August 12, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.
That discusses more about how trails are used for recreation and those users and those users' needs and how they've changed since the last trail plan was done in 1997. So, you know, a bit of a challenging scope as we recognize that trails, especially our paved green belt trails, are part of a transportation network. But we have sort of created a document that's meant to compliment these other plans we have and and provide some guidance for parks and recreation and our partners who help us implement trail projects. And those partners are various, everyone in the room ammas, our non-profit sector folks, we have cooperative use agreements with maintaining trail in the parks. So it's a comprehensive plan, it's a big scope and big picture and that's why, that's why the scope ended up how it did I need to add. Yeah.
Yeah. I think maybe just to highlight too, and we talked about it in both the the TAC (AMATS Technical Advisory Committee) and the PC (AMATS Policy Committee) meeting, that there are some gray areas where we really grappled with how much detail should we be getting into in this recreational trail plan update versus if it's an non-motorized specific recommendation. And really try to draw that split around generally who is the primary responsibility, who's going to be responsible for implementing? So who owns the land? Who would be the one that funding would need to come from do parks or our nonprofit partners. So the folks who can go out and get grant funding or be the ones to do trail work and do show maintenance, do they have the ability to impact this particular project suggestion or recommendation? And the answer was no. Typically it's because it's falling in DOT (Department of Transportation) ownership or a muni roadway right of way in its entirety.
Or it doesn't directly connect to a recreational facility that is managed or maintained by the park and rec department either here or in Chugiak/Eagle River. So it's a little bit, there's definitely plenty of connections that have a lot of recreational merit, just like the recreational trail network has a lot of transportation merits. And so we're trying to make recommendations like Nicolette said, at that high level comprehensive 20 year outlook that provides guidance for not just the parks and recreation department, but all the folks potentially responsible for implementing great opportunities in our recreation and transportation network. So thank you to committee member Babb and for submitting the, did a lot of the more editorial ones. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Yes, we're onboard with making those edits. And then I think today we're really here to just answer discussions and have discussion on kind of those larger, larger suggestions that we have. We have a couple that are flag, but I'm sure they're the same ones that you like to talk about today as well. So I think at this point we'll turn it over to you And
Would you like me to start, because I'm first on the list Sure. Or okay. I don't, I don't think that my suggestions or questions will, will really that much time in the little technical edits. Really the reason I'm here is to see if you have any questions about what might, because I think some of them are a little bit bigger picture. So if you wanted to talk about those, I'd be happy to if we wanted do it separately between, I don't want everybody's time with my experience briefly with the suggestions about, you know, potential future trails. Happy to talk about it if you wanna.
Yeah, I think maybe the one that we will address here that I would like to at least address is just the conversation about whether or not this is intended to supersede the 97 planning entirety or not. And you know, as an AMATS plan, originally our thought was this is an opportunity to do that and take updates to a plan that hasn't been touched in in years now. And so that was always on the table, but it was never the requirement for the scope of work and being an amab plan, it doesn't have to supersede the nine seven trail plan. It doesn't have to be adopted to the comprehensive plan. But we see a lot of benefits in doing so following our TAC meeting, we did go through and do a deep dive between the two plans and look for areas of conflict. We really didn't find anything substantive, which is good to know.
But also I'm not here to say that go forth and supersede in its entirety. I think we're definitely open to suggestions and continuing that conversation that I know has been started between person and planning around that I was not a part of that meeting. So I don't know where the conclusion was of that or if it's just ongoing discussion. But what's really important I think that we noted in the plan is that this is not intended to supersede anything in those neighborhood and district plans that have been written since the nine seven plan. But the Hillside district plan is a really good example. They have a lot of specific trail alignment and trail recommendations in their plan. This recreational trail plan is a compliment to it, not intended to override or replace anything in those adopted neighborhood and district plans. So that's really kind of our, our big sticking points. But I just wanna highlight that this is a continuation of the broader adopted policies and plans that are in place.
Yeah. Okay. So in my mind that leads to potentially going ahead and and updating the comp plan with the new plan and maybe with the disclaimer, just exactly what you just said about it not, it's not intended to supersede any of the proceeding neighbor district plans and that will require us taking it through PC and to the assembly. So let's maybe set up another meeting that we, that I actually attend and we, whether or not you wanna continue forward with that or if you are okay with leaving the existing plan in place because it doesn't conflict with this one. I think there's a couple options that I would definitely recognize updating.
Yeah, I think the only hesitation on our part is that we have no more budget and it would have to be done internally. So it means we delay work that is on deck if we're gonna continue another phase of approvals for this. That's just the reality going forward, but we're on board with it. Okay. Maybe be worth noting too, I think there I may be a few comments that, or like thinking. Okay. It would be nice to just update maybe an executive summary or a first page of this plan that's very clear on scope, like what was written for, who should be reading this plan and using it and then how it relates to other plans, like in the most minimal way we can possibly do it. 'cause it seems like regardless of how the update moves forward, that would be a useful component.
Thank you. Sorry, I, I'll be there in a back and forth team thing. Just to, to follow on to what, what director Babb said. I think from, from a policy standpoint, the more I think the more, the more integration we have, the better. So I would, I would be inclined towards incorporating this into the comprehensive plan. I think, I think this, you know, as I sort of compared our, our 97, I didn't do like a super deep dive, but as I just took a cursory glance at the 97 plan versus this one, I think there's a lot of utility here that the 97 plan doesn't contemplate. And I would, I would like to see this be part of our like official policy guidance. So I'm, I'm curious, and maybe this is a question for Mr. Jongenelen, if, if more, if there's more time needed to prepare this document for incorporation in the comp plan, what does that look like in terms of real dollars and do we have flexibility to allocate those dollars to this project?
Right. Yeah I think member Baldwin Day, I think that if we, if the Muni decides to adopt this into the comprehensive plan, that it would be a responsibility on the side of the muni to come up with the funding to do whatever updates needed to occur or to pay the, the consultant team to try to bring it through the process or to use internal funding to, for the department to take it through the process. So it really, once you know this, if this is adopted by the policy committee, it's a name at the document, not a muni document. And if we wanna make it a muni document, then that is an entirely separate process. So I, I personally am in favor of adopting this into the, the comp plan. I think it makes sense. It's a great document. I think the 97 plan was also a good plan, but we from 1997, so having a refreshed plan in there absolutely makes sense to me. So I will be advocating for that. But that is something that we have to deal with on the muni side of things and that maps will not be able to really help out with, and please forgive me if I jumped in too soon with that.
I mean typically what happens is once it's an AMATS document and approved by the policy committee, we're done with the project. That's kind of the final stage of a project. Could additional funding be used to help it guide it through the municipal process? We'd have to check with our federal and state partners to see if that aligns with the requirements that we have as an MPO. 'cause technically that is not a requirement of an MPO is to get it adopted by a local organization, a local government that is on them to do.
Is it, okay, so the the funding, I mean if we finish this plan and then decide that we want to adopt this as an element of the comp plan after the comp plan update in the same way that we do with neighborhood or district plans, I mean what is that? There's more funding needed for that portion?
Get through PZC and the Assembly. Yeah. I think it wouldn't be as extensive of a project as it would normal normally be for an outside group like AMATS. If AMATS were to try to get this through that process, they would need to pay the consultant to write the, to do, write the application, work with current planning on the case report, attend the meetings, give a presentation, all of those things. Those might be things that we could potentially handle in house. But if we are going to handle those things in house and that also requires staff time and funding. Okay. Which is why Park is totally overwhelmed right now. They have a lot on our, on their plate planning does as well. So either way we end up needing a little bit of extra help. Okay.
I have a question. If we go through the comp plan update and through that process planning and zoning commission wants a bunch of changes to the plan, do we then have to go back to policy committee to update it or do we have two different versions of the plan that essentially
MTP was adopted as an element of the comprehensive plan in the past as well and there could be different, there were different versions of it. The one, the policy committee defense approved and the one that the municipality adopted through its process and as an element of the comprehensive plan. So it has happened in the past and it's worked. I hope that this was done in a way where there wouldn't be a lot of changes 'cause we're being collaborative with everyone.
Really appreciate the discussion. Everyone's willingness to to potentially take this forward. I think it's, it's a different situation that we're in now and looking at the next steps than where the motor plan is. And I think maybe that's the example that I am gonna, you know we have member co and has here too, implement this directly all the time where we have the non-motorized plan that's an AMATS plan was approved by the policy committee. We reference it in the community all the time to make project recommendations. We're using it to reference the TP and CIP projects but it's not an adopted element of the comprehensive plan. So when those CSS cases come before planning and they're writing their staff reports, they're referencing the adopted bicycle and pedestrian plans, which are 20
Often. Yeah. Not as recent. And so there's just that discrepancy and sometimes that might be an issue but sometimes maybe it's not. I think it all just depends on how people decide to apply those plans. But personally I think it's really great that we wanna move this into that the recreational trail plan will add frequently updated as maybe some of other plans. So just on that consideration as well and how it might differently if it were an adopted element.
Thank you. Yeah, I would just love some, I think we would love some clarification on kind of just the scope of your comment on page 130 about the ocean to Mountain Trail. Are you referencing a mountain to see connection that maybe the Anchorage Park Foundation is discussing? Or is this a different project that you're hoping to see?
No, it's not a specific project at all. Okay. It was just something that I heard about in the community and in my prior, the work that I was doing out and about in the community before I took on this position in that there is an opportunity in that specific location for a, you know, amount to see connection just due, due to the various existing public properties there and potential land ownership changes. It's just right in that one location, six shots straight up from Potter Marsh up to the two gas. If we can get all the the stars to align and just even mentioning that as a concept then might move that concept forward. Gave that clarification.
I think the, the only other one that I, I'm sure it's somewhere here, it's somewhere on the left here, but was the long trail connection south, I guess it's making sure that that gap is address the Turnagain Arm trail and the existing trails in down because I, I noticed that it didn't really seem to be anything that addressed that specific gap right there down next to Potter Marsh and so I don't know what that was look like.
Yeah, that's great. I think we have specific project recommendations that break that up into smaller segments, but definitely made the note that we shouldn't address it in the gap analysis section too. That that is a continuation without Coastal trail extension to connect to the Turnagain Arm trail.
Yeah. Okay. Well I just really wanna say thank you to AMATS and the team and everybody for the good work and for the opportunity to have some comments. As I initially stated during the TAC meeting, some of them were just very minor corrections and edits and typos. But I also never had a chance to review it equal as a as task on the on TAC. So initially I went back and looked at when it came before us it was information item, not an action item. So thanks again for reconvening and having a pause and I know there's a delay and get this effort moving forward.
I did take some time to go through and share what I was thinking and I guess my biggest comment that I really wanted to have more understanding was when I saw that it was intended to supersede the other plan. So knowing how they fit and me looking at that plan, kind of looking at the packaging of it, the voice of it, kind of who's it informing, I wanted to look at that side by side. So I, I kind of laid out what I was thinking and if there's anything you guys have questions about I can kind of dig into. But thank you for taking the time to review my comments.
Oh sure. Yeah. We had a couple, or member Kohlhaas had a couple comments that were related to, you know, just unsure why this level of detail maybe around the parks department itself was being included in a long range plan and why not. You wanna speak to that?
Priority consistent throughout this process is maintenance and the discussion of maintenance and how, how that works, how it can be improved, how the funding can back it up better. And so 'cause of so much hearing so much about that we, it felt very fitting to describe how maintenance functions in our department. This has actually never been written down before as far as I know. But, so it was almost like the existing conditions so that we could then build on recommendations toward maintenance in the later chapters, if that makes sense. So the same way we sort of inventoried trail system and what types of trails we have also an inventory of like, okay, what are, what maintenance are we doing? What benchmark are we trying to meet? Yeah. How does it work so that we can then understand how that, how what's working and what's not working and then build on that and make those recommendations. So I think it was a good challenging question that forced us to like consider, oh yeah, why did we do this? That's what I would, I guess say. And I, I think it's a great value to the plan.
Yeah, what I, what I saw is that it had more of a, a voice from Parks and Rec and, and if that was the intent, that's why in my initial over, you know, kind of general comment, I said if, if that was the goal is saying this is kind of more to inform parks and rec, then many of my comments disappear or go away. But it did have kind of this again granularity of kind of enveloping everything that parks does including, you know, the cemetery and the pools and the FTEs and it was just a lot of detail from that regard that when I compared other plans it didn't have that. So brought it up, take a look at it. Valuable. That's fine. I don't think any of my comments are like a make or break, but just wanted to have another chance to look at it and look at it how it compares, especially if it was going to be replacing and superseding. The other one,
I think what makes it unique is the non-motorized plan, making the specific recommendation for the recreational trail plan and the direction that the project team got at the time that this is for Parks and recreation to work through their trail system with a recreational lens. So it is intended to be specific to our park department, but useful to others, if that makes sense.
And that is how it reads. I mean, because I, I have, you know, I saw statements that it is, you know, guiding the municipality and it's guiding the resources for Parks and rec. So I just wasn't sure if it, because it does tend to have more voice of parks and rec. I just in, in looking back at Girdwood and the area wide trails, it was written more of a neutral voice by saying here's the connections, here's the categories of those types of projects. And it kind of left it more open and more open kind of a direction of this is informing officials, advocacy groups, municipality agencies. And this one tends to have kind of just a more pivot towards this is informing. So anyways, if that was the goal,
Then I think if we're going back would've been great if the non-motorized plan included the level of detail that included the trails that parks and rec managed, but it didn't, so it kind of did create this unique spinoff in that way. You know, you set it into motion and it builds upon its own momentum perhaps. But speaking maybe personally, I'm not even gonna say for the department, I wish that the non-motorized plan would've not recommended a separate plan. It's created a lot of confusion and contention. Did a lot of
Work on my project team and having to explain a, a thing that someone else made a recommendation to do. But this is what this, we got lemons, we made some lemonade, maybe it's too sour, it's too sweet, I don't know. But this is kind of where we're at and this is how we were like, okay, we need to make this useful. We need to make this distinct from the non-motorized plan. And this is the way that we have decided to do that. Not only as the project team but with all of the input, all of the stakeholders, all of the working groups with ams, with Chelsea, with Donovan, you know, with Daniel. Like it's just the list goes on, you know, it's like really a beast of what it's been put through, if that makes sense.
I, I'd love to comment on this from like the policy lens because I think with things like the non-motorized plan, there's, there's very clear shared responsibility for non-motorized facilities in Anchorage. Like it's not just one singular entity that manages our non-motorized facilities, but when it comes to recreational trails, it is specifically in uniquely parks that manages those facilities. And so to me it makes all the sense in the world that we're going to have a recreational trails plan that people like me are going to be consulting when we think about new projects or what our constituents are prioritizing. It's really important for me to be able to understand the inner workings of the agency or the entity that will ultimately be supervising, maintaining, dealing with issues on the project that I am contemplating bringing forward. You know, it's not just does it align with the plan, it's also does it align with our, our capacity in this one specific department.
And I, I think for me that's really useful that, you know, it, it, it makes it so that I can set better expectations with the public. You know, when they're like, well why don't we have trail X, y, Z already in existence? I can say, well, you know, it's recommended in our plans and also here are some realities of the, the, the entity, the department that is ultimately going to be tasked with, you know, managing this resource once we develop it. So I actually really appreciated the fact that this was sort of a peak under the hood that I think is really useful because I think the public is often confused and, and if, if we want the public to be consulting this document in addition to policy makers and engineers and whoever else, you know, folks who come into parks or PM&E, I think that's a, a strength in fact of, of this plan is that it gives us that insight and it also points toward, hey, if we're gonna keep building out this system, we need more humans to, to manage it.
I mean we can't in, you know, continue to build out this infrastructure and just like on a wing and a prayer that maybe we'll be able to maintain it. So I, I actually really like, I appreciated that that was the, the posture that this plan took and it strikes me as being far more practical than some of the other plans we've written where we have all of this aspirational language and it's totally unclear who is going to be implementing this thing in the end or what the, you know, the human cost of, of implementation is. So for what it's worth as a, as a policymaker, I I thought it was actually
Appreciate it. And I also, that was what we were striving to do with the approach to the document and it, it is tricky 'cause yeah, parks and rec department are the primary people maintaining, managing, implementing, but they're not the only ones. And so it has a heavy lean that way because they're the ones doing the heavy lift, but it's not exclusive and I'm very, very relieved to hear that it was helpful to someone who's not in the inner workings of all that. So That's great. Thank you for that.
Aaron, can I jump the line? I, I know we're kind of going through the document as presented, but just in, in the way the conversation is happening, I feel like yeah I think it might be good to address my point that's on here now and then kind of go forward. So I feel pretty strongly that this should just be called the trails plan, not the recreational trails plan. And I understand that it is, you know, there is an emphasis on parks and, and recreation and, and the maintenance that you do on these facilities. So first of all, I, I think, you know, when we were describing things like the coastal trail or the Chester Creek Trail, it's not appropriate to call those recreational trails. It, it's just not, I feel like that's very outdated, you know, and if we're trying to encourage a mode shift that people would use these facilities not just for, for fun, but also to get to their essential destinations. And I I think in our last conversation about this, I can't remember if I gave this example, but I went on a date and I walked from my house. I'm dating guys thank you, but I walked from my house to the new Ship Creek
Brewery that none of the tourists know about. It's great, it's down by the boardroom and I used the coastal trail to, to get there. So, you know, just the emphasis of of getting to your destination on these facilities I think is really important. And you know, if we are superseding the previous plan that was called the area wide trails plan, why not just call this the area wide trails plan or just the trails plan because I don't think area wide is kind of like the most fuzzy word. But I, you know, I, I guess I also just wonder if the project team has had the opportunity to, to discuss this with the municipal attorney's office. I mentioned this in a recent conversation with the municipal attorney and her reaction was like, whoa, don't call it that because I think that there are, when we're recreational don't call it, okay, I think there are projects in the mix right now where there are right of way issues being discussed and we have the municipal code conversation that talks, you know, that speaks to, I, I don't wanna go into the specifics of those projects, but you know, it speaks to issues with right of way acquisition when things are classified as recreational.
And so I just don't think any municipal document should be discussing our shared pathways in a way that frames it as being recreational for that reason. Also, just as like a preview, I am likely gonna be teaming up with a municipal attorney on a code update that would further define things like shared use pathways, trails, green waste. Got a comment in there too because I, I I, I think, you know, we need to update the way that our code talks about these facilities, but we also need to update the way that we talk about them and that our community talks about them. And so yeah, I, I guess the more I've thought about this since our prior discussion, there's so much good stuff in here, but I really feel like we are hamstringing ourself in a way if we put that label on, on this. And so that's just a big change that I would like to see the full acknowledgement that. Yeah. And awesome. I would love to see not the mountain to sea trail and widening of, of the trail around Westchester Lago. And I hear that from my constituents all the time. You know, there's too many e-bikes that needs to be wider. So anyway, that that is my 2 cents. I, I know that that might be like something big.
As Erin said during the policy committee, it's in our logo like big deal. So, so I think the non-motorized plan specifically recommended a recreational transplant. That's where the name came from. That's why we went with that direction. Really wish that we had had these comments during the non-motorized plan to be perfectly honest. So we would never have to do it at the final throws of this, whatever this is called at this time, recreational trails plan. But I would even argue the case that you can call something, you can call something a thing but it doesn't preclude it from being another thing. So just because it's in the recreational trails plan doesn't mean it's not a non-motorized transportation or active transportation asset. And I think that there's tons of precedent for that. So I would be interested to hear what legal's opinion is, if that's a concern then we should definitely,
We haven't heard from legal at all about this and I think from an, I'd be interested to hear what AMATS thinks about this as far as like if it's not a non-motorized facility, why are we even doing this if these projects wouldn't be like available to be funded by AMATS as transportation projects. Like be sort of curious, not to put you on the spot, but I just would be curious and I would love to hear legal's opinion 'cause I think it can be both.
And and being very specific about what we're describing. If we wanna take a wider approach then I would, I would suggest using wider language and I, I would just, my pushback to that would be, there's very specific language in code about certain types of right of way acquisition. It cannot be used for recreational facilities. And there are,
At the end of the day, any budget appropriations as you know, are subject to the will of 12 members on the body. But I, I think this is, it's important to do this right And you know, if we are adding, especially neighborhood greenways, you know, then we're talking about well sort of streets that are used as trails, not, not just trails as what we might conceive of them. So, and, and those connect trails and they're very important, you know, Brad and I have trouble over Barbara Street in and people doing what is tactical on Barbara Street. So all that to say, yeah, I, I understand that a lot of work has been done. I also understand that part of this process is, you know, it goes up the chain right and sort of ends at the policy committee and I, I, I certainly can appreciate, I wish I could have given you this feedback sooner. I do feel like in prior AMATS meetings I've been pretty consistent on this point.
I agree you've been consistent on this point and I appreciate the consistency. I also really appreciate where you're coming from, especially when you're citing like real world implications relating to code and things. I think it'd be great to dive into behind the scenes like you said, we'll we'll reach out to legal and stuff. Yeah. So I wanna say yes but also holy guacamole, this is a, this is a big recommendation and it's one that we'll just want to take careful consideration of. And it's one that we got handed as well handed as well.
Yeah. And we'll just add, this is not a recommendation, this isn't really a response to more context than 1997 area wide trails plan included sidewalks and on street facility. And so when the bicycle plan and the pedestrian plan were adopted, developments of a comprehensive plan, those were in all intent and purposes the superseding of those components of the 1997 plan. And those were most specific not transportation network overall specific. So you have two plans that are adopted, elements of the comp plan that are for modes. Are you a walker, are you a biker? Which plan are you gonna reference?
And now we've got the non-motorized plan which went back to combining because I think we're all on the same page that it is a interconnected network that should be used by multiple modes and part of that component is the back trail component and who's managing maintaining with its primary use. And I think that's really where the recreational recommendation came from at the non motorized plan level was these are ones again that are, that can exist for recreational purposes. Maybe we're talking and we're not diving into the park specific master plan. That's what those plans are there for. But thinking about trails that are internal to our big parks, the ones that are in Kincaid, the ones that make it developed in the recently adopted or approved Potter Marsh watershed park, you know those, those are still trails that are there for recreational purpose. And I feel like we, we tried pretty hard to acknowledge that right up front in this document as well that there is that dual utility of these trails. But yeah, if we're making ourselves into a very specific problem hole with the word recreation, then we should very seriously consider it.
Yeah, it's not the, the multiple modes that are at issue. I think it's good to have all of that. I think it really is the sticking point for me really is that word recreational and and applying that to facilities that are not purely recreational. And again that language that we have in code about essentially which, which limits our ability to acquire right of away in certain ways.
I have a couple of things. So from the AMATS side of the federal funding, there is no impact by calling it recreational. But I know from right of way there can be challenges. So don't worry about the funding, there's no impact there. Another thing to think about is, I kind of agree the non-motorized plan should have been a little more all encompassing. Unfortunately
It was just not here at that point and couldn't have worked on it then. So I was over at DOT and had a different mindset at that point, I'll be honest. So one option to think about as well is if there is some concerns with having two separate plans as well, you could always combine them. You could always do this as an update to the non-motorized plan and just make it one unified document. Then when you're looking at what you want to adopt as an element of the comprehensive plan, you could do the whole thing as one instead of having two separate. Because that's been a big problem for us over the years is that as it stands right now we have five separate ones to be looking at.
And so it might be an opportunity to be like does it need to be separate? I know it calls it in the non-motorized plan but maybe we realized it's all a system that we need to account for in one unified approach. So some didn't think about there. If there is a desire to go back and remove the recreational aspect of it in terms of getting more money, we're gonna have a little bit of a situation. But we could probably make it work. I think the TORA is being extended now and what we would have to go back and do is add this back to the 27 through 30 TIP, which we won't have approved until April of next year or later depending on how long it takes to get federal approval. Which means we won't have any of the additional money available until then. So there would probably be some lag time depending on how much your current funding and the new funding keeps you moving forward on there between getting all the work done, getting the funding in place and kind of moving forward. But it is an option if there is interest of that. It just means a pretty healthy delay on this plan.
What's relation to that? I know these plans are like 20 year plans but usually they're updated every sooner than that. Right? When was the next, I mean AMATS, the MTP is like every four or five years, right? It has to be. It has to be. Right. So this one, when would the next update to where it became a unified plan realistically happen?
Well AMATS is having discussions at the staff level whether we should be doing these plans at all as AMATS or whether they should be done by other groups. And we as AMATS incorporate them into our documents as we look at, 'cause it's rather strange for AMATS to be deciding for the municipality what their network should look like. So there's some discussions as is there an opportunity for that to be done in another way by the muni with input from the state and AMATS to making their determination of what the network should be. So as it stands right now, we don't know when the next update's gonna happen for the non-motorized plan. 'cause not only that, it's impossible for us to get in kind match with these plans. We have a number of projects right now that are severely underfunded for the in kind match and we're having significant challenges with it. So that's another thing to think of. If you add more money to this, we need to make sure we have enough in kind match to cover it because there is no funding, I don't know your guys' funding, do you pay in kind match for this or do you have bond funding that can be
We do a neighborhood plan, we don't, that's adopted as an element of the comp plan and the most recent plan governs we don't update the old comp plan or open that up. Yeah. Or update. So I think you could adopt it as an element, the recreational and then a actually if if
If it removed facility. Well I, I, I still think we'd have wanna be judicious about what we're calling recreational and whatnot. You know the steward trail, I'm gonna call that recreational. Okay. They might gather things there, it's an easement, whatever. But yeah, I still think it's important that the framing of the word recreational is important from a legal point of view. But I, yeah, I think we adopted this as an element of the non-motorized plan. It could still govern without having to change the rest of the motorized plan.
So though if we are gonna update the comp plan, it's still a fair question. Should we update the entire non-motorized? So if it, if that's gonna be a factor in whether this gets incorporated into the non-motorized plan, I mean is it, is it more effort to do the non-motorized plan into the compound or to do this rick trust plan with the compound? Or is it probably comparable?
Process, that's kind of what I'm suggesting and and I appreciate that that a muni conversation. But I think my, my baseline orientation is let's get the most utility that we, if we're going to put something through the muni process, then let's get the biggest possible thing for our buck.
Yeah, when think about it and when there's a, a plan that or an element of the Comp plan adopt it by the assembly, then generally it falls on the planning department as the responsible party for updating it. You know, talking about implementation, reviewing projects against it. So that's my understanding of the situation. But I, you know, I have staff in the room with me that correct me on that.
That makes sense. I, I think in my mind, parks has its own capital improvements. I'm the CIP department and then there's also a maintenance division. So we're like a tiny muni. So in my mind I'm like okay this thing's only gonna function if it has someone who's accountable to it functioning. And so that's the question is not like who's gonna take, I guess who's gonna take responsibility for making sure it's implemented? 'cause within our system there has to be that otherwise it doesn't happen. That was the framing of the question.
Yeah and that's in the rec trails plan because the public is so excited about connectivity that can't happen on Parkland and to ignore their comments didn't feel like a real true public process. So that's where I think the confusion comes in and like is this parks or not? Why do you have a whole right of way section? And it's because we wanted to just put on record what people are saying knowing whole, well that wouldn't be our department that would ever have the tools to implement it. Which actually takes me back to your sort of like topic of like recreational trails plan plan. There's implications for acquisition for rec trails but ultimately would be a non-motorized traffic at PM and E project that would work in that right of way or it would be a partnership because we, we like don't have the tools to do it. That just becomes like a,
No, it used to be back in the day that federal funds were pretty limited and you couldn't expend money on recreational trails. But that has gone away over time. There is a separate program that's called the rec trails program but I believe it's actually changing names or did change names. It's confusing sometimes on that kind of stuff. So my last communication with FHWA, like last year, whatever, the understanding is that as long as you can demonstrate that there's a transportation purpose for the project, it doesn't matter whether you call it a recreational trail, they don't see it as oh you just said recreation, we can't do it 'cause you're still transporting even if you are recreating. And I think that's why if we did the non-motorized plan over, we would just have it as a unified system and not segment it out like it was. But I think you see what you see here is a lot of holdover from the old days and that it is slow change.
So I guess my question is in terms of like order of operations on the AMATS side of things, understanding that the muni are gonna have our own kind of like navigation process on the AMATS side of things. Would we functionally, as like a policy committee, would we approve this plan and then append it to the non-motorized plan? Like is that a one two thing or is it just like a singular action? Like how does that look on the amap side of things And then on the muni side we can, we could then pick up the non-motorized plan which now has an accessory called the rec trail plan and, it got bling, and then we take that and we do whatever it is that we're gonna do with it. But like what happens, what needs to happen on the AMATS side?
I think the easiest thing is at the end for final approval, whatever version it is, whether it says recreation or not, I'm not commenting on that, but whatever version is the final approval can be from the policy committee, approve this as an element of the non-motorized plan and append it into the non-motorized plan and have it be the final decision. And so if the Muni wanted to incorporate something into the comprehensive plan, they would just take the non-motorized plan with all associated documents and incorporate it.
For them entirely. I think it'd be great for the project team to, to get with them. I think they would probably speak to you about ongoing projects and and their concerns and I just, the conversation I had with them, that was their initial impression as well. Don't call it that. And you know, I also am concerned, you know, are we setting ourself up for in light of things that are in code now, which I'm gonna attempt to get changed. Are we setting ourself up for potential legal liability if we try to move forward with the project and they say, well look municipality describe this facility as recreational. You can't do X, Y, Z because of that. And I think that's a real potential thing. I, I'm not just trying to brand this differently, I'm trying to make sure we don't get ourselves into a pickle when it comes to projects that are really important to the community and folks who maybe are adverse to those projects.
I believe there's a section in here that describes that limitation already as far as being an, the ability to have eminent domain and the right of way acquisition if it's recreational. So if it was just generically trail and then getting the legal opinion on is there another clear path so that we'd have more open ability to get the right of way. It's a good question. I mean, and especially that may, we may wanna revisit how we explain that in the plan instead of so boldly say, hey because it's recreational, we do these things, we have because of that, you know, those things set us up for a little more flexibility and freedom instead of having it firmly stated. So I, I concur with wanting to know more. I will say something else from PM&E when we look at Path or any non-motorized pedestrian facilities, non-motorized facilities in the road right away, we make sure we never call 'em trail.
So it's gonna be something like side path, path bikeway or something. So we always make sure we're not using the word trail too because it's something that happens outside of the road right away. But anyways, just distinction. So if we were to say trail versus recreational trail, I think there's a nice distinction if it were to be slid in and then you have all these other non-motorized things, whatever we're calling 'em, side path, bike way. Bike lanes and then trail. We wouldn't have to say, oh it's Parks Trail. It sort of already gives it nomenclature to say it's, it's a trail that's outside of the right of away.
I think going back to the owner, I think that's why I was trying to really understand like whose plan is this? Because when I read the area wide trail or area wide trail plan, it kinda had that more neutral voice that I was used to seeing that says here's the networks, here's maybe some phasing, here's the categories of those things. And then everybody looks at it and figures out, figures out what projects are you preparing to implement through your program and make sure you look at this. And it's not saying who is this necessarily? So that's why it was different for me to say, Hey, this is really kind of parks plan and we're gearing up, we've got resources, there's things we can do, things we can't do. And it went into the lane of when you categorized the things that broad category was in our purview and not in our purview versus categorized by a bridge, a soft trail, a bike trail or something.
I was, it was just unusual for me to see it that way. But, and I can see if you were using it to say if it's, if it's only us to really foster and deliver, then this is how we look at it. So it, it changed it and that's why I was more used to seeing something that was written from a planning department that has kind of the neutral, not us and this group specifically versus this group. It's just, here's the thing, here's the category of things. Everybody looked to it when they're developing. We don't skip it or overlook it. That's kind of more what I'm used to seeing. So I would love to see it married up and fit so it could serve again, back to that function. Don't forget this when you're implementing 'cause it's important. I don't care. Implementing. Look at it. Don't, don't skip it.
Hi afternoon everybody. I was just gonna speak a little bit to the eminent domain aspect and I, I think terminology may or may not be important there, but at the end of the day we're gonna have a decisional document that's gonna speak to the specifics of the project that we'd be going through that we'd be pursuing acquisition on. And so I I, I don't think terminology would be a deal breaker one way or the other. So only thing I wanted to add there
Okay, well and I'll go back to make that, that is a good question because we can talk about the acreage area going way back to the beginning of our conversation about why we maybe included so much detail about the organization of the Parks and Recreation department because the way that Anchorage Parks and Rec and River, sorry, Eagle River, Chugiak Parks and Rec are managed, are very, very different. They're funded completely separately and that is an important distinction in how we implement a lot of these projects. And so that's why that was in there as well. And Melinda, I hear you. It is different than most of our comprehensive plans but intentionally so to try to take a little more practical, make it a little more useful and implementable for the people who do some majority of the implementing but not intended to be limiting. So I think the more that I'm, I'm hearing in the comments as well, reading 'em, I'm tempted to just make sure that we go back and do another read through to make sure that we're not being too limiting in some of our sentences where we try to describe who this is for throughout the document is making sure that that is more clear that this really is a resource for multiple people and just depending on who you are, different sections are gonna apply to you differently.
Like the system wide recommendations should not be limited and who reads those and who should be applying those. But if it's specific thing like amend your project, reviewing criteria, obviously that is going to apply to agency, not to a trail organization, but hopefully our nonprofit organizations who are applying for grants are able to pick out the sections of the plan that are gonna help them write a successful brand application. Trying to, yeah, we're trying to do all of it as best as we can and that is tricky.
Yeah, something really interesting about the 1997 plan and this whole discussion is like the 97 plan is broken out by like skijoring, walking, bike mode. We are not the walking and biking department unfortunately. Maybe that'd be easier but like it's land based. It's like where are our parks and trails? That's, that was the basis of the plan and it had to be that way to be from the non-motorized plan. Yeah. So that's just, it's really interesting and I think we have a recommendation section in the end of the plan for how this should be updated and maybe it needs to be made more clear that like the scope should be, you know, rethought or reconsidered or the scope doesn't need to be the same for an update in the future for this.
Kind of that aside, if, if the plan is solely focused on one department, that does seem a little bit problematic from a AMATS. But the fact that our plans have who like an implementation piece and who is responsible. I have seen that before. So, and actually that can really help because how many times do we do a plan that it's so generic that nobody knows like what should I do and then nothing happens. So, so I think like having specifics in here that lined out especially 'cause if it is the parks department and parks rec department, it is Eagle River Parks falls done differently. I mean part of the idea would be like what does street Mainten do with some of these locations in here and what does PM&E do and what are our responsibilities? Is it, is that a bad thing to start to like flesh some of those out so that this becomes more easily implementable? Does that get folded in if this is a part of the, the non-motorized time where let's actually lay out a little bit more specificity so it's not just maybe solely one department's information. So I, I guess I would advocate not to take that out, right? But to add some of those others in. So, so it's less likely that things cracks or don't get implement
And then the other question I had is with this question of if it was recreational was removed, what are the implications? Like what does that really mean? I think I've heard like what is the staff time that takes, like how does that change things? Can you just do a, you know, take this out of the document, you know, it affects the logo but is it just like a couple days of reading through and making sure you don't have like a missing word or or are there pieces really that that changes the purpose, changes the meaning? Like what are the implications? Not so that I'm advocate one way or the other, I'm just curious to know.
I think the part of why we need that is because it's the recommended plan out of the non-motorized plan. But as you've heard Taryn and Nicolette described there's all these five other different types of named plans and the way that this was constructed was to supplement the 1997 plans and those plans and not to supersede them. So, so to name it the trails plan, I think also there's just implications to that and like what is the, how was the plan written? It was written as a recreational trail, not a trails plan. Like again, like the lens is specific because that was what the recommendation was. So I think that there are some technical editorial things but I think the plan would've to get configured in a way and please chime in project team.
Yeah, I just think we have a substantial discussion in the first like three pages about how you cannot ignore transportation as part of this plan. It's incorporated throughout the entire document. I think doing a control F and deleting recreational is would be a disservice. I think that's bottom planning. I think that would be silly. 'cause you're right, it's like it was the lens that was taken. I would also like to point out that the class one through six trails that are described in cut sheets and will hopefully be built upon and updated. The DCM have no, the word recreation isn't in those at all. They're just class one through five trails or one through six. So they're just facilities that are described. You know, so like to me that's a pretty neutral plan.
I think that's a good way to think about it. I think we've also like recommended for these major connectivity projects that imply acquisition and imply multi-use transportation. It's like called out like these should be designed with use consideration as in, or this is gonna be a commuting trail, this is gonna be recreation trail.
I mean the classics is really rooted in that the classics recommendation where we're recommending wider trails cinema a mode split. But thinking about the coastal trail Westchester Lagoon area, we know that they're so busy not just because people love to recreate but they're so busy 'cause people use it as part of the transportation corridor that is part of the purpose of the project. So I think it's the yes end.
If this was adopted into the non-motorized plan and in the adoption it was clear here's some trails that have lots of uses but this plan is focused on some of the recreational components. Doesn't exclude the fact that this has a critical non-motorized need. I wonder if that accomplishes what Member Volland is looking for. So it's not like, oh this is part of the rec trails plan. This project was identified in the Rec Trails plan. So it's a recreational project but if there's a way to get around to kind of that misframing as we've talked about today,
Pose it in a reverse way where if we were to take our project recommendations list, so looking at the map where people want improvements on these trails and we say that it's not a recreational improvement, it's just a trail improvement. Does that open up us to requiring certain routes that may be outside of the right of way that would fall what we're considering right now, part of the purview of recreational trails. Do we have to identify those routes using more like p and e appropriate language? Because that would then potentially change our trail classification adaptations too. So an example I'm thinking of is if you're somebody who lives up in Stuckagain Heights and you're commuting to South Anchorage, we have quite a few people at our office who do that they'll cut through far north by Tonal Park to do that or to use a combination of BLM trails, the, which is another good point BLM trail consideration in here. We're not making recommendations for BLM trail. That's the purview of BLM. Just throw that out there. Would we have to design those trails that people are saying, I use that for my commuter route differently. Would we have to classify, would we have to somehow denote that as a transportation corridor?
Fair the father plan, we're actually not acknowledging no totally the traffic director in these other roles, you know, in our community and yeah, I guess maybe I need to take another path through it. IIII, I think the, the, the other way to sort of get around this, if we're really passionate and I still think the project team should consult with the municipal attorney's office.
Would be to be very explicit in the discussion, you know, around any discussion, any presentation of maps when it comes to assets like the coastal trail or the Chester Creek Trail or you know, these shared use pathways to have very specific language saying this is also used for these other purposes. This is not a purely recreational really calling that out in a box every time you're talking about an asset like that. So there's no confusion on behalf of the public to say this is a recreational thing.
Maybe the question that I had is because I use lots of different trails, like sometimes I use far, far enough to park to commute as well, is are there any trails that should specifically be called out as rec only trails? And if it doesn't have that moniker on it, then it just by default, if that's a rec only, I mean like the Kincaid single track, I might be an example or that's probably more rec recreation that's not your direct like way to get through. I mean if I was, there's not really way that lives out there anyway that are, are using those single track trails to get as a commute, that would be odd to me. Right. But it seems like there's a lot of these in town that, I mean I spent time on the Ship Creek trail with my biking being tree meetings today on the, on the Chester Creek trail and
Not all these different ones that I, I would, I mean other people out there recreating and I was there commuting. So how do we make it so that it's clear like all this non-motorized networking, I mean isn't it great that you can actually ride your bike and be recreating at the same time as commuting? I've never heard of anybody call like the, the arterial being a recreational arterial. I also think you wanna recreate while you're transporting, you know,
I think the concept of an evolution of a trail is really interesting too, right? Like my kids in Mountain View, not my kids but families that I represent, their kids in Mountain View who walk on trails to school, you know, and like community members who, who make a desire pass you, right? And then there becomes eventually a lot of people are walking on this corridor, you see the trail they've made. How do we think about in the future that okay then that turns into or maintain trail and then maybe in the future that turns into a sidewalk or a, or some type of separated pathway or or more major infrastructure investment, you know, and allowing those things to evolve and not putting this label on it to say that, well this thing forever and ever, it's only gonna be recreational because maybe the use of it was up over time and we as a community wanna decide, hey this is actually a really valuable potential connector of the rest of all these things. We wanna build that up. And what we don't want is then the community to say, oh no, you've already designated that as recreational.
Can I just say that I think that the recreational, I'm gonna use Brad, I'm gonna do one more time. So Brad is always a father. He's only really on the clock. I'm gonna say graciously even though I know you're always working when he's here in the municipality. And I think like the recreational part of this is like the trails in here are the father part and the non-motorized is the municipality part. So he's always a dad. These are always like have recreational value but like a large portion of them, a large portion of Brad's time is also municipal staff. And so that's kind of the overlay that I think the plan is trying to frame it from.
I think I have the opposite view where if we're trying to make a mode shift as a municipality and encourage people not to do single occupancy car trips all the time and we're trying to build out a high comfort, high safety network where parts of that are off street and parts of that are on street, we want to increase the amount of usage and the amount of time and you know that these are used as not just recreational, they're also used for active transportation for folks to get through to their essential destinations. Again, I just, the framing of, of any of these, especially these more paved assets as a recreational is limited away. But I think I've, I've said my piece at this point it's, but that's just kind of where I'm coming from.
I had an idea. So to to potentially move away from like the purpose and naming its mode, like who's it for? If we could look at just the physical characteristics, like you said you had your six types, you know, it could go back to these are all just trails generically because the distinction now is trail is outside of the right of way. Those are named other things and we never use the word trail. We're trying not to. So it could be paved, trail, soft trails, single track, you know, I don't know, going back to look at what are your six types and maybe it's just type one trail two trail, I, I don't know how it's presented in their Sure. But I mean that would kind of remove any labeling of oh this is for this mode or it's for this mode or it's for horse trails or, or maybe you actually need horse trail, but, but maybe you could go back to kind of kind of relying on the physical characteristic of it to to kind of imply what the name is and say this is the soft trail, anybody can use it, we're not gonna tell you who's gonna use it for what.
The trail classification is that they're not, they're not used specific trails, they're all technically multi-use, but the way that they're designed may naturally inherently limit who or what is the desirable use of that trail. There are obviously exceptions where we have the only limiter and let's say single track that is mountain bike downhill signed for that. But that's, that's a management decision. But the trail classifications overall are intended to be multiuse. So
The 1997 plan, it's making recommendations within youth groups and we said oh that's not very useful considering that people are gonna make their own adventure. And that's what's lovely about the system and as someone who personally would also like to see the mode shift in our city, I still think there's value in planning for recreation and recreational moments and keeping them them, because I don't think everyone wants to be, you know, far north turn into a commuting park. Like people can commute on it and they're gonna make that work less.
So here. Here's another thing that I've, I've been thinking about the fact that there's recreation going on on some of these trail actually enhances the experience for all of us that are, that are commuting because the care that's given to them, the maintenance that's given to them, the, I mean I think in the winter there are certain parts of my bike commute I couldn't do, other people weren't recreating on them because they would be impassable really. So my ability to move around them is enhanced by the recreational aspect to it. So I don't know if it, it just needs to be a framing of these are not rec only facilities, there's just this recreational value associated with this that enhances non-motorized needs. That's just a very clear upfront like, I don't know over the top a little bit maybe that could be a way to get around the mischaracterization that I think is out there of, I mean I had somebody tell me, oh I don't bike anymore, I'm not a kid.
You know, and kind of the thought of like just this, yeah bicyclist get sometimes is feeling of being second class citizens that, you know, I don't know how many people that I know recreate on their bike but don't like, like use it as a transportation, you know. So there is kind of this like teenager stage ish a little bit that I think the bike community is in and and fill some of those like different perspectives that that kind of are affecting it. So, and if there's the legal component of it, I'd hate for the Fish Creek trail to not happen because oh it's a recreational facility so you know,
Well AMATS views Fish Creek as on motorized and we're working through the individual things as the project one project managers for that project. I think everyone knows that in this room. But we're working through those individually and so far pathways are available to us to complete the project as evidence. Of course that's the beauty with things in the legal realm is that it can be open to interpretation and code realm and otherwise, but right now we're aiming to build next summer. So that's exciting. I speak for a lot of people when I say that,
And mean, I think this is, this is getting toward what Member Kohlhaas was saying that you know, we're not dictating whether this is being used for, you know, recreation versus act of transportation versus whatever else. Like we're just saying this is the trail, like this is what it looks like, this is the, this is what it's made up, this is how it's maintained. This is, but there's, you know, it says there's some designed uses but like even in the summer class three trail it says under designed uses hiker pedestrian, which implies people using it for through travel, not just I'm here like looking at the birds. You know, so, so I think
Which is also good to appreciate the words to Mr. Coy's point. So yeah, I think it's this, it's this interesting sort of like use within the larger ecosystem and like the, the, the Venn diagram here is pretty complex, right? But ultimately, you know, for for Anchorage it seems like there's value in naming that we have this really robust non-motorized infrastructure that also includes trails is is useful and I I like the more that we're talking, the more I feel like we, we can't really, or maybe we shouldn't really sort of divorce those things from one another.
And I, I think my, my initial reaction was, well yeah, let me leave recreational in the name because that's what we asked you to do was to create a rec trails plan. And I think maybe that was that that was like a part of the ask that maybe it was the wrong ask because it, it does sort of, let me back up. I just came from, I just came from a meeting with the Midtown Community Council who are big mad about the proposed pilot project on Denali Street to do winter snow storage and summer bike lanes.
And their whole posture towards this project is like bike bikes are for recreation. Like nobody, like we're not, people aren't gonna use this to actually come to our businesses on anything other than a bicy other than a personal vehicle, right? There's, there's this default setting in some places in the community that says trails are only for fun and and I think maybe this is an opportunity to start to peel that apart a little bit and say no, our trails are for a whole variety of community uses and I'm, I feel like I'm holding that intention right now with the fact that revision to this plan at this point is a massive ask of you all. And so I think I'm, I'm trying to sort out like how do we, like how do we pull all of these functions together without asking you to put like dozens and if not hundreds of hours, more labor into this plan, retaining everything about it that is super duper valuable but also couching it in this broader reality that like our trails are parts of our transportation infrastructure and we don't want to pretend that they're not like we don't wanna pretend that they're this separate thing.
And I think I'd really like to hear your feedback on that tension and you know, what does it, what does it mean for you all if we say hey we really think this ought to be the MPO trails plan and what does that mean for you guys in terms of labor, in terms of potential integration with a non-motorized plan? Like what would you have to do to make that request happen in the real world?
Think that going to a need for the, Muni need to maybe just to getting, getting back to the AMATS staff queue that maybe the types of plans shouldn't be completed by AMATS anymore since they're really the the ence behind these plans was for the need to have them and use them. And so I'm wondering if it just speaks to a larger needs need to actually undertake an update to the, the non-motorized plan and integrate all of the information, the great information in the non-motorized plan and this recreational plan and have our own documents and then that would require going back to the public and going through this process again. Which if you were to make that update here now as part of the AMATS process you'd have to do anyway.
I would say in the future I definitely see a combined plan, right? So between now and then, can this just be adopted as part of the non-motorized plan so that it's clear because if they're separate I think it lends more credence to the idea that all these trails are are not non-motorized, these are recreational
Whereas if it's part of it, it's like oh the recreational is the component is enhancing these non-motorized part of the same thing. Kind of speaks to that to me a little bit better to the community more so if someone says Oh this is a red trail plan, you're like yeah's part of non-motorized, it's not the the planting, it's not separating, it's just enhancing. And then at some future point, whether it's the muni or AMATS or someone, when a non-motorized plan gets updated it does a lot better job of like accounting for kind of this, this changes that are happening. And whether it's, I mean I guess the biggest thing that I would say if it became a muni thing to do, we need staff and we need funding and it's great that AMATS is able to provide that for these sorts of plans that, I mean am s in a way has kind of been the muni's transportation planners as I said to many people. Does the municipality have any transportation planners? Our AMATS staff that are within the muni are kind of our only ones really. We don't have like our own transportation planning group that can really even like do transportation. So, which
And it is what it is. I mean I don't wanna have a plan adopted, you know, and that's where I have to kind of step in as a policy maker and it's not because I'm trying to just like totally get my way or be adversarial or anything. I just don't wanna adopt a plan that I don't feel good about and that I don't fill. And there's so much good stuff in there. I love the trails classification. This is super awesome and I think it speaks to like, you know, different types and, and where we're headed, right? But I, I, I guess I, I also just don't feel good about something coming to us as, and I think that's the purpose of this work session today too, is to be able to fuss some of this stuff out. But sometimes I feel like stuff gets presented to the policy committee with the bow on it and it's like you adopt this part and parcel or not, you know? And that doesn't always leave us in a good place of having to be the ones who ultimately are responsible for the policy going forward or not. So yeah, that's kind of where I am at but I as others have said, I appreciate a lot of the work that's been put into this see potentially adds a standalone but also incorporated into other documents too.
So have we have we exhausted this topic in that jump over to some other topics? So the one thing that I wanted to talk about today was the neighborhood greenway and how neighborhood greenways is a way that we're connecting our neighborhood streets to the trail network and kind of integrated 'em together towards kind of more unified from that transportation standpoint. And there are some key like connections from where our street system is to our trail system that that if those could be like prioritized in a way it would really benefit from kind of this integration. So like for example the Jacobson Park trail improvement number 33 that's in the plan actually is part of our neighborhood greenway network where it connects. But I don't think it was really like prioritized in the rec trails plan. Part of me is thinking, you know, there are these different spots that we've identified and that we are to identify that that could serve a really key connection. Like another one that is a neighborhood greenway is Eagle Street
Or Eagle Street connect to the Chester Creek trail and that's kind of not a super great like connection point where it's got some and some curves and some like interesting things happening right there. So just kind of that integration or that that that connection point between Greenway and the trail. It would be great to see if there was a way to integrate some of that in an account for that. Maybe this isn't the right plan to do that. Maybe the non-motorized plan is really a better one. But if, if some of these are shown on here and like not prioritized, I do have some hesitancy and kind of on that piece I'd like them to be in here and maybe have just a note about hey this is on the Navy Greenway network so it gets a higher priority. Does that make sense?
Yes. And I think we, we definitely already were like we should add a paragraph and a description about the neighborhood greenway effort and how it is a fantastic complimentary connection and it's helpful essential connection to that transportation to recreation, whatever the boundary is now that we're drawing to trails on street to off street trails. Yes, definitely open to adding a paragraph. I think the reason that you're seeing maybe some connections but not all are because they're ones that came directly out of our public process that the benefit to the recreational trail system. So this is a reflection of the comments that we received from the public throughout our two and a half, almost three year process now. And those are the ones that were prioritized from this effort. I don't want that to be interpreted as, it shouldn't be a priority for another department to implement your greenwoods program. This should always be seen as a support, right? Any other, any other plan that's got a recommendation that is in the same area should be considered by any entity who's implementing it. So like again this comes down to like purview potentially recreational trail keeping that rec department focused parks can't lead a Greenway project theoretically, right? Like that's it's right away it's in the munis traffic department purview to lead happy to support we're here.
Social trail, right? Like who's going to go and build that? Is that something that the Muni goes and build if it's kind of through almost more of a parkland, is it something that, I mean traffic doesn't include build trails, right? So we're like directing people to it. So is that something that Parks and Rec department builds and could Parks and Rec like build that and prioritize it because of Neighbor Greenway and those connections and is this
Like for some reason the Greenway program has funding that could just go into it or I think there's tons of different ways we could do it. It could be put in a parks program, it can go part of this, our longer CIP process. It could be funded through a park foundation grant. Like there's tons of ways to do it. Yeah, I don't know that we have too many examples of other entities doing projects on our land without at least a project manager identified because things usually don't follow process and it goes south. I have some examples we won't talk about them here but yeah so
It seems like it's something that we would love to be part partners with parks department maybe even bring funding for it because Greenways has some pretty good funding with some of our traffic bonds. But so in that case I would like for some of those to be identified in this plan as being a priority. Even if it has a little note that says, you know, connect neighborhood greenways, you know, collaborate with funding, provide needed enhancements needs or something to that effect. Because I don't know anywhere else that that those would be, and so if it's shown as a low priority, how, how does, how do we know that anyway?
I feel like I think what I'm hearing is you're wanting projects on the list that end at your greenway to rise higher than they are or some of them are and I think the criteria we use to rank and sort of assign these broad categories were based on our CIP land ownership severity of need and connectivity and blanking on the hard one but I think there's like part components of this plan and why there's so much narrative in this plan is because we expect these other ideas to come forth as the trail system evolves and the on street system evolves. So yeah, a recommendation maybe in the system wide or in the implementation, but I can see it being if this, if a project connects to a greenway it should be,
Yeah I think adding an asterisk and just denoting that it does that on the project list is something that we can definitely accomplish and wouldn't be a significant impact. I think the broader category I kind of stated to change those based on its connectivity because this has been through the public process and our criteria were set however that doesn't, those broad categories aren't intended to limit when things get done. So just 'cause it's a low priority now but somebody gets a grant or somebody finds funding, no one, I mean wanna speak for the parks department but I don't think anyone's gonna say no if there's an opportunity to implement it sooner rather than later.
I would say ideally if it shows it as a higher priority, that would be ideal. Second would be if if because the public process that's not as realistic having some note that makes it clear that maybe it didn't score because of the criteria but it is a priority because of this connection point. And then the other thing that I would add in addition the greenway is some of the detour potential like where we have bridges that have failures are other like damaged. Like if
Some of those places we know that we might detour people, I don't know how much those are in here or not in here, but I can think of a couple bridges where, or this is the case and it would be great to know that okay there's work in place so that the detour doesn't have to go onto narrow sidewalks. You know like are we gonna have to use Tudor to cross the Campbell Creek trail that bridge goes at?
A bridge there that you know, you could go and not have to use tutor but those connections right now aren't like up to it. So if we had like some sort of connection or trail work that could be done, you know, those would be the other part that I guess I don't know if this plan accounts for as well where we need like a secondary connection point so that if we have, when we have, 'cause we are going to have bridge replacements that are needed, we don't have to route public that are using our main green belt trail onto like Lake Otis or Tudor to be able to cross our creeks and freeways.
I think that's good. I think I can't wait to live in a city where we can appropriately just use our existing sidewalk infrastructure without people 'cause it's safe. That's the city I look forward to living in. Thank you for your work on that you guys both 'cause I know you are working very hard and diligently towards that and so I think my recommendation would be like would love to get a list from like your guys about your green waste that we can just add it to our CIP scoring. So it's already there and it's an annual reoccurring thing so it's like yeah ma'am, this is what we're doing. Chelsea is on our CIP scoring so she helps us communicate with the PM&E level about improvements. So maybe that's something we can look into refining, but I think that there's a systems approach thing in addition to maybe a paragraph in the plan that can easily start building in this thing in a, in a way that's like if we fix the system, just go right to the system. Yeah,
And the trail system providing such an important desired opportunity and experience. Because really that's what we're talking about. You can make these detour connections, right? The facilities exist, you don't want to do it because it's not a comfortable experience that a recreational intended facility provides. That is a great use and an non motorized update of like what are these critical areas on our street network that are so uncomfortable that we need to prioritize these trail projects to ensure that we can avoid the area. And then secondarily, how do we fix the system to improve it So you don't have to choose what's often maybe a more indirect route on these, again, on these trails they're not intended to be A to Z direct. They're intended to provide an experience that people are choosing to commute on and enjoy what they do. So, so I'd love it for an update and a pairing of the two documents. I think that's a great, great change And then need we decides to pick it up Is that where we
And how the Yeah I mean according with parks, rec parks, rec department, some of these so that it could be elevated maybe above some of the Yeah, even if it's not shown in this plan as being a high priority. Yeah we know there's some urgent needs for so sounds good. Thanks. Those
I have a few more and I don't know if you guys had more comments about my comments but the CASA ones I had made some suggested narrative mostly because it's like when it talks about parks can't implement a project because the, it's outside of their service area. It has a difference between a city department on what we can do as long as we have money that funds something we could be tasked to implement, it could be delegated to do it if it fits it's you know, we have capacity between different departments. So that's why on a couple of these I suggested some different language. And then talking about CASA differently is, is what the mechanism of it being a funding mechanism. So on common 104 and 132 and one is the, is the park department page 130 only
There's one and it's very much beta and so I think what I think the way we have operated prior to CASA and it is strongly evidenced for a relationship with Eagle River is like we are tied to our service areas is pretty strictly. And I think with casa, because it was done as an act of the assembly and voters, it didn't have staff or people tied to it. So it's a little bit, I'm gonna use the word of a ghost again where it lives in PM&E as of now, but it hasn't been officially delegated. So I think it is a confusing thing and a thing for the plan to address is we can take a look at your comments. I haven't read them specifically but I
And, and there's two different areas. There's when you're implementing the capital project versus maintaining operational things in the future. So PME& although we mostly work off of, depending on what we're doing, if we get other area wide funding, we can work in that area time, get a grant. I can work in Girdwood, I can work in Birchwood. I even though so it doesn't squarely say staff within a department can only work in a particular area that you do operational things. So it's the implementation side that I'm mostly talking about. So
I guess I could say something along the lines of our operations are restricted to the funding, like the service area that they're funded by. So in theory we could get delegated CASA work, right? But as of now we have not been delegated that worker funded by it and yeah,
Totally. Yeah. But it, it comes into play like PM&E is normally working on road and drainage. If it, it came to be there was a trail link, liquid trail linkage that made sense that park's expertise had capacity, had the funding, they could be an implemented. So it's not just like hey we couldn't do it because it's not in our current boundary of we're aware we maintain things. That was my only distinction to
Okay. Yeah, like right now it, it kind of points to we can't do anything outside of our service area for an implementation. But anyways, maybe just look at that language a little bit clear and you know then when it, it follows on the page 132 as well. So same types of comments. I guess my other comment was kind of pointing back to AMATS and anything that you need help on as far as do you have everything that you need for further incorporation and prioritization if you need to pull these things into MTP or whatever that was, I wasn't sure because we do have some prioritization that the plan has done and then it also talks about the parks as as well as PM&E. They do their own details prioritization, you know, year after year. But when it comes to pulling any of these things into a plan, is there any, I just wanna make sure you guys are set up for success if there's any, gosh we, if we only had just this extra piece in here, I just wanted to give it one more shot at hearing from you guys as far as what we're saying.
So we, we probably would do the same thing with this is that people would need to nominate whether it's parks and rec members of the public, other muni people would need to nominate the project to us and we would score and rank it with the MTP criteria. So I think it's fine, they do whatever they need but at this point we're gonna have to rely on that nomination process just because it's impossible for us to develop a system for why we've only selected, like did you guys prioritize 'em based on score? So how many would we select for the MTP, the top five, the top 10, the top 20, 30. It becomes a little bit of a challenge for us as to how we would select those. How many of 'em we would select unless the policy committee tell us other. So I think we're fine for now.
So that we actually have a better way to strategically use municipal and safe and federal resources for non-motorized projects. 'cause right now it is so unclear to me as a policy maker how to strengthen our non, our non-motorized infrastructure. 'cause we don't have a map. Like we don't have anything that says here are the non-motorized arterials that we want to be sure are like intact, that are, that are comfortable for users that are, I mean we just don't have that in existence. And I don't know whose job that could potentially be. I don't know where the funding would need to flow for that. But like I'm, I'm about to the point of like begging for this to happen. Like, like tell me how much money you need and I will figure out where to make it happen because I, I feel like, like we, we keep circling back around with the same question. I'm like we don't have a good prioritization tool and we can have these fantastic plans and great aspirational documents but until we have a strategy we're so screwed. So anyway, I'm just reiterating my ask if it's, if it's somebody's department and you just need a staff person and $150,000 like fine. Like tell me what you need and I wanna make it happen so that we don't continue circling the same question like every four months. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
I can actually respond to that. AMATS staff is working on that right now. Emily is our non-motorized coordinator has been working on trying to develop some kind of system analysis to help determine primary and secondary routes basically. And that's something that can be fed into whatever the Muni wants to do in the future. 'cause I really think that muni in I, sorry to be blunt, that should be done by the muni and then to take that and incorporate it into our MTP and other documents because that helps to prioritize projects. We shouldn't be doing that for you guys. However staff is available and we have funding available for it. So we are trying to get the ball rolling on that and Emily's working on it. I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear this. It's a lot of work because one of the things Emily is trying to do is figure out what we actually have on the system right now. 'cause we don't have a good comprehensive system in place of what exists out there. There's a lot of confusing information of whether it is a pathway, a separated pathway, a trail, a sidewalk, a separated sidewalk, all that kind of stuff. So I think that's being worked on. It's a lot of work right now. Yes.
Just as a quick follow up? So to my point on page five, just please check 133, page 133 just to see how that was raised as far as ranking. But thank you everybody. I'm glad we had a chance to talk this through. There's a lot of, a lot of ideas and the big picture of getting our arms around everything I think would be lovely. But it's all good work. Not that I didn't have any comments, little nuts and bolts because I'm sure they're all good and important trail segments. So thanks for indulging me on my editorial stuff.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.