Committee hears draft CASA CIP and stakeholder survey; members urge broader outreach and funding options
Summary
Presenters reviewed a stakeholder-driven draft six-year capital improvement program for the CASA service area; members asked for expanded outreach to constituents, a funding "other" column (LRSA, grant or levy matches), and clearer project timelines.
The Rules Committee received a briefing Jan. 9 on an early draft of a six-year capital improvement program (CIP) developed for the CASA service area using a stakeholder survey and local priorities.
Presenters said a spreadsheet of projects collected from LRSA (Local Road Service Areas), trail groups and other stakeholders was shared with the administration and will be the basis for the CASA CIP as it moves through the municipal process. The presenters identified projects such as Basher parking improvements and Canyon Road work and said state partners (including Chugach State Park) have expressed interest in coordinating some pieces.
Members raised process concerns. Assemblymember Meg and others said the stakeholder survey had not been broadly circulated to all assembly members for distribution to their constituents and asked for another outreach opportunity to reach a wider public and the everyday payer, not only super-users. One member asked for a column noting whether projects were already programmed in the municipal CIP and for timelines to understand whether the CASA list would accelerate projects already planned.
Several members discussed funding approaches. Committee members asked for an "other" funding column to show potential LRSA contributions, federal grants or state matches; staff and a municipal representative explained that some park-area projects on state land could be financed by a local levy (not bond) or other municipal mechanisms, noting legal and procurement distinctions between bonds and levy-funded work. One speaker suggested exploring match requirements for LRSA road projects so districts would have some skin in the game where broader user loads exceed local payers' revenue.
Presenters said the CASA list is iterative and that additional administration feedback and a joint conversation about definitions (what counts as a park amenity versus road maintenance) would be useful. The committee discussed options to include CASA items in the bond package and to add clarifying preamble language about project types and financing to the AIM that will accompany any bond referral.
No formal action or vote was taken; presenters were asked to add columns for funding sources, indicate whether projects are already in municipal plans, expand stakeholder outreach and return with a more detailed financing matrix.
