March 05, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Did I miss anyone? I, I can also read the public involvement announcement to save you having to worry about that. Erin, welcome to the EMS and Advisory Committee meeting. Public comments are welcome and encouraged with three minutes given to each speaker. After the committee discusses each item, members of the public will be invited to comment. For virtual attendees, please keep your cameras off unless speaking. And for those attending by phone, please press star six to mute or unmute yourself. Anything else need to be set on any of those? Aaron? Nope. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay, so next on the agenda is to approve the agenda. Do we have a motion for approving the agenda? Approve. Okay. Moved by Member Boland. Seconded by member Babb, are there any changes needed to the agenda? Okay, hearing no changes, are there any objections to approving the agenda? Hearing none, the agenda is approved. Next on the agenda are the meeting minutes for February 5th, 2026. Do we have a motion for approving the February minutes? Second. Okay. Member Beth moved. And we'll put member Koha as second. Are there any changes needed to the minutes?
I have a small item, I know this on the page nine where it noted me making a statement. I believe it might have been Taylor on where it talked about Trailhead access. Taylor, if that's not the case, I'm happy as as it stands. But I, I did wanna give you credit if, if that was indeed your comment anyways, I think. I think it was, yeah. Okay. So slight change from MK to TK on page nine. And I also echo the group's response on, on what a great job staff is doing, documenting all of those long discussions and comments made.
And, okay. Moved by member Kohlhase. Seconded by member Bollan. Is that enough details for Okay, are there any objections to that amendment? Hearing none. That amendment is included. Thank you for doing that up. Catching that. Are there any other amendments comments that are, that members would like to make? Okay. Hearing no additional changes or comments, are there any objections to approvals as amended? Hearing none. The February 5th, 2026 minutes are approved. Now on to action item five, a congestion mitigation air quality funding request. This one that you'll be managing. Aaron?
Yes, it will be. Thank you very much. So before you guys today is a letter requesting the use of the congestion mitigation air quality funding staff was made aware that there's about 18.6 million in available CMAQ funds that need to be obligated by FY 28 staff had been working internally with DOT staff to use that funding for the downtown transit center. There were some back and forth discussions and then it came back to us that we need an official request from Ammas for that funding to be sent to the commissioner of DOT. So this item is before you today outlining that request. I just wanna note that we're asking for all 18.6 million, but we do note we'll take any amount that is available to us. We recognize that the state has other needs that they wanna address with this funding as well. But any amount that they're willing to give us would go a long way in helping any difference between what we receive for the CMAQ funding and the cost of the project will be made up by AMATS, STGB, CRP or our own CMAQ funding. So it's before you today for review and staff's recommendation is to recommend to the policy committee approval. Thank you.
I had just one comment if, oh, go ahead. This is Bart again. I just wanna thank Aaron for leading this effort and moving this forward and appreciate the committee's support for the vote. You know, this is a big project for downtown would help with economic stability, and maybe repurposing the Sixth Avenue parking garage, any other partners that we might have at the transit center and of course make it really convenient for transit riders as well as major safety improvements for transferring buses. So just would appreciate everyone's support and thank you Aaron.
Any other questions or comments from the committee? Is there any comments from the public? I don't see anyone in the room, no hat on line. So we'll come back to the committee. What is the will of the committee? I move to recommend approval to the A policy committee to send this letter to DOT. This is Bart. Moved by member Rudolph. Second. Seconded by member Babb. Are there any amendments or discussion? Hearing none. Are there any objections to approving the motion? Okay, hearing none. The motion is approved.
You. Rhiannon Brown, MTP coordinator for AMATS. Before you, we have amendment two of the 2050 Metropolitan transportation plan as well, as well as the comment response summary. This went out for a 40 day public comment period. We received 21 comments based on the comments that we received. The amendment was not changed, but we did receive eight comments that we are requesting guidance from the technical advisory committee to review and make recommendations to the policy committee. Thank you.
Just a little bit on the comments that you're requesting guidance on. So the eight comments that we, that we received were all for the TNHS one project, Seward Highway, O'Malley to Diamond it was comments from Mike Anchorage PAC and then citizen expressing concerns for the project.
Any other questions or comments from the committee in terms of the O'Malley to diamond project? Were continuing to move forward on the stakeholder engagement in terms of revisiting the scope of that project. So I think a, an open-ended common response that it's still in process and going through public involvement. How we frame that in terms of an actual motion. So, so you're suggestion would be, that would be identified as one that's still undergoing outreach and the process of that, that that effort. Other questions or comments from the committee
I think I would like to see the analysis be further explored to understand, you know, is there really an OX lane needed on that project to address ramp weaving and safety. More analysis probably would be forthcoming if the project is further developed. And then also from interest that was expressed previously on revising the purpose and need I, I would like to hear more about from the public process about interest and ideas on connectivity in particular and serving non-motorized facilities. So for that reason I would be interested in keeping the project in the MTP so that the project can have more development to understand those both of those items.
Appreciate that. And in general, I think we're again moving forward with the stakeholder engagement stakeholder group right now. After we get done with that, there will be a public involvement portion. I'm sure we'll be back in front of Ammas talking about some of the recommended, you know, scope elements that to advance based on stakeholder engagement and then also further refinement with the public involvement process. So I think there's gonna be a lot of discussions on Mount Valley to dives. Okay. And looks like you have your hands up.
Yeah, I was just gonna echo kind of or something Luke mentioned. Maybe it would be good to have a request from the committee members to ask the project team to come present to the TAC & PC once they get a little bit more information. I understand that the project team will probably do that anyways, but it's helpful to have just something on the record that you guys would like them to come to you. Thanks.
I think in terms of my involvement, I was able to participate in a little bit or just listen in on the stakeholder engagement meeting that we had last Friday but wasn't able to stick around the whole time. I think we probably want a detailed response from the team if that's what we're going for. But again, I think we've got a lot of conversations to have here in the future and we'll be evaluating as we're going through this. So, other comment opportunities? So I guess with, with this not defined right now, I don't know how much benefit there is to going into the details here. And I know there was a lot of input received on Friday's meeting based on alternatives and I only be in less than a week out right now. I don't think the team has had an opportunity to fully digest that, but it's gonna take some time. So
I can comment that I am part of that group and was able to, I felt like it was open to expressing both concerns and perspectives. So do appreciate that the openness that there was there at the meeting this past week to express items and may be some things that are similar to what are in the comments. There's no decisions have been made yet. So it does seem a little bit, a little bit early to pull everything out when the process is still in process because I guess my comments as a member, not from the, but sitting this meetings and the, the auxiliary lane wasn't something that was a yes, this is gonna happen. It was just looking at, at some of the alternatives, albeit they did feel a little bit autocentric purpose and need.
Yeah, there, it, it doesn't mean that there weren't all the non-motorized elements discussed and those are some of the key comments that committee members mentioned. So, so I think there ongoing conversation, I don't think it was intended as these comments suggest to have no, like exclude outrage, like have lack of transparency. I think it was just trying to avoid misrepresentation. So those are I guess some, some things that I can speak of as a member seeing what these comments are and what was like at some of those meetings. Guess we'll see in my mind how plays out. But I do appreciate getting to be there and have those conversations that we've had. Are there other questions or comments from the committee? Okay, are there any comments from the public? Okay, I see one hand raised. Looks like William, if go ahead. You'll have three minutes will
Okay. This is Will Tegan with two edge mountain bike riders. We actually ha have been requesting a, if you look at the Glen, let me start back. If you look at the Glen Highway non-motorized routes all the way from Anchorage to MRO Lake Park, there is either a bike path or there is a side road that is available to non-motorized users. However, the short half mile between RI Lake Park and Thunderbird Andina, there is no alternate route. And we have members who commute into town going against traffic on the shoulder of the Glen Highway as well as no access for that Thunderbird Falls community to the park or the middle school. So we've been asking for an illustrative project from Thunderbird Falls to Tus Lane be inserted into the tip. However, that's not allowed because it's not currently in the MTP. So I'd just like some consideration during the amendment process if that would be possible to add that section to the MTP so it could be included in the tip. Thank you.
Yeah, that would be my recommendation is to get it on the record and you know, it would be an amendment to the motion itself, not necessarily to the MTP itself, to ask for the project team to come present on the project and to provide feedback on the comments we've heard from the public. That way we have a clear line of we heard from the public we're asking for more information, come give us that information so then we can kind of be aware as ammas what's going on with the project.
Question not timing. Is the expectation that we're gonna come pro meeting and have this discussion to resolve comments is this, after the stakeholder engagement is completed, we're entering it to more of an open public involvement discussion on the project? I guess my fear is that we're gonna tore project team diverted from stakeholder engagement coming in and answering questions from the lot. We don't know we can, we can forward it on 'em, we can, we can have the, the team do it, but I wanna make sure it has value when we have the answers that folks are looking forward.
My feeling is you may not have firm responses, but maybe just a status of what are the conversations that have been happening in this advisory committee so far so that it can be transparent. And then also recognizing the comments and then even if you didn't have a firm response, just show that you're listening to 'em and if you don't have a response that you're, that you've heard 'em and are considering what are the next steps. That's my understanding of what you could do instead of having a firm answer and waiting too long. Did that help?
But we're gonna have to have that with the revised scope that is generated by the, the outreach that's going on, right. That's gonna be comments that we're gonna receive through the process, I guess. I don't know, just, I worry that we bring the team and have them say, I don't know, we're looking into it and then they have to come back again and give the answers on, on the items a second time. I don't know, it just seems like we're, we're doubling off the effort on this without a whole lot of benefit in the near term.
So. So what's the next decision point that's coming to AMATS on this project? Oh, well I think, I think we're probably up for another MTP amendment on this would be my guess, right? Is when we get through stakeholder engagement, when we get through public involvement, we're gonna have a refined cost estimate that's going to go along with that. We'll have to get this back into the tip because it's not currently in the tip. I think, like I said, I, this is gonna come before amap multiple times here in the future and given a lot of the concerns and, and input received to date on this, I think we're gonna have to have a pretty robust presentation of these are the elements of the project we want to move forward. Here's the justification for it, here's the people that are supporting it or the reasons why we're including it. I don't know, there's, there's gotta be a lot.
So again, we, we can have the, the team come in and speak to these questions, but I think these questions play out in the next, you know, six, 12 months very publicly in front of us. So is having the project team when they come, when, when those decisions are before this body and be able to address and answer these questions, is that even if that's, you know, six months or years later, is that too long or do you do promotion to happen and give some insight into the process now even if they don't have answers as far as like some of these specific questions
From my review of the comments, I am noticing a sense of frustration as far as kind of early stakeholder involvement. I think having the team come earlier so that there can be more input of, of forming and shaping the scope with this new purpose and need, I think it would just help guide understanding of what are the stakeholders interested in. So in my, in my per, from my perspective, I think coming early and then maybe coming again wouldn't hurt. I don't know it's anybody else the same way? Yeah, a second. I would support that.
I guess looking at the milestones, I'd like to get through the stakeholder working group process here and I don't know how much longer we've got on that, but kind of get through that, that stage and bring it back to this group at that point in time as opposed to answering questions that may or may not apply to scope elements that may or may not be included and crash data for something that doesn't, I don't know, is there an open house coming up? There will be a public meeting associated with this project. Yeah, I don't know all the different pieces of outreach that we're planning on this one specifically, but that'll, that'll be a portion of the project. Do we want, I mean one option would be to leave it up to the policy committee to determine timing and, and request DOT to come with a proposed time for them to come back. That would give two weeks and still is that, is that reasonable? Does that kind of mean what you're intending on that?
That's fine. Right. Are there any objections to the amendment? Okay, hearing no objections, that amendment is now included. So we have the main motion before us. Are there any other discussion or amendment, amendments, the hearing? None. So our motion is to recommend approval of amendment two of the 2050 MTP to the policy committee with the request that DOT provide presentation addressing the O'Malley road or suite highway Mall road, a Diamond Boulevard project and a request that the policy committee consider the timing and that it be sooner rather than later that they address the comments on the project. Okay. So that's hopefully capture that fully. And are there any objections to approving the motion as amended? Okay, hearing none, that motion is approved. We'll move on to item 5 C, the 2023 to 2026 program or TIP amendment number 4 that err?
Yep, this is me. Hello everybody. Thank you. And just remember I'm a little sick so I apologize if things are a little short and to the point. So we have amendment number four before us for the 23 through 26 tip. As you may recall, it came before you a few months ago to release for public comment. We put it out for a 45 day public comment. We did receive 40 public comments that we reviewed and addressed as part of our comment response summary. Most of the comments were support for comment for projects in there or requesting clarification from Amen staff. They were a couple of carry forward comments or concerns regarding project delays. Now as part of the amendment, there were four changes that came up during the comment period that we have had to put back out for a public comment period because they meet the amendment level threshold.
So the amendment level threshold is adding a new project, deleting a project or a project cost change of 50% or more of the total project cost in the tip. So I'm gonna go through those four changes really quickly so you know what they are, they are highlighted in yellow on the memo for anyone who's interested. So the first one is the Campbell Creek Trail. Great and separated crossing at Lake Otis after some internal discussion with DOT and Muni and the project team staff's recommending that the project be adjusted to remove the limitation of it being a grade separated crossing only and give more flexibility to the project team to make it a just a general crossing of Lake Otis. There has been some work done by the project team to show that there are some pretty significant right of way impacts if we do an overcrossing.
So right now the recommendation is to get an at grade crossing done and then as time goes on, work with everybody on an over grade crossing. So as redevelopment occurs, work with the muni in the area. I understand this is not desired by most people, but I think it's better to get something done than nothing. And in the era of impacts to housing, we are not really recommending having to do imminent domain and take housing from the area. Next change is plans and studies. The sewer de Glen PEL needs $200,000 for work that has already been done, not new work. And so we had to adjust the tip to add this project back in as it was removed in amendment two I believe because there was no funding for the project so we had to add it back in and show the $200,000 for the funding in FY 26.
Next is in the table seven HSIP project. We have the new tutor road at Wright Street and Dale Street Vulnerable Road user improvements. So pretty excited about this. This is one of the projects that was added back in as part of the revised HSIP funding program that DOT recently updated. We're really appreciative of this project being added back in. It was one of the projects that Ammas nominated. So we're very excited to see this project moving forward and greatly appreciate DOT's consideration and change for this one. And then the last project is under the table 10 other federal. So this is a new project that DOT requested be added in it's Radio Tower Road. The North Fork Campbell Creek culvert replacement DOT was able to secure funding for this replacement and they need it added to the tip. So we're pretty excited for that as well.
So we put those four projects out for a 15 day public comment period. That comment period ends March 9th and we will have any responses from the public provided to the policy committee. I understand that we will not have them ready for you today, but we will make sure to keep you in the loop as we receive those comments So you can see what staff's responses are. So this item is before you, the recommendation is to approve the amendment number four and the air quality conformity demonstration. There's a slight error in the memo where it just says the amendment number four, but we need the air quality conformity demonstration approved as well. So please make sure that you do that as part of the amendment or as part of your motion or we will have some problems. I do wanna note that there is a change that was provided to me just a couple of days ago and it is for the 32nd Avenue upgrade project.
There was some changes caught as part of amendment or admin mod number five where the termin I was incorrect for the project because we used to have it be 32nd and lowest but the lowest portion was removed 'cause the munis working on that and we just forgot to update the termin I successfully. So we changed that as part of admin mod number five. You won't see it reflected in here because this was posted before we were able to make all the changes, but don't worry we've caught it. However, there is another change that's being requested and there's a sentence in there that says to upgrade 32nd Avenue from Benson Boulevard to Lois to current collector standards, the request is to remove that current collector standards from the description. The reason is the project is being designed as a local road, not as a collector road. I think with all of the changes that have happened with this where we had Lois and then it was removed, that was missed as well. So staff's recommending that we remove that small section of the project description. Let's see. I believe that is all I had, so thank you very much.
Okay, are there any questions or comments from the committee? Excuse me, point of information Chair, Member Damoud is online. I don't now exactly when he joined. Okay let the record show that Member Damoud joined at 1:39 or before. And Bart, you have your hand raised. Do you have a question or a comment? Bart? Yes, sorry. Thank you. Also a pro proposed change that we have from transit that was not part of the original amendment that went out is, and I'll make either an amendment to whatever motion or if we can include it in the motion. That's why I bring it up now is we have a project in the CMAC table for youth and seniors to ride free. We, we were informed a while ago that this is not an eligible project for FTA funding or the CRP funding and we cannot use it for that. Meanwhile, the, the administration and the assembly has stepped up to fund youth ride free and they've added an extra day for seniors to ride free. So this project's no longer needed. We're gonna propose to move all that funding from 23, 24 and 25 into the Downtown Transit Center project for FY 2026. So I just bring that up as information and I am happy to make that amendment when we get there.
Okay, thank you. What is that project number? Project number CMAQ 00015. Okay. Other questions or comments? Number white. So we've, we've got another project that I can make an amendment to, but it's on table eight. It's NHS 0006. This is the Glen Highway milepost 134 Rehabilitation Airport Heights to Parks Highway. Talking to the project team, we're going to, we're gonna need to add 3 million in design for FY 26 to try and wrap this up and get it ready for construction. And moving on to the next steps in project development. Other questions or comments from the committee?
I have a comment, potential at grade crossing it a really good, okay. I I just wanted to say that I'm excited to see that change an issue at that spot for non modernized crossing for a long time and it would be great to be able to work something out there that works. So for pedestrians and cyclists in the short term wellbeing are working on, I, I appreciated the, the flexibility in, in changing that language.
Okay, thanks. Are there other questions or comments from the committee? One question that I have is on table five where there is sort of adding new projects for the downtown transit center, if the CMAQ funding request is granted, what, what's the process gonna be in regards to how, how the funding like decision made, will that be something that might come back at a future admin mod or amendment or like how are we gonna manage that piece?
Yeah, so we're staff's recommendation at this point is to change it all to AMATS funding right now if at a later date we receive the state CMAQ money, we will just do a quick admin mod and bring it back to the TAC and policy committee when we can get that done in a pretty short timeframe. DOT has been working very diligently to make sure our admin mods are approved in a quick time and we really appreciate that. So it should only be like a month, month and a couple of weeks. So it's, it's not anything we should worry about at this point.
Okay. And then my other question was the Northern Lights and Ingra Gambell Road Diet project HSIP were removed. Were those moved to the next tip? I'm trying to remember. Or were those like landing right now and is there anything we need to be like ready for that does move forward
Are there other questions or comments from the committee? Okay, are there comments from the public? Go ahead. You'll state your name and your three minutes. Yeah. Alex Reed. DOT Chief on Environmental. There's another highlight here for Highland on table eight. I just wanna make sure that's important for, that was discussed. We get to the amendment, tackle that as Okay. Thank you. Alex, are there other questions? Are there other comments I should say from the public? Okay, I don't see any hands online. I no one in the room. What is the will of the committee and I guess before we do a motion, can, can it be a joint motion to include the air quality conformity, the determination, is that the right word or is it decision?
Okay. What is the will of the committee to recommend to the policy committee approval of the 20 to 23 to 26 funding program? Tip amendment four is air quality conformity demonstration. Perfect. Moved by member Boland. Do we have a second? Second by member Babb. Are there any, any discussion or amendments start? I'd like to offer an amendment Go ahead. Bar move to amend the CMAQ table on project CMAQ 0 0 0 1 5. All the funding from fiscal year 20 23, 20 24, 20 25 into Project CMAQ 0 0 0 1 8 Downtown transit center for fiscal year 2026. We have a second Seconded by member Bab. Any discussion on On that amendment? On the amendment? Okay are any, has anyone opposed that amendment? Okay, hearing none, that amendment is incorporated into the motion you have other amendments or discussion? Go ahead member wood. So Aaron, I may need some help because I think trying to get to the Glen highway Highland interchange that we had mentioned, it is highlighted in the tip amendment and I do see it in the memo but I'm trying to do real fast math here to see if everything matches in the memo that's also in the spreadsheet. This is NHS 0 0 1 0.
It should match, I think it was just an error on my part. It shouldn't be highlighted in the document in the tip tables. Okay, so that was, that was my fault. I apologize. But it should match, I guess somebody check, we can check between now and the policy committee to make sure that everything is a hundred percent okay. I'll just let you know we're kind of getting bombarded with these changes last minute so we may just want to verify everything before we bring it for final approval at the policy committee. Thanks.
And I think we will make sure that everything that we do in table paid DOT works with staff to make sure that we've got the right numbers before it goes to policy. But I'd like to amend table eight project NHS 0006 to the Glen Highway one to 34. We need to add 3 million into FY 26. And I'm assuming this is gonna be NHPP. There's a possibility it could be AC Aaron but I, I know it's gonna be NHPP flavor of some kind.
Yeah. Okay, so that's amendment by Member White, seconded by Member Bowland. Do we have any discussion on that amendment? Anyone opposed to that amendment? Agreed. Not opposed that amendment is now incorporated into the motion. Any other amendments or discussion? Okay, hearing no other amendments or discussion, is there any anyone opposed to approve the motion? Oh Aaron, you got your hand raised. Sorry.
With the two current collector standards. Let get strike correct. S Okay. Motion by member KOAs. Amendment by member Oloff. Do we have a second? Second by member ba. Any discussion on that? Okay, is anyone opposed to that amendment? Okay that one there is no opposed to that amendment also gets incorporated into the motion. Thanks Erin for helping us catch that. Are there any other discussion or amendments used? Okay, see? None. Are there any opposed to the motion as amended? Seeing none opposed that motion as amended as passed. We'll now move on to item five D 2027 to 20 to 2030 funding program tip.
Hello everybody, it's me again. So we have our new funding program, the 27 through 30 tip. Pretty excited about this as our current one ends here shortly. So really moving forward trying to get this done early so it is in place in plenty of time before the end of the fiscal year so we can keep projects moving forward. We put this out for a 45 day public comment period. Pretty exciting too because we did get about 70 comments on this item, which is good for us in our approach. Of those 70 comments, 33 of them were for showing support for projects in the program, which is pretty significant that that many of the comments are in support of what we have in the program. So I really wanna thank everybody for their effort on this. I think it's a really good job and I hope that everybody feels that we are trying to be responsive to what we hear from the public and our agency partners.
There were some comments that we did not recommend carrying forward or changing to the amendment. It was mostly regarding comments that we received on adding a new project in and it is a pathway along Eagle River Road from mile high to orner. I apologize if I say that incorrectly. The reason for this is that road is pretty tight as is. There's not a lot of right way. You have a cliff on one side and a mountain side on the other. So doing any kind of work in there is gonna be challenging. We as Ammas funded an effort years ago as part of the non-motorized or the spike and ped plans to implement some improvements on this road. And I think all we could come up with were shoulders at the time because of the impacts. So staff is not recommending putting this project into the tip due to the cost and impacts.
However, if there is a desire to do something, then staff's recommendation is to look at funding a study later down the road. If funding is freed, maybe we can put in the illustrative category on what can be done on this road, what are the challenges, you know, what are the pitfalls we need to be aware of and then maybe some solutions moving forward. It might be a good way to get some info and at least have that available in case anybody is wanting to know why we're not doing the project or if in the future we wanna move forward with one. Outside of that we don't really have any changes to the tip or tip 27 through 30 at this time based on public feedback. I do wanna note something. All of the changes that are being made as part of amendment number four that reflect new projects or project descriptions.
So for example, the 32nd Avenue project that you just changed, those will be updated as part of a, as part of the 27 through 30 tip once it's approved. If it's approved by the policy committee. The reason it's not updated right now is 'cause amendment number four has not been approved by the policy committee. So I cannot preempt what the policy committee is going to be doing. So just rest assured we will make sure we capture all of those changes as part of the final approval of the 27th through 30 tip. Now this item is before you and again there is a slight error in the action requested. I apologize, I was gonna race out to my vacation and messed up a little. The requested action is to approve the narrative, the air quality conformity demonstration and the 27 through 30 tip. So all of the items that were posted to the agenda. One thing I wanna note right now, you may notice in the tip narrative that we have performance measures and targets in there and that they're all blank at this time. That's because we're in a new cycle of setting targets and we are not in the 27 year at this moment, but we will be soon. So we'll be updating that narrative as those targets are established. So if anybody has any questions about that, I'm happy to help answer. That's all I had. Thank you.
I have a very small item and it may be captured once they update the table, but in a narrative on page 14 where it says Third avenue a signal and lighting project, the title would change to the new title that was amended previously with Third Avenue reconstruction. Very small change, just flagging it.
We'll go ahead and capture it. So thank you. At least it's on the record here at this point. You're more than welcome to do an amendment if you want to make sure that it's not lost or anything. But I have written it down as to make sure to review all that we were going to anyways. But it's a good reminder. Thank you.
Hey, I really appreciate the recommendation for the Eagle River Road extension from mile High to a ryner as being included as illustrative as a analysis of non-motorized, adding non-motorized facilities to that. And I would really welcome the committee following up on that recommendation and making an amendment and recommendation to the policy committee. Thank you.
Okay, thank you Will. Are there any other members of the public who would like to comment Who? Okay, see no one in the room and no hands. What is the will of the committee? Alright, I can take a stab at this. We're gonna make a recommendation to move the TIP narrative, the 27 through 30 TIP narrative, air quality conformity determination to the policy team to a policy committee for approval and move by Member White Do we have a second?
Okay, that amendment from member, does it have a second, second Amendment member back. Are there any approach or any discussion on that amendment? Anyone opposed to having that amendment be incorporated? Okay, hearing none that amendment has been incorporated into the motion. Are there any other amendments or discussion? Not before.
Sorry. That's all right. Okay, any discussion on the amendment? Any, anyone opposed to that amendment? Okay, hearing none, that amendment also is incorporated in the motion. Any other discussion or amendments? Okay, hearing no discussions. Are there any opposed to approving the motion as amended? Okay, hearing none. That motion is approved. That gets us through our action items. Thank you everyone. And now we'll move on to our information items. First one is six a equal mover transit on the move presentation and I'll turn it over to staff. Okay. Lemme share my screen. Acceptable. I would check with staff. I don't see any problem with us. Are you signed? Yeah, you can share your screen Steven. Great.
Okay, coming up online. Hi everybody, my name is Steven. I'm the transit planner for People Mover. And if you've heard this already, forgive me for those of you who might have heard it more than one time, but here we are. So Transit on the Move is the public Transportation's department's guiding document, somewhat like a tip or an MTP, but it doesn't get amended. This plan was developed in 2019 and published in 2020 for the first time. And it gives us a prioritized list of projects to work on as a department for all three entities, for people mover, for anchor rides, and for our ride share program. So a prioritized list of projects in the current transit on the Move 2020 plan gave us Route 85. It gave us a transit security department, a contracted services. It gave us an outreach coordinator, a fair study, multiple things that the public identified back then pre pandemic that we should be working on as a department for all three entities that has gotten us to this point.
So we are updating transit on the move now we're into 2025. So the paper that I passed out and the second link that I put in the chat for those of you online is a summary of what we did last summer at our public involvement process. Basically asking the public in 75 different events what you value in public transit services. The three options that were defined in the 2020 plan were accessibility, reliability, and convenience. And that basically means access. Do we provide services where the need is on roads that people need to travel on, destinations people need to get to.
Convenience is how often buses come by. So the frequency of our routes, are they beneficial for you at 60 minutes or are they more beneficial at 15 minutes? Reliability is, can you depend on the bus to show up when we schedule it? So 75 events we covered from chugiak down to KI Village south of Huffman Business Park all across the municipality last summer. And that gave us the skipped through these. There's a delay, sorry. Okay, so the paper again, the pie chart is 36% of people said that we need to prioritize adding more bus service on roads that do not have buses. So adding access to the community, which could come in many forms and I'll get to those examples in just a a minute or two. 26% said we need to increase our frequency or focus on that. And 26% said reliability on the backside of your paper is a more detailed description of why people said they chose what they chose.
So 1500 plus survey respondents through last summer's public involvement. And then the details are kind of on the back at a high level of I chose accessibility because X, Y, or Z here or there. The, the 12% of others, the majority of them chose that because they couldn't choose between the three main priorities for us. So they felt like we should do all three in which we do. So I won't go through those slides here with you 'cause we're, I'm on the clock, we're short on time and I want to get you through things. So we consolidated all of the projects, ideas, the suggestions, the comments people said we would love bus service to go down these roads or down this roads. And right now we're in our final phase of this project where we have yet another survey asking people to prioritize the new set of projects that have been identified carried over from the 2020 plan or added from the comments that we heard all summer or comments that we've heard over the past five years.
The one on screen you're looking at is a route concept that would be provide service from downtown Transit Center through the Government Hill Gate and onto J Bear property. It would either end at the VA clinic, which is would connect people to our, our other routes 25 and 92. Or it could end at the Richardson gate on D Street. So we have heard for many years that people would love transit access to get onto base for hospital pharmacy, the base exchange for other reasons. So this is one route proposal as an expansion of service to give people that access that they do not currently have. The next one. Okay, few second delay. So this this another route concept. This is in the 2020 plan. It was the next route we were going to implement. So should this be ranked high enough on our new priority list, it will continue.
We'll continue to work on it. But this basically adds service in North Mountain View down Bonface Parkway through Ummed across 36th Avenue, which was taken away. Service was taken away in 2017. The redesign, we've heard a lot of comments from the past decade that people need bus service on 36th Avenue. It adds service a little bit further south on C Street to the neighborhood health center. And they have also advocated four years for bus service. They currently get a lot of their folks from anchor rides trips and then that this route idea would go out to the airport. So people said we want an east west connector. We want to get from either North Mountain View or Muldoon to the airport without having to transfer twice. It's very cumbersome if you're traveling to the airport with bags and kids and whatever, you don't wanna get off the bus and wait for another one, get off that one and wait for a third one.
So I won't walk through every single route idea, but I just want to say there are projects carried forward from 2020 into 2025 that we hadn't gotten to yet. There are regionwide projects that are added to this version. If the Seward Glen Pell is adopted in the future years, we have projects in here to help mitigate some of that congestion. The map on the right side of the screen shows an express route from diamond to downtown up C street corridor. That would help alleviate some of the north south traffic off the Glen, off the Seward, off Ingrid Gamble that buses could travel every 10 minutes in this type of scenario. There's also a bus rapid transit idea that would connect Ummed and downtown at very frequent service, seven to 10 minutes. Again, getting people to major facilities, major medical centers campus through 36 and up in gamble.
If the road diet happens, if all those things align, this could also help those situations. So the other things that I wanna briefly talk about is Microt Transit. This was introduced in the 2020 plan and we're updating this version to promote and present five different zones of micro transit to the community with the goal of implementing one of these zones in this calendar year or early 2027. So there are five zones that we're presenting. The two on the screen is Southwest Anchorage and on the left side is Midtown. There's a northeast version and then there's two in Chugiak and or Chugiak and Eagle River combined. So on the right side is just an Eagle River micro transit zone. And on the left replaces an old route idea on the Birchwood Loop road, which structurally would be very challenging to build a fixed bus route out there because of of the road capacity ditches, we don't, there's pedestrian infrastructure challenges, all of that stuff.
So the idea is to still provide a transit service but not in a fixed route capacity. So Micro transit works as an Uber and Lyft type of service. So app based and door to door service as opposed to in smaller vehicles like a paratransit vehicle. So 88 accessible Lyft equipped vehicles that can travel within a geographic zone. They can't travel outside of that. So it's either intended to connect you to a bus route or many bus routes or it gives you the access to travel within that geographic zone to wherever you need to go. If that's to a friend's house, if that's to shopping, to a medical appointment, wherever it is. So the Midtown one specifically would add transit access in some capacity to the hotels along C Street that don't have a bus route to the neighborhood health center. If the other new route expansion doesn't come through in time.
Southwest Anchorage version would add a lot of transit access to folks that don't live near anywhere near a bus route south of Diamond, mostly west of the Seward Highway and old Seward where we don't have fixed route bus service. This one would also add access to the zoo, which doesn't have any fixed route or any type of transit services there. And then there are again, so new route ideas carried over projects and the new services type, the express type or the micro transit type of transit services. And then there's alignment changes. So we could realign our current routes or extend our current routes. We have heard from the community that folks in Chugiak and Eagle River would like our current Route 92 to start further north and a parking ride in North Birchwood, south Birchwood before it makes its way into town. That's one method of having folks get out of their single occupant vehicle and ride a bus into Sovia Clinic to Commons or downtown.
So those types of things. Our survey and our public involvement part ends April 26th after the transportation fair. So we are going to still continue to be at community council meetings and any other type of event we can get into over the next seven weeks. I was at Hillside last night and we'll be at others in the coming seven weeks. So if you know of, of an event that you would like us to present this at, I'm all ears. We were, we were happy, we are happy to be in any type of event to get the word out for this. This will guide us through at least 2030. So getting us to a new set of priorities based on public input to guide us for the next five-ish years before we update it. But I don't even want to think about, so I'm, hopefully I'm under time and happy to take questions if that's okay. And if not, thank you for having me. Okay, thanks Dean. Are there questions or comments from the committee? Could
Planned? Okay. We are, we've been working on the idea for a few years. The current 2020 version has two different places that it was presented. We've expanded that this time. So it's, we're currently seeking funding and Bart can chime in if I'm getting any of this wrong. We're seeking federal grants to operate a pilot project in this calendar year or early 2027. And based on what the community says of these five zones that we've presented, again based on community input, where we will launch that service in either the bowl or in river. Does that answer your question?
Does that use some of your current fleet vehicles, maybe anchor rides vehicles or maybe things that aren't used all the time but are waiting for other service? Does it integrated? Great question. It can it if it is contracted with the same with our current paratransit contractor MV software aligning that could happen that they folks could share our microt transit ride with a paratransit person if they're going in the same direction and the vehicles could be shared in that capacity. But we are also seeking, I believe, or again, correct me if I'm wrong, a grant to cover through purchasing three new vehicles for Microt transit. So they could be branded specifically for that. Decaled got a thumbs up. So yeah, it could be a combination of both. Yes, or it could be separate.
Other questions or comments from the committee? The question I had is how do you manage base access? So I've talked to some folks at other transit agencies in Tacoma and in Honolulu that have had transit access on military installations across the country for decades. So there, what they have said is you have to have either a citizen's id d bids ID or military retired, some kind of card that is accepted by the current gates, how they operate their current security methods scannable or go in. So the way Honolulu Transit does it is the bus, there is a bus stop at the gate, kind of a pullover area. Somebody gets on and scans people's IDs and if you don't have it, if you forget it, if you're not allowed on base and you have to get off the bus there and then either walk away or wait for the outbound version of that bus to get back to wherever you were going.
Same thing in Tacoma for Pierce Transit. They have, they have a micro transit route that goes on base and they have a fixed route bus that goes on base. So it's, you go through the same security lines that everybody else does. Timing wise, scheduling wise, things can get complicated. If you have a full bus in 40 something, people need to get their IDs checked. But so on time performance is calculated a little differently for those types of things. But same security procedures that our staff would have to have as well, drivers would have to have go through the processes to get a approved pass to, to be allowed on base, to be allowed to drive the vehicle on base. And I've done that as a personal former job for tourism companies. As a civilian, I've had a dvids ID that allows me to drive troops on base, but it is done here currently with other ways, just not with transit. Other questions or comments from the committee? Okay. Other, are there any comments from the public? Okay, go ahead.
Yeah, just wanna note that 36 bus service is something that I hear about pretty frequently from constituents. And so I'm really delighted that that is on the list of new routes to consider. The micro transit is especially salient as we're looking at just the expansion of so many hospitality options in Midtown. So I'm, I have high hopes whether, I mean obviously selfishly I hope that lands in Midtown, but I, I really high hopes for that as a proof of concept the way we could, you know, allow more folks to have more consistent and flexible access to really critical locations in, you know, certainly in ed and then up that, you know, sort of 36 corridor. So yeah. Thank you. Thank you for doing this really important work and gathering community feedback. It, it matters.
Sorry. Go ahead. Microt transit is, is done in most cities across the US in the lower 48 and done pretty successfully as a first last mile connector or just a, a general access one where buses can't go physically, un curvy, windy roads or any of those types of con physical or physical constraints. Yeah. Are there any other comments from the public? Okay. Thank you so much for your presentation. I appreciate you coming and explaining everything to us. Alright, next informational item is the 32nd Avenue project presentation. And it looks like, okay, just yeah, state your name and well thanks. I'm Travis Holmes. I'm the DOT project Manager for the EMS 32nd Avenue Upgrades Project. And this is Dave Gamma from Associates. He's our consultant project manager. And Dave's gonna give you a presentation on what design work has been done so far and kind of what public outreach efforts we've done. Thanks, Travis. Dave Gamez with Marine Associates consultant Project manager DOT is leading this project in the association with the municipality. This is a municipal food and maintained road 32nd Avenue between Minnesota and Lois Drive. The funding agency is Ammas and our representatives from Ammas are Emily, Emily Weiser and Aaron Jongenelen name on the project. Next slide.
The project description, it is, it, it's description. It's to reconstruct 32nd avenue between Minnesota and Lois to improve safety and reduce future maintenance, maintenance costs by upgrading the roadway, non-motorized drainage and light facilities as kind of previously discussed in that tip amendment. This was part of a bigger project of municipal project municipal with Lois Lois Drive. It was separated out as a an individual project in the tip. One of the challenges when it was a a municipal project were the overhead utilities on the north side of the road. That project was looking at improving the non-motorized connectivity between Lois and Minnesota. And those overhead utilities really did complicate the, the types of typical sections that could be looked at on that project. So our project is considering undergrounding these overhead utilities in order to utilize the full width of the right of way to make the improvements. Our current schedule we're in preliminary design. We kicked off September 25 last year. We're looking at identifying, identifying a preferred alternative for the project this spring and moving to an environmental document August of this year, moving into final design towards the end of this year into 2027 and construction in summer of 2028. Excellent.
So our summary of public involvement to date, we've met with a, a number of public stakeholder stakeholders and agency stakeholders from November up until our open house February 24th, a couple weeks ago. We're meeting with AMS TAC and the policy committee this month and we will be meeting with the Spenard Community Council later this summer. But we are working on setting up a, a meeting with the Spenard Transportation Spenard Community Council Transportation Subcommittee here within the next month or so. So that is in the works to discuss this project. Existing conditions on the road, it was constructed in the seventies. It's an, it's a strip paved about 20 feet wide. The pavement is in pretty poor condition throughout the, the project length. There's limited storm drain facilities only on the east end of the project. There are also limited non-motorized facilities on the north side from Aquarion Charter School west to, to lowest drive. There are no non-motorized facilities to the east of Aquarion Charter School and there is limited congestion here during peak pickup and drop off hours at aquarium charter school area.
So this is a, a role plot that we took to the open house and just want to distinguish the three segments of the, of, of the project that we're looking at. We've got the west west end with the intersection at lowest drive. As mentioned, there's a, a lowest drive project, a municipal led project that's currently at 95%. And this project will tie into that project. We're looking at a couple of our alternatives here. Essentially a mini roundabout or a four-way stop at that intersection. And then there's the west segment in front of aquarium charter school where we have 60 feet from the south southern right of way up to the property line of aquarium charter school that we're looking at making improvements there. And then the east segment, so the Anchorage Sands apartments on the north side there, there is only 30 feet of right of way available in that area.
So on the next slide you'll see some of the typical sections that we've worked with our agency stakeholders to narrow down and look at what we can reasonably fit within the right of way here. The first of these options are a 31 foot street width back curb to back of curb, which includes non-motorized facilities on both sides of the road. So this is for that west segment in front of aquarium charter school with a path eight foot pathway on the north side and a five foot pathway on the south side. And then buffer space between the back of curb and the non-motorized facilities. And you'll notice here in, in both of these views here, that the, the overhead utilities are undergrounded in order to fit both roadway and non-motorized improvements. The overhead utilities must be undergrounded. There's also the potential to add enhanced, an enhanced shared roadway shares here so that cyclists can cycle on the street.
It's a, a local road with a a low speed. So this, it would fit that context. And this typical section, it does not preclude on street parking. So for example, if parents wanted to pick up or drop off on the north side of the street, they could utilize that three and a half feet of, of shoulder uns stripped shoulder width in order to, to pick up or drop off. So this, this is for the west, west end. Next slide gets us to the east side in front of, in front of the acreage set sand apartment. We only have 30 feet of available right of way width here. So it is a constricted right of way. We're looking at a 24 foot width typical section here from back of curb to back of curb. So essentially two 10 foot lanes in order to be able to fit a five foot sidewalk on the south side of the road.
But then there's also the, the possibility that we may require a strip acquisition on the south side in order to fit lighting. 'cause the project is also looking at including lighting as well. And then the south we're also weighing this other DCM criteria option that is a bit wider. It does provide, you know, two, two way access for vehicles. Also provides non-motorized facilities, but sidewalk facilities. So five foot sidewalks and then dedicated on street parking lane. This obviously does come with its challenges with snow removal and buffer buffer space is a, is a priority as we did here in our, our public outreach.
And so summary of the high level feedback and stakeholder engagement that we've done, the feedback that we've received from the public, the public generally supports an improvement that upgrades the roadway and drainage facilities and add lighting, accommodates, motorized and non-motorized users. So we, we've received general support for that. The school is supportive of improvements out here as well, but their main concerns are potential impacts to parking and circulation for the school. Winter maintenance and snow storage is a priority as I mentioned on the previous slides that this, the existing 20 foot road tends to narrow down in the winter. So having spots to snow to to store that snow in the wintertime is, is a high priority. And then we did receive some agency stakeholder feedback regarding consideration for making part or all of 32nd avenue a one way street. This is outside of the scope of our current project. It would expand that scope, the schedule and would necessitate looking at the neighborhood, the traffic in the neighborhood and how, how folks would reroute their trips if it were were to be a one week. So with that, open it up to any questions or comments you might have for the property. Okay, thanks David. Travis, are there any questions or comments from the committee?
Yeah, so that's a 35 and a half foot width street segment. It, it would include 11 foot lanes in either direction and dedicated space shoulder width to allow for, you know, essentially dedicated on street parking. Is that showing the DCM standard? Is that what that's showing? Yes. Yeah, that's something that's being considered for this, but just, it's just something that we're screening against other alternatives. So in
Well yeah, if you were doing this on the east segment, absolutely you'd have to take right of away, this would fit in the west segment. But you are giving up buffer space between the, the back of the, the curb and the sidewalk. So there's, there's a trade off there that's a narrower sidewalk as well. Yeah, narrower sidewalk. So eight instead of an eight foot pathway, the five foot sidewalk on the layout view is the top typical section what's being shown on the east side? Yes. Yep. On the layout view, the roll plot, we showed a typical section that would fit, you know, essentially back of curb to edge of sidewalk within the right of way in terms of right of way acquisition. Looks like we've got some houses that are really close there on the south side. Yes. Parking there for the apartment complex on the north, I guess feasibly without impacting structures, how much right of way could be acquired?
So feasibly, like you said, there's a very tight right of way on the south. The house is a very close, there is some space on on the north with the apartments. They do use that space on the north side to roll up into and park in front of the apartment building there, but they do have enough space right now for back to back parking, so two, two cars back to back. So there, there may be some, some opportunity to balance between the north and the south to be able to fit the lights. And the other option would be to, you know, for the lights to notch out right of way just to have a rectangle square for them rather than doing a full strip.
Yeah, so as far as our original scope on this project, our, our scope was to look at the existing and upgrading existing facility, which is a two, two-way, two directional street to go to one direction. You're now having to look at, we would have to assess the impacts of how people reroute their trips and essentially it could, there, we'd have to look at the, the nearest signal, which would be up at Lois and see if there's any, any changes to timing or anything that would need to be done there or upgrades to other roads to provide that, you know, couple it, that would be either out or in in the other direction. So folks are gonna reroute their trips, you know, if you, if you make that road one way, one way road,
Well you know, if you're going one way in or one way out, you know, vehicles are having to change that trip to a different road in order to access that particular area. We have, our study area encompasses essentially from Lois to Minnesota, so our traffic and safety analysis encompasses that in order to understand what impact going to one way here we'd have to go a little bit wider. I have a question on that is, is there any requirement that you would have to expand a traffic analysis? Is there something that says a certain decision maker says this is required or is that more your judgment in, you know, in my experience working on, you know, a traffic upgrade like this, if we're, if we've got traffic going in two directions and we're going to one, we'd have to assess that impact. But you know, it's, it's, this is municipal owned road and the municipality ultimately makes the, the decision whether on what to do with the facility. But yeah, we typically would look at traffic and safety impacts regionally if we're, we're changing, changing the trip patterns.
I'm just interested in that particular section next to the apartment buildings because you're, you're dealing with a situation where you have the school where you, you have potential pedestrian traffic that's short people walking around in that area and two-way use of the, the vehicle lanes potential parking if that were expanded to allow parking. And then you also have vehicles backing out directly onto the, the road because they're allowed the full, like they, they have full access across that entire strip of, of the corridor. Right. They don't, their driveway isn't limited to, you know, to 20 feet here and there. Right. If I remember, it's been a while since I've been on that. So, so you have a lot of multi-directional vehicular traffic in an area where kids are walking around. So the idea of a one way, at least in that particular section seems like it would be a safer scenario.
That, so yeah, so if it is a one directional road, obviously you don't need as much space for, you know, two directional travel. So right now we're accommodating 20 feet for two directional travel. It's just one way you can narrow that up by a certain, with, with that you gain width to be able to maybe just add another sidewalk, a pathway or go from a sidewalk to a pathway or add buffer space. You do, you do free up some space. But I do wanna mention is on that north side next to the Sands apartments, it is broin rollout parking in front of the apartment building. So our, our alternative is considering right now sidewalk on the south side to avoid those, those conflicts with folks parking, you know, in the, in, in front of those parked buildings there.
Thank you for that explanation. And a comment is on other PME projects where we have looked at how to accommodate non-motorized facilities in a very constrained space with existing conditions. The alternatives had looked at only one sidewalk due to the roll in or rollout conflicts. The wide area of conflicts. I think also to just to notice when you have a apartment complex like that, you also have snow removal activities with snow plowing, maneuvering, even though they're supposed to do all of this maneuvering on property because it's so constrained with the existing condition, it's it, it's hard for them to stay within those confines. So I will know just from the perspective of knowing other PME projects where we have had to consider alternatives, that was one area where we elected to only include one sidewalk and get a waiver because of the additional conflict points. So anyways, just what I think a comment. Thank you.
Are there other questions or comments of the committee and it looks like I saw member Alimi come back in. Did member, do we see him leave? Do we have a ability to see like when came in or left? Okay, well maybe we can talk about that after. Just for the record, are there any questions or comments from the members of this meeting? Are there any comments from the public? Okay, I see one online, but we'll go in the room first and then we'll go online. So Policy member Baldwin Day,
So if you can go to second the school really their, their main concern or actually hold, yeah, their main concern is potential impacts to parking and circulation for the school. Parents do currently utilize the gravel area in front of this school during the pickup and drop off hours as kind of like an overflow, almost like an overflow parking area. And so, you know, the, their concern would be with, you know, essentially that being converted to a non-motorized facility. It would not, they would not have the same facility that's there now, but you know, it's a kind of a gravel area where people are just kind of parking.
Oh, I, I apologize. Okay. I will, I will reframe into wish there could be apologies. Sorry, chair. So I guess my, my comment would be that, you know, understanding this neighborhood and what traffic flow looks like during the school day during dropoff and, and pick up hours and the movement of children across the road to get into cars and things like that, I, I think it, it makes a lot of sense to consider 32nd potentially as a one-way street which would facilitate I think safer movement of children of vehicles pickup, drop off circulation, that sort of thing and mitigate some of those parking concerns. And then I think I would, I would just encourage that if that, if that expansion, that neighborhood level of traffic analysis is a policy choice, then perhaps the municipality could weigh in on whether or not they believe that that's necessary. If that's a requirement to zoom out and to look at neighborhood level analysis given the proximity of Northern life and Benson as far as the necessity of a couplet, then perhaps that requirement could be reconsidered or waived. So thanks.
Yeah, hi everyone, I'm Lindsay how you, I'm testifying just as a Bernard community member and appreciate the project team presenting here. Like Travis said, I've already invited them to present to the Bernard Community Council and potentially to our committee sooner than August so that we can weigh in sooner. So my comments are just mine and not representative of the of the neighborhood, but I really do encourage a look at a one way option from Minnesota. The only action somebody driving could take going eastbound on 32nd is to take a right on Minnesota and you can do that at 32nd. You can do that at, or sorry you could do that at 33rd, 36th and of course Benson the couplet of all couplets. So I'd be really excited and interested to see what that could look like as we are coming up with these different options and, and ways to improve the area. I'm really excited to see a multi-use pathway along the north side, but you could potentially get a multi-use pathway on that more narrow section if there's some of those more creative approaches or at least more of a buffer between the parking at the apartment building and the, the non-existent sidewalk. 'cause right now there's a non-existent sidewalk and really sloped icy parking and that's where you walk anyway even without a sidewalk.
I also appreciate just the more lighting options and potentially having a roundabout at that lowest drive intersection. Mostly for some traffic calling in that area as well. So I think there's some creative approaches to this. So if it is a policy consideration, I'd encourage the tack and policy committee to consider making sure that we could have a two-way option reviewed at this stage of the design. And then just appreciate having the opportunity for the design team to present to the neighborhood. Thanks.
Thank you Lindsey. Are there other members of the public who'd like to comment? Okay, seeing no members of the public online or in the room, thank you so much for coming and presenting. I really appreciate it. I appreciate you being here. We'll move on to our next information, item six C, the next task meeting overview. This yours.
This will be mine. Thank you very much. So April, right now we don't have a whole lot on the agenda. We have just the railroad transit asset management safety targets and then probably a presentation from the Academy Vanguard project team. I do want to note that there is, in April there are gonna be a couple of work sessions for the TAC and Policy committee members. So please be aware and be on the lookout for that. One is for the climate action plan. As you may recall, the policy committee voted to delay the climate action plan until May of 26 'cause they had some concerns. And so we're gonna be meeting for a work session to discuss those current concerns and how to move forward. The other work session is gonna be regarding the HSIP nominations for this year. So it's that time again to sit down and have a discussion and try and get our nominations put together for May so we can get those approved and over to DOT as soon as possible. That's all I had. Thank you.
Yeah, it's, it's not a necessarily happy announcement but I am excited to let everybody know that Mook has accepted a new position and will be leaving our area to another location within the municipality Anchorage, I believe within the next week or so. I'm excited because congratulations, Mook, that is amazing. Well deserved. You are such an amazing person to work with and I wish you all the best. It's sad for us 'cause you've been an immense help for Ammas. You have helped me over the years kind of keep myself together. You've been astonishing when it comes to helping with posting of the agendas, running of the meetings, just keeping everything moving forward behind the scenes. I don't think people really understand how much work goes on behind the scenes to make things happen. So I wanna wish mu all the best and thank you very much for everything.
Okay. Thank you Member Babb, thank you again Mook. Are there other comments from the committee? Okay, we'll move then on to item eight on the agenda, public comments. Are there any members of the public who would like to add a three minute comment to our meeting? Okay, I don't see any, any comments on the, any hands online or in the room. So that moves us to item nine to adjournment. We are adjourned at 2:50 PM
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.