20260507 ARTAC video recording

Hi Shannon!

Hey Shannon and Hazel, I made it in.

See, put my video on too. There we are.

How's everybody doing today? Thanks, Terry. Doing pretty good. Good, I think.

Um, so Craig Compo is calling me because he can't find the link. Can somebody resend it to him?

I'll get it done right now.

Okay, it looks like we have a few more folks coming in. Thank you, everybody, for your patience while we get the RTAC committee able to speak to the group. If you see become a presenter, that allows you to speak. And Natalia, do you see an issue or have something you need to bring up?

Can you hear me?

I can hear you now. Okay, I just wanted to let you know that I sent you email like a moment ago. All scores are in. Oh, awesome. Okay, last step.

Okay, I mute myself. Okay, thanks.

Okay, everyone, I know it's 12:01. We are still trying to move some RTAC committee members over to the main meeting, and then we will get started. So we're really close here. Got just a couple more to bring over. Thank you for your patience.

This is Craig Campo. Can you hear me?

I can hear you, Craig. Thank you. Uh-huh. We just need to bring over Lisa Agnew and Lee Hart, and then I think we can get started. Okay.

Okay, good afternoon, everybody. It is 12:02 on May 7th. My name is Rebecca Garrett, and I'd like to go ahead and I bring this meeting of the Alaska Recreational Trails Advisory Committee to order. Crystal, I'm sorry, Hazel, can you please take roll call? Yes, I can.

Good afternoon, everyone. Let's start with Lisa Agnew. I'm here. Thank you. Jeffrey Collins.

Jeffrey Collins. Okay, Greg Compo. Greg Compo is here. Thank you. Lee Hart.

I'm here. Thank you. Ali Sergeant.

Ali Sergeant. Okay. Terry Valentine? Here. Thank you.

And Jennifer Yuhasz? Ready, willing, and able. Thank you. Okay, with 5 members present and 2 absent, the meeting may proceed with the agenda. I'll now turn it over to Rebecca Garrett.

Thank you, Hazel. We are having a little bit of technical difficulty, so I'm going to try running this on my own. But Andy, if you see me struggling here, maybe you can step in a little bit.

I'm Rebecca Garrett. I'm the chair of the RTAC committee. The purpose of today's meeting is to review and take action on prior meeting minutes, commit, and the recreational trails applications.

To start off, is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Can you— has moved to approve. Lehart second. Thank you. All those in favor, um, can you raise your hands or say aye? Aye.

Thank you.

That motion passes. At this time, we are going to open up the floor for public comment. There's already been a little bit of confusion about public comment, so we are going to ask that you raise your hands and you will be unmuted to comment. We're going to limit comments to 2 minutes. So if there are any folks on the line that would like to provide some public comment, please go ahead and raise your hands.

You'll be unmuted. In order to the best of our abilities.

And while we're doing this, I'm going to— I'm trying to notify some folks that appear to be on the wrong meeting, so I'm going to email those folks really quick while we're Getting some people here unmuted.

Okay, Lynette, it looks like you're unmuted. Uh, thank you. Um, this is Lynette Oliver. I'm the executive director for the Valdez Adventure Alliance. I just wanted to thank everybody for being on the committee and for everybody who's worked to make sure that this program continues.

And, and to let you know that I'm here to answer any questions about our application. We're especially looking forward to this Phase 5 because we've been working on this trail for years and we think this is the very last phase. So we're looking forward to that and I'm available to answer questions.

Thank you, Lynette. Which project did you represent again? I apologize.

Sorry, I should have said it's the Valdez Adventure Alliance. It's the Chute Bay Trail Phase 5. Okay, awesome. Thank you. And last phase.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Let's see, we're going to try to unmute Andy M.

Hey, thanks for letting me public comment again. I obviously am a little bit more involved in like the snow trails, for those of you that know me, and the snowmobile trail programs. And what I've been talking about in public comment is an issue where permitting on federal lands and how the program's kind of missing the point a little bit on the match, both being an issue and then the legality of actually doing the grooming work on federal lands. And just some things looking forward that the state signed a stewardship agreement that is expanded into the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

That could be something that we use in the future. I'm also really excited to see what happens with the Frontier Trails and how that gets applied into the snowmobile trail grooming. And then the Justice40, like getting the 40% of this federal funding out into the rural areas and then also onto these federal lands. So thanks.

Thank you, Andy. Before we move on to the next commenter, I'd like to point out— just a second, Jennifer, let me go ahead and finish. I'd like to note that at 12:05, Allie Sargent joined us. Jennifer, go ahead. Great.

Point of order. We've heard from Andy M. before, but could the record have his full name?

Yes, Andy Morrison, for the record.

Okay, it looks like our next public commenter will be Sorry, it's Shauna Popovich. Popovich. Thank you. I work for Alaska State Parks in their Interpretation and Education Unit. I'll try to stick this to 2 minutes and I, I wrote down what I was going to say to try to speed through it.

I have submitted 2 safety and education projects. One was titled Silver King Day Use Area Education Project and the second is Buskin River Safety and Education Project. But I did want to give some public comment in support of safety and education. Safety and education projects. First, often we do provide access to public lands through trails and trailheads, but not always do these sites greet visitors with proper and complete safety orientation, wayfinding, or educational messages in order to meet visitor expectations.

Carefully crafted signage can both help recreational trail users return to their vehicles and to their homes safely, but it can also educate them to become better stewards and to learn what it makes places so special. My office is the state's experts on interpretation and education, and we work with our partners and our recreation areas to bring safety and awareness projects to the RTP program. The projects that we chose this year to submit are the top 2, and they're partner-supported and shovel-ready. Safety and education projects are unique in this program in that they have to be completed in a very short window of time. They're due by September 30th, which is now just 4 months away.

And even with the changeover in management of the program and updated timeline, we believe we can deliver both the projects on time if awarded. I do have a partner giving public comment about the Silver King project, so I do want to speak specifically about the one for Buskin. I partnered with our regional office and our partners at Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge on this proposal, and as presented in the project narrative, the site is very high use for Kodiak for families, hikers, and anglers. The trails are heavily used both by people and bears alike, according to all the game cameras. And if you notice the map in the application, the woven trails often lead to people taking wrong turns and having trouble navigating through the different land management areas and back to where they parked.

So I've worked with our partners to— this project will help solve that orientation issue and provide key educational messages, including about the Kodiak brown bear that fishes there and also this unique resource and really And really, the photos don't do it justice. It's a wonderful place. And unlike the first project submittal, this project is scalable and can be scaled up or down depending on the funding available. I will be here.

Them throughout this meeting to answer questions on either of the projects, but also to review this new process. So welcome to the new board. Thank you. Thank you, Shauna. I appreciate that.

I'd like to make note for the record that at 12:11, Jeff Collins was able to join us from the ARTAC Committee. Our next public commenter will be Louis Callandry.

Hello, thank you everybody. This is Louis Calandri with Big Lake Trails. We put in a grant application for a piece of equipment to replace our aging 30-plus-year-old tuckers. We're looking at trying to improve reliability and streamline our our maintenance and costs was something new and in this decade. I'll be here if you have any questions, and I thank everybody on the board and for allowing me to be in this meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Louie. Our next public comment will be from Andrea Jacobs.

Hi, I'm the trails coordinator for Fairbanks North Star Borough. I was just commenting to let you know that I'm here to answer any questions about the Tina Lake Recreation Area River Trails Reroute, and that's a second phase. The first phase was previously funded by this same funding source when it was with outdoor rec department. But yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Andrea. Our next public commenter will be Tylan Hello. Hi, my name is Taylon Burguino. I am with the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and I'm here to express support for the project titled Silver King Deuce Area Education Project that Shauna Poblenici previously commented on. And the research reserve is the partner entity with the Alaska DPOR lead it, that— so we propose adding an education panel about the importance of groundwater in Salmonberry Streams.

And the Research Reserve has over 2 decades of research focusing on landscape-scale connectivity and the role that groundwater plays in it. So groundwater provides the majority of stream flow year-round, and this was a study actually conducted in the Anchor River specifically. And our studies also show that groundwater is important for keeping stream flow full in the summer and liquid and flowing in the winter, both of which are important for a healthy salmon fishery. At the same time, groundwater is also a major source of drinking water for people in this area. There are currently no signs in this area to express how important groundwater is, so the location that we propose to install the sign is really a perfect location to see all of those things happening at once.

It's a popular location for anglers and park visitors to enjoy the river. You can see groundwater discharging to the river right at that location, and the sign would explain that there's this connection between people and fish beyond the river, so they're both sharing that same water supply. And while this location is popular for anglers and park visitors, it's also a great location for education that the Research Reserve has used specifically. We have an entire sector dedicated to communicating science to decision makers and one sector dedicated to education, so we're well primed to support not only the installation and creation of the sign, but also to continue to use the sign and location as a platform for education, outreach, and coastal training and engagement about the importance of groundwater for Salmon-bearing streams. Thank you.

Thank you, Tylan. Our next speaker will be Laura. Laura, when you come on, we ask that you state your last name as well. And right before you start to talk here, I'd like to mention to everybody that Mark Wheeler is on the line to speak to the City and Borough of Juneau. And happy to answer any questions about their 35-mile OHV park project.

So go ahead, Laura. Hi there, my name is Gus Gustafson. I'm sitting with Laura Krueger, who's— Laura is the executive director of the Eagle River Nature Center, and I'm the trails maintenance, the trail maintenance manager here at the nature center. The project that we submitted for is titled the Eagle River Nature Center Trail Support and Equipment Improvements. We maintain about 10 miles of trails within Chugach State Park and manage that for the park.

We work very closely with the park management and also the rangers, the LE rangers in the park, as well as search and rescue organizations such as Alaska Mountain Rescue Group. The equipment that we're requesting funding for, one of the examples is a side-by-side in order to help us move our, not only our daily trail crews to do maintenance on the trails that we maintain, but also we act as an emergency muster point for any search and rescue activities on the Crow Pass Trail. We're here for any questions you have about our project, and we really appreciate the consideration. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Gus and Laura. Our next public commenter will be Michelle Stevens.

Uh, hello, my name is Michelle Stevens and I'm, uh, president of Petersville Community Nonprofit. We put in two grant applications, one for tundra mats that, uh, for a trail on Shulen Lake Trail about 1.5 miles long but, uh, had three sections of repair that were about 100 to 300 feet long, and that's where we wanted to put the Tundra Mats. We also put in for a badly needed search and rescue building that would assist the troopers and the emergency medical service for their— for helping them out. It will be a community building and it is strategically placed at the trailhead of all the trails at Petersville. It's a It's a very good project, and I'll be available throughout this whole process or this whole meeting to answer any questions if there are any questions.

Thank you for everybody for being on the board. Thank you, Michelle. Our next public commenter is Tira Rose.

Oh, can everyone hear me okay? We can. Thank you. Awesome. Hi everyone, my name is Kiara Rose and I serve as the project representative and grant writer for the City of Cake on their Gunnap Creek project.

And I'm just here to answer any questions. This project sits at the site where most of the tourists that come into town off of the new cruise ships walkthrough, and it would serve as a tourism engagement opportunity for the city. We're working on— excuse me— on developing a welcome center at the site, and the bear viewing platform and the trails would connect with that welcome center to engage visitors from across Alaska and the lower 48. So thank you for your time, and if you have any questions, I'm here. Thank you, Kiara.

That is our last public commenter. We do have public comments again at the end of the meeting. We'll try to, as we move through the applications, I'll keep an eye on the time, and if we don't have enough time to finish all the applications before we need to stop for public comment and then complete our meeting by 1:30, we will, we'll have to adjust the schedule and have another meeting follow on to complete reviewing all the applications. Next item on our agenda is approval of the prior meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve the prior meeting minutes?

Can you— has moved to approve.

Thank you, Jen. Lee Hart, second. Thank you, Lee. All those in favor say aye or raise your hands. Aye.

Okay, we, we've got Terry, Jennifer, Lisa, Lee said aye, and Ali has her hand raised. So thank you very much, everybody. It looks like the prior meeting minutes are approved. We'll now move on to our next action item, which is review the recreational trails applications. I'm going to ask Natalia to share her screen, which has a spreadsheet with all the scores.

On it, and we will start moving through the applications in the order that they appear on the screen.

And while Natalia is working on that, I just wanted to let the committee know that Nate Ahrens is here on the line with Haynes Huts and Trails to answer any questions about the Chilkat State Park Trail Repair Program application if we have any.

You know what? I don't see Natalia on the line.

Oh, here she is.

All right.

Natalia, for accessibility, just if you could full screen that and zoom in just a little bit for readability. Thank you.

Okay, it looks like the first application we're going to take a look at is the Tundra Mats. It was submitted by Petersville Community Nonprofit, and the description is to install tundra mats along the sections of Bonita Loop Trail.

So we have Craig— at this point we have some open discussion available among the Committee members. I'll read off the scores, and if anybody would like to speak, go ahead and jump in. But we have Craig Compow at 94, Lee Hart at 85, Ally Sargent at 65, Jennifer Uhas at 97, Lisa Agnew at 75, Jeff Collins at 98, and Terri Ballantyne at 88.

I guess maybe, maybe I'll chime in as the lowest scoring. I think I graded pretty hard, it looks like. Um, but yeah, just to speak to it, not that I think it's a, a bad idea or anything, I was just curious in the application about if any reroutes were attempted or if there were attempts made to like close that section of the trail for the seasons when it was getting overused and if that was successful in maintaining it, or, you know, if, if that wasn't working for Petersville. But those were just some questions I had, not that I think it's a terrible project at all, but those are some of the reasons for my ranking.

Okay, thanks, Ali.

Lisa?

Yeah, some of the reasons for my scoring, which I think is actually the next lowest scoring, um, is that I, I didn't see a quote, uh, for the contractor in that was mentioned in here. Um, and I also found a discrepancy in the math. 196 Mats at, uh, 90 inches apiece is 1,470 linear feet, and the description mentioned that this was going to cover a mile of trail. And so that's short by about 4,000 feet of trail that we're missing. Missing.

I would have liked to have seen like a map with like problem areas on the trail where we would be using these mats at.

And oh, and in the math, so like 196 times 510 mats apiece comes out to $99,960 and not $99,975. So there's like a minor discrepancy with like just some spelling issues and math in there. It's not huge, but I think the big things would be like a map that showed where the problem areas were.

A picture of like a notice at the trailhead. And yeah, that's about it. So just my two cents.

Okay, thank you.

Seeing no one else with their hands raised, I will move on to the next I have a question. Jennifer? Just a process question. Since this is the first time we've done this, and I appreciate everybody's patience with our learning process here, when we have information like that and someone has done the math, and I will admit I don't add the Scrabble score, I just play Scrabble, but is there a way to change what we do with that if there's You know, when, when the request in the scoring criteria, which I also want to talk about later, is there any way to amend the award, or what do we do in the future with, with projects that might not match up?

I think that if there's questions about the project, we might— it would be better to receive them before our scoring meeting. And then we could address it with the applicant just to make sure that everything we have is accurate.

Thank you. I do, I do appreciate that. Yeah, and I made phone calls to applicants for when I said when I had a question in there, I just called them and said, can you clarify this before I finished my scoring? So thanks. Okay, and then if we found that error at the time of award, we would have to go back and have a new budget.

I'm not sure how that would impact overall scoring. Natalia, do you have a process for that?

Yes, usually all discrepancies are addressed at the time of prior— prior the award, and if there is any amendments needs to be done, they done prior the award because ultimately it can result in changing of amount of request.

Right. And, and then here at the end where we are scoring all the applications, but then we have to split the awards 30% motorized, 30% non-motorized, and 40% diversified. So if this was a successful application and their budget needs to change, that could impact who is funded. Correct.

Okay, moving on to the next project, which is Chugach National Forest trail brushing.

It looks like this was going to be a, a Student Conservation Associate— Association Corps crew to provide trail brushing services on 8 trails.

Craig scored this at an 89, Lee 80, Allie 93, Jennifer 100, Lisa 91, Jeff 79, and Terri 91. Do any of the committee members have any comments they would like to make about their score for the record?

I have a question. I didn't—. I put all my notes like on the actual applications. Is there a way to like— I guess I can do that on a separate laptop or something like that to open up the scoring so I can remember what I said and thought. Is that the only option we have?

Yes, I believe that would be the only option. I'll do that. Yeah. I have 15 screens open right now.

Okay, any other comments on this score?

Same, I would have to open a tablet here in order to refer to those while we move through them all. Yes, I believe there is a way to download it for the future. But I'll, I'll get with Natalia and make sure that everybody has instructions. Our next one.

Our next project is Winter Trailhead Site Improvements. Rebecca, I see Lisa's hand is, is up. I know Jeff had his and then it was down. Oh, okay. Sorry about that.

Go ahead, Lisa.

Oh, we can't hear you.

Sorry about that. First, I wanted to say, like, I really appreciated this application. It covered a lot of ground. I think the only thing I'd want to see added would be— oh, and I also wanted to comment on utilizing youth for this project. That was really awesome too.

The only thing I'd want to see is, like, in the event that they don't get to brush all these trails, like, there was quite a bit of mileage, maybe a priority list of how they would attack it.

Oh, geez.

That's great. Thank you.

Okay.

Next application is the Winter Trailhead Site Improvements, Alaska State Parks. This is to improve an existing winter trailhead and minor signage upgrades.

Let's see, we have Craig at 95, Lee at 77, Ali at 90, Jennifer at 95, Lisa at 86, Jeff at 84, and Terry at 80. Does anyone want to make any comments about their scores or have a discussion about these scores?

This is Jen Yuhas, and just so you know,.

I have this up now on a tablet, but just, I don't want to waste time in the meeting, but I also, I guess I thought when we had to comment on all of those sections that it would somehow become part of the meeting for the record for people. So if that's expected that we say something about them, then I am just having a little trouble keeping up toggling back and forth. Thanks.

Natalia, how do the comments on the application work? I believe that they're available if the applicant would want them. Is that correct?

It should be. They should be able to see them. It's in review section. They should be able to see scores and just click on it and click on the scores and they should be able to see their comments. Oh, okay, so each applicant could go into Submittable and see the comments?

Yes. Okay, that's good information. Thanks. I apologize for not clarifying that before we got started here. Lisa?

I just kind of want to echo what Jennifer just said. Like with the last project, I had just gotten all my documents up and my notes, and so if we could just give us a second to get our documents up and our notes and switching in between the projects since they're not in the same order on our screen, that would be a little help, a little more helpful. Okay. Yes, it's going to be hard because we have the two different locations in submittable as well. I like to keep you guys challenged.

Yes, I'm currently open in the submittable that has the DNR list. So on the last one, could you give me the project title again since the screen's very tiny on my laptop, I can't see it. We just were talking about NLSRA Winter Trailhead site improvements. The applicant was the State Parks.

It's opening.

Becca, this is Jeff Collins. I did have a question about the timeline, the project timeline. The proposed end date was 12/31/29.

So I believe that projects that are— oh gosh, I better have Natalia help me with that one.

Don't RTP projects have a certain timeline that they have to be completed in, Natalia? Yes, they do. 2 Years typically. With any complications, the grantee might request an extension, but it typically it's 2 years.

So this project was already proposed to take 3 years. Is that allowed, or would we work with the applicant to shorten their timeline? We would work with the applicant and clarify why it would take 3 years to complete the project. But we have projects that, like, we have, for example, 2023 projects that will be completed at the end of this year, but there was big problems and flood in that area. So things like this happen.

I just wanted to say that 2 years typically, but it might take longer to complete the project. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And just a little trick for everybody, on the right-hand side of the spreadsheet, it says portal, and it will tell you which portal we're working in.

So the next couple of projects are in the DNR portal, so. That'll, that'll help you guys that are looking for your projects.

Is there any more discussion about the winter trailhead site improvements?

And Lisa, your hand is up, but I think it's still up from last time.

And you're muted, so I'm sorry. Okay, so for this project, I think it was a great application. The only questions I had was there's a $1,400 line item for— on the commodity sheet on the budget workbook, and I would just be curious as to what those miscellaneous items were that were identified, uh, the $1,400. Um, I also didn't see any public notice postings. Um, like I've seen in other applications where people have put a picture of the public notice, and I didn't see that in this application.

Um, Lisa, just to— I'm gonna tag on. This is Jeff Collins. I also saw that as well for the Trailhead posting.

Okay, I think, I think I saw somewhere that was a requirement, and so that's why I'm just commenting on it for future application projects. I don't think I dinged specifically on that, but more so just that the item, the miscellaneous line item wasn't itemized.

Okay, any other comments on this application?

Okay, next up we have Petersville Trails and Rescue Center Groundbreaking Phase 2, submitted by Petersville Community Nonprofit. This is in the DNR portal, folks want to look it up.

We've got Craig at 93, Lee Hart at 74, Allie at 82, Jennifer at 97, Lisa at 87, Jeff at 85, and Terri at 88. Is there any discussion folks would like to have about their scores for this project?

I'm going to— I'm just going to say generally that for both Petersville projects, like, I don't— I'm not really clear on why Um, there's not a letter of support from Matsu Burro. Um, in both, um, this, this particular project is located partially on Matsu Burro land. Um, it seems like it would be really great to have a letter for that project as well as the other one. Um, and, um, I think in one of those cases, I don't know because I'm still struggling to open up my submittable, um, Like the, the governmental letter of support came from Petersville Community nonprofit itself, which is not a permissible governmental body. And so I think that those were the challenges I had with these grants.

Okay, thank you, Lee. Lisa, your hand's up.

And you're muted.

Thank you for being patient with me on the mute button. I just wanted to echo what Lee said. I noticed that, you know, Petersville Nonprofit did supply their own letter, and so I would have liked to have seen a letter from the Matsu Borough or the state, another government body. I think that's also a requirement. The only other question that I would have for this application is The Corps of Engineers provided a jurisdictional determination regarding wetlands, and so the, the application slightly contradicts each other because in Section F of the environmental review it says no to the wetlands question.

So maybe just additional documentation or a letter saying that they were cleared of that, or maybe that the construction isn't happening in a, in the wetland area of the diagram. I was trying to overlay the maps and so it was really hard to tell, but that's my assumption for this project is that it's not in the wetland area, to be honest, but just better clarification. Also, with this project, I could not find a contractor quote anywhere attached to it. It's, it's very descriptive. It breaks down all the costs.

It's great. So I'm assuming that they didn't just come out of the, with the cost out of the blue, but I think with a lot of applications in this process, I've, I saw missing quotes, and when I went back and I looked at the actual application that people would have to submit to the questions, I didn't see a specific area where you would upload a quote, like where it says, please upload your quote here. Other people kind of bypass that by uploading their quote with other documentation for the application. So maybe in future application cycles there could be a specific question for that, and that would help with that. Otherwise, I found this to be a.

Really good application.

Great, thank you for that. We'll definitely take that into consideration for the next application cycle. Jennifer. Hey, thanks. I thought I could find it by now, but I'm toggling around in that application and wondering— I thought that the Blue Ribbon Coalition was supporting this.

That's an arm of the Matsuburo, but I'm struggling in the document right now.

Okay, thank you, Jennifer and Lee Hart. I think, I think Jeff had his hand up before me. Jeff, if you want to go. Thanks, Lee. Jeff Collins here.

So I just, I was looking over the application and some of the notes that I put down. And I put down that it did have thorough environmental compliance work, documented land access, and assembled multiple letters of support as one of its strengths. So I just thought that was— that should be also noted as well.

Thanks, Jeff. Lee? Yeah, I just want to echo what Lisa said really quickly, is that I thought I was going crazy, but when you look at the application, it does say that yes, you, if you're having contractors, you put that line item in the budget, but it also says very clearly in like the first sentence that you should have bids on that, bids or quotes. Um, and, and so many of these did not, and I scored them down for each of those. Um, because other people, you know, you can upload a lot of stuff, a lot of places.

And if you were trying to follow, I mean, I don't know, it just, it is, it seemed like, and then once I discovered that it was kind of a theme going on, I felt like I had to continue to score the way I had started. And so I knocked people down if they didn't have quotes or bids for all projects.

Okay, thank you, Leigh.

Jeff, your hand is up. Correct, I put my hand back up. So I had actually had that similar question with the quotes and bids and emailed about it. Just to clarify, Just coming from a rural environment, I do know that getting any quotes is extremely difficult.

If you could get a quote at all, to get 3, I'm just thinking about here where I am in Nome, to get 3 quotes would be absolutely a near act of a deity. So I went forward with that in mind, that a lot of our rural communities being able to access or even get a quote at all. If they included that, that was great. And I did see that as included in budget lines, but in many of the applications I was seeing the trend as well that there weren't enough or any quotes. And so that's why I emailed that, that's just to clarify.

And it looked like the clarification came through is that it wasn't weighted as much with respect to the geographical location of the community. In the project.

Okay, thanks, Jeff. Allie? Yeah, that's just a third and final echo for some of my scoring was really dependent on like the, the budget being, you know, a bit like less detailed because there was a contractual line that was like, here's the contractual contract and like that we've been quoted and wanting to see that broken down a bit more. Across a lot of the projects here. So.

Okay, sounds like something that needs to be improved in the application process. All right, our next project that we're going to look at is the new Tucker snowcat for grooming that is in the DNR portal. If committee members are trying to follow along, and just as a reminder, and, and Perhaps after this meeting we can send some clearer guidance to folks that are listening in or applicants about where they can find these scores and comments in their submittable application, but it is in submittable. So I'll work with Natalia to get maybe some screenshots and try to send it out to the folks that are here on the line. Now we're going to talk about the new Tucker Snowcat that was submitted by Big Lake Trails.

Craig was at 95, Lee 94. Allie, 66, Jennifer, 99, Lisa, 79, Jeff, 91, and Terry, 90. I'm not sure— oh, Allie, you've got your hand up. Yes, I do. I'll go again as the lowest scoring here.

Yeah, on this one I would have loved to have seen some justification because the quote for the purchase of the snowcat had some like additional upgrades. I don't know, upgrades is not the word, like, but some additional add-ons that I'm sure make it more effective for the type of conditions and grooming that the club is doing, but wanting to see a little bit of justification for that. And then maybe some sort of documentation about, like, what is that annual expenditure on repairs and maintenance for this older cat and how that's comparing to the 2 other machines that the, the club has. And so a little bit of justification of, like, what this purchase is offsetting would have been appreciated there.

OK, I know the applicants are online, or a lot of them, so they're listening in and taking note of all this. Lee? Yeah, thanks. This is another case where I think the application process needs to change a bit. It feels like to me like there should be projects— the scoring should be segregated for equipment purchases, safety and education, and just general, you know, trail projects because like you had to— you couldn't help it, like not score them on certain things that weren't even applicable to the application.

And so that was a bummer to even have that have to be the case. But, you know, I just did it because I was like just trying to keep the same methodology for all my scoring.

Yes, that, that makes sense. Jennifer. I agree with everything that that she just said. Um, also, I didn't see a way to work it in there, but in that section up top where it's the overall and you have the 28 points, I did see this project as something that benefits not just the trail, but, you know, emergency services and provides relief to other aspects of the state budget. And I thought that it was a wise use of partnerships within the state given that.

So I just wanted to make that on the record.

Thank you, Jennifer. Um, Lee, your hand is still up. Um, did you have another comment?

Okay. Um, Lisa.

I'm pulling all my documents up really fast here. So I think with this one, um, I didn't see in the narrative as to a reason why they're using only Tucker Snowcats and not any other brand. I get maybe, you know, fleet standardization, but just some sort of description to that in the narrative somewhere would have been nice to know. I know there's other brands out there that are used across the state. Um, the other thing is, is this is more for DOT.

I think in the future, um, it's just a suggestion. Uh, this is under the Contracts tab in the budget workbook, and I feel like maybe if we have an Equipment tab, because there's a couple of different organizations that had requested, uh, very large expensive equipment, and I'm not sure if contracts would be the right place for that. Um, and then with their match, I think they stated that there was about a $32,000 match. Um, some sort of letter from the board stating that they would— like a resolution of some sort, or commitment letter stating that they would be providing the match, or how they would provide that match would have been nice. Um, because right now I think the assumption is it's all monetary.

And then let me— I'm going to put my hand down. I think I have one more comment, but let me pull up the document real quick.

Meanwhile, I'll fiddle around with my mute button as well. Does anyone have any other comments while Lisa is looking for her document. We got a quick—. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Craig. Yeah, I just, um, I was, um, on, on that project, there was, uh, there, there was some reasons given for choosing Tucker's Snowcat that I, I appreciated.

They're made in the US and they meet the BABA certification, which can be, can be big. They're also, um, I believe this is the one that, um, they also use use this vehicle for some assistance with the Arctic Man, uh, summer, which is a really big event and brings a lot of money, um, uh, and it's a good economic driver. So those are my two comments.

Okay, thank you, Craig. I, I believe, um, yeah, I would have to— I'll have to work with Natalia to.

I understand what the BABAA requirements are under RTP. Lisa?

Okay, I figured it out. My final comment is there was a minor discrepancy that I was like wrapping my head around, which was a $10,000 discrepancy, which I finally figured out. But like in their budget workbook, the total cost came out to $317,000, but then in their budget narrative it says $327,000. So I was trying to figure out where it was, but to like further analysis showed freight for $10,000, but I was like, at first I was dinging on that and I was like, okay, I need to figure out why are they trying to do this. So coming from an applicant point of view, some clarity on that upfront, like in the narrative, would have been helpful.

Okay, yeah, thank you. Lee? Yeah, it is my understanding that by using Tucker, they get, they insulate themselves from the Buy America program. So I thought— I didn't even know Tuckahoe, I didn't know that brand, so I was psyched to see that there was an option that didn't make people go through more hoops and whatever for getting equipment.

Okay, thank you, Lee. And your hand is still up, so we're going to slowly move on to the next application that is located in the DOT portal. So if, if the committee members are looking on submittable, you need to be in the DOT portal. For the 35 Mile ORV Riding Park Phase 3, this was submitted by the City and Borough of Juneau, and it's to construct a dedicated off-road vehicle riding park.

And Craig squirted it a 93. Lee, 94, Allie, 91, Jennifer, 99, Lisa, 68, Jeff, 89, and Terry, 93. With everyone pretty close except for Lisa, might ask you to make a comment, Lisa, but Jennifer, you've got your hand up, so go ahead. I'll defer to Lisa.

Give me one moment. I'm still pulling all my documents up. Okay. Sorry about that. Go ahead, Jennifer.

Then I will. I just wanted to say that I had a few questions before I did my scoring, and I appreciate everybody that was willing to answer the phone while I was going through that or return a phone call to me so I could go back to it. And I had had some questions, but they answered all of them. And I saw that this was, you know, nearing the completion of a multi-year project and that this type of access isn't anywhere else near there. And having lived there, I understood it.

So thanks.

Gosh, I couldn't get off mute there for a minute. Go ahead, Allie. Yeah, maybe while Lisa's still pulling things up. I also scored pretty high on this one because it feels like it, it filled a void in recreation access down there in Juneau. And I read a statistic the other day that like the national average of off-road vehicle deaths in, you know, all of the states, Alaska is like 4 times higher than anywhere in the lower 48.

So that felt impactful with a project like this. I will say something about like a lot of the projects across the board, and this is one I thought about as well, is like our definition of does this project implement like infrastructure for ADA? And so when we're talking about drivable vehicles, there are some assumptions of like that does include ADA users like intrinsic, but on to really fit those ADA infrastructure requirements, I would have liked to have seen more specific mentions in budgeting of things like, you know, restroom facilities or picnic tables, things that could also fill that outside of riding in a vehicle being assumedly more ADA compliant depending on the person. So that was something I saw across a couple of these that were more remote use of, of how does our ADA definition fit into those projects, but. Yeah, that was my reason for scoring here.

I just attended a webinar on ADA access for trails. Jennifer, go ahead. I appreciate Ellie's comments on that because I— again, you know, a lot of us saying, you know, the first time that we went through things, we figured that we needed to carry it through. And I wanted the committee to know that I didn't simply think that vehicles— and not that Ali was saying I did, uh, meant ADA. But I called when I had a question on the projects, and the CBJ answered, sent me to the right person.

And I specifically asked about bathrooms in the parking lot. And then particularly with these vehicles, um, you know, knowing a well-known guide out in the Palmer area who used to access by horse, but since he lost his legs he can't and now has an ATV, uh, mobility, you know, he takes people up to the Knik Glacier and he is a double amputee. We've had some long discussions about what type of doors that type of access opens up, but I did check on the parking lot and the restrooms with the CBJ before scoring this.

Thanks, Jennifer. I think that's useful information. Lisa?

Okay. Let me go down my list here. So I deducted a point in the scope because I didn't see a formal construction spec or a contractor scope document. I think this is another one that I didn't see a quote for, and unfortunately, like I said earlier, I feel like I dinged a lot of people on that because that's a requirement for the program. The other thing is Uh, in the public notice, it looks like it stated, uh, the project starts April 2026 and ends October 2026, but the task list begins December 2006 and runs through December 2028.

So I feel like the community is not actually informed of the actual project timeline through the public notice process. So I ended up dinging on that with the incorrect dates. Um, the other part is, is I noticed that the match is completely a volunteer labor. There was no monetary component, which is fine, but I think I would have liked to see a breakdown of like volunteer work versus contractor work divided out to help explain that a little better. Um, And then I've got a note here about the budget workbook.

But let me see here. Give me one second. Let me look at the budget real quick.

I do have a question. Will the applicants be able to see our notes once the session is over? Yes. Okay, good. Yes, all the notes that are comments that the reviewers have made are accessible to the applicants.

So we're trying to let them know how to get there, and I'll work with Natalia to maybe do some screenshots to help the applicants find their way to where these comments are. All right.

Okay, and I think the other note that I have is that in their line items, it just said like used excavator, used hauler, but without like a quote attached to this, it was hard to understand the justification of the cost basis, how they were defining that, how they were coming to that conclusion. And then I guess another thing that would have been nice to see would have been like a disposal note, like what happens with the equipment once the project is over.

That is, yeah, where they are afraid from asking any questions. Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other comments?

It does seem while some of those things are nice and I think it could be added to the application, it wasn't a requirement. So Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. All right, we're going to move on to the next application, which isn't— which is located in the DNR portal.

It is Shoup Bay Trail Phase 5, submitted by Valdez Adventure Alliance. It's to build a 1,135-foot Boardwalk Across a Meadow.

And I know it'll take committee members just a minute to, to get to the right portal. I apologize for this. Hope you have a couple tabs open, make it a little easier on yourselves.

Craig scored this one at 91, Leigh 81, Ali 97, Jennifer 99, Lisa 73, Jeff 94, and Terri 93.

So are there any comments from the committee members about their scores?

Go ahead, Jennifer. I got in there real quick. Yay me. I had some notes on that they're adding the ADA access.

The applicant was experienced with grants.

Um, sorry, scrolling down just to— I put a lot of thought into it when I was doing the scoring, I promise you that. So, um, it's not a new trail, but the improvements would create access for a broad swath of users with current barriers to access.

Thank you, Jennifer. Any other comments?

From the committee.

Oh, Lee. Yeah, I think this is a great project and it's definitely been in high demand in the community for a while. My concern is with the— with the— and I don't even know. I mean, my question is, is for all these projects really is like the durability of the materials used and the You know, putting a boardwalk— I mean, I understand all the reasons why they wanted to put a boardwalk on the surface and not elevated or whatever, expense and engineering and all kinds of other stuff. But my concern is, is how long this lasts.

This is in a tidal kind of wetlands area that also gets a lot of snow that would, even if it's treated, laying on the snow, I did a bunch of research into this, actually. Um, so it— my concern is the longevity of the project. I think one of the things, at least at some time back in the day when I used to apply for these, um, I think one of the stipulations, and maybe it's not that way, or maybe it's not even a federal requirement, was just that they didn't want to see grants where the project would end up coming back frequently over and over because the fix doesn't last that long, like a brushing project, for example, or whatever. So I think that's where a lot of my scoring came, where I scored it, and also some uncertainties in terms of being able to get the supplies in as articulated in the grant. I think it's a, again, I think that it's definitely a project the community needs.

I would really like to see a more durable solution, but I don't know that that's actually something we can score on for, again, these— not just this grant, but all grants. Like, some of the other projects had the same issue in my mind. Like, this seems like you're replacing it with the same stuff that rotted, and how long is it going to take for this to rot? Why don't we do a better solution? But I don't think that that's within our purview to actually score on, but it kind of would be cool if it was.

So I guess I'd be concerned that that would end up being a little bit subjective. I like to stick to objective as much as I can, but definitely something to think about. And there's research being done on some Holocore concrete. Or board roads or boardwalks that I'll forward to you later, Lee. Jennifer?

I'm just keeping a running list on things that we might want to add to our applications for future, including, you know, the disposal of equipment and some of the other things we had talked about before. But, you know, perhaps we could just add that as a section. And I might suggest either speaking to the efficacy of the project or having a section that says other alternatives considered, which we see a lot with land use plans and things. There may be a reason that they want to use something, you know, in a future project. There may be a reason why they want to use wood, expecting that something else is going to come their way in 5 years and they're going to do it better then, but this will get them through.

Or that they had considered a different type of geotech material and rejected it for a different reason. So maybe we could include that as part of the application, or we could just ask them and, and have that as debate.

Not debate, just discussion. Yeah, discussion. Sure. Thank you. Are there any other comments on this application?

Okay, moving slowly to Sitka Trail Repair. This looks like an Alaska State Parks project, and I didn't find it on my list quickly.

Oh, there it is. All right. Phase 1, Sitka Trail repair, repair trail sections in 4 parks. What this application is for. Craig was at a 95, Lee 69, Ali 81, Jennifer 98, Lisa 72, Jeff 71, and Terry 85.

So does anyone have any comments on this project?

Jeff? Yeah, I just, I had in my notes that there was an inconsistency between the main application body and the public notice. So the main application describes a single focus project that's repairing the steep downslope at Halibut Point State Recreation Site. The public notice, however, described a broader project repairing trail sections at Halibut Point State Recreation Site, Mosquito Cove, and Ben Gressendorf Forest in Muskegon. So, and I'm not too familiar with the area, but on a map where I could find those, they were two different locations.

So that was one thing. If the scope includes Muskegon Cove and Ben Gressendorf, then the application is under— it's understating the project scope.

Okay, thanks, Jeff. Jennifer?

Thanks. I had just noted when we went through it that it was actually opening up access to because there is some ADA function here. I'm scrolling through, but it just— that it opened up access to users that would have a barrier right now.

Okay, thank you, Jennifer. And Lisa?

Yeah, I just wanted to echo what Jeff said, and then I know for State Parks project, um, a Citizens Advisory Board letter is usually required, so I didn't see that anywhere in the application. Um, the other part is this one's also missing a contractor quote, and so I ended up dinging down for that. I saw where they mentioned the contractor name, but I didn't see a formal quote attached anywhere. Um, yeah, let me go through the rest of my notes.

Okay, while Lisa is going through her notes, I'm going to take a minute and circle back really quick. We had a comment submitted from Mark Wheeler on the 35 Mile ORV Riding Park that notes that they submitted 3 quotes for each piece of equipment and a quote for the contract labor. So looks like that was somewhere in the application. If anybody would like to revisit that, we can— I can pause after we're done with this Sitka Trail repair and we can go back and discuss that. Lisa, did you have more comments about the Sitka Trail repair?

I did. I didn't see a detailed level map. Of the project in the application. So I ended up dinging on that. I noticed they included the score, but they didn't reference it.

So unfortunately, I dinged on that also.

And I think, yeah, I think it's more so I ended up dinging on the contractor quote.

And then I didn't see an explanation for the match either.

Oh, and then, oh, also on the budget worksheet, let me pull up their budget worksheet. I think I saw 2 entries for contracts.

Give me 1 second. I'm in submittable, so let me open up my file real quick. RTP and Chute Bay, or Sitka Trail repair, Sitka Trail repair, and budget. There it is.

Yep. So in the.

Um, in the budget workbook, um, I see where it says construction contract and construction match. Uh, my question would be a little bit more clarity on that because usually in other projects I've seen the match on the same line, but I didn't understand what the additional line was for. So those were majority of my notes right there.

Okay, thanks, Lisa. Yeah, I just, um, I second pretty much everything Lisa said, um, and, um, and that the level of budget detail just was not sufficient, um, in my opinion. Oh, well, I mean, just by the what they provided, um, you know, it was, um, it brings up another point. I feel like, um, that there should be uniform expectations for all the grant applicants, no matter where they come from, whether it's the state or a nonprofit or some sort of governmental entity, tribal entity. I mean, they should all be held to similar standards.

And I think that when you don't do that, there just seems— it seems like it, it naturally breeds some just laxity conforming to the requirements.

Okay, thanks, Lee. Um, are there any other comments on this application, Sikka Trail Repair?

Seeing none, I'm going to circle back. Oh, sorry, I, I just, I couldn't click fast enough and I don't want to take up too much time, but, um, I also considered in all of these applications what else was available in the area when I thought about what needs the application was meeting. And so, um, seeing fewer opportunities in Sitka, I thought I'd give it a greater importance.

Thanks, Jennifer. Lisa?

Um, and I might be wrong here, so please anyone else on the board chime in. Um, but I noticed like they had mentioned, uh, helping people, individuals with mobility issues. Um, but I noticed that a lot of this was about staircase and gravel repair, so there wasn't like any specific ADA infrastructure. Uh, so I ended up scoring zero on that. Um, but I, I would like to know more about how this would help with individuals with mobility issues.

Okay, thanks, Lisa.

I don't see any other commenters, so I am going to circle back to the 35 Mile ORV Riding Park Phase 3 and just again state that there were 3 quotes submitted for each piece of equipment and a quote for the contract labor. So I'm not sure if that makes anybody want to comment again or change scores or anything like that.

Okay. See, see no comments right now. We're going to move on to the Phase 1 Lunch Creek Loop Trail. Submitted by Alaska Parks, and that is to repair trail sections in Settler's Cove Creek— Settler's Cove Lunch Creek Loop Trail.

Does anyone have any comments on this application?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read off the scores. Craig was at 81, Lee was at 54, Allie was at 85, Jennifer was at 91, Lisa was at 72, Jeff 67, and Terry at 87. So any comments about the scores here?

All right, Allie. Yeah, this is another one I would have liked to have seen a little bit more about the bid from the contractor. And there were like a couple of mentions in the narrative and some of the questions about some ADA additions, like a railing, but I couldn't quite see in the map like where that was intended. And there wasn't really any detail, as much detail about it in the budget as well. So I just wanted to confirm like there, there was intention of like resources set aside for that and how much of the trail would get that?

Like, is it one, just like one couple of stairs, or is it like a larger section? So a little bit more detail there would have been. And then yeah, another echo on like wanting to see a little bit more of the, the bid and the contractor information.

Okay, thanks, Allie. Jennifer? Thanks, I was just scrolling through. It took a— my submittable went a little funny, and then I'm trying to scroll back to it, but I had called on this one and looked it up, and even though it was a small section— and I say that because there's another one later that I scored lower because it's a small section— it is a small section, but it also is the funnel to be able to use the entire area, and so I I saw the importance of, you know, not just the footage and the miles, but what it was opening up to because it's the corridor to get there.

Okay, thanks, Jennifer. Ali, was your hand up again? Okay. No, sorry.

Um, okay, so with this one, though, I think the only things was in the budget narrative, it said that it was A total of about $59,000, um, in the budget workbook. There was a discrepancy. It didn't match the total. It was just about a $3,500 difference. Um, there were some differences in the quantities, like, uh, 165 4x4x16 posts in the workbook versus 182 in the narrative.

So just some consistency in that would have been nice to have seen. Um, and then they— I think they referenced the SCORP that was included with the documentation was an older one from 2016. Um, I'm sure it aligns with the current scope, but— or the SCORP, but, um, having seen that, that would have been nice instead of having to go dig for it. Um, and then I didn't see any large-scale map, um, showing where the specific, um, repair locations were on Lunch Creek Loop.

Oh, and then I didn't see any photos for public notice postings either. And so that's just an explanation to my scoring.

Okay, thanks, Lisa. Um, Lee? Yeah, I really appreciated the pictures that went with this one. It definitely demonstrated the need, and clearly it is a major access point, but sort of, I think, uh, to my point about, uh, endurable products or materials used to— for these projects, it's sort of the same thing as like Jennifer finding out, or any other board member finding out that, oh well, it's actually a pretty high priority area. I feel like that should be another grant question.

Might not be what we can score on according to RTP Federal, but I think having a better idea of context of these projects in terms of their— how much access they are providing, or, you know, not. Maybe it's the only point, you know. And so, and then again, in this case, it was another example of where I looked up, well, is this type of material actually in this environment, in this particular environment in Ketchikan, what's its longevity? And Um, the Forest Service, um, which has arguably incrementally more projects in, in Southeast, um, definitely uses a different approach to materials as well as keeping them slip-proof, um, which there wasn't, um, the, the, the, um, the shingles suggested for this project, um, aren't, you know, a little suboptimal for that. And, and could increase slipping hazards and safety for this particular set of stairs.

Okay, thanks, Lee. Are there any other comments for this application?

I think based on the amount of time we take to go through applications, I would like to do one more application. We only have one hand raised for public comment, so it, it might be small. So let's go ahead and do Eagle River Nature Center Trail Support and Equipment Improvements.

And that was submitted by Friends of Eagle River Nature Center to purchase trail maintenance equipment. We have Craig at 89, Lee at 95.

6, Ali at 88, Jennifer at 88, Lisa at 80, Jeff at 79, and Terry at 82. It looks like Lisa, you have a comment.

Um, one of my comments, which I have a ton on this one, is that I'm not sure if this classifies as a motorized, on the motorized side of the pool, because granted you are purchasing an UTV in a trailer, but it doesn't serve motorized users. So that's my only concern is that it might be miscategorized. It looks like we have this one marked as non-motorized, so that's how we're considering this one. My mistake. All right, thanks.

Jennifer.

Thank you. I'm just scrolling down to where my comments were, but on this one, I remember I had some questions over some of the things they were purchasing that, and some of that was brand new PPE and, you know, possibly the means to get this done, and I just wondered if that was necessary project expense or if that could be obtained through the— through Parks, DNR, or, you know, with another partnership that was already readily available that, you know, maybe wasn't being used for fire equipment or something, you know, with Forestry, you know, I don't know. I just— I saw that as— I wondered why that was being purchased. In conjunction with the project. Okay, thank you.

Ellie?

Yeah, as someone who is search and rescue, and if projects are going to look at like providing better ways to access rescue emissions for things, I would love to see a little bit of information about what kind of call volume you all are getting on these trails and how typically response time is. Like, will this alleviate a really, really big gap in response time that we have from teams, um, in Anchorage and things like that. So, um, that would be really nice as well. And then a little bit more information about, like, maintenance of this equipment afterwards, like, where are we going to be storing the side-by-side and all of this? Like, um, what kind of long-term, uh, costs might be incurred from, um, maintaining, uh, this equipment as well?

So that would be, uh, nice to see for safety.

I think it helps to hear what the committee members are thinking about when they're scoring applications with a new application period hopefully coming up here in August. So I'm sure everyone's listening in. Lisa, your hand is up. Do you have more comments for this application? Yes, I do.

So my general comment is this was a pretty solid application, but I do have for DOT, just I feel like this is one of those, like, we should have a separate equipment tab in the budget workbook for it. I didn't see a disposition plan for this also, so maybe I think more on the application side we might need to ask that specific question and not just assume that they're going to provide that.

And that's it. Okay, I do think that there are federal requirements for equipment purchased under a grant award, but I will follow up on that as well. At this point, it's 1:25, so I need to go ahead and open it up for public comments again. I do see a couple of folks with their hands up, and we're working on getting a lineup here for you.

And then if folks could be also committee members be looking at your calendars. Let's start with Lynette Oliver.

Thank you. Okay, I just wanted to be really quick. Thank you to— and I wanted to thank Leigh for her comments on this. I'll know if I do some more in the future to actually put in about what we considered and why not. So we had looked at the possibility of a more raised up, but for the same reasons Lee said, um, the logistically and financially just wasn't doable.

We also considered something like aluminum or metals for the, uh, boardwalk, but several community members are very vocal about they do not like how it looks, and some others are very vocal about they do not like— my dog— their dogs don't like it. This is a popular dog trail. And then what had been there before was just two, and put down, I think, in 1989. And it was the only thing that we could see was it was two 2x6s that were, had about a 6-inch gap between them, but not up on anything at all. And this is, so it wasn't ADA accessible or anything like that.

And this one is only raised up on 4-inch, but it's something better. And then because it has substantial treated 2x6x6 running down it, it'll be ADA accessible and should last much longer because it's more than just 2 little boards next to each other. So, yeah. Okay, thank you, Lynette. Speaking in reference to Chute Bay Trail Phase 5, Baldies Adventure Alliance.

Oh, yes. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Next up we have Mark Wheeler.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Oh, wonderful. Yeah, thanks for all your comments and all your hard work to the committee. I did just want to comment on the submittable platform. We did upload 3 quotes for our equipment purchases and then our quote for our labor contract.

There was no good place to submit them through the system given the limitations on each section, and so we uploaded it, and this was per Ms. Garrett's direction. We uploaded them to the project narrative section under where it says, please upload at least 3 photographs or visual materials. That was the only place we could find to upload those. So that might have been confusing to the scores, but just one of the limitations to submittable and how it was formatted. It wasn't— there wasn't a place in, say, in the budget narrative where we could have uploaded that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark, and that is something that we can address for the next application cycle.

Okay, the next commenter is Bryce Miranda.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. All right, thank you, Rebecca, and thank you, committee, for taking the time out to go through this process. Wanted to respond to some of the comments that were brought up during the review of the Winter Trailhead Site Improvements Project. I jotted down some notes, so hopefully I captured the correct questions there. I believe one of the questions was to the $1,400 allotted for miscellaneous supplies.

That would actually go to primarily survey equipment— I'm sorry, survey supplies such as rebar, stakes, nails that we would need to carry out surveying activity, as well as construction administration duties. And I do apologize, I missed the comments about the public notice at length, but from what I gathered, it seems like there were some questions about what we had done for the public notice piece. We did put the public notice out. A copy of that was included in the submittal package that we submitted. It was also included in the narrative.

There were snippets of where that was posted as well as the actual posting that was on the AlaskaOnline system. I believe those were the main questions. And again, thank you for your review of this project and this opportunity to respond to those questions.

Thank you, Reese. Next public commenter is Michelle Stevens.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, I understand that this is the first year for submittable, and I believe that there's going to be some glitches, and I believe that everybody's done the best that they can, and thank you for the comments. Under the Petersburgh Community Nonprofit Tundra Mats, We did submit a quote, and I do not know why it's not there. And I know that there was the discrepancy of $15, and that was because of the tax that I probably failed to put into the— added into the Excel sheet. But, um, and I would also like to address the, uh, Petersville Community Nonprofits Rescue Center. One of the comments was made that we were— that they were wondering why we didn't get any.

Matsu borough support or supportive letter, and that's because all the trails on the Petersville Community nonprofit trail system are state lands trails. There's their state— on state lands and not on borough lands. And also a letter of recommendation. I believe that you have— I may be wrong, but I believe that you may have Petersville and Trapper Creek communities confused. Petersville Community Nonprofit is Petersville Community Council, and then you have Trapper Creek Community Council, which is our neighbors that is further south.

So we don't share the same community council, it's a separate community council. And our boundaries, they're at Crotta Creek, and they are east of Croto Creek, and we are west of Croto Creek. And I would also like to say that we also submitted a quote, and I'm not sure why anybody's not seeing these quotes, but they were submitted. I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Michelle. Our next Public commenter is SJ Alaska State Parks.

It looks like we show you unmuted, Alaska State Parks, but we cannot hear you.

I think we're experiencing some technical difficulties with Alaska State Parks.

I'm going to move on to our last commenter here, Louis Calandry, and then we'll come back to you, Alaska State Parks. Thanks. Thank you. This is Louie Calandry, Vice President, Big Lake Trails. I wanted to respond to a couple of comments.

Um, the BABAA is Buy America, Build America, and Tucker meets that certification being built in Oregon. Um, so that was one of the reasons that we went with the Tucker. The Piston Bully, which is also a very popular used up here, they were more expensive for a comparable machine.

Tuckers we're familiar with from having our two dinosaur 1991 and 1994 machine. So that was, that was some of the stuff that we went with. But thank you for everything you've done. And are doing for all of us. Have a great day.

Thanks.

Thank you, Louie. And I see that Alaska State Parks is back, so let's try this again.

I can see the— I can see your little microphone going up and down, but I cannot hear you. I don't know if other folks on the line can hear. No, I'm seeing heads shaking no.

Rebecca, considering we're, we're going to obviously have another half the list, but they can provide something in writing or join us next time, right? Yes, yes, I think that would be a good idea. Alaska State Parks, if you could email me your comments, we will be having another meeting as soon as possible. I don't know if committee members are ready to talk about that next meeting date. Would next Friday work for committee members, high level?

Jennifer? I had a quick question over whether we have to adjourn time sensitive today or whether we can complete our work today, and what is the public notice requirement for having another meeting? Are we able to— if we have to conclude today's meeting because of time constraints, may we recess rather than adjourn so that Yeah, can you, can you answer the public notice requirement on having a second meeting and maybe the availability to just continue our work? I'm going to struggle on that one, but hopefully our communications person will be able to tip tap away to me and help me answer that question. I believe I can continue on.

I was trying to be respectful of everybody's time today, and so if the committee members are available, we can continue. We did have the public comment times at the times that we said we would have them. And I'm just, I'm just waiting on an answer here. Lisa, you have a comment?

Yes, I just want to echo, I think, what was just said. I mean, if we do have time today, I'd like to continue and just get them done since we're— it's been a lengthy process. We've all spent a lot of time on these applications. I think on some of these applications I spent like 2 hours on it. But with that said, That said, I wanted a question for you guys.

Do we get an option to rescore these applications, or are these absolute final? No, we can be rescoring, so you can change your scores as we move through them. We'd like to keep that in a public process. Okay, thank you. So we can revisit, go back.

Let's see, Leigh. Yeah, I just, I don't. I'm available to continue meeting, and I just want to say that, um, if it, you know, I'd encourage if there's some, you know, middle ground, if people can continue. I mean, we're at, you know, the first week of May, construction season's coming up, you know. I mean, uh, it's getting late in the year to be deciding grants, and, and so, like, if we had to delay for another meeting and go through the public process, you know, posting and all that, like, I just worry about what how we compromise the applicants by not having timely, you know, processing of these applications.

Okay, so we have non-motorized, motorized.

I think let's get started on the next application if The committee members have any concerns, please drop them in the chat or, or speak up here. Our next application is Chilkat State Park Trail Repair Program from Haines Huts and Trails.

I'll read off those scores. We've got Craig at 83, Lee at 90, Allie at 91, Jennifer at 91, Lisa at 78. Jeff at 79, and Terry at 97. Looks like Lee, you have your hand up.

No hand. Okay. Does anyone have any comments to make about this application?

Jeff. Thank you. I did have a question about the Citizens Advisory Board letter of support. It's signed by Nate Ahrens. And also as the executive director of Canyons, Huts, and Trails.

So I was wondering if there was a conflict of interest in there and if that should be addressed.

Natalia, do you know if that is a conflict of interest?

Let me take a look into this. Give me just a second. Okay, thanks. Go ahead, Jeff. And then the, the other one was just with the helicopter quote.

Um, uh, and once again, I want to restate, I understand the difficulties of finding contractors, uh, within rural areas. Um, but there was only the one, the one vendor cited, um, for that. Um, And then the project manager hours appeared in the project budget as a direct personnel cost and also appeared to be used as part of the in-kind match contribution. So I was just wondering, I don't know if we could ask questions, but if the applicant confirmed that the hours counted towards match are distinct from the hours charged to the federal award with no overlap.

That is something that we would make sure of prior to award, how the budget was going to be worked out. But I understand that. Okay. I understand that you're seeing some confusion there. Yeah.

Jennifer. Thanks. I found the 10-week summer work session highly reasonable for the work that was being accomplished. And I had not picked up on what was just said with the match because when I read it, I thought that seemed— I thought it was more clear when I read it, but now I have a little bit of a question now that that interpretation has been offered. That's it.

Thanks, Jennifer.

Any other commentary?

Okay, seeing none right now. Oh, there's Lisa.

Sorry, I'm really slow today getting my notes together. I have like the same concerns Jeff does. In addition to that, I noticed that the de minimis standard applies to the modified total direct costs and not the total project cost. So we just need to verify that. Also the same thing with the match.

I'm not sure about the unsecured future volunteers and being utilized as a match. And then the other question I have is that there's two crew member one appearing twice. With the same rate. So is that 2 separate crew members, or is that just an inadvertent duplicate entry?

And then also the same with this, I ended up dinging because I didn't see photos of the trailhead posting.

Okay, thanks, Lisa. We would certainly verify all the budget prior to award just to make sure that we understood it very carefully. I know that these projects are tracked closely by FHWA. Even budget amendments have to go through a specific process.

All right, are there any other comments on Chilkat State Park Trail Repair Program? Seeing none, I will go on to the next one. Which is in the DNR submittable portal. Tonsina Point Trail Improvements submitted by Alaska State Parks. We have Craig at 76, Lee at 87.

Oh, lost my tracker there. Allie at 88, Jennifer at 90, Lisa at 87, Jeff at 84, and Terry at 89. Are there any comments about this application?

You know, switching portals can take a minute, so I'm trying to delay a little bit here and see.

But also, your comments are recorded in the portal. We will be providing applicants with information on how to access those comments. Jennifer? I had questions when I looked at the staff oversight and questioned whether or not they were adding a staff for this, but those— that was alleviated when I got a hold of Parks and they said no, and it's, it's allotting the 2 staff that are through the program. Thanks.

Okay, thanks, Jennifer.

Any other comments on this one?

Okay, we will move. Oh, there's Lisa. Go ahead. I'm so sorry. So I do appreciate the dual budget scenario in this one.

There's just a little confusion. I think at the end of the day, I think they're going— from what I'm understanding with this, they're— I think they're going to be using their crew for it and not contracted crew, from what I understand.

I also wanted to note that the public notice dates are different. The application says end date of October of 2027. And the public notice is November 2026. So just a little bit of clarification there. This one I didn't see a quote for either.

Um, this might just be a submittable issue, to be honest. And, um, just a breakdown of the 6,000 crew hours would be really nice. Um, And then the material costs, like they have a line item that says $10,000 for construction materials, just a breakdown itemization of that also. And that's a little bit on my scoring.

Okay, thanks, Lisa. Yes, the, the quote issue for these applications is really easy to fix, so for sure we're going to get that fixed next year.

Any other Questions, comments?

Okay. We're going to move on to Wolverine Trail Bridge, Iditarod National Historic Trail, submitted by the National Forest Foundation. This is back in the DOT portal. This is continued construction of the Iditarod National Historic Trail. We have Craig at 86, Lee at 65, Allie at 88, Jennifer at 99, Lisa at 89, Jeff at 88, and Terry at 93.

Does anyone want to make any comments on their scores?

Go ahead, Jennifer. I just had in the comment section that this was historical access, non-motorized, and had broad community support.

Allie? Yeah, I just wanted to highlight I may have a conflict of interest with this one. I personally know the applicant, Annie Egger, who submitted the application. I graded it earnestly, but the board can decide if they would like to disregard my score on it.

Okay, I'm not 100% sure how that process works, so I'll check on it while we're talking here. Thanks. No problem, Madam Chair. Just a point of order would be that we have a possible declaration of conflict of interest, and I would make the motion for the board to vote on that. I do not think she has a conflict of interest simply because she knows the person.

If there's— and so then we can Unless there's opposition to that, the Chair can say, you know, the Chair can say, you know, is there any opposition to that? Do we want to vote on it? And if not, the Chair can simply make a determination that she does or doesn't, and then we can either object to your decision. Okay, that was a lot. So does anyone feel that Ali has a conflict of interest?

And Rebecca, just to frame it, that the general conflict is, does anyone object to the individual? It's— she's declaring a conflict, or she's making sure you're aware, but it's really the DAR members comfortable, given the circumstance and description, with them being a part of an official action or not, should they recuse themselves.

Okay, Lisa. I'm not putting my hand up because I don't feel she has a conflict of interest, because if that's the case, I should disclose that I know at least half of these applicants, and the TRAILS community is really small. So I think simply knowing someone that applied is not a conflict of interest. Okay. I think I need to— need to do a motion.

Help me out again. I've got, I've got my hand up. Rebecca, go ahead, Lee. Yeah, so I, the same thing as Lisa, like, I couldn't score half these grants if, you know, if that was the case. So I think it's, I think my understanding of it is, so first of all, I think she can score it.

I accept her scores. And secondly, I think it's really like, Is this your project? You know, like, or are you a beneficiary? Are you a contractor to this project? I mean, it has to be more than just, I know the applicant.

Um, and I think that's the standards that have been used, but, um, probably need to just clarify that for the board in the future.

Rebecca, I think you're good just saying, are there any objections? If there's no objection, there's no need for a vote. I think you can handle that. Okay, are there any objections to not— to, to Allie scoring this application?

And I'm pausing and I don't see any hands up. I'm hearing none. We will leave Allie's score in for this application. Thank you. I'll work on clarifying the guidelines.

Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. I wasn't sure. Okay. Sorry to bog down our time.

Jennifer? I guess the other comment I had made during review was that I recognize that it was a high price tag, but it's also in keeping with what it's going to take to build in this location, and there's broad support.

Thank you, Jennifer. Jeff? I did have some questions, and please correct me.

Clarify if I'm missing the geography here, but under tribal consultation, there's a tribal consultation contact identified as a Forest Service supervisor, Jennifer Youngblood, who is also a federal agency officer, not a tribal liaison or a tribal historic preservation officer. So just was— is that— I guess since the tribal consultation contact was identified I guess I'm looking to see which outreach conducted directly to Alaska Native tribal governments or the THPO, which is the preservation officer, specifically for the Wolverine Trail project.

Okay, that is a point of clarification we will need to follow up on should this project be awarded. Yeah.

All right, Lee. Yeah, I just wanted to point out that I'm having technical difficulties on my end as far as accessing Submittable, and I've asked to reset the password and I can't even get in. So like, I could probably adjust my score on a couple of these, but I'm not going to be able to, and I just want to point that out in so that everything's being graded fairly. I think that we can adjust the scores live on this spreadsheet, and then we can go back into Submittable and get everything corrected. We wouldn't need to do it live right this minute.

Natalia, can you clarify for us?

Yes, we can do it live as we discuss this project, but there is also form Um, for the final score that all the RTAC members can fill out with their final score if they wish to change their score. Yeah, there's two ways of doing this. Okay, well, I think it would be important to do it live here if we are going to do any scoring changes. Um, I think that some folks have been thinking about it. We might need to circle back around to all the applications and just once again ask if anybody would like to change their score, but at this point we can ask starting from Wolverine Trail Bridge forward, if anybody would like to change their score.

And Lee, you have your hand up.

Oh man, I'm sorry. Oh, okay.

Okay. I'm looking to see if anybody else has their hand up. Okay. And we can help you with the final scoring template that's in submittable to make sure that everything is updated for the applicants and for the public. All right, I'm going to slowly— oh, there's Lisa.

I just had some comments on this. Are we still commenting on this, the Wolverine project? Okay. For DOT, is a Buy America certificate required for this with the steel bridge? I believe it would be.

Okay, I don't think I saw one in the file anywhere. And then there was just a discrepancy. I think the budget workbook was $183,000, and then the ask was $200,000. So I just need to review that a little more. It might be on my part that I'm missing that.

And then I don't know if the federal match is coming from I mean, the match is coming from federal funds. So I think in the description they had mentioned something about restoring Alaska's National Forest funds in the Forest Service, which is federal money. Would that still qualify as a state match for this project?

I believe it would. Natalia, can you speak to how match works under the RTP program? Yes, RTP funds can be used as match for, on other projects funded by federal funding. It can be used as match. Thank you.

Okay, are there any other comments or folks that would like to change their scores?

Seeing and hearing none, I'm going to— oh, there's Lisa. I think with this one, other than the Buy America certificate, I would like to up my score. Um, do I have to tell you specifically what section I would up my score in?

Natalia, can you speak to changing the scores? Um, if we're doing right now, Lisa, I would need overall score and answer your other question. Uh, Buy America Act, this project is the federal request is under $500,000.

This requirement is not applicable. Okay, thank you so much. So yeah, I'd like to go ahead and up my score up to 94, please.

Okay, and I see that Leigh Hart's hand is up. Yeah, I'm just a little bit concerned. About starting this process when we've already gone through 2/3 of the grants, of being able to adjust scores and the time commitment that it might add to what we're already doing. And we're already overtime. And I'm wondering if we can just go with whatever Natalia said Plan B was as far as adjusting scores, just in the interest of efficiency.

Okay, and, and I do apologize, we, we have had the ability to change scores. The entire time. I, it was not clear. So I just don't think it's fair to the other applicants to start at this point, you know, and so I just think we should just kind of do that. So it was my intent at the end to go back up through the applications, but we don't have to do that.

We can use the submittable process. Do Natalia, do you recall what Lisa's score was here under Wolverine Trail, and we can put it back and then adjust scores through the submittable process. It was 89. Okay, change that back to 89.

And we will make sure that you all know how to access your, your final scores.

All right, moving on to To the Chena Lake Restoration Area River Park Trails Reroute Phase 2. It was submitted by the Fairbanks North Star Borough. We have a score from Craig, 76, Lee, 95, Ali, 87, Jennifer, 83, Lisa, 93, Jeff, 87, and Terry, 88. Are there any questions or comments about this project?

Jennifer, I wanted to justify my score on this because I do live in the Fairbanks North Star Borough and utilize this area, and I was grateful that the borough Parks and Rec was available to speak with me while I was going through the application. And, you know, it looks like because of the bank erosion that they are in fact moving the trail. At first I had questions regarding the cost, wondering if this was simply bank stabilization, and understanding what the river does each year, wondering about the efficacy of the expenditure. The reason that it scored lower— I did go back to this. It was the first one I scored, and so when I saw I was scoring other projects higher, I questioned what I had done here.

And I did go back and I still scored it lower because of the necessity, because there's so much available in the area. While I recognize that making the, the move in this 800-foot section would complete this loop that's highly utilized, and while I really appreciated that in the, uh, submittable— one of the things I, I struggled a lot with submittable, but I really did like that it could show you those nice little colors at the top of how many different types of uses occurred on the trail, and there are so many. I also weighed that against what's available in the area, even out at China Lakes, that I scored the expense for this 800 feet much lower than the smaller portions in southeast and other areas where it acted as a funnel to the area, because the area would still be highly usable without this 800-foot section, even though I, I do understand why it's being proposed for, uh, you know, connecting what was lost by the river. Um, I just wanted that on the record so anyone didn't think I was overcompensating for bias or something.

Thank you, Jennifer. Are there any other comments or questions from the committee members?

Okay, I'm going to slowly move on to the next application, which is in the DNR portal. That is the sub YK Trail. It was submitted by City of Bethel, and we have scores: Craig 94, Lee 95, Ali 86, Jennifer 97, Lisa 85, Jeff 93, and Terry 89. Are there any comments about.

This project? A lot of silence out here. Okay.

All right.

I'm going to not move on. There's Lisa.

Sorry, just takes me a minute to get everything up. I still don't have everything up. Some of my notes, I noticed the city resolution said this was an ADA compliant trail, but the project narrative said that this design is not ADA compliant, but close to it. So just a little minor discrepancy there.

And then I need to pull up the budget workbook real quick. Give me 1 second. Okay, so total cost, total project cost came out to $674,958.

And so for the RTP program, like, are we including like the total cost in the budget workbook or just like what we're requesting for the RTP program?

Just a clarity for the question for DOT.

I would imagine that, you know, it depends on if they're using the extra cost as match. So the Wolverine Trail Bridge has nearly— it has $991,000 in match. So that, that entire budget was put into the system, but now they have to make that match. So if that project is selected, they have to make that match. So they are applying under this program for the portion of the project that they are going to put forward, and most applicants put forward a project where they can make a 10% match.

So just a question of clarity, the Buy America certificate, is it just on what the request is for the RTP project, or is it for the total cost of the project? I believe it should be on the total cost of the project. So that's something I was going to follow up on. Okay, thank you. I was, I was questioning that also.

Yeah, thank you.

I just thought it was a really well put together grant. It, it, I believe, I can't check my submissible, but I believe based on my score, it probably hit all of the requirements. It was clean and easy to read, and, and, and the project for me hits all the boxes, like it's connecting. Communities. It's connecting people to healthcare and vice versa.

And like, I just, I really liked this project a lot and appreciated that their application didn't make me ding it for much. Okay, thank you, Leigh. Are there any other comments on the City Sub-YK Trail put forward by City of Bethel?

Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to slowly move forward to the Cake Community Nature Trail and viewing area that was put forward by City of Cake. We have score from Craig 86, Lee 90, Ali 79, Jennifer 84, Lisa 68. Jeff, 83, and Terry, 93. Are there any comments on this?

Jennifer? I really wanted to give it more points and I was struggling to find where the match was, and I don't know if our representative from CAKE who was here at the beginning of the meeting is still on, and I know that we just talked about not rescoring things in the meeting, but I had hoped to ask some questions, couldn't get a hold of them while I was going through the application, and I would give it more points if I knew where the match was. And if I missed it, just let me know.

I'll get a follow-up in writing from the city of Cake on that one.

Jeff. Yeah, I'll speak to my score here. One of the things that I was looking at is within the scope of work, there's an allotment for 4 weeks. Weeks, and that's task number 3, but there was no scope of work provided. The project construction is outlined and described as a wildlife viewing platform.

However, there's no mention of educational material or guidance for the site within the narrative's application or the scope of work. I just wanted to make note of that. Those comments are available in, in submittable as well.

Okay, thank you. Lisa. I accidentally X'd out my submittable, so I'm pulling it up. This project, I just want to speak to why I scored lower on it. There was some inconsistency between the description and the public notice in the application.

So I feel like maybe the public wasn't accurately informed. Like, the main application describes a wildlife viewing area. There's nothing about trail restoration or bridge study. And the public notice describes a project that's restoring a trail and creating a wildlife viewing area. The other thing is the total project cost shows $222,000 total, and the budget final workbook showed $217,000 approximately.

So just a little bit of explanation as to the difference there. I also didn't see a quote. And also noting the $40,000 long-term project planning line, contract line, as a standalone planning study. My question is, is this an eligible cost for DOT? That's more for DOT to answer.

Um, and then there were some inconsistencies. So, like, in the application, it said that it met Stipulation 2.9 as applicable. Um, but they had marked no in the box, and then Task 3 was blank. So I didn't— there was like a 4-week scope on this, the— their like spreadsheet, their table that they submitted for Task 3, but it was completely blank with that. So, um, some clarity as to what's going on for Task 3 would be helpful.

Okay, I think our public comment period is over. So I'm going to ask City of Cake to clarify where the match is coming from. But I, I think that we have to refrain from asking them a bunch of additional questions about what they submitted. We have to score based on what they submitted. So Natalia, do you have any comments on how we go about asking these types of questions?

Uh, we might follow up with the applicant after the meeting.

Okay, so we will get the clarification, yes, on the budget.

Okay.

Slowly moving on to the next application, which is the Buskin River Safety and Education Project put forward by Division of Parks and Rec. We have Craig at 85, Lee at 94, Ali at 91, Jennifer at 90, Lisa at 89, Jeff at 84, and Terry at 86. Are there any comments?

Go ahead, Ali. Yeah, just a general— I thought this was a really good application. I, I think it provides important information. I think it's really consistent with what the applicant has already done with grant funds, um, is a continuation of that work. So, um, I thought it was a, a very well put together application.

Go ahead, Lisa.

I think it would have been nice just to— I didn't ding for this, but if we could have had a mock-up of what our draft panel design, that would have been nice to see. However, I'm assuming that that didn't happen because they need the funds in order to do that. It would be putting the cart before the horse. The horse kind of deal. Um, other than that, I thought this was a pretty solid application also, and they've got a very strong grant history behind them.

Um, the only other comment I have is there is a $3,500 kiosk signage supply line. Um, I don't know if that needed to be itemized. I, I think it does. And so just seeing that itemized, it's just worth noting. And that's it.

Okay, thank you, Lisa. Are there any other questions?

Comments.

Lee? Yeah, I just want to thank Lisa for doing the dirty work and rolling her sleeves up and getting in the budgets as deeply as she did. You're kind of shaming me because I didn't— I was more on the Jennifer side of that spectrum. And, but I really appreciate Lisa for for finding these, for sharing the math issues with all of us. I appreciate it.

Okay, any other comments?

All right, it looks like we are going to move to the last application to discuss today, which is Silver King SRA Groundwater Education Project, which is also a Division of Parks and Rec project. We have Craig at 91, Lee at 88, Ali at 91, Jennifer at 98, Lisa at 87, Jeff at 100, and Terry at 90. Are there any comments or questions on this part?

Go ahead, Leigh. Yeah, I just, um, for fairly similar projects and, um, or project goals and stuff, it, um, this one wasn't as well constructed as the, uh, um, composed as the Buskin River one. And, um, I wish I could tell you more specifics about that, but, um, uh, I just think that that Buskin River one was a great model, um, for these types of projects and making sure that, um, I really felt like I completely understood the project, the need, um, and the details of how it was going to happen.

Thank you, Lee.

Any other comments? It does, it does look at this at this time. This is actually the top-rated project.

Go ahead, Lisa.

Very, very minor. I do appreciate projects that are educational. It appeals to all ages. It's nice to have that trailheads, parking lots, etc. This one, it would have also been nice to see a, like, draft panel design.

Understandably, if that costs, obviously, for labor, makes sense why it's not submitted. And then the only thing is in the task list, there was an April 1 start date, and then the project start date was May 1st. Very, very minor. So that's why I scored it so high. Also for DOT, is it—.

True. I think there's like a 5% cap for RTP funds being used educational. So both of these, I think this project and the last project both fall within that also. Yes. So these are our two educational projects and they are in a special set-aside.

Any other comments?

Okay, so what I'm going to do is get with Natalia to send instructions about how to update the score sheets. We will then make the scores, the final scores available to the public. And once we have the scores and all the applications in front of us, we will have to make decisions based on the 30-30-40 split. So that'll be completed in-house here at DOT. Really appreciate everyone's time today.

I'm actually going to need to take a step back and think about when our next meeting will be. We'll actually probably be pretty soon since we have to continue working on scoring criteria and the next application season will be opening up here very shortly. So I would like to go ahead and move to adjourn this meeting.

Leigh Hart, second. Wait, can I—. So actually, since you're—. Yeah, yeah, since you're the chair, you have to make a motion. Leigh can make it and I can second.

Yeah, I'll make the motion. To adjourn. Thank you, Leigh. And Jennifer Uhasz, you second? Yes, ma'am.

All right. Thank you, everybody. We'll be in touch.

Thanks, Rebecca. Good job. Thank you.