, things like that, just because we haven't had the opportunity to do that,
Just a point of order. We did make a motion to bring it back in two in two weeks or the next meeting. And I think we should bring it back because that's the, what we made the motion for. And we got a motion on the books and you wanna then take it and throw it out the window. That's fine. But it should come back at the next meeting
Yeah, I, I, I'm not sure there's, there's no motion on the floor for a two or a three month right now. We're just, we're just talking it through. And I'm hearing that most of the board members are fine with giving an extra week this time and bringing the agenda down to just the two big foundational questions that we still keep coming back to. And, and to really focus on those and then go back to the every two weeks. So I don't know if somebody wants to make a motion, they can, if not, I'll just as the, as the chair, I'll just make that decision.
There a second. Is that, is there a second to the motion for the three weeks that we've been discussing? Thank you norm. Okay. I guess, I don't know if we wanna put our hands up. It is a shift Tara, let's just do one more, one more voice call because it is a shift from our publicly, you know, our, our every two week public schedule
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.