Loading...
11-12-2009 I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 POLICY COMMITTEE (PC) MEETING 3 4 Following are the minutes from the MPO Policy Committee (PC) meeting held on 5 Thursday, November 12, 2009 at 5 00 p m at Dona Ana County Commission 6 Chambers, 845 N Motel Blvd , Las Cruces, NM 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 9 Commissioner Karen Perez (DAC) 10 Commissioner Scott Krahling (DAC) 11 Councilor Sharon Thomas (CLC) 12 Councilor Gil Jones (CLC) 13 Trustee Carlos Arzabal (Town of Mesilla) 14 Councilor Dolores Archuleta (CLC) 15 16 MEMBERS ABSENT Trustee Sam Bernal (Town of Mesilla) 17 Commissioner Leticia Duarte-Benavidez (DAC) 18 19 20 STAFF PRESENT Tom Murphy (MPO Officer) 21 Andy Hume (Acting Senior Planner) 22 Caerllion Thomas (Acting Planner) 23 24 OTHERS PRESENT Joseph De La Rosa (NMDOT) 25 26 1 CALL TO ORDER 27 28 Meeting was called to order at 5 00 p m Roll call to establish quorum 29 30 Murphy- Commissioner Krahling 31 32 Krahling Here 33 34 Murphy- Commissioner Perez. 35 36 Perez. Here 37 38 Murphy- Councillor Thomas 39 40 Thomas Here 41 42 Murphy- Mayor Cadena 43 44 Cadena Here 45 46 Murphy- Trustee Arzabal 1 1 2 Arzabal Here 3 4 Murphy- Councillor Jones 5 6 Jones Here 7 8 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY - None 9 10 3 PUBLIC COMMENT - None 11 12 4 CONSENT AGENDA — Items indicated by an asterisk (*) 13 14 Trustee Arzabal motioned to approve the consent agenda 15 Commissioner Perez seconded the motion 16 ALL IN FAVOR 17 18 5 *APPROVAL OF MINUTES 19 20 51 September 9, 2009 — Minutes were approved under the Consent Agenda 21 motion 22 23 6 ACTION ITEMS 24 25 61 Resolution 09 17 A Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Las 26 Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 2010-2015 Transportation 27 Improvement Program 28 29 Andy Hume stated NMDOT staff would be giving a presentation 30 31 Michael Gallagher, NMDOT, gave a presentation 32 33 Cadena Which bridge on Union? 34 35 Gallagher- This would be over the east Union, right here 36 37 Cadena So not the one on University and 38 39 Gallagher- Correct. 40 41 Cadena You just did that one, okay 42 43 Gallagher- Consist with Downtown Revitalization is the Phase 3, Picacho/Main Street 44 project, from the south end is Chestnut and to the north end of Solano 45 This project will include roadway safety, ADA and pedestrian 46 improvements, which in turn may provide a better roadway appearance 2 I and will provide pedestrian connectivity to the central downtown area, the 2 new City Hall which is down the southern end, the City Hall, the library and 3 at the northern end it will connect to Solano providing pedestrian access to 4 regional parks and recreational opportunities 5 6 Thomas Could you talk about this one a little bit more 7 8 Gallagher- For this project, it would be all within existing right-of-way; primarily we 9 would be looking at improving ADA This is a photo shot of that area and 10 you can see that, well maybe this doesn't quite capture it, but the 11 sidewalks along that area are currently not ADA compliant and nor is there 12 a sidewalk throughout the entire area There are portions of this area that 13 the sidewalk is missing and then at the intersections and this is an 14 intersection here, you're showing they don't provide cross walking or any 15 indication of any cross walks 16 17 Thomas So those are the things that will be included, will be sidewalks for the 18 whole area and pedestrian crosswalks and all 19 20 Gallagher- Correct, yes, yes If there are no questions, I'll move to the next one 21 22 Mike Gallagher continued his presentation 23 24 Thomas I have a question about this one The off and on ramps though will stay 25 the way they are or will they be changed when you do this 26 27 Gallagher- Right now the design team, they're reviewing a number of different 28 alternatives Not one option has been selected At a minimum the 29 improvements to the on and off ramps, at a minimum the on and off ramps 30 will receive improvements One alternative is looking at putting in an on 31 ramp where the circle, right here where my mouse is, there used to be a 32 ramp there It was taken out because it did not meet, well, it was deficient 33 in a number of ways One alternative that's explored, however, has not 34 been selected, it's an option, includes putting another on ramp there and 35 then making improvements to the interstate to accommodate that type of 36 traffic We have been as I mentioned working closely with the City of Las 37 Cruces At our design teams we've had representatives from the Public 38 Works Department, Traffic as well as the Planning Department and your 39 MPO staff, Mr Murphy 40 41 Thomas I just found out because I did have somebody come to me about that and 42 complain about that that ramp was taken out and now it's causing 43 problems 44 3 I Gallaher- If you like, Mr Chair, Councillor, if you would want to provide me their 2 information after the meeting, we could certainly include them in anyway 3 that we could 4 5 Thomas Okay 6 7 Murphy- Mr Chair, Mike, if I may interrupt. I have been speaking with the 8 consultant on the design team for that project and I hope to have a 9 presentation to this Committee on that specific project, perhaps next 10 month, maybe in January, but they will go over the fine detail of it. 11 12 Thomas Okay, I'll get back in touch with the gentleman that had some concerns 13 and he can get in touch with you and I can tell him when we're going to 14 have a presentation Thanks 15 16 Gallagher- Mr Chair, Committee members, if there is no further questions 17 18 Cadena Comments or questions, alright, thank you, 19 20 Hume Mr Chair, members of the Committee, I want to point out just a couple of 21 things On page 18 in your packet, for some reason I'm not sure why, but 22 the item there for this particular project D1038, which is the 1-10/University 23 Interchange, for some reason it is only showing $2M, it's not showing the 24 TPA funding for $200,000 I'm not sure why, but what we can do is we 25 can when we're ready to make a motion, we can make a motion to 26 approve this as amended for the extra $200,000 because we want to 27 make sure that this is correct according to the request from the DOT The 28 second thing that I want to point out in working with Mike on identifying 29 funding for these various projects, several of these projects are ones that 30 have been on the TIP for quite a while They've been on the TIP and on 31 the STIP for a very long time Valley Drive as being one of them, US 32 70/Main reconstruction being another; some of the bridge projects that 33 Mike mentioned are other projects, but from staff's perspective this 34 represents probably the last of a lot of the TIP and STIP projects that have 35 been sort of on the TIP for quite a while That being said, it's important to 36 note that a couple of the projects, notably Valley Drive and Main Street are 37 utilizing STP funding sources that could also be eligible for some of the 38 unfunded ranked projects and we'll talk about those in our next point. The 39 reason why this is important is that we want to make sure and we've been 40 working with the DOT for future projects that would be eligible for other 41 STP funds to make sure that all projects go through the ranking process 42 and so that we can all hear them and all look at them, all of the projects, 43 local projects, lead projects, as well as DOT lead projects in the future 44 So, I just wanted to point that out to the Committee and just make you 45 aware of that as we move forward, but we're really happy to see a lot of 46 projects that are sort of older projects get moved along and we're ready to 4 I see those and I know, Councillor, you mentioned Valley Drive at a 2 previous meeting 4 Cadena I was just going to say that Valley Drive has been on there for a long time 5 so I'm glad to see that there Also, for the record, I don't believe 6 Councillor Archuleta was here when we took roll, so let the record show 7 that she's present as well and Councillor Jones as well 8 9 Hume With that Mr Chair, aside from that one amendment point I will open it up 10 for more discussion and look for a motion and a second on this item 11 12 Cadena Comments, questions? 13 14 Thomas I have a question The projects are being amended into, is that the usual 15 process or, that's what it says on here, that these projects are being 16 amended into it, so is that a process that we usually use? I don't know 17 that I'm familiar with that. 18 19 Hume Well, we're sort of in a transition period right now from a TIP ranking 20 system that sort of wasn't really used, didn't really exist to a new TIP 21 ranking system that we've been using for the last few months now So in 22 this particular case these projects actually have already been on the TIP, 23 so maybe the wording could have been a little more clearer; they're not 24 being amended into a TIP They are actually being amended into a 25 fiscally constrained year in a TIP, so that is a point of clarification 26 27 Thomas So you're saying that, so these projects they didn't go through the same 28 process as some of the ones that have been put on the TIP more recently, 29 but as we go forward eventually all the projects will go through the same 30 process, right? 31 32 Hume Yes, and what we would recommend, currently under current federal 33 regulations there are particular the STP, which is the surface 34 transportation program, it has certain funding categories that are eligible 35 for use in our area that are eligible use for local lead projects There are 36 other funding categories like IM, which is interstate maintenance, and 37 NHS, which is the National Highway System, which are only used on 38 interstates, US highways, etc So we would not necessarily request that 39 those always need to be brought for ranking because while we do need to 40 make sure that they are compliant with the Major Thoroughfare Plan We 41 can work that with the State as we do our updates and so on, but in 42 particular with the funding categories that are eligible for use in our area, 43 we want to make sure that all of the projects are ranked and weighted 44 against a similar criteria so that they can be ranked by this Body and 45 priority can be given to which projects get moved along through the 46 system 5 1 2 Thomas But not for the ones that their solely this interstate or national funding, 3 right? Okay 4 Hume That's correct, those would not necessarily need to go through this 5 process 6 7 Thomas Okay, thank you 8 9 Arzabal I make a motion to approve the Resolution as noted by Mr Hume as far 10 as the money on the D1038 11 12 Krahling Second 13 14 Cadena Anybody in the public have a comment about this particular item? Let's 15 have a roll call 16 17 Hume Commissioner Krahling 18 19 Krahling Aye 20 21 Hume Councillor Archuleta 22 23 Archuleta Yes 24 25 Hume Councillor Thomas 26 27 Thomas Yes 28 29 Hume Trustee Arzabal 30 31 Arzabal Yes 32 33 Hume Councillor Jones 34 35 Jones Yes 36 37 Hume Chair 38 39 Cadena Yes 40 41 Cadena Andy, before we move on can we do the presentations to the Councillors? 42 43 Murphy Staff would like to present some plaques to our two members who will be 44 departing us We would like to thank you for your years of service to this 45 Board Speaking on behalf of Andy, Caeri, Andrew, Linda and Naoma, 46 we've really appreciated all that you've brought to this non-paid, over 6 I worked fob and we'd like to just give you a word of thanks and we've 2 gotten some plaques First one, Mayor Pro-Tem, recognition of 3 outstanding service, Las Cruces MPO, 2002-2009, Chair in 2004, Vice 4 Chair in 2003, 2009, presented to Delores Archuleta 5 6 Archuleta Very nice 7 8 Murphy- And also recognition of outstanding service, Las Cruces MPO from 2006- 9 2009 presented to Gil Jones Thank you Councillor 10 11 Cadena Just as the Chair and as a member of the Committee during that same 12 time, I lust want to also recognize the two Councillors for duly always 13 being prepared for this meeting, having valuable input and really being an 14 asset to the City and especially to this Committee, so thank you 15 16 1 also understand that Joseph from the DOT may be leaving Joseph, do 17 you want to come up and talk to us briefly 18 19 DeLaRosa Thank you Mr Chair and on behalf of the NMDOT we would like to thank 20 Councillor Archuleta and Councillor Jones You were excellent partners 21 for the DOT We enjoyed working with you You exemplify the 22 partnership that we have between local government and the State of New 23 Mexico and I know that you had excellent attendance records at these 24 meetings We enjoyed the fact that you were always prepared and again, 25 we'd like to thank you for your service as well 26 27 Mr Chairman, you're correct, I did resign my position from the DOT My 28 last day will be next Thursday, the 19th and so I would like to also thank 29 the MPO staff and the MPO members for the partnership they showed me 30 as I worked for the past 4 '/2 years down in this part of the State on board 31 issues and the planning I'm moving on to go back to school next fall and 32 I've taken a position with the federal government up in the Midwest, so I'm 33 leaving behind not only my MPO work but the nice weather I'm a little bit 34 crazy maybe, but again I'd just like to thank you all and I wish you all good 35 luck as you continue to do this important work 36 37 Cadena And we want to thank you and wish you good luck as well 38 39 Jones Thank you very much 40 41 Hume Mr Chair, dust a bit of a housekeeping, for some reason we only ended up 42 with one sign-in sheet, so if we could make sure that everyone signs in 43 because we actually have some additional members from the public 44 who've joined us as well and we want to make sure they get signed in as 45 well 46 7 I Cadena Has everybody on the Committee signed in? Okay, we'll get it taken care 2 of 3 62 Resolution 09-18 A Resolution Amending the List of Ranked and 4 Unfunded Projects for the Transportation Improvement Program 5 6 Andy Hume stated that there would be three projects for discussion and he suggested 7 to the Committee that a motion to suspend the rules be made to hear the first two 8 projects together, which is Sonoma Ranch TIP application and Peachtree Hills TIP 9 application 10 11 Jones Mr Chairman, I move we suspend the rules to discuss both items 12 13 Arzabal Second 14 15 ALL IN FAVOR 16 17 6 2 1 Sonoma Ranch TIP Application 18 6.2.2 Peachtree Hills TIP Application 19 20 Mike Johnson, Public Works Director, gave a brief presentation 21 22 Perez. Mr Chairman, just a point of clarification, I remember talking about this 23 project not too long ago, didn't we at that point vote that we really didn't 24 have any juice and it was to be included What is the difference between 25 what we're doing today and what we did, it was about a month ago or two 26 months ago 27 28 Hume Commissioner Perez, Mr Chair, there was a vote by this Body back in 29 August regarding whether to put this on the previous TIP At midnight on 30 September 30th, the 2008 to 2013 TIP expired and the current TIP on 31 which we're ranking projects at this point and time is now the 2010 to 2015 32 TIP, so when you put it on the TIP the last time, it only stayed on there 33 until that TIP expired and so what they're doing is they are going through 34 the entire process, ranking it, also at the previous time they were not 35 seeking federal funds for the their respective projects here With this 36 inclusion on the TIP, they are seeking federal funding assistance for these 37 projects as well 38 39 Perez Okay, so at this point, this Resolution then would be to move it from the 40 previous fiscal year I guess or the previous year to the next. 41 42 Johnson Right, that's correct, yes 43 44 Perez. And what are the end of year funding opportunities that we're looking at? 45 8 I Johnson That was actually a note from the previous presentation that I didn't 2 remove, quite frankly, so now we're dust looking to get in on to move 3 forward in any available funding opportunities at this point. I know of no 4 end of year funding opportunities at this point. 5 6 Perez. I guess the question is there's something that's popped that would be 7 beneficial 8 9 Johnson Well, you know it's important I mean if the Las Cruces Public Schools 10 want to go to the State or perhaps find some source of funding It would 11 have to be on the TIP in order to qualify for that funding, so that's really 12 what we're looking for at this point 13 14 Cadena So the motion on the Resolution would be to put all of these back on the 15 TIP? 16 17 Hume Actually, Mr Chair, the Resolution and what we'll do is we'll walk you 18 through the steps on these 19 20 Cadena We're going to rank them again? 21 22 Hume Yes, you're going to rank all the projects again If there are no more 23 questions for Mr Johnson, I would suggest a motion and a vote to go back 24 to regular rules because we have one more applicant who wants to make 25 a presentation 26 27 Perez Mr Chairman, one other quick question When I was reading the notes on 28 the Sonoma Ranch project, there seems to be some discussion of 29 whether or not it would be dust to Peachtree Hills, pavement and all of the 30 rest of it exactly what the scope of the project would be and whether or not 31 past Peachtree Hills there's a value in doing significant road 32 improvements, did I read that right, and is that also part of the decision is 33 how much of the project do we want to put on the TIP or is it just we take it 34 all the way up to Dragonfly or wherever? 35 36 Johnson Commissioner Perez, through all of the presentations we provided to the 37 subcommittees, the BPAC and the TAC, we have always included the 38 project all the way to Dragonfly even though we already specifically 39 looking at the shorter section in the short term, but we have included the 40 entire length all the way to Dragonfly 41 42 Perez: So is that part of the discussion today one way or another? It seems from 43 a budget standpoint, that's a pretty significant decision 44 45 Hume Commissioner and Mr Chair that could be a source of discussion this 46 evening if the Committee wants to pursue that. My understanding in the 9 I discussion from the applicant is that the interest is in looking at the entire 2 roadway because what's happened in the past is when they've scoped a 3 much smaller project anticipating fewer funds and they have received 4 either more funds than they were anticipating or have received or had 5 some sort of decrease in costs or things like that, because the scope 6 wasn't bigger they had to either go back through and add on to it, which 7 can be very time consuming and delay the project, or that was the only 8 scope they were allowed to pursue and so the interest in the applicant 9 here in looking at the entire scope of the projects is even if say 3 of the 10 $9M becomes available they can always phase the project later on, which 11 would not necessarily be an option if they didn't include the entire length 12 13 Perez Got it and I apologize, I do remember this discussion from a couple of 14 months ago 15 16 Johnson Mr Chairman, just a little not that I want to just add maybe as a slide here 17 that I turned around to make sure the DOT was still here and I can 18 specifically tell you about a project that this has happened on is Telshor 19 and Lohman We actually ended up with a considerable amount more 20 money than we actually had to do the project and we've been going back 21 and forth trying to add some additional amenities to the project and what 22 we've actually with the narrowly defined scope of the project, if we would 23 have defined it a little bit wider it would've been a little more easier to try to 24 use a little bit more of those funds that were available 25 26 Jones Mr Chairman and I've seen this before and I don't see a downside, ask for 27 more and accept less and if there's no downside to that risk, I think that's 28 a good direction to go I've seen in business environments where, you 29 know, I need four new computers but I can really get by with two, ask for 30 all four, ask for five and be glad you get your two, but if you really need 31 two and ask for two computers, your going to get one and your not going 32 to get what you need and frankly, we know what a challenge it's going to 33 be to raise the $9M, so I don't, it's not if we're, I don't envision where we're 34 going to get a check tomorrow for that amount and I certainly see where 35 we're (inaudible) a partial solution and I think it really described the whole 36 scope of what's needed over time and we often talk about the benefits of a 37 completed full project so I think we ought to convey it that way and accept 38 it. As time goes on, do all we can do to fund it as best we can but I don't 39 see any motivation for under scoping the project, I just don't see it. Thank 40 you 41 42 Hume Mr Chair, members of the Committee what we need now is a motion and 43 a vote to go back to the rules I don't know whatever it is, to unsuspend 44 the suspended rules so we can hear the third presentation on the outfall 45 channel 46 10 I Cadena Okay, let's hear a motion 2 3 Archuleta Mr Chairman, I move to unsuspend the rules 4 5 Arzabal Second 6 7 6 2 3 Outfall Channel Trail TIP Application 8 9 Carol McCall, Community Development, City of Las Cruces, gave a brief presentation 10 11 Cadena Where's the desert trails, the existing one now? 12 13 Thomas It's on Mission 14 15 McCall Mission and Sonora Springs approximately 16 17 Jones Ms McCall, can you rank the durability of the surface as compared to say 18 an asphalt surface, a traditional asphalt surface? 19 20 McCall Well, for pedestrian and bicycle use it would certainly be durable enough 21 We used a semi-permeable paving system for the Llorona Trail a few 22 years ago and in comparing the two surfaces, the Desert Trail Park and 23 the Llorona Trail, they're very similar but that pathway was susceptible to 24 a lot of off road vehicles and there were instances where people on a 25 three wheeler or some other sort of off road vehicle just sat in one place 26 and did wheelies, did crazy eights and that made some really deep 27 gouges in the pathway that needed to be repaired, so as long as the trail 28 is used as it's intended, the durability is very high 29 30 Jones And if I may, one of the uses if for bicycles and often time when looking at 31 the picture we think of a low pressure tire with a lot of surface area like the 32 ones in the picture and the mountain bike that has a similar tire 33 configuration I am concerned and this is practicing engineering without a 34 license which I'm famous for doing, but you take a 100 or 210 pound rider 35 on a bicycle with a very narrow tire, road tire that's about 22 mm thick and 36 aired at 110 pounds will this be usable for that which is a standard road 37 bike, I mean we run on a road bike Will it be suitable for that or will that 38 tire configuration tear it up? 39 40 McCall Mr Chair, Councillor, from what I've been told by individuals who do ride 41 street bikes, it would be appropriate During the BPAC committee meeting 42 when I gave this presentation a similar question was asked and a 43 gentleman who rides both street bikes and mountain bikes frequently had 44 gone up to inspect the Desert Trail Community Park pathway and in his 45 opinion it would be fine for a street bike 46 11 I Jones Thank you, I just worry about the wear and tear I know what a small 2 wheel or a narrow environment does on certain asphalt services In cotton 3 warehouses we used to tear up asphalt all the time with a forklift and 4 they're heavy and they're hard, okay, thank you 5 6 Cadena Alright, Councillor Archuleta and then Councillor Thomas 7 8 Archuleta Thank you Mr Chairman, I dust had one question and it's out of curiosity 9 Why is it important that Camino Real approve this? 10 11 McCall Mr Chair, Councillor Archuleta, I may have misspoke, it's compatible and 12 adds connectivity to the Rio Grande pathway that's proposed by the State 13 Parks Division It isn't that they have to approve it or anything It adds 14 greater, I can't think of the right word, but greater connectivity Someone 15 who lived on the east mesa could ride their bicycle to the river and then 16 ride north or south along the river on the Rio Grande Trail once the Rio 17 Grande Trail is built. 18 19 Archuleta Okay, but it has nothing to with Camino Real business? 20 21 McCall Oh, well, that organization supports the pathway and actually there is a 22 portion of the Rio Grande Trail that is considered part of the Camino Real 23 North Valley Drive is considered a scenic bypass and part of the Camino 24 Real system, so it does and from what I recall even further north there is 25 greater proximity between EI Camino Real and the Rio Grande Pathway, 26 so it just provides connectivity 27 28 Cadena Very good, Councillor Thomas 29 30 Thomas Thank you Mr Chair Thank you, Carol, for a very nice presentation 1 31 guess I just want to add, the Rio Grande Trail, if you look at it the way it 32 goes through the whole State, there are more points of interest or 33 whatever in this southern section than any place else in the State and so 34 to be able to get there and make a trail so that more people can get there 35 will certainly enhance that trail and the State's looking at it as a tourist 36 destination and something that people will come to 37 38 McCall Enhance, that's the word I was looking for 39 40 Cadena Alright, anybody else 41 42 Perez Mr Chairman, just another point, do we already have the Calle de 43 Norte/University Avenue? Is that already a project that's been designated 44 and then this would be the next one? Okay, because I looked at that and 1 45 said if I was going to pick between the two, we've got a big wonking 46 university down there on University Avenue that would be a section that 1 12 I would target first (inaudible) really nice to be able to have them take a bike 2 down University Avenue and that gap between Zia and where the bike 3 path starts on South Main is something out of my worst nightmare 1 4 walked that with him the other day and it was scary We were up on the 5 ditch above everybody, it's the only place to walk 6 7 Hume Mr Chair and just to address Commissioner Perez' comment, in a few 8 minutes once we're done with comments on this presentation, as we did 9 last time the Committee will have an opportunity to assign discretionary 10 points to projects and at that point and time, particularly Commissioner 11 Perez if that's an interest of yours as seeing one of the projects ranked 12 higher, you have an opportunity to add some discretionary points and 13 perhaps move it up on the list 14 15 Mr Chair, members of the Committee, I want to make one comment. It 16 was brought out at the Technical Advisory Committee, particularly with the 17 crossing at Valley Drive That is a crossing of the DOT facility and so we 18 would also need to make sure as we move forward on this project that we 19 have concurrence and we may even need a cooperative project 20 agreement with the DOT to be able to cross the roadway and improve the 21 bike and pedestrian crossing at that point and I lust wanted to mention that 22 for the purpose of the Committee 23 24 Cadena Okay, anybody else, Committee, public, Department of Transportation, 25 Joseph? 26 27 DeLaRosa Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm trying to figure out when the best time to 28 make my comments is I have comments actually on all three items 29 There wasn't a call for public comment on the previous two, but from a 30 procedural standpoint I'm not sure that if I go ahead address them now 31 32 Cadena That's fine 33 34 DeLaRosa Thank you Mr Chairman I guess from the DOT perspective there was a 35 little bit of confusion I was talking to my colleagues over here and we 36 understood that these that we're moving forward is unfunded, ranked 37 projects that were outside of the fiscally constrained years of the 38 Transportation Improvement Program and again, the way this would work 39 is in order for it to be programmed in the TIP there would have to be 40 identified funding that we would then take your TIP and incorporate into 41 the STIP, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and so 42 what we saw in terms of the Sonoma Ranch and Peachtree Hills 43 presentations was that no funding had been identified and I also 44 understand that to be the case with the Outfall Channel, so the way the 45 DOT believes it should work is the project should be rated and ranked and 46 they should be placed outside of the fiscally constrained portion of the TIP 13 I until the time the funding is identified, then they would move into the 2 fiscally constrained years and again, 2010 is a fiscally constrained year, 3 meaning that any project that was adopted into the TIP would have to 4 identified funding and I'm bringing this up because there was an issue with 5 a letter that was sent from the DOT to the MPO, which was dated October 6 9, 2009 We received a response today that we reviewed and we will be 7 responding to at the appropriate time, but there seems to be a little bit of 8 confusion regarding the DOT comments regarding the process for ranking 9 in the TIP, programming in the TIP and how that goes to the STIP and 10 what that has to do with were some comments that were made in this 11 letter regarding the way that the project was not ranked by a technical 12 level but came directly to the Policy Committee and this was back in 13 August and we don't have an issue with the Policy Committee being able 14 to take that step You have the authority to be able to take the TIP, but 15 our concern is more with the fact that we had several concerns and issues 16 with these projects and we weren't able to get them addressed at the 17 TAC We weren't able to get them addressed at the Policy Committee 18 and we still haven't actually had them addressed because there's 19 confusion as to whether or not these projects are requesting federal 20 funding and if they are requesting federal funding, there are certain needs 21 that need to be met in order for them to qualify and one of them is for the 22 specific project , not the TIP but the project to meet the requirements of 23 the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA and so the projects 24 already not only been designed but it's actually been started You can 25 drive out on Sonoma Springs and you can drive through an unpaved 26 portion that has fire hydrants and such already kind of mapped in, which 27 means there weren't alternatives considered in a public input process 28 which basically subverts the NEPA process, meaning in the DOT opinion 29 is verified with the Federal Highways Administration, Sonoma Springs 30 wouldn't qualify for federal funding So in order for that to kind of make its 31 way into the discussion, we need to some how be able to kind of have that 32 conversation and the clarification as to whether or not the action you are 33 taking today is to go ahead and put it outside of those fiscal years so you 34 can try and find a source of funding or if you actually have the funding and 35 your trying to put it in 2010 It's kind of hard to, I think, mask or wrap up all 36 the questions into one statement, but the bottom line here is there is some 37 confusion on our end in terms of what exactly the wishes of the Policy 38 Committee and even the City of Las Cruces is regarding the first two 39 projects, Sonoma Ranch and Peachtree Hills 40 41 Cadena Alright, but before we even get there, as far as this fiscal year or how 42 would that be different, some of the projects that are listed there are not 43 funded either, so 44 45 DeLaRosa I wouldn't know exactly what you are referring to Mr Chairman, but again, 46 1 think there's confusion from our standpoint in terms of your ranked, 14 I unfunded list of projects, which in your Long Range Transportation Plan 2 you can certainly have a list of ranked, prioritized, unfunded projects that 3 you've essentially vetted and you are kind of putting in a holding, waiting 4 for the funded to be identified, that's one thing, and then you have your 5 official Transportation Improvement Program, which is required by the 6 federal regulations to be fiscally constrained and so for the projects to 7 move from the ranked, unfunded list into this TIP, you identify the funding, 8 then you move them here and then they go from that TIP into our STIP, 9 which is the Statewide Improvement Program, so again, we don't have 10 any problem with you ranking, it's not even our job to tell you if we have a 11 problem with you ranking unfunded projects That's certainly something 12 you have the authority to do, but when we do kind of involved is when 13 unfunded projects are being put into the fiscally constrained TIP, which 14 has to then be put into the STIP and we cannot take unfunded projects 15 from the TIP and put them into the STIP 16 17 Cadena Okay 18 19 DeLaRosa Maybe staff wants to clarify what the action is that would then help me, 1 20 guess understand more 21 22 Cadena, Yeah, why don't we do that. 23 24 Hume Mr Chair, members of the Committee, actually the process that Mr De 25 La Rosa is pointing out is exactly what we anticipate and the process that 26 we have been working on to this point with this list of projects Staff and 27 also this Board have not assigned these projects to any particular year 28 There is actually financially constrained years within any given TIP and we 29 have not assigned the projects to go into any of those financially 30 constrained years The understanding is exactly as Mr De La Rosa has 31 point out, these are a list of projects, they are ranked by this Board and 32 they considered unfunded and we look forward to working with DOT to 33 find funding or perhaps federal funding in the future to move these 34 projects into a financially constrained year 35 36 Cadena Before we get into that, does that clarify, Joseph, or let's get this 37 straightened out before we start getting into the Committee's questions 38 39 DeLaRosa Yes, Mr Chairman, that does help because I think what's part of what's 40 confused us is the TIP application implies that it's going into the TIP, 41 which as Andy said it's a four year fiscally defined document and then you 42 have like your unranked projects that go into the TIP and I think that's 43 what we were confused about and then in addition, during Ms McCall's 44 presentation that talked about construction in 2010, you know in order for 45 that to happen there would have to be the funding You'd begin your 46 environmental studies and you know those are kind of things that we were 15 I looking out for to kind of make sure that you have funding this program in 2 a fiscal year, it's hopefully going to stay there because we've had a 3 problem in the past and DOT is the biggest perpetrator of this crime, to 4 kind of program funds and then have to keep moving it back as you saw 5 from Valley Drive and some of the others that are here today So one of 6 things we're trying to do is just make sure when we talk about a year for 7 construction, it's a realistic year knowing that you've planned out for your 8 environment or your land acquisition and all that kind of stuff 9 10 Cadena Okay, Carol, have you guys identified some type of funding? None at all, 11 okay 12 13 Hume Mr Chair, just to point out specifically in your packet on Page 49, one of 14 the items that Mr De La Rosa is referring to there under the sub heading, 15 Written Application Requirements, about middle of the list is the item 16 called Proposed Year of Construction, if this in fact is creating a source of 17 confusion or misunderstanding, it's certainly something that we can go 18 ahead and work with the DOT to edit that. That was not the intent of the 19 question and so I think that as always we're interested in working with all 20 of our agencies to refine the process and make sure that this truly reflects 21 the information that we're asking for and we're trying to get, so with that I'll 22 yield for questions 23 24 Cadena Okay, before you move on, Andy, this list here that we have today with the 25 three new projects, is there a set number, I mean it does make sense we 26 could continue to add on, like next year add on more projects and if none 27 of them are getting funded at some point, I mean is there some type of set 28 number we should be looking at before we start adding projects or is there 29 any guide to that? 30 31 Hume Mr Chair, members of the Committee, that's a great question Since we 32 have just recently been adding a lot of projects on, frankly, that's a 33 question we don't know I think it's a question that should be of serious 34 concern for this Committee In the past, as I've mentioned, in the previous 35 resolution there were a couple of items, for example, Valley Drive that had 36 been on the TIP for six, seven years, maybe longer and so how many 37 unfunded, ranked projects do we actually want on this list. We had, for 38 example, Berino Road was actually a funded project of off this list that got 39 funded through ARRA monies, so we can scratch that one off the list but 40 at what point do we say okay look we have 20, 30, maybe 50 projects that 41 we have identified but we haven't had any work through the process of 42 actually getting funded, so I think it's a great question for this Committee 43 to take up 44 45 Cadena Okay, alright, what else Whose next? Go ahead, while we're waiting 46 16 I Krahling So we have another list then of funded projects, how many are on that list, 2 1 guess is the question that comes to my mind and the reason I ask that 3 question is because it seems to me like we would want as many projects 4 on this list was we need and not necessarily be concerned about the 5 number of them 6 7 Cadena The only ones that currently got funded was Benno and then Calle del 8 Norte was funded partially 9 10 Krahling Okay, so then I look at this list and I say this is a small list. We've got 11 many more needs than this list says and my question would be is why is it 12 so small? When it seems to me that the larger this list, the more accurate 13 of a presentation to the Department of Transportation of our needs and 14 the help that we need 15 16 Hume Mr Chair, Commissioner Krahling, one of the things I think would be good 17 to look at is the ARRA list that was approved by this Committee back in 18 February We had the top three projects funded, but we had about 17 19 other projects that were not funded off of that list, so what would be good 20 to do is go back and work with the local jurisdictions who asked for funding 21 of those other 17 projects and look at how those would rank in through the 22 TIP process as well That would be a starting point I feel 23 24 Krahling So dust to pick up off that, then why are just ranking this small portion of 25 the list tonight? Why don't we do it all at once? 26 27 Cadena This is the existing list right now It doesn't mean that we couldn't add 28 29 Krahling Aren't we talking about adding projects to this list? 30 31 Cadena Right, but I mean those are the existing lists plus that were proposed to be 32 put on the list. 33 34 Krahling Why are we only proposing to put these three projects on this list? 35 36 Hume Well, basically Mr Chair, Commissioner, the bottom line is the other 37 projects, for example the ARRA projects have not gone through the entire 38 TIP process At this point and time, either the local entities have not 39 applied or filled out a TIP application and submitted it through the process 40 Until we do that they really can't appear on this list to be ranked because 41 the vetting process that Joseph mentioned a little bit ago by the advisory 42 committees, that whole process needs to be gone through before it shows 43 up on this list for you all to establish a final ranking, but it's an open ended 44 situation, you know, if for example, I'll pick on the County for example, 45 there were I believe about four or five unfunded projects on the ARRA list. 46 What we encouraged the County to do is to submit TIP applications like 17 I the ones you reviewed this evening so we can through the same process 2 with all of those projects and figure out how they get ranked in with this 3 list. 4 5 Krahling And we haven't done that? 6 7 Hume That hasn't been done yet, no 8 9 Krahling Okay, thanks 10 11 Cadena Before we move on, what's our timeline to approve the TIP as on the 12 agenda? 13 14 Hume Well, Mr Chair, the 2010 TIP, you actually approved the amendments in 15 the previous resolution, so this evening you would be approving an 16 addition of three more projects plus applying your discretionary points as 17 Policy Committee members to them to perhaps finish the ranking 18 19 Cadena Okay, but what's the deadline from the State or whomever? 20 21 Hume There is no deadline You could request to have this tabled to a later date 22 and consider it another time 23 24 Cadena Does the Committee want to deal with these projects and then encourage 25 your entities to add the other, go through the TIP process or do you want 26 to wait till that's done or is there a suggestion? 27 28 Thomas Mr Chair, considering that it's quite a long process to go through all the 29 other committees, it seems to me that maybe we should deal with these 30 first, but then as others are added can we at any time revisit and re-rank? 31 32 Hume Absolutely, yes, it's always at the Policy Committee's discretion to have 33 staff bring this back as a matter for discussion and review the projects at 34 any time 35 36 Thomas Okay, but this list that we're looking at here, these are all unfunded 37 projects so we're not talking about the other list that's got funded projects 38 on it that's in the fiscally constrained year 39 40 Hume In the fiscally constrained years, correct. 41 42 Thomas So this is sort of more like our wish list. 43 44 Hume In a manner of speaking, yes 45 18 I Thomas And then it does help though does it not, to have a project that's gone 2 through this process and is ranked on this list as your out looking for 3 funding to be able to say it's on this list. 4 5 Hume Yes, that's correct. 6 7 Cadena Joseph, did you have something? 8 9 DeLaRosa Yes Mr Chairman, I lust wanted to clarify because I know we had 10 requested that there be a special meeting in November because I said 11 there was a tight deadline for the State and so that was actually as Andy 12 mentioned Item 6 1 where we actually had the funded projects that we 13 needed amended so we can take them to State Transportation 14 Commission to get them amended in the STIP, so that was, 6 1 did have a 15 timeline with it and we had to act basically this month, but the other items 16 can kind of be an ongoing process and I just wanted to add, I guess, to 17 some degree that it's the DOT fault to some degree that we're in this 18 position because you're transitioning from an old process to a new 19 process and we're still kind of getting used to that as well as in terms of 20 balancing your unfunded, ranked projects with what you call the TIP, 21 which for us the TIP is the fiscally constrained kind of funding 22 programming documents, so you kind of have your big picture, your MTP 23 and when you have your Long Range Plan projects such as the ones that 24 your discussing now, Sonoma Ranch is one in there and so is Peachtree 25 Hills and so on How they go from the Long Range Plan and to kind of the 26 projects that are ranked in an unfunded list to then ultimately being a 27 funded project, you're making a very nice process for projects That's the 28 way we kind of want to see it, long range plan, then you identify the 29 specific projects that are going to build out your long range plan, for 30 example, Sonoma Ranch is going to be built over three years You know 31 those are the three projects to get it there and that goes in the unfunded 32 list, then as you identify the funding they go from there into the TIP, the 33 funded program of the TIP Before the way it kind of worked is we just 34 kind of plucked projects out of the air, presented them here and they went 35 straight into the funded program of the TIP and they were only discussed 36 when they were proposed for specific funding, so you're actually doing 37 something that is going to have a long term benefit in terms of getting all 38 of your needs as a Commissioner mentioned, compiling a good 39 comprehensive list of all of those needs, all of the projects that you need 40 to get to where your transportation system needs to be and then you start 41 working on funding them one at a time through the TIP and so you know 42 that's kind of the way that we see it but in the interim there is kind of old 43 projects that are still working themselves in and it creates some confusion, 44 1 think 45 19 I Perez Mr Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm still confused When we looked at the 2 Peachtree projects and some of the other projects a few months ago, we 3 agreed that we do some sort of truncated application process, okay, now 4 in this discussion tonight we're talking about bringing in County projects 5 We don't want the County projects brought in until they do a full blown 6 application process and then maybe we're going to postpone the ranking 7 or re-rank once those get in and that's, I don't know I have a little bit of 8 problem with that because we're telling people to do either full blown 9 application but we're giving the same weight possibly for ones that are 10 only partial application processing, to me the system isn't really working 11 the way that we're laying it out, so tell me what I'm missing because I'm 12 still confused 13 14 Hume Mr Chair, Commissioner, what was done back in August was done for an 15 old TIP That TIP and it's old processes are done 16 17 Perez. Okay, so these have in the meantime come up with a full blown 18 application? 19 20 Hume Yes and that's what you have in front of you this evening for consideration, 21 are full blown applications for Sonoma Ranch and Peachtree Hills All of 22 the other projects that are on this list went through the same application 23 process We no longer are using that truncated system as you mentioned, 24 that will no longer ever be used again as far as staff is concerned 25 26 Perez Okay, so this application we have tonight is a complete application, it's a 27 full application and now all of these projects have submitted the same 28 paperwork? 29 30 Hume That is correct. 31 32 Perez. Got it, thank you 33 34 Hume Okay, Mr Chair, if there aren't any other questions and please if there are, 35 please let us know because we want to make sure that we have a clear 36 picture of what's going on What we have before you are all of the 37 projects minus Berino Road because as I mentioned that project was 38 funded through ARRA. If you'll notice on the spreadsheet on your screen 39 we have several different categories here We have the average score 40 that the Technical Advisory Committee gave each project; the average 41 score that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee gave each 42 project. We aggregated those into an average score that you see before 43 you and then in this column here what I will do is clear the contents, we 44 have an opportunity to provide your discretionary points Now, what 45 happened in the past was each individual and you might recall this sort of 46 worked itself out at the ARRA funding But each individual gets five points 20 I to apply to any particular funding or any particular project rather In the 2 past we had identified it and you can see the points that were identified 3 here in the past for each project, because staff, #1 we didn't record the 4 number of points from each person, it was just sort of put all together from 5 each Committee member and we've had some Committee members who 6 were here previously at a previous meeting where you ranked and they 7 are not here this evening or vice versa What we would like to propose is 8 simply reassess your discretionary points and we will clear this and have 9 you provide each of you five points to give to any particular project that 10 you want to see on this list Did I confuse things too much? 11 12 Thomas I have a question All five, you just pick one project and give all five, you 13 can't spread them around? 14 15 Hume You absolutely can, we want whole numbers but absolutely 16 17 Thomas You can do three and two? 18 19 Hume Sure, if you want to give one point to five different projects, that's fine So 20 what we will have you do is on the handout that you have here, if you want 21 to go through the projects and I think Benno Road is actually on here, so 1 22 apologize, don't provide a point for Berino Road, but if you want to provide 23 up to five points for any project or combination thereof, we'll ask you to 24 that now 25 26 Cadena And each person has a total of five? 27 28 Hume Each person has a total of five, yes and if you just write it right next to the, 29 write the number of points you want to give to any particular project right 30 next to the project here and then we'll collect those, we'll add them up, 31 we'll tally them onto the spreadsheet here so that you all can see the 32 number of points and we'll re-rank them based on the total 33 34 Krahling I'm sorry, Andy, you're going to have to explain this We've got five points 35 and we can put one on University, one on Dripping Springs, one on 36 Fairacres, etc going down, right? Or I can put five on University? All 37 these points, all these numbers that are already on the sheet they mean 38 nothing because we're going to tally up what we do here 39 40 Hume The only points that mean nothing are the old discretionary point's column 41 The other points for the aggregated average, etc those still hold So we'll 42 be adding your points to this 43 44 Cadena That's from BPAC and that's from the other two committees, so our points 45 are added onto their points 46 21 I Krahling The three of us, these three committees make this decision or does this 2 Committee make this decision? 3 4 Hume Well, this Committee makes the decision Now let me throw the caveat in 5 here, if there is one particular project that has a consensus of all the 6 Committee members that regardless of how it ranked, it needs to be the 7 number one project, you also have that right. For example, I'll use 8 University Avenue, the NMSU project on University Avenue, it only scored 9 a 78 6 in the aggregated average but if the consensus from this group is 10 regardless of how your discretionary points come out, that that project 11 must be number one, it is your authority as the Policy Board to say this 12 project needs to be number one, so 13 14 Krahling It's our authority as the Policy Board to determine the way that they are 15 ranked period, right? 16 17 Hume Absolutely 18 19 Krahling Okay, so what you're suggesting that we do though is each of us get this 20 random five number, I don't know where that came from 21 22 Hume It's actually a historical number Let me go back. 23 24 Krahling I'm trying to understand the process I'm not trying to be difficult. 25 26 Hume Sure, no, no, that's fine It's a historical number In the past each 27 jurisdiction received 15 points that the three members or two member or 28 whoever from that jurisdiction would sort of get together and decide how 29 they wanted to assign those points There was a question in the past 30 about quorum issues for other jurisdictions, for example, with the County, 31 the three of you meeting aside to discuss where those points are could 32 constitute a violation of Open Meetings Act and so instead of doing that 33 we decided let's dust take those fifteen points, divide them up five per 34 person as a way of working around that. 35 36 Krahling Okay, so then you're going to take all these points and you are going to 37 create percentages and you're going to take all three committees and your 38 going to create the aggregate percentage and that is what's going to 39 determine these final rankings 40 41 Hume Yes 42 43 Perez. Mr Chairman, real quick question The LCPS Missouri project, what is 44 that again? It's just new roadway construction, which part of Missouri is 45 that? 46 22 I Cadena That's headed up toward the new school 2 3 Perez So between, so it's east of the water tank? 4 5 Hume Where it currently ends, yes It would be that connecting to Roadrunner 6 Parkway, that extension of Roadrunner Parkway 7 8 Perez Connecting to Sonoma Ranch, that section in there? 9 10 Hume That is LCPS south Sonoma Ranch is one of the projects that is listed in I1 there, yes 12 13 Perez (inaudible), this section of Missouri is it Missouri between the settled area 14 and the new high school or is it Missouri four/three construction of 15 Missouri between the water tank and Telshor? 16 17 Hume No, Tom dust corrected me, it's actually an extension of Missouri from 18 where it ends currently on the east side to Sonoma Ranch, a proposed 19 extension of Sonoma Ranch 20 21 Perez Okay, second route to the new high school, thank you 22 23 Hume Mr Chair, if I might just point one thing, as Mr De La Rosa point out and 24 staff has pointed out as well This is a brand new process that we've been 25 doing and this is the second time that we've used this ranking process in 26 the last few months What I would suggest and going off of Commissioner 27 Krahling's comments, if there needs to be some sort of adjustment to the 28 way the ranking is done, either aggregating the points or providing some 29 sort of discretionary points to the Policy Board or something like that, 30 please let us know because we want to make sure that the scoring above 31 all is fair and reflects what the ranking of projects (interrupted) 32 33 Cadena I think we have the authority to do it any way we want right, bottom line 34 35 Hume You absolutely do 36 37 Cadena Okay, then I see no problems with the way your proposing it tonight and 38 I'd like to get on with it because actually I have to go chair another 39 meeting and we're about to lose a quorum 40 41 Krahling Mr Chair, can I just jump in real fast and ask a question, what does this 42 ranking mean? 43 44 Hume This ranking means that the top project, we want to work with the DOT to 45 find funding for the top project 46 23 I Krahling Do we do them one at a time? 2 3 Hume It doesn't have to be necessarily one at a time If there's another windfall 4 like ARRA for example, I think it would be great to look on this list of 5 projects 6 7 Krahling So if you guys get a list of these and they are ranked one thru whatever 8 number there is and you see some funding opportunity for number 10, it 9 doesn't really matter if it's ten or one 10 11 Cadena That's true, but if there's just general money then it's been our job to 12 identify what project we would like and that top one would probably be 13 considered highly, I think 14 15 Perez Mr Chairman, just in interest of fairness tonight, we've have two City 16 people, we have two County people and we have one Mesilla person If it 17 was supposed to be 15, 15, and 15, 1 would suggest because we have 18 three members from each that Commissioner Krahling and I'll split, he can 19 have eight. I'll have seven City, you decide whether seven and eight and 20 there I think you should take 15 points and spread them out. Then it's 21 balanced between the entities Does anyone have a problem with it? 22 23 Jones I think whoever is leaving this Board though soonest should get the most 24 points out of the seven or eight, so I think I get the eight. 25 26 Thomas Okay, you can have eight, I'll take seven 27 28 Hume Okay, if that's the consensus of the Board, please 29 30 Cadena No, I mean also it's nobody's how the numbers ended up so I won't be 31 offended either way, but if you're giving me 15, I'll take them 32 33 Perez. I think we should just do that, that way it's kind of balanced between 34 entities because the projects are spread out. 35 36 Cadena Anybody opposed to that? 37 38 Jones No, no opposition 39 40 Cadena This is the nicest committee I've ever been on 41 42 Jones If you want a culture shock due it on the ETA, that'll set you back 43 44 Perez: I will miss you on the ETA, Mr Councillor 45 46 Jones I will miss you as well 24 1 2 Perez Do we have to sign our names to these or are you going to figure out by 3 handwriting? 4 5 Hume When you're done go ahead and put them on the top of the dais and we'll 6 pick those up We'll calculate it and then we can move forward with an 7 approval of the Resolution as amended by your scoring this evening 8 9 Hume And displayed on your screen is the part of the results of the new ranking 10 with the number one project coming out, the LCPS project for Dripping 11 Springs, #2 is the Town of Mesilla project for University I won't read 12 through all the projects, you have them there in front of you, but what we'll 13 do is staff will, basically we'll finalize this and we'll PDF it and send it 14 around to the Committee as a whole so that they can see the results of the 15 scoring this evening and with that Mr Chair, what we're looking for is a 16 motion and second to adopt this list of unfunded, ranked projects as 17 amended 18 19 Jones So moved, Mr Chairman 20 21 Cadena It's been moved and seconded 22 23 Perez. Second Now it's been moved and seconded, yes 24 25 Hume Councillor Jones 26 27 Jones Yes 28 29 Hume Councillor Thomas 30 31 Thomas Yes 32 33 Hume Commissioner Perez. 34 35 Perez. Yes 36 37 Hume Commissioner Krahling 38 39 Krahling No 40 41 Hume And Chair 42 43 Cadena Yes 44 45 Motion passed 4-1 46 25 1 63 Letter to Association of MPOs Regarding Transportation 2 Authorization 4 Andy gave a brief presentation 5 6 Jones Mr Chairman, I move that we approve the letter 7 8 Perez Second 9 10 Cadena Alright, motion and a second, any further discussion Roll call 11 12 Hume Commissioner Krahling 13 14 Krahling Yes 15 16 Hume Commissioner Perez. 17 18 Perez Yes 19 20 Hume Councillor Thomas 21 22 Thomas Yes 23 24 Hume Councillor Jones 25 26 Jones Yes 27 28 Hume And Chair 29 30 Cadena Yes 31 32 Motion passes 5-0 33 34 Cadena I'd like to turn the meeting over to Councillor Thomas 35 36 Jones Mr Chairman, do we lose our quorum if we do that? 37 38 Perez. We lose our quorum 39 40 Cadena But we're done with action aren't we? 41 42 Murphy- We're done with action items, we'll lose quorum and we've been advised 43 not to carry on meetings after quorum is lost. We can move the 44 discussions to next month 45 46 Cadena Alright is that acceptable because I really do have to go 26 1 7 DISCUSSION ITEMS — TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER MEETING 2 3 71 Study of the Major Thoroughfare Plan in the Sierra Norte Area 4 5 72 TRANSPORT 2040 update 6 7 73 Staff updates 8 9 8 COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 10 11 9 PUBLIC COMMENT 12 13 10 ADJOURNMENT 14 15 Jones Move to adjourn, Mr Chairman 16 17 Perez. I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I had a call right before I came here from 18 somebody and I just liked to read in the record that I have somebody who 19 would like us to look at something, can I read that real quick? 20 21 Cadena Yes 22 23 Perez This is a resident of I think it's Del Mont Park, it's the mobile home park 24 that's right behind the Las Cruces Shuttle office, that apparently you can't 25 go north on Valley without going around the light pole There's some 26 landscaping there but they have no ability to come out and go north on 27 Valley without squeezing between the fence and the light pole and the 28 light pole according to this person is on, I guess it's highway right-of-way, 29 right on Valley, would it be, and this is on the west side of Valley and they 30 wanted to know if we would be willing to take a look at that and I said 1 31 can't think of a better group of people to look at it then this particular group 32 and I have some contact information to give you 33 34 Cadena would it be acceptable for I as chair to direct the staff to look into it and get 35 back to you 36 37 Perez That would be wonderful if somebody could look at it. I've taken 38 advantage of having the highway folks here dust to give you a heads up 39 Thank you 40 41 Cadena They don't object to that? 42 43 DeLaRosa (not at microphone) 44 27 I Perez. Well and that was the thing, if it's County then maybe we have to look at 2 or City, but if somebody can kind of give me an idea, if it's County we'll 3 pick 4 5 Cadena Tom, can you look at it and find out whose it is and direct it to the right 6 agency? 7 8 Murphy- Yes, send that to staff and we can send it to the right maintenance 9 (inaudible — interrupted) 10 11 Cadena And get back to the Commissioner as well and let her know what 12 happened 13 14 Perez. And it may be private property and there's nothing any of us can do and 15 we can do that too 16 17 Murphy- We'll get it figured out. 18 19 Jones Mr Chairman, I assume my motion died for lack of a second I'll move to 20 adjourn again 21 22 Perez And I will second that. 23 24 Cadena Anybody opposed, okay, we are adjourned then 25 26 Meeting adjourned at 5 37 p m 27 28 29 30 31 Chai 32 33 28