July 15, 2026 2:00 PM - 5:00 PM
This transcript was automatically generated and may contain errors.
Agenda is approved. So with that, we have no previous meeting minutes as this was a special session, special committee meeting time as well. But we look forward to tomorrow's meeting on July 16th to be able to review the last meetings minutes. Okay. So we have for action items, several project lists, complete streets, non-motorized rail and transit, along with fiscal constraints and funding sources, documentation to review. But I would like to ask the committee members if there's a special order ideas on how we may approach today's tasks.
Yeah, I, I actually have a handful of amendments to make to the non-motorized plan, so it might be easier for, for me to drive that process in person. So if you, if there's something else we could take up for about the next oh five minutes or less, that would, would be, that would be helpful. But if we need to dive right in. I, I think I can, I think I can drive and explain at the same time.
Well, how about you drive safely to get here and then we look forward to that in person. What we could do in the meantime, because we do have a representative of the rail here, Brian Lindamood, even though at the last meeting we did approve the transit projects for the MTP, there were questions about the impacts or the reasoning for budget changes. Would the committee be okay if we asked Mr. Lindamood to just walk us through briefly those changes?
Do you mean the railroad projects? Not the transit one, the rail, you're right. Yeah. Sorry. This the transit separate. Yeah. No, you guys had good discussion on the railroad projects went, I apologize. Staff didn't have all the information at that time, but there was a request for some additional information from ARRC. They sent us that response. We sent it forward to you. But I agree, I think it'd be good to hear from Mr. Lindamood directly about the changes. Thank you.
Okay, I can do that. I don't necessarily have the changes in the variances from itself. I can certainly speak to what's there. I guess we'll start out with the 1% for transit security. That's generally something that I think we're supposed to do. We've done it for years and I believe it's something that is required of us with FDA. The second on there, preventative maintenance, 5307. We substantially use most of the 5307 funds we received for maintaining our, our vehicle fleet. We've got somewhere in the neighborhood of about you
One through six. Okay. Zero outline two doesn't appear to be zero at this point. So is this, this is before any changes that it happened? This was before the change. Okay. I don't have the benefit of having finance with me and explain what they're doing, but typically I'm not.
I I think one of, one of the questions, it, it looks like there was a zeroing out of of maintenance funding and I think that was, that was a primary question that I had that it was, it was either, I don't recall exactly. It was either a significant reduction or a wholesale removal of several million dollars of maintenance.
And line two is in here. It's 5307, line two partially total statewide maintenance costs of passenger vehicle. Correct. Vehicle rail cars at locomotives. And we generally have moved the preventative maintenance stuff to the, our preventative maintenance is all moving to 5337, which is why we zero up to 5307.
That I can't answer. Our geniuses we have in the finance department generally are the ones that kind of try to find the best buckets. 5337 is generally fixed. Guideway stuff, 5307 is generally preventative maintenance. We've got a substantial amount of capital flowing through both those programs. So either they needed to move the money from one to the other, or 5337 just works better for the preventative side. I'm more on the spending side. So I mean it all looks the same to me. But finance, I mean there, I do know that there's specific restrictions between the 5307 and the 5337 programs and they sometimes lean more heavily into one than the other depending on what our capital needs are on a year to year basis.
I may madam. Sure. I think one of the reasons for the questions Mr. Lindamood was just, and it sounds like you're, you're assured that the finance people, I won't say know what they're doing, but that, that they're proceeding in the best interest of the railroad. I think the interest of the body was just making sure that, that those changes that were proposed by the railroad didn't end up in some inadvertent way being detrimental. And it sounds like your, your conclusion is they're not so, no. I mean we remain significantly capitally constrained, but that's just a function of business being down, frankly.
And just for the record, can we note 2:09 member Baldwin Day, joined us in person. Yeah. Any other questions or comments on the railroad Mr. Lindamood address? Okay. So thank you. If there's anything else we'll reach out. Certainly. Yeah, sorry I don't have all the answers for the intricacies of our finance departments. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, before we move on, any questions? I think comments for rail from this committee? Any comments from the public on Rails specifically? Okay, so there's no action item here, but just with Brian here is a good opportunity. Okay. So let's move forward now to a sub action item of non-motorized. The one the, there's a link to the briefing documents and in that item brief non-motorized has a list of six action, six items that are recommended for the MTP. We had gone through them at the last meeting. So Mr. Jongenelen, could you walk us through what the last meeting those items were discussed?
Yeah, I'll go ahead and turn it over to the project manager to walk through each of the items for, so for the non motorized, the six items that we have here begins on line 25. So this is to remove this project as it was a duplicate project in Complete Streets so that that project is already being covered and funded through Complete Streets. So it no longer needs to be on the non-motorized list. That is the same for the next, the next item 26 Tip CMAQ zero zero Transit Center. Again, that was a duplicate project that didn't get caught. So it is in the complete streets and funded through Complete Streets. The next is to update, so these were the, the TAC recommendations. This is to update the project from nine 15 and 16. Those are 10 0, 10 A and 10 B. This is the Hyder project that's already within the TIP and the, and that is to update the termini to 15th from 15th Avenue to ninth Avenue.
Again, this was a TAC recommendation. The next one is also regarding Hyder, and this is to add new Hyder projects to, to the list to match up with the PEL. These new projects are Chester Creek to 15th Avenue at 11 million, 9th Avenue to Fifth Avenue and then fifth Avenue to Ship Creek at that time. And still we don't, we don't have...... we do for a different termini though. Yeah. Yeah. So we do have a.......And then the last two items, number five is to move projects on lines 97 to 114 from program to not programmed. This is to accommodate for these new PEL Hyder projects. And the last is to move additional projects on those lines, 57 through 67, 69, 70, 73 to 76, 79, 9 to 81, 83, 87 and 90 from short term to long term. Again, this is to shift money out so that we can make room for funding room for those hyder projects.
Again, those were the TAC recommendations. Once the pc, once you all met for the regular June session, it was asked of us to meet with the Fairview Community Council and connecting Fairview groups. And from that meeting we came to a consensus of some slightly more adjusted termini than what the TAC had recommended. So what we would, what we would recommend to update the projects on line 15 and 16. So again, those are that original Hyder project that was in the MTP to update that, to have the termini from 15th to eighth Avenue. And that updated total for that is 4.5 million. And then the three additional projects to add are is the south section of that Hyder strip. So Chester Creek to 20th to 15th, that's at 10.5 million. And then on the north section, they decided to split it up into two further section, split it up further into two more sections. So we have eighth Avenue to third at 9.5 million. And then we have third Avenue to Ship Creek at 9 million. And then, let's see, we found an additional project that'll be actually accommodated within the Hyder project. So we can remove the project on line 49, which will free up some of that funding that's needed for Hyder. So that is the TAC recommendations and staff's recommendations for non-motorized list. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the committee?
Yes. So the, the further, the further note under projects or under number six and then on motorized plan is a suggestion that I'm bringing forward as a replacement for number six. So I, I was, I was concerned that we were sort of just wholesale removing the projects at the, the bottom of the list as a way to free up that 16 ish million in order to accommodate the, the Hyder project. And so I, I did a little bit of extra digging into this table and I think I may have crafted a solution that actually retains the items or most of the items and in number six and really does some cleanup work to remove some duplicative projects. So I, I'm not sure how the committee would like for me to see what these suggestions, I could go through them one at a time or what would that be? Yeah, let's go through the one at a time. Objections.
Yes. This would be five and six. It would be a replacement for five and six. Thank you Mr. Jongenelen. How about process wise? If you could work through them all. Sure. And then we have any questions, comments, and then do public comment and then we can go back and make motions kind of bulk. Okay. Sounds like a great scope for it. So line 32 is Gambell & Ingra Street East Sixth, the East third Avenue. This project is now incorporated in a, in a separate project. So this is duplicative funding. That's five and a half million dollars that is currently in short term funding to be removed altogether. Can you verify what project Yes, that is,
So they are the, the Complete Streets projects that would cover this are in the current Complete Street list that, I'm trying to find the numbers. But they are the, they're the ones that are currently listed as a separate Ingra Gambell projects that would rehabilitate Ingra Gambell. However, staff has recommended changes to those 'cause they don't match up with the PEL description of them. So we need to change them. I'm trying to find them for you really quickly what line they are.
Complete sheet. Yes. So does that okay. And to include separated non-motorized facilities. So if I'm understanding member Baldwin Day, that would be, that would be the, you know, the $5.5 million is already sort of covered within these projects. Correct. And it can staff maybe speak to that or I don't know if the, it's probably not, I dunno if there's somebody from the project team that would be able to verify that.
Yeah, I do see, I believe that's probably Galin Jones or I'm not sure if Luke Bowland is online, but either one of them could perhaps speak to this. I do worry that they're different scopes and then at least that way we could make a decision on the scope that we'd prefer. But yeah. How about Luke, are you in line?
Yeah, good afternoon everybody. Luke Bowland, DOT central region pre-construction engineer. So the PEL has improvements for Ingra Gambell that are based on recommendations coming outta NeighborWorks and believe that's a, a main street configuration on Gambell and a three lane configuration on Ingra with two-way traffic and a center turn lane in terms of the near term lane reduction. So we are through the lane reduction analysis based on the chief engineer's directive and that is supportive of a lane drop within those areas. And we have the HSIP project to pursue those lane drops and that I believe initial funding is in for design in fiscal year 27. And I hopefully that answered the question, but happy to answer any follow ups.
So Luke, I think what we're concerned about is that there's duplicative projects that are programmed in the MTP, like the one that member Baldwin day was pointing out is 16th Avenue to East Third Avenue and that's 5.5 million for pedestrian infrastructure. But then also we as, as you mentioned, we have several other projects that are HSIP funded. So it could be that we're combining projects, but one example would be the lane reduction, which has non-motorized separate, we have separations. So yeah, could you speak to that if there are duplicative you think, or you know, that's intentional breaking them apart?
Yeah, sure. Absolutely. I think, you know, my impression of what the MTP does is it really establishes the needs within a fiscal constraint for, you know, the 20 to 30 year time period that, that we have in the future. And so I don't know if there's any, if staff may have a better answer for this, but I, I think just showing the needs there within the MTP is is, is good even if there's a little bit of duplication on it. And then I think, you know, the refined version comes in the tip right, where we're actually showing how that's gonna be funded within the next four year period.
So the proposal is to remove line 32 from the non-motorized, which would essentially do away with the project description is that the project will construct pedestrian infrastructure on Gambell and Ingrid Streets from East 16th to East Third Avenue, the cost estimate of $5.5 million. So Luke, if that goes away, that $5.5 million of programming, are we good still? Because we have this, these other projects programmed in the Complete Streets list that talk about separate separated non-motorized facilities. I guess my concern is that, that the, the sidewalks, as we all know on Gambell & Ingra are, are terrible not only in their condition but also their design and you know, how thin they are and they, they really present a challenge. So if, if, if we're moving that $5.5 million doesn't impact the rehabilitation of those roads and that can be reprogrammed elsewhere, great. But if that is needed in addition to, you know, the $23 million for Ingra Street Rehabilitation on the Complete Streets list and the $20.5 million for Gambell Streets on the com on the Complete Streets list, then I, I wouldn't want to get, or I wouldn't necessarily want to do away with that. Does that make sense?
But I think we're both on board with the need for improvements to the non-motorized facilities there on Ingra Gambell. So yeah, no, I I don't think this, this would be to the detriment of what we're trying to do both in the near term and the long term on, on Inger Gamble.
Reassuring to hear that Mr. Bowland, Kent Kohlhase, this is maybe more for staff line 32 and the non-motorized is, is showing in the short term timeline and the project we're considering removing from the complete feature in the long term, is there, is there a sub substantive impact to those distinctions that,
So when we, we got this list worked through this list with a member of Baldwin, they, we, we made sure everything kind of evened out in the, in the end, but it, it wasn't necessarily a long term or short term here in the same amount or taking something out entirely and putting it, so it wasn't really apple to apples, it was just making sure in the, in the end road everything was physically constrained.
Yeah. So a little additional information to piggyback off of that. I brought this to the meeting today and have one in front of all of you. This is a comparison of the projects that are already in the MTP and the PEL project. So you see the ones that we're talking about, the one that's on line 118 and 138, and part of what we're gonna ask you all today is to update these descriptions to match the PEL descriptions above them. And both of those include the pedestrian, the sidewalks, so they are going to be captured in, in those projects and at the, sorry, and at the dollar amount that's needed when we're doing fiscal constraint. I know that five, 5 million a lot. So yeah, it's been a cup to cover. Okay. Okay. Any other questions, comments on this one from the committee? Okay, next one.
Okay, thank you. Thanks Luke. Don't go far. Yeah, so the B is similar. On line 34 we have Denali Street from East International Airport Road, roughly Eagle Street to East Fireweed Lane. This project is reflected in the complete street table line 29, which is AMATS Denali Street, complete Street Fireweed Lane to Tudor Road. The recommendation here would be to recommend adding the Eagle segment as a a neighborhood greenway since that is on the opposite side, the Tudor intersection. But otherwise this product to construct a separated byway infrastructure is part of the finale complete plan. Maybe we can first go to Luke, if that's okay. Of course, yes. By all means ask the experts. Yeah. Luke, did you hear the member Baldwin day's suggestion? I apologize. Can you restate the question? Sure. Mr. Mr. Bowland, I'm, I'm suggesting that in the, that line 34 in the draft non-motorized project list is similarly reflected in the draft Complete Streets project list at number 29. And I'm wondering if you could verify that the Complete Streets project in fact incorporates line 34 with the exception of the Eagle segment. So proposing
Yeah, this does look like a similar situation where the complete streets would likely include the non-motorized improvements in the non-motorized. So I think he probably could remove the Denali Street item from the non-motorized table. I know the Muni has involvement on Denali Street and so I don't know if there's any, any input that the folks in the Muni might have on this one, but that, that would be my assumption.
Thanks. Thank you Luke. Aaron, on, on these projects, do you have an a further breakout of the funding that you're using for the fiscal constraint of the overall MTP? That I believe how you've done it is have STBG within Complete Streets and sometimes you'll have TAP or something else and non-motorized. So even if it's the overlap project, it's funding is, is that how you've been doing these or
No, for the MTP we don't specifically state what type of funding is being used for it. It's a general pop. We just section it off between AMATS, DOT and Muni funding is kind of how we've broken it down. Okay. And I'm sorry we don't have that listed on what we have online, what the funding is, but I believe we made sure to match like for like, so if there is a Oh it is on there. Great. Okay. Just not on the, just not on the non-motorized one. Sorry, I'm looking on the non-motorized 'cause it's, it's basically all AMATS funding for the non-motorized one. So we made sure to match up anything, any of the changes would be for AMATS to AMATS, DOT to DOT or Muni.
So member Baldwin day, could you repeat just one final time what you what that would read? Like if we're we would actually, we would actually remove this entirely. We, this, this line, that line 34 would actually just go away. But we would, we would recommend adding, so there, there's a segment here that, that is not necessarily captured and it's this Eagle Street segment, which is a little confusing. The way that this is titled, it says East International Airport Road, but that actually runs parallel to Denali Street. So the, it's, it's the Eagle Street section that is between international and actually Tudor that is not contiguous because there's actually no sidewalk or like connectivity between Eagle Street and then Denali Street. They, Eagle Street just runs into Tudor. There's an intersection there at Denali and then Denali Street continues, you know, all the way to Fireweed. And so I, I could be wrong. I believe that I, I believe that this Eagle Street segment is already part of the neighborhood neighborhood greenways project. I think we would need to check that with No it is not, I'm getting a, a head shake. No from the maps non-motorized expert. So we would need to, to recommend that be added that eagle segment be added as a greenway, which I think could be done in a, like a separate capacity as opposed to maintaining it here in that motorized project list.
So this would be another, essentially another duplicative project. So we would remove item 34 on non-motorized, but then amend at this time item 28 in complete Streets for leave as is now and later as the project moves forward. Update scope? That is, that is a, that is a great question. I would defer to our AMAs staff on that question and, and I could
I think the non-motorized is a little more flexible than the roads 'cause we typically follow the existing roads when we're doing it. There's no real road connection, but you can make a non-motorized connection that continues over to international at that point. And I think that's where the Greenway Yep. Component of it is four.
That might be, it might be a conversation with Mr. Coy. Yes. Okay. So that that would be, yeah. So that would, that would, that would mean that we would be adding this 3.46 million toward that 16 and a half that we're looking for to be able to incorporate the Hyder PEL. Shall I continue? Yes. Okay. So moving on to line 39. This is fifth and sixth Avenue M Street to Reeve boulevard. It's rehabilitation between those termini I to remove a lane of vehicular traffic on each road and at a separated bikeway wide and sidewalk crossing infrastructure. Again, checking my assumptions here with Project Manager, this is reflected in Complete Streets one 25th, which is fifth and sixth Avenue Complete Street. I to re which project would reconstruct fifth and sixth Avenue from I to re removing lane of traffic, slow speeds at protected bike lanes and upgrade pedestrian infrastructure. I believe that this is also a, a duplicative project that we could remove. Of course checking that with those who know more than I do. Could you repeat the complete street number? Yes, it is 126. Any concerns from DOT staff online? Further questions on this one?
I, I can't speak on that. I believe that's what was nominated and so we put it in as is. So I guess if you guys would like to adjust, I think we stopped at L 'cause that was the most logical termini for the Road project, the Complete Street Project itself. But I don't have an exact answer for you right now as to why it stopped at 10.
Hi Luke Bowland. The DOT, I agree with the scope amendment there to I, you may also wanna amend the scope to go to Airport Heights. Reeve does leave that stretch of Fifth Avenue between Reeve Airport Heights is an area that I would think would also be a good opportunity to adjust.
Any comments on that from the committee or staff? Okay. Concur I thought would be your Termini. L to Airport Heights would be the project. Okay, thanks Mr. Bowland. Okay, so to summarize that one, it would be removing Project 39 in non-motorized and then amending project 126 to be L
Do have a question, Madam Chair, if it's okay. So the, the other sort of, I guess the significant that I diff significant difference that I do see is the amount of funding, what is programmed on the Complete Streets project list in line 126 is $30.5 million. And then what is programmed on the non-motorized list is less than half of that on line 39 at 30 13.6 million. So I guess, well I guess we would be, we're removing the lesser programmed amount. Okay. So then in that case we go with the more expensive cost adoption and we're all good. Is that, is that the thinking?
Go for it. Thank you. Okay, so D moves line 40 from short term to long term. So this, this particular stretch of 40th Avenue suggests construction of an enhanced shared roadway. And the, the actual, the current design of 40th Avenue is actually a little strange. There are some non-contiguous chunks of sidewalk adjacent to it and it's already a rather wide road. And so I, my suggestion would be that we move this particular line from short term to long term and to request a reevaluation to actually do speed treatments and perhaps some crossings, some raised crossings here to sort of mitigate the speeds but to, to change the project scope and, and put that into our long term line. And as far as the, the cost estimate remains the same. We're just shifting from short term to long term.
Okay. Any comments from the committee on that one? This is a Fairview non-motorized street network study, which I believe we could move from long term to short term. So this would actually be moving up the project timeline so that this actually coincides with the other Fairview projects that we have in short term as, to me it seems reasonable that we would want a non-motorized street network study before we tackled all of the non-motorized projects that we currently have in the queue. So that was a suggestion to reverse any comments from the committee, any concerns from staff on either of those actions. Okay.
And then we would be moving line 66 from short term. So long term, and this is, we were, we were discussing this as sort of part and parcel of other projects and wondering if this would actually make more sense in a long term capacity since we have other projects that are happening or similar projects that are happening in the vicinity that would be improving adjacent non-motorized infrastructure. Hartville Road is actually a, we in a weird industrial area and what we are now looking at doing both with Vanguard and also with Brayton as part of the Abbott to, or the Dimond to O'Malley projects address some of the need for pedestrian infrastructure in this area. And so this might be something we would want to reevaluate as a long-term project. It is only, it's a million dollars, which is a small smallish savings but still contributes towards that $16 million goal. Any comments on that from the committee? 68. Okay. And then finally 68. This is Glenn Highway non-motorized overhead crossing boundary, a avenue to pathway and regional commercial center, which is Tikahtnu. And in reviewing this project, a non-motorized overcrossing, at that point, it seems like there are some technical and logistical challenges with making this project possible. And so I, my proposal is to move this from long term into illustrative. There is the adjacent crossing now at the pedestrian crossing that accesses to cotton just up the highway now at muldoon. Questions, comments from the committee?
I, I have a comment and it's not leaning either way. So it, it'd be interesting to know we won't get the information before we decide. It's interesting to know how much these, the highway over crossings that do exist are used. You know, for example, the one that had the, the roof blow off it down your brayton or south of Brayton. How much of those used? And, and I know the intent with this project is to prevent the people who are crossing at grade, and I know there's been some, some accidents and fatalities there, but how, how much benefit is there out of building a $10 million crosswalk over a divided highway? I, I, I just don't know the answer to that. And again, it won't affect how I vote. Just a comment for the record. Thank you.
And that concludes my proposals for funding and I believe that gets us to the 16.5 million to accommodate the data project. Well done. That was some good SL things. Thank you. That impress. Okay. So with that, you know, I suggest that we make a motion just on number six just because it is in one sense changing what the t had originally for posts or are you okay just making one motion just on that after we have public comment. Thank you. But then going back to do one through six in that way. Yes. It would be five and six. Oh, thank you. Five and six. Yeah, we, I I am totally fine. However we would like to. All right. Yeah. Any comments from the public on the items that member Baldwin day went through? We do have a hand up. Okay, great. Lindsey? Oh yes. Hi Ms. Hajduk, can you please provide a comment?
Yeah, thank you. I'm Lindsay. Hi. Service director of Community Engagement and External Affairs at NeighborWorks, Alaska and work in partnership with the Fairview Community Council in the reconnecting Fairview effort. And I just wanted to echo thank you for this blue thing member Baldwin day. I think it's really important and exciting to see the policy committee and, and you all, all these different departments and players elevating priorities to make Fairview safer and more connected. And the projects along Hyder Street are part of this long-term vision the community has been working for for years. And to work in partnership with the Department of Transportation and the PEL study process to elevate these priorities is really important. So just wanna thank the policy committee for this consideration and being really deliberate to make sure that we can move forward on these important issues. Thank you.
Thank you. The other, both their hands up. Okay. So would you like to make a motion? Yeah, so I move that we, let's see, what would be the cleanest way to do this? I remove the, I move that we substitute items A through G for items five and six in the non-motorized list. Is there a second?
Okay, great. Yeah, so we could dispatch with this and then amend it. Amend the complete streets after we've wrapped up with, okay, so no further discussion from the committee. Is there any objections to the motion? The motion has passed non-motorized items. Six A, B, C, D, E, FG full replace numbers five and six. I moved to, to approve the non-motorized, the new list of non-motorized projects for the 2052 MTP. Excellent. So we have, go ahead Member Volland
June 18th. They're different than the ones that are one through three upper up above. 'cause the one up above is removing duplicate projects and then it starts getting into the hyder pedestrian changes. If you do the one through three from the June 18th meeting, that'll cover all the hyder ones. So you don't need to do the three and four of, but we'd still need action on one and two above as well.
It does. Okay. So may I try again? Yes, please do. And we might wanna have project names or numbers to follow or maybe line numbers as well. We could add that to the motion. Okay, so, so I move to substitute for items three and four currently listed on the non-motorized list. So this is update projects on line 15 and 16 and add new Hyder pedestrian boulevard projects that match PEL, I moved to substitute with items one through three under PC action on June 18th, 2026. Update projects on line 15 and 16. Update termini, add three additional projects, Chester to 20th, Chester 20th to 15th, eighth to third, third to ship Creek and remove project on line 49 instead of three and four non. So this is, I'm just, I'm just swapping out. Yeah, thank you. Yes. Is there any concerns, questions on the, what the motion is from the committee? Okay, is there a second?
Yeah. Okay. Hearing no further discussion on the motion, are there any objections to swapping out non-motorized items three and four with June 18th items one, two, and three on the non-motorized list, hearing no objections, motions passed staffs need further clarification on the compulsion? No ma'am. Good, thank you. Okay, so I think we have items non-motorized one and two remaining. Alright, so dialogue on these items. I guess we have a motion to accept them as is
Okay. Any discussion on non-motorized items one or two? Okay. Any objections? Hearing none, items one and two are adopted. Do we need to go ahead and then adopt the entire list? Yes, let's, let's do that. And I can take a shot at, at reiterating the entire package of non-motorized products. So for the record we have non-motorized number one and number two, those items as is items three and four are substituted with the June 18th items one, two, and three in the briefing. Item five is removed, item six is removed and it's substituted by items A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Okay. So with that I'd suggest a motion to approve this fully amended list of project changes
Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, we have completed and accepted the list of changes for non-motorized and the MTP. Thanks everybody. I would like to move to amend the draft 2052 MTP Complete Street project list item 126. Okay. And I would to change the project termini from I to Reeve to L to Airport Heights and also amend the project description according second. Okay. Any further discussion from committee at this time? Okay, any objections to the motion? Okay, hearing none, that motion has passed. And with that, so Complete Streets item 1 26 is amended to change the Termini to L Street and to Airport Heights.
Should we continue on with Complete Streets at this time or do we want to, well maybe that's what we have left. Okay. So perhaps first, Mr. Jongenelen, could you go through remaining items as changes to introduce us to that and then we can have public comment as well? Yes. Did you go through? Okay, thanks. So the remaining items from the complete streets changes from the list provided is number six to increase the budget for project line 89. That's tip NHS one, increase it from 32 million to 80 million. Number six is to increase the budget for projects line 54 through 56. This is to increase the budget increases to support a new position at 175,000 a year over the life of the program would be 4.2 million. So staff does need direction if that is to be approved, where funding would come from for that. And then the aid item is to include the Safer Seward suite of placeholder projects, the financial analysis to follow. All right, thank you.
Here's one update chair. So for the item for the number six, the budget increase for line item, we did get an updated cost estimate from DOT project manager on that. So they actually don't need to increase it to 80 million. They only need to increase it to 66 million total for, they just sent that up yesterday and I sent it out to everybody so you were aware of it. So I just wanted to let you guys
But, okay, thank you. Okay, so as a whole, any comments from the committee questions and comments before we get to the motion? So I, I have, I have questions on, on this item, the diamond to O'Malley that did that cost estimate show us where the apologize, I've not had a chance to look at that. Did that show us where the 34 million in additional funding is needed and like what specifically that's going to be used for?
Yes, I'll, I'll do my best to answer and then if somebody at DOT would like to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding based on the email from the project manager is that additional money is needed to help with a great separated under crossing and shared use pathway. So the current budget and the tip right now most of it will be used for the top three priorities, which is Brayton and other changes in the area. And then there's a little bit left over and so they need a little bit more to get up to the point to do that. Under crossing as identified here, the stakeholder advisory committee identified the Scooter Avenue under crossing as its highest priority solution. If additional funding becomes available, it directly addresses the east west non-motorized connectivity gap and would provide a grade separated shared use pathway and vehicle connection beneath the Seward highway. The project manager did have a summary that he provided to you all that. It goes through the comments that have been heard as part of that stakeholder effort that explains that priority for the under and also outlines the budget information as well.
You wanna have some initial dialogue on the CMAQ funding. Anyone's looked at options. I think I'm, I'm actually, this is, this is a new, this is a new proposal to me. I'm, I'm wondering if we could potentially have some, like additional clarity on Yeah, I, I think I have a, a longer list of questions about this and I'm wondering if based on the, the funding needs, if this is something that we could be able to a future meeting and potentially do as a, as a, an admin mod later
I don't know, is that appropriate? I don't wanna throw a wrench in the gears and certainly not opposed to the concept. I think I'd just like to really understand what it's that we're doing and, and potentially also the wisdom of using this funding to staff a or to fund a staff position. So I think just a little, a little more dialogue about that would be really helpful for me. But again, I, I don't, I'll defer to those who deal with admins and amendments to tell me whether that's a good idea or not.
I don't think it's an issue. So we wouldn't use the CMAQ funding itself for it. 'cause I do not believe CMAQ funding is eligible for that kind of position. It would have to be STBG. I think it's just, that's the project that they're wanting to put it in is it's in the CMAQ table. So we'd have to have some further discussions about what is the appropriate project and where to put it. And I'll be honest, it came up at the TAC meeting and I don't think there was a lot of discussion. We didn't have a lot of beforehand discussion on it. So one of my big questions is, is the me willing to accept a new position 'cause I'd hate for us to put the funding in place and then something happens and it's not gonna be utilized. So I think there's time on the staff's end. I don't think it would impact any of us in a negative way. We can always come back later and amend it and put it in appropriately.
Hello. Thank you. Alexa Dobson, executive director of Bike Anchorage, just chiming in to support, delaying the proposed increase in funding for the Seward Highway O'Malley to Dimond project until we can get a better understanding of what they're looking to do there. It seems strange that the idea of the under crossing was described as being something that would be nice to have if the funding became available. But that is kind of happening backwards here. Like if we're asking to make the funding be available and there are almost certainly many other places that would benefit significantly more from an increased investment of 30 or $40 million in infrastructure. So I hope we can spend a little bit more time learning about that. Thank you.
Oh yeah. Hi. Luke Poland, DOT speaking on the O'Malley to Dimond project. I think the funding increase is appropriate at this point in time and reason behind that is we're going through that stakeholder working group understanding is that there are some desires from that group that are constrained by the current dollar amount of 32 million that are in there. Fully expect that we're gonna have multiple conversations moving forward on what scope elements do advance for the O'Malley to Dimond project. I know there's a long history there, but I, I would like to see what the stakeholder working group recommends if additional dollars are available comes to that project.
Hey there. Sorry. Ryan Harris, the DOT Interim Project Manager for the O'Malley design project. And yeah, I just wanted to sort of share where we're at in the process with the O'Malley design project. I know that we are at the, AMATS TAC and PC committee sort of elaborating our lengthy stakeholder working group advisory committee process that we've been going through for the past almost year now. I think we're on month 10 and continuing at this point, the stakeholders have prioritized sort of three separate areas in the area between O'Malley and Diamond that they had prioritized within the existing funding constraint of $32 million. The conversation of some additional funding did come up and that did sort of fit with another priority that the stakeholders had informed us that they would be interested in and that they would make a priority if the funding had become available.
I don't, the this $50 million request, which is now I think an additional $34 million request didn't come from the project team or from the stakeholder working group independently. And it was a request that was made amongst the additional funding available within the fiscal constraints. And so if those funds are available, I do think it would be in the, it appears to be sort of a high priority that these stakeholders have and continue to work toward. Obviously we don't know the exact design that we're looking at there at the Scooter Academy under crossing. There were a lot of alternatives and ideas that were tossed onto the DA on the table as we were going through our preliminary design proposals a few months ago. And so with the additional funding request that approved that certainly something that we would bring all of the stakeholders back into, into the room for, invite all of the stakeholders in the advisory committee that we've been working with for the past year to continue to trace out what exact proposed solution or the design that we'd be looking at there. But I do think it'd be a great opportunity, opportunity for the stakeholders and a great opportunity for the project to, to hopefully meet the needs that the community is looking for. Thanks.
No, I think my questions be, could be answered. Well, do I have the opportunity to ask you a couple questions on the project team? No. Okay. I guess for Mr. Bowland or for Ryan, you know, the history of the underpass led to the Academy Vanguard project moving out of an MOA funded bond project into the AMATS world due to cost and the impacts to the neighbor could, and I understand there's no specific design now, but do we anticipate that the under crossing would be not authorized and motorized? Is that the general approach right now?
Sorry. Yeah, and one of the, one of the identified purpose and needs that came out of the stakeholder working group that these stakeholders had identified was the east west connective connectivity that is currently missing amongst that stretch. And so that was one of the purpose and needs that, that they had developed with the project team.
Great. Thank you. And another question is, because we have the a match project for Academy Vanguard that is moving along. I don't know exactly where they're in design, but I presume, I I think the numbers back when this was the full blown O'Malley to Dimond project, I think they were anticipating shuttling an additional 14,000 cars a day into that neighborhood to the east there. I would just want assurance that, and I know it'll happen, but just put it on the record that the project team from O'Malley to Diamond will coordinate with the Academy Vanguard project team to ensure that both designs work well with each other, accommodate impacts the neighborhood here no matter what the final design is for O'Malley to Dimond.
Yep. I, so that project was actually recently assigned to me, and so I'll be overseeing both and communicating with both design teams as we move through that process. The Academy Vanguard project was recently moved to the list, as you guys know, but a lot of the design there is currently being held up by the O'Malley to Dimond Project and with what happens at that Scooter Academy undercrossing.
Yeah. Okay, so I wanna start going to make an motion and work through the list. Is there, what, what is the, I'm, I'm curious to hear from the project team how, how this has been characterized to the public. So this Under Crossing has been, has this been communicated as something that is possible based on the ability of funding and, and that's, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'd like to, what expectations have been set with community stakeholders at this point with respect to this particular feature or potential feature of the project?
There haven't been a lot of expectations set. We are letting the advisory committee and our stakeholders sort of lead us through design with what best fits their version of improvements in this area. We have recently had a design charrette last week with the stakeholder working group, but we were talking about specific design details on Brayton drive and Pathway. At that time, we had not received confirmation. We still don't have confirmation that there is available funding with the stakeholders. When we were going through our working group earlier this year in the Scooter Academy, under crafting was brought up by the stakeholders. There were a few different alternatives and preliminary designs that they were pushing out. I think removing on off ramps at the academy side intersection to reduce traffic flow. We, we, we received public comment and support from different community council members and stakeholders. They share a vision for a motorized and non-motorized facility as long as we're sort of constraining the amount of, of volume that's going through there. But I'm sorry to answer your question, there haven't been a whole lot of expectations set. And we will obviously re-engage our stakeholders in the advisory committee and go back to the drawing board and receive their feedback as well as your feedback to, you know, read through what, what the scope looks like there.
Okay, thank you. That's, that's helpful. So this being articulated as a high priority for stakeholders, you've, I'm a little bit unclear as to whether this is primarily intended as a non-motorized East west crossing or a motorized East west crossing. Can you, can you clarify still on that point
Sorry. There were a few different ideas that were brought forth during our stakeholder workshop. When we were discussing the Scooter Academy under crossing, there were pedestrian only overcrossing, pedestrian under crossings and motorized and non-motorized under crossings. And I believe going forward, we haven't set an expectation, but I do believe that there would be a motorized or a non-motorized and motorized component, and we would certainly listen to our stakeholder feedback on how that best fits within, within this project.
Okay, well, I was just gonna say, you know, I know we're not to where we're gonna have discussion on, on a motion yet, but I do think even at this part of the discussion, it is probably worth mentioning the history of this project. And, you know, the, the current, and maybe Aaron, Aaron Jongenelen can speak to this, the current MTP description in the, in the Complete Streets list is intentional. That was something that the policy committee amended previously along with the reduction in funding. And we've had on, on this one, a lot of discussion around the nature of the project and a focus on non-motorized and, you know, maybe doing a phased approach. And so I, I guess Aaron, if, if you can, if you want to speak to that, great. And then just in terms of making sure we're not putting the cart before the horse, and I'm curious, is this a normal process that we would do where we would, you know, the policy committee amend something one way, you know, with, with policy intent and then before this sort of revamped public process has even been completed, to then undo what we did previously and increase the funding to allow for more flexibility back in the other direction of, of vehicular it just, the, the timing of this seems weird to me, but perhaps I could be instructed otherwise.
No, unfortunately, I, I can't really speak to it because it's really up to what the policy committee considers the right approach. You know, I think you outlined it, you know, has the public comment period, or has the public input been done finalized to a, to a point where you guys are comfortable with what is being asked of you? That is, that is on you guys. And if you, I can't answer that for you.
I, I guess let me, let me refine it then. I, I, I mean, have you seen that, have you seen precedent for that type of action on other projects where the policy committee amends something one way, you know, takes intentional action on something and then there's sort of this ongoing process to kind of like revert it? I mean, is that, is that normal? Have you seen that with other projects? And if you don't feel comfortable answering any, that's fine. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. It just kind of seems, I just, I don't really, I haven't seen that in the few years since I've been on the policy committee, but maybe I'm mistaken
From my experience. No, it's not normal, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I think it's also not normal that the project kind of stopped and kind of restarted and had the advisory committee and really has been like, trying to get more information from people. I mean, we just got, we as staff just attended a direct advisory committee on the pathway design and information to it. That's not something we do very often, I'll be honest. So I think that the approach that has been taken with this project is not normal, but I think it's a good thing. So from my standpoint, I think the project has done a lot of good work to try and get to a point where people have provided their comments. So I, I'm sorry, I don't have anything else for you on that.
I, I think I, for my part, you know, keeping sort of the history of this project in mind, I am, I am, I'm a little, I'm a little bit hesitant to, to move in this direction. I mean, as I understand it, and again, please correct me if I'm wrong 'cause this does predate my time. I, I just know what I know from past meetings and meeting minutes. You know, the intent here really was to constrain this project fairly narrowly and to focus on non-motorized connectivity and safety, you know, with some updates to, to interchange existing interchanges and things like that and existing frontage roads. And so I, I think my, I think, I feel, I feel a little, a little hesitant to, to, as member Valin said, move in a direction that feels very distinct, particularly when, you know, one of the, one of the challenges with that Academy Vanguard project was the amount of traffic that was going to be routed into a neighborhood that currently only has, unless I'm mistaken, a, a one way access road as its point of view, both ingress and egress, unless you go around to Abbott.
And so, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm wrestling with this one a little bit and, and I'm, I'm wondering if we could, I mean, I, I understand that there is this, there's a public process that's occurring, but I think we also have a responsibility to think really carefully about what kind of precedent we are setting in terms of allocating funds to projects. And, and I think related to that is this reality that we continue to run up against, which is the fact that we don't actually have, at least on the municipal level, a cohesive strategy about where we do intend to allocate significant funding to non-motorized projects. And, and because we don't have that strategy map out, we don't have that non-motorized highway network developed. I mean, it's, I mean, it's harder for me as a policy committee member to say, you know, yes, let's double the cost of a project from 32, you know, to an additional 34 million to 66 million to facilitate an under crossing that, you know, may or may not have utility in our non non-motorized network. So, yeah, I I, I have a little feeling some friction on this one. And yeah, I, I'm wondering what, what our options are as far as making this choice now versus making this choice in the future. You know, do what is, what is our flexibility here? And maybe Mr. Jongenelen, you can speak to that
Well, so again, we're in the middle of an MTP update. That's what we're doing right now. So from staff's decision or staff standpoint, it really should be now is kind of when you guys wanna make a decision on these things. 'cause part of the problem we have is our next step after we're done with this is do the modeling for the MTP and an under crossing is something that would be significant enough to put into the model for us to see what kind of impacts would have on the system. So if you didn't act on it now, the next opportunity, you could act on it next time you're gonna see this. But then we'd have to go back and do modeling if you don't wanna act on it as part of this MTP update, then the next process is once this MTP update is done, we can go back and do an amendment to the MTP, which could start as soon as this current MTP is done, whenever that is gonna be.
One thing I'd suggest is before we reject a recommendation from a stakeholder group that's been working hard to present us with options that we at least get a bit of a presentation on the work that they have been doing since the policy committee has recommended that change in scope. Our staff have certainly taken the policy committee's comments to heart and have gone back and, and redone a lot of work on that design. And, and they feel that presenting this increased budget will provide greater value back to the public. So I'm understanding project design and transportation can certainly be dynamic, but I do believe that they've had ample opportunity to hear and have further input. But I, I'd suggest that this is a project that perhaps we, not that we want to table things for, for long, but at least that we have this opportunity if we're considering not moving forward with this project. But perhaps we could have a, a motion at this time and we could work through it as an action item. Well, I would move to include item number six on the Complete Streets list, which would increase the funding from 32 to 66 million online, 88 89.
If I may, Madam I'll jump in. So I was in project management when this, when the O'Malley to Dimond project and the Academy, Vanguard Project Commission early we're really kind of in the, in the, in the, in the throes of agony. And there was a lot of conflict at that time between DOT and the municipality and between the O'Malley to Dimond project and the Academy Vanguard Project to the point where at that point, at that time, the two sides were not listening to each other. And that's why the municipality stopped bond funding for that project, for the Academy Drive project, at which point it became an Ammas project. And I'm kind of bouncing around a bit, reading this document that the project team provided and their description of the stakeholder involvement. I think they have made huge strides based on my recollection of what was going on at the time and, and also what Mr. Harris said, his comments. So I, I am interested in, if there is an opportunity, I would be very interested in hearing from directly from the project team and wrapped from stakeholders recognizing that the AMATS staff timeline is growing shorter as I speak. So I guess those are my comments at this point. Madam Chair.
Okay. Yeah, if I could speak to that, I, I am likely not inclined to support this at, at this time just because of the prior work that I've done on the policy committee around this project. And, and, and at one point I had even moved to cancel the project altogether, and then the, you know, the issue of risk of federal payback was brought as the rationale for, you know, we really have to keep this, but we will revisit the scope and sort of go back to the drawing board. And, you know, I think at that, at the time, that was sort of the big compromise and this, this just kind of feels like something that has really been pushed out and out and out with, I don't wanna speak to anybody's intent, but it, it, it, it seems, it, it feels to me like we still haven't been able to let go of a vision of that prior project.
And yeah, I, I just worry about as this moves forward, we, we move too far back in the, in the other direction. And I really think that we need to think about how projects have off ramps when they no, no longer meet the needs of the community. When we do, you know, when we have done predictions about trends that we think are gonna happen two decades ago, you know, we, we forecast population trends and we forecast traffic demands, and actually the opposite of those predictions comes true. Then we, we need to be able to recalibrate and, and not have this sort of sunken cost fallacy that we, that we need to keep moving the project forward. So, I don't know, I I I feel like this one has been, has been much discussed as I already said. And so I, I think I am, again, just not inclined to support this item at this time. And I think that the, I guess the 30, so the 30 something million dollars that we're proposing to increase this project by, there's probably other needs that that could be put toward, and I'd be interested in exploring that. Thank you.
Yeah, thank you. Madam Chair. Yes, so I'm, I'm looking at the, the stakeholder summaries that were provided to us yesterday. And I, I think, I think I, I wanna be really clear that I am not, I am not opposed to the original, you know, scope of this, which, you know, is really clearly focused on non-motorized facilities and multimodal traffic safety. And if a non-motorized specific under crossing is useful at this location, then I am in support of that. And, and the reason for that is what I'm seeing in the stakeholder summary, which has a really strong statement of, of I think multiple strong statements of what is important and, and the top 1, 2, 3, the top three are all with respect to non-motorized connectivity. And then the very next transportation issue that's identified is speed concerns on Brayton Drive, Brayton Drive access and protecting residential communities east of the Seward Highway at Academy Drive, Academy Drive.
So those are the things that were identified. Those were the top six identified transportation issues from that first stakeholder meeting as recorded by the, the project team. And there, it's, you know, and then what followed in the second meeting is really similar, non-motorized and active transportation facilities, north, south, and East West, concerns about Brayton Drive speed and access protection of residential communities continue to be at the top of those lists. And so taken together, I, I hear a really strong interest in non-motorized under crossing, and I have no issue with that. I think it's the inclusion of motorized facilities in that area that really makes a red flag go up for me. And so I would like to hear a far more robust justification from the project team with respect to that element, that inclusion of motorized facilities here when there are adjacent motorized facilities at Dimond and Abbott, which are useful for providing that East west connection.
In order for me to feel comfortable increasing funding for this, you know, particularly to this degree, as I understand it, the intent of this project really was to make minor modifications to the motorized facilities and significant updates to non-motorized and multimodal safety. And that, I think, really remains my interest in this project. So until I can understand far more clearly the justification for the duality of facilities, I, I don't think I can support a wholesale increase to the perfect budget. Not that I don't support the contract, but it's because I, I think there's some scope work that needs to be really clear. So I, I don't think I can support. Thank you. I would like to ask our pre-construction engineer just for an update on the scope, if that's okay. I'd like to understand a little bit more for the purposes of the MTP, you know, and we're not programming it in the tip, but what do we need in the MTP so that we can give direction back to the stakeholder working group? Because there could be a scenario in which we do move this forward, but then before it gets into the TIP for additional programming, we have that opportunity to, to very much dig into the, the scope and make sure it's acceptable. But yeah, Luke, could you comment on that, the scope, where it's at currently and, and what you really need in this MTP to align with the stakeholder advisory group?
Absolutely, yeah, thank you. Luke Bowland, DOT. So I, I think at this point it's, it's a good opportunity for us to get this back into the MTP to allow that stakeholder working group and the public involvement piece to play out. I, I think one of the things that we're hearing loud and clear and I think would, would be beneficial is bringing back some of the scenarios for that 97 scooter under crossing to the policy committee to show the different scenarios that we've been working through with that stakeholder working group, which I know, you know, there were claims that of complete interchange at that location, which, which I don't think is what's actually supported. This isn't a capacity connection piece. I think this is a, you know, something that's gonna be more comfortable for non-motorized users to cross the highway than what you see at the intersection of Dimond Abbott and New Seward.
In terms of delivery timeline too, I think taken advantage of this opportunity with the MTP allows this stakeholder working group and public involvement to continue to play out. I know that there are other priorities within Anchorage where we'd like to spend money, but given a lot of the work that we did on the old project, there is right way purchase for the scenarios that we're being talked about with the stakeholder working group. Right now, there are plans to relocate, relocate utilities, so a lot of that stuff that holds up other projects has already been done for this. And while we'll have tweaks there, this could be a project that could be brought to this community faster than we could see other improvements around the state. So here, the, here the concerns loud and clear, but I guess that's, I think there, there's an opportunity here to, to keep this moving as fast as possible for good improvements for the community.
Can I ask a follow up question, Mr. Bowland, since we're talking about a funding increase and not, what, what prevents the project team from moving forward on the path that we've already outlined with the existing 32 million at this time? I mean, what, what's the barrier to continuing the project and leaving the 34 million as a question mark on the table?
Yeah, again, DOT, I think a lot of the commitment from DOT is that we would go back out and we would look at the, the needs of the project and what the community desires are. And that's where we're at right now, is continuing down that road. The, the, the process that we're in right now, I think, you know, we, we can continue to move forward this with the stakeholder working group. We can come up with the recommendations from that public input process and we could bring a more refined scope forward at a later date once all that's finalized and look at an MTP amendment at that point in time as staff recommend or mentioned, there is modeling associated with that, so that, that's probably not a quick thing, whereas it could be incorporated in this now, but we, we could continue to progress in the direction that we are and, and deal with this at a later date. I just think it, it ends up ultimately delaying improvements. And
I'd probably defer to project manager Ryan Harris, or looks like we do have somebody from Jacobs online. I don't know if we have a firm date on that as we're kind of going through a public process that's a little bit open-ended. But Ryan, do you have a estimate there?
Yeah, hi, Ryan Harris, DOT. At this point, we really don't have an asset on when we're gonna hit 95% design as we go through this process. We're, we're still working through our advisory committee and stakeholder working groups. We have more design threats planned with our stakeholders. And then again with this, the big question mark of, of what or if comes to be with the Scooter Academy under crossing, that just, I think continues to delay that 95% design and, and also not only the O'Malley to Dimond project, but if we don't, I'm not trying to force the policy committee into making, giving us an answer today, but the more I think we delay or we put a question mark on the under crossing potential, the more also impacts the Academy of Vanguard project as that project is sort of waiting for some more clear concrete answers with aspect of the amount to Dimond project. So,
Irrespective of funding. I mean, given, given your current process right now and you know, the take, taking the funding out of the equation on your current timeline, when would, when would you have, when would you have design work sufficiently completed that Academy Vanguard would have what they need to move forward with their project?
I see, I think we just, the Academy of Vanguard project and, and I have both project managers from both design teams on online here, so they can also chime in as well. But for both projects, just I think knowing the potential design, knowing that there will be a Scooter Academy under crossing, will propel both of those projects forward as the traffic impacts at the on Academy Road is obviously we're sort of in a wait and see period to see what happens with that Scooter Academy under crossing also. So I think if we had an answer both would, would immediately be propelled Academy Vanguard and Stephanie, I think we're, we've had our local review, we have not yet had our plans and hand review. If we did have an answer on the Scooter Academy under costing, I would anticipate that plans and hand review would be on the table for, i I would say mid next year, Stephanie, mid, that's our 65% designer review. Yeah. Hi Stephanie?
Yes. Gonna say we're waiting to kind of, this is Stephanie Mormilo, the project manager for the Academy of Vanguard project. So some of the big unknowns here is that originally, you know, if there is some sort of under crossing and depending on whether or not the frontage road goes two way and getting updated traffic analysis numbers has pretty big implications on how we treat the intersections on our project because we have the intersection of Academy Vanguard itself and then the intersection of Abbott Road. And we've, we've looked at a number of alternatives, but actually having, I guess a concrete idea of what will be included makes a big difference on what will be funded and ultimately constructed with this project. And the fear we have is like, if we move forward without knowing, you know, really what is going to be included with the highway project, it, it is a constriction, you know, I mean, everything's connected and making sure that we are using the public money in the appropriate manner and not designing into constriction in any way.
So it just, right now we are postponing until we have a better idea of what is happening here and just from the public outreach that we've had, yes, there are concerns with the original proposal of having it interchange and having a significant amount of traffic added to here. The question comes down to whether or not you can provide that under crossing without having connections to the highway, because that does make big differences as far as the volumes go, even with particular volumes on the corridor. So we just wanna make sure that we are, like we said, designing what's necessary.
Thank you. That's really helpful. So I, I think, I think my, my my question though remains unanswered, which is at what point in this design process with he making a final determination about whether or not an under crossing is appropriate, is it the kind of thing now where if the money is available, the under crossing is going to happen? Or are we saying if the money is available, we'll consider an under crossing and then maybe take it off the table because those are two separate propositions?
I, yeah, and thanks for clearly laying it out as such. I think if the funding was available, we would certainly get our advisory committee back in the room and discuss how to best move forward knowing that the funding is available for that Scooter Academy under crossing and receive their feedback. For the past year, I think we've been relying heavily on the advisory committee to sort of lead us through the potential preliminary concepts that we're working toward now. And that's, that's I think, the same path that we would go down with knowing that there was funding available. We wouldn't say this is something that we will build. We, I think that we would approach them in the manner that we've been approaching them for the past year. So now with this new funding constraint, what proposals and what ideas do you wanna bring to the table? And I think that's how we would approach that. I I will say though, I think during one of our stakeholder workshops when we were prioritizing concepts without a funding constraint, we did offer the opportunity if a no build opportunity. And I don't think there were, there were any, there was any support for, from anyone in the group for a no build, I think everybody in the group, in the advisor committee, and Julie, correct me if I'm wrong, was looking at some sort of improvement there at the Scooter Academy under crossing.
Yeah, Julie Trudeau with Jacobs project manager for the Dimond two M project. The stakeholders over the last year have developed six different options at Scooter Academy, separate from other alternatives that they developed along Brayton O'Malley and Dimond. They spent quite a bit of time, even in later meetings, continuing to noodle over what the correct solution was for grade separated crossings for bikes and peds that connected pathways and a motorized crossing. And so when we got to the prioritization of alternatives, we gave the stakeholders funding constraints. Some options were a dollar and some options were $5. Like we just, you can't afford it because you can only spend $4 on the project. And so that's where we had two rounds of prioritization or voting by our stakeholders. Round one was, you have $4 to spend, how would you spend it? What do you wanna prioritize on the project?
And that's where we landed with three options and stakeholders support in what you see in the document. We also said, if funding was not a constraint and you don't have to pick anything, would you opt to still continue to advance something within the 26 different options that the stakeholders developed over the last year. And Scooter was, had three different options that they voted on that were outside of the funding ranges. They voted three for one of the options, three for another one, and then six for crossing that had grade separated bike and ped pathway facilities on both sides. And it was the motorized, it was one of the motorized options. They looked at two options that were just bike ped crossings, like the bridge ped structures that you see. And they were, oh, go ahead. Can I
Oh, okay. Yeah, so there were strictly bike ped crossing options that were looked at and a combination of both. And some of them had bikes and Peds on both sides. Some of them had bikes and Peds on one side. And the option that they voted on was a grade separated crossing connected pathways and a vehicular crossing. So that's the one that we included in the memo. We told the stakeholders from the very beginning what was in the MTP, which did say this project may include an under crossing at scooter. We didn't say that's a commitment or a promise. We said, you know, we wanna hear what your recommendations are to the DOT. And they came up with several different recommendations and options for the project. And so when they voted, that's when DOT decided to come back to your organization to see if there was additional funding to support that unfunded component. So
Thank you very much, much. Yeah, that was, yeah, thanks. Okay. So right now there is a motion on the floor and that's to accept item number six under complete streets with a modification that it has increased from 32 to 66 million, not 80 million. So at this point, is there further discussion or can you call for a vote?
I, I have a question for the project manager, if I may. Madam Chair? Yes. For I guess for Ryan or for one of the design project managers, Mr. Harris, I'm sorry. So the, the, the themes and issues and needs that were articulated in the document we received talk about non motorized connectivity, but they also talk about speed concerns and protecting the, the community to the east there at, if this were to move forward, this amendment were to move forward, are there opportunities for the design team to further consider protecting that neighborhood to the east to, you know, I, I see that the sketches right now do not show off ramps from Brighton, I dunno if that's the right word, off ramps from Brighton into the neighborhood that will, that certainly is a change from what was on paper nine or 10 years ago. Are there opportunities to further protect that neighborhood as you consider stakeholder input?
Yes, absolutely. We're still in a very preliminary, I wouldn't even say design, but looking at preliminary alternatives for what we're looking at there. And so if this were an option that they wanted to move forward with, we would have that conversation with some of the potential options that we're looking at Brayton, the on off ramps or lack of on off ramps at Academy Drive. And I believe they were also looking at potentially removing and on ramp on the o other side of the scooter academy. And so those are absolutely conversations that we'd be bring back to the stakeholder working group and be open to listen and hear what their ideas would be there to mitigate speeding traffic conflicts, things like that.
More comment from me. I think, yeah, I, I I just wanna, I wanna say that I really appreciate the fact that we are taking stakeholder engagement so seriously on this project. I also wanna point out that I think there's a line that we need to be very careful that we do not cross when it comes to stakeholder engagement. And so when the policy committee sets a framework for a project and identifies, you know, identifies a scope, and then we have, we go to the community and the community wishes to move outside of the boundaries of that scope. I think we need to ask ourselves questions about whether or not we are actually setting policy or not, or whether we are allowing the community to drive policy. And I think there's a back and forth, there's an exchange of ideas that's really important, but I also also think it's dangerous for us to start to indicate to the public that they can advocate for project expansion and then we will fund it out of hand because they've asked for it.
And I think we're, we're moving into an environment where we will not have the financial capacity to do that. And I think we need to be very, very careful about setting that precedent and telling a community community, if you come to us with these ideas, if you say, Hey, this is the cookie I would like, we will grant you the cookie. So I I I think we are, we are walking ourselves into some pretty dangerous territory. If, if this is the route that we're going to go with project design, I think asking the public to inform a design is great. Asking the public to expand a design beyond its original scope and, and statement of purpose is teeing and shaky, proud.
Well, I would just say, yeah, thanks for the, the public's input on the project. Sometimes we only have so much funding for projects, so when we do put out a design, you know, we can only do so much and we get that community feedback on what they believe the ones that are using that area really need. We can't always do that, that's for sure. This is National Highway System, national Highway Performance Program funds, which are managed statewide by the Department of Transportation and here in this metropolitan planning area with the AMATS body. So I, I hope we can, you know, move and have further conversation so that we can set policy that's informed also, not only by our own experience, but by the public requests. So yeah. Any, any further comment or should call for a vote? Aaron, can you do roll call please?
Okay. Motion passes. So, oops, complete treat number six, line 89 increases from 32 to 66 million. Thanks everyone for very helpful conversation. And I'd like to kind have a discussion briefly and go on to item number eight. Just because of the topic of stakeholder engagement on NHS. And we have received since the last week where we had extensive dialogue during our special committee, we had received many comments or some formal letters, which was, was helpful to understand, you know, where the different stakeholder groups were at. And on stakeholder engagement, it did make me wanna question, well what, what have we actually done before, since the project start? And it, in its current inception, which is milepost 98 to one 18, or since that project inception we've had, we have formed a formal stakeholder working group similar to the advisory group that we're talking about in O'Malley to Dimond.
And they had met from, I believe June 20th, 2023 up until May, 2025 was the date of our records when we put together that draft ea. So they had met formally 12 times, but beyond that we had had 61 formal engagements with community centers, schools at schools for open houses with our agencies. And so given that that, you know, led to the design where we're at now, but we would like to, as a commitment to the policy committee of the municipality would like to put together a formal statement of what we can and what we should commit to as far as engagement on this project moving forward. So with that, because we don't have it right now, I would like to table vote on number eight to tomorrow's policy committee meeting in hopes that we could amend the agenda tomorrow to take it up. At which point we will have something in writing for everybody to look at in which, you know, we can, we can discuss that comprehensively, you know, including a, an extended public comment period as well as a open house. Once again, just these are some things that we need to do repeatedly throughout projects as they expand, especially these longer complex projects. So I would appreciate tabling it.
If I make another comment, Madam Chair. So I, I, you referred to some feedback you received, I think the committee and staff received a letter from community development director Bob Dole, which is probably one of the pieces of information you're referring to. So appreciate your willingness to, to DOT's willingness to, to embrace that, that, that sentiment and take a stronger look. So we would then expect to see perhaps something in writing from the department depart before the meeting tomorrow. Is that your anticipation? Yes,
Of course. Sorry, just a second. Okay. Member Volland motion is to table correct? Yeah, to table to the July 16th PC meeting tomorrow. Okay, I'll vote yes. Okay. Member Baldwin Day? Yes. Okay. Member Frank. Okay. Member Keith? Yes. And Member Kohlhase? Yes. Passed five zero.
Okay. So the motion to table safe for Seward Highway to the July 16th meeting as an amended agenda item for tomorrow is approved. So what that leaves us with is item number seven, which is the cmac, the increasing budget for projects with CMAQ and STBG funds for a position. Instead of reading it out loud, it'll be item number seven in Complete Streets. So there dialogue, I'd like to make a motion.
Could we, to whom we would direct this request? I mean, I think there, I, I heard a, a general sentiment that this is an intriguing possibility and potentially more information and more clarity is needed with respect to this item. Would we direct staff to make a request for that clarity from the requester of this item? Yes, Mr. Coy,
May I respond ly? So stepping outta my role as chair and into the public works world, the request came from traffic director Brad Coy and he's on leave for the next two weeks. So I think getting that specificity that we all might reflect will be challenging in the framework of, particularly if we vote tomorrow on the complete MTP. I think that holding this item to wait for more information is given the, the scale of it, it's relatively small in the big picture. I think it's somewhat counterproductive.
Mr. Jongenelen, if we were to, if we were to move forward with this as opposed to tabling it to a future meeting and working on this as a, as an admin mod of some kind, would we need to direct, would we need to give you direction today on where the 4.2 million would need to come from in this project list?
Yes. Right now we are fiscally constrained for the AMATS funding. So we have, you know, our money and our revenue, our expenditures and revenues are equal basically. So if you want to add additional funding, take it from somewhere. And most of our projects have been cost estimated out. So by caution against reducing a cost estimate for a project, we'd have to go back and kind of verify if that is an accurate reduction or not. So it kind of has put us in a little bit of a bind because it, it kind of came out of nowhere, I'll be honest. It kind of came out of nowhere at the TAC meeting and we didn't have an opportunity to find out the information of how could it be paid for.
Yes, chair and member ball, we just before you might make a motion. I would also offer, if I could step a little bit out of my policy committee role back into the municipal role. There is a, there's a, a process that we typically use for adding positions to departments and, and I fully understand Mr. Coy's intent here and the need, but that process is not, we've not, had not had the benefit in looking through that process, working through that process. So I can't speak to the very specific need for the position. I believe it's, it's titled as a Traffic signals analyst. Correct. But I can't, I can't speak to the need and, and certainly the municipal process is really geared, at least in part towards making sure we have funding for a position and this would be outside funding, but we still always wanna look at the need and the organizational efficiencies. So off of that comment as well. Thank you. Thank you.
No, yeah, I moved. Okay. So motion on the floor is to not approve item seven in Complete Streets with the direction back to the technical advisory committee to provide more clarity on the approvals that it is that we have the approvals necessary for the position and, and also where that funding recommendations on where the funding would come from. So that is a motion on the floor. I'll second. All right. Any further discussion on this one?
Mr. Kohlhase, I think for, for you, with your public works hat on, is, is there a timeframe that would be advantageous in terms of moving into a new budget cycle and those kinds of things? You know, is there a a point at which we would need to have some sort of determination made on the a, a side of things
We could do that. You know, because it's a small enough change. It could also be something that we wait and discuss it as part of the public comment period and bring it back to you all after, as part of the public comment period, work with the muni and get everything in order and provide that as a comment from staff because it's a small dollar amount that we're talking about here that includes any of the approvals or the process that the Muni has and then recommendations from staff on how to fund it. I think that could be a good way. So then we're not, you know, rushing and scrambling to try and get you guys something and kind of like throwing it at you and asking you to vote on it before everything's in place. If that works for you all.
I guess you could just do it as a friendly amendment to the existing motion if you want. It seems like everybody's in agreement, but it would be helpful to have that as kind of an acknowledged everybody's okay with us to work on this and then bring it back as part of the public comment period for your guys' review once that's done.
So the motion then would be to, to reject this item and what did we say we were communicating to the TAC further information is needed. Okay. On approvals of the position and where the funding would need to come from. Okay. And requesting that AMATS staff work in the interim and provide additional context as part of the public comment on MTP. They're seconded.
Friendly. Friendly. Okay. Third opposition. Anyone opposed to this amended motion? Anyone opposed to the motion now on the floor? Okay, hearing none. Item number seven is not approved at this time. Going back to the technical advisory committee for more information and that they met staff will, will work with them to do so. So we have, with that officially taken action on all items with one outstanding action item, which was tabled until tomorrow. I missing anything on here? Yes,
Okay. So I wanna draw your attention back to the documents that I laid in front of you all for the, the PEL and MTP Ingra Gambell projects. So what you have is the first project is the PEL Project, the second is the MTP. And what are we are asking is for the committee to approve the update of our MTP projects to match the PEL descriptions. And going back to the earlier discussion, this would include the pedestrian facilities for Gambell that were previously taken out of the non-motorized.
Well I, I put the PEL in there to indicate what that was and then I have the line item for the MTP but I wanted to make it consistent. Okay. So we have lines 132 and lines 138 that we would like to update with the current name and scope. I moved. Okay, so the motion's on the floor.
It's seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. Any objections to the motion on the committee? Motion is passed, so lines 132 and 138 Ingra Street, third to 15th Gamble street, third to 15th are both being updated to reflect the PEL's current description. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so back to staff. Are there any further actions that you believe are needed? Time? Just second chair. Yeah. Oh yeah, yeah. So the only remaining have the fiscal assumption. Okay. This one we thought. And there's fiscal constrain. Yay. Thank you very much. Yes, that would've been Okay. Well, to start out with, would you please present what the fiscal constraint, the funding foreseeable are?
Yes. So, so what you have in front of you, the two pages, the first page shows the capital funding sources for the revenue for the length of this project. So 2026 to 2052. It is broken down between road revenue, bike path rail, and then transit and railroad. So you can see each of the years and what the funding will be. Each of the funding sources does have a note that is attached to it. That is on page two, which discusses how we came to these numbers, typically with historical information and then information from DOT and maybe who follow the similar, similar sort of protocols that we did the last update. Thank you. Are there any comments from the public? Public on the funding source table?
Yeah, we, we reflect whatever we're given from the state for the funding that is there for those years. So it reflects what we have in the case. And I'll note real quick, we may actually need to hold off on this item because of the Safer Seward. I forgot there's some discussion about safer Seward and how that's gonna be funded and it may change some of the funding and fiscal assumptions. So happy to help answer more questions, but I would recommend we wait to do this until after the discussion or the item is taken up tomorrow.
Have a question. The name manager chair. Yeah. So Mr. Jongenelen, the, so looking at the under the road revenue sources, the capital road bonds looks like some somewhat of a, just a mathematical increase over time. Where do those, how are those numbers derived? Is that from your modeling or?
What is our percentage of seemed to increase for inflation? For inflation it is 4.5. For the first it's from 2031 to 2041 and then it's 3.5 for 2032. 2042 to 52. The cost of, huh? Is that cost of revenue? Oh, that's for the cost project. Cost revenue is 2.4 for the, for the entirety of the program. 2.4. Okay. Do you, it's not, yeah. Do you have anything written down for, for how in our, in our procedures about how we apply that percentage we have like our construction or our manuals or construction manuals that set a percentage. Just curious if you have something to give that guidance.
Okay. And maybe something we wanna pick up at one point we, we use 3% within our STIP, so keeping them aligned could really help just because we'll end up programming dollars that match, you know, ultimately what's in the TIP. But it's something for us to think about. Probably not, not today, but I, I would suggest we, we increase that value for revenue. Okay. I did use the historical information from the consumer report for price. Yes. Consumer price index, sorry, for certain chunks of years and that was the average that came out. So thank you Mr. Jongenelen, a question for you, just for order of operations tomorrow. So if I'm understanding you correctly, based on how we, how we deal with the Safer Seward Highway projects, we'll need to sort out the difference in available funding in some fashion. Is that correct? Before we can approve this document?
Yes, correct. The portion that's within the MPO boundary is more expensive than what we have funding available based on what we've provided in the memo for you all. Okay. So we would just need to know how to make up that difference. And is that through an increase in the revenue assumptions? Is it any kind of commitment from the state that additional funding will come to us above and beyond the historical amounts? 'cause everything we do is based on historical or is it gonna come from other projects that we have to reduce down? I'm not saying that's what's gonna happen, I'm just saying those are some of the options and so depending on what option is selected by you all, it could impact what these assumptions are.
Yeah, thank you. And, and and because National Highway Performance Program funds are budgeted at a statewide level, we would simply, in our STIP and planning documents just show that those funds go dollar for dollar to the metropolitan planning area. Just like when a project is canceled or postponed, they are then removed and then again budgeted at that statewide level. So it would be just that transactional level that we would then catch up with on our next step amendment. We would see the changes which would enable a tip then to use that for fiscal revenue protections.
I need that explained again. So I I I will, I'll do, I'll do homework. I can illustrate briefly just 'cause it is nuanced. The, say if there's a hundred million dollars project that we're adding to the metropolitan planning area. So within the step of, of our planning document over the next four years will then show a hundred million going to the TIP in the amass area. So we would then put it in the tip. But first for the metropolitan, for the MTP, we will also show the a hundred million goes into the MPA. We wouldn't otherwise use those funds in our general planning documents, but the STIP and TIP are where that would be programmed and you would see the transfer of the statewide program into the MPA.
Gotcha. So we don't need to budget, we don't have to add or remove within the am a s fiscal constraints or the funding source table here because we would be adding to it to increase the funds to meet the project fund. Okay. So the how does, so is that, so when we're looking at remaining revenue from the memo and the 2020 $6 and millions and there's two hundred and fifty nine, sixty 9 million available in DOT revenue, I'm understanding you correctly, this is DOT revenue that has already somehow been earmarked to the MPO and then there's like an additional pot of funding available that supplements this, that we don't necessarily have visibility into. Is that accurate? Are you looking I'm sorry, what? That page four of the memo? Yeah. Five.
There's $269 million remaining in revenue from DOT, which leaves, if we're looking at what's inside of boundary 525 million and change. I understand. Yeah. Thank you. It, it's a little, so where does the 256 million actually come from if it becomes from our formula funds as part of the NHPP program? So funds that are statewide budgeted statewide, it isn't necessarily a plus or minus within the, there isn't a negatives, we're not over programmed here within the MTP. So there isn't a, we're not over programmed by 150 million if I'm reading this table correctly. We would simply program those state of funds to be spent within the MPA, just as if there was a project that was postponed or, or pushed out that would then be, it would go to other statewide projects. So this is just a statewide fund source, and this is tracking what's the movement in and out of the boundary.
But yes, there are certainly the other funds that are available for statewide projects, but we track what's spent within the MPA in the fund source table. But does, so, does DOT have fiscal constraint in the same way that AMATS does? We, yeah, this, we absolutely have fiscal constraint in our, okay. It's about a hundred page document. So if you like spreadsheets, I've seen it. But in that, you would see, and we do prepare a fiscal constraint also for the tip itself, so that you can see dollar for dollar that, you know, there is the funds being spent in the tip. And we certainly struggled with trying to get 'em to line up dollar for dollar, but the way that our tip and step schedules are, they don't always do that. So as long as we're, we're doing our best to stay as aligned as possible, federal Highways and FT a's been okay with that. But with this, with the NTP, we would simply be adding those funds to the MTP document and we would program them officially within the four year window of the STIP and TIP
I don't think I'm still entirely clear on where exactly those funds generate from, but that's, and I, and this number also, this number also would change, right? Because we've just added additional funding to another project That would be D-O-T-P-F. Yes. Okay. Unless it, yeah, unless it was, so you have to recalculate this. Yeah. So I, and, and I, I guess I'm a further question then. If, basically what happens in this context is like, for lack of a better word, like an IOU or a promise to pay or something like that from DOT, is that something that gets written down? Like is there a guarantee in writing where DOT says, you know, we are committing to fund the, the, you know, this, I guess it would end up being 560 some million in using NHPP funds. I mean, how does, like, how, how is there a paper trail of that, I guess is what I'm wondering?
Well, it'll be listed in the MTP, assuming, you know, if the project moves forward for the NPP, that dollar amount is listed, but it isn't until we get to the TIP, the short term planning horizon, that we have that more official level of documentation of funding decisions. In which case, that's where you would see in the stip there's the sub deduction of statewide funds and then the additional funding in the tip. So that, I'm not sure I can answer your question because Okay. It, we certainly document, you know, if we have by, and the documentation is through the MTP, which the state does member on the MPO is committing to when we put it on the project. So that, that would be the documentation, I would say, for this planning horizon that we're looking at. Okay. I think why I'm confused is we just went through an exercise where we had to move things out or change things in the non-motorized plan in order to sort of arrive at fiscal constraint.
And so I guess my, I'm, I am, if I, we were, we were to add the Safer Seward suite of projects to the Complete Streets project list, how do we remain fiscally constrained if we're essentially adding 260 some odd million dollars more than what we currently have available in our funding sources? Does that work? It's a super good question. And it's because there's population sub allocations that come to the AMATS area MPA, so that surface transportation block grant funds, STBG, there is a specific dollar amount every year that's programmed to areas over 200,000 population. So here in AMATS there is a finite dollar amount for those projects. There's times when within the MPA we go beyond that. So there's other funds that are budgeted statewide that don't have population restrictions that we can add to it. So when we are short on funding, that's another avenue is not necessarily within the current project list deduct things. Sometimes we can add funding to it from other statewide sources, which, which we do frequently. But here, NHS there isn't a population sub allocation. So in that case, we would simply just program the funds to the project, which is in the MPA, the portion of the project within the MPA.
That's still, I'm still not clear on how that, how we remain fiscally constrained with the MTP, though, if that happens, like, I don't like where, where does that, like in, so in this funding table, right? In our capital funding sources, like where would the NHPP funds appear That would say we are Does that Yeah, it does. You you would see an increase. Really. I'm, I'm, I'm really trying to understand how this works. No, I get it. You would see an increase in item number five, row five. So, you know, for a, a project in 2028 instead of 104.6, it might 204.6, and then we would have a note that would accompany, you know, the, what I would imagine what project that reflects. But yeah, you would see an increase in these line items. And so that's the state's commitment to that project moving forward as it is then determined in the tips for more precise expenditure. Yeah. So those dollars are what Mr. Young and Ellen was mentioning needed to be, would need to be changed prior to approval. Okay. Yeah. But the items that are listed that have AMAs in them, like the transportation alternatives Sure. Carbon reduction, those dollar amounts are precisely for this population of allocation. So that's a, like a hard cap. And you know, that's what we, we program to that dollar amount. But the other funds, including HSIP and the Federal Highways non NHS, that is a looser pot. 'cause it's budgeted statewide. So we can, the, the revenue would ebb and flow depending on the exact need at that, that year.
It, it could potentially be helpful. Maybe we think about that. I mean I get that we're not by fund source, but I, I could see that being misleading a little bit just to try to understand where the money is because the STBG, there is a population sub allocation for that too, for over 200,000, which is finite. But then there's a broader flex that we sometimes plus up NPA area projects. So I'm not sure how that might be easier to track that way when there's changes.
Yeah, I mean typically we just for the FHWA-NHS one, we get a report from DOT that's historical about all the funding that's been to our country and we kind of incorporate from that. We could change the name of number six to be more clear to DC AMATS allocation. So people aren't confused by that. And then if there's an additional fund source that we are missing, we can update the numbers. We just need to kind of find out if it's different from what we've already received in the obligation reports or the reports that we've received from DOT.
Yeah, I thought, I thought Ms. Little said that this was gonna be NHPP funded, not STBG Flex? It is. It's an HP. Yeah. Are those, are, are those the same pot of funding or different? They're different pots of money. STBG flex can be used on NHS projects. Okay. But NHPP funds cannot be used on anything. Yeah. So, so both of those funding types would be used to? They could be used. Oh, okay. Yeah. And we typically would not know until we look at the years upcoming couple years to see how our fiscal constraint worked out. But technically it could be used. Yeah. Thank you for indulging me those questions. Happy to. So further dialogue before we essentially table this last action to tomorrow. We probably should have a motion just to keep everything and I'm happy to do it as I tabled the first one, but I, I moved to table action on the funding source table to the July 16th regular AMATS policy committee meeting as an amended agenda item.
Okay. Further discussion. Hearing none. Any objections? Okay. Funding sources. It's approved to be tabled for tomorrow. I believe we are at the end of our action items now officially, any further committee comments because we do not have any informational items at this time. Member Boland, do you have any further comments before we go to public comments? I do not. Thank you. All right. Public comments. Is there anything further, any further comments from those in the room online? All right, well thanks to everybody for being here for close to three hours and, but we did it ahead of three hours, so that was excellent. Yeah. Appreciate everybody's time on this ongoing topic matter and hopefully we'll see you tomorrow. So we'll adjourn at 4:36. Meeting is here tomorrow. Yes, it's an interrupt. Alright. At one o'clock. One o'clock. I know. Yeah. I was like, oh, another one. Okay. Alright, well thanks you guys for all the answers and work to clarify everything. Thank you guys very much. Yeah, you guys off the spot rightly. Yeah.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.