Loading...
08-12-2009 1 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 Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 5 00 p m at Dona Ana County Commission Chambers, 6 845 N Motel Blvd , Las Cruces, NM 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 9 Councillor Dolores Archuleta (CLC) 10 Councilor Gil Jones (CLC) 11 Commissioner Karen Perez (DAC) 12 Commissioner Scott Krahling (DAC) 13 Trustee Carlos Arzabal (Town of Mesilla) 14 15 MEMBERS ABSENT Trustee Sam Bernal (Town of Mesilla) 16 Commissioner Leticia Duarte-Benavidez (DAC) 17 Councillor Sharon Thomas (CLC) 18 19 STAFF PRESENT Tom Murphy (MPO Officer) 20 Andy Hume (Associate Planner) 21 Caerllion Thomas (Associate Planner) 22 Mike Johnson (CLC — Public Works) 23 24 OTHERS PRESENT Cal Traylor Frank Guzman — NMDOT 25 D Thomas Michael Gallagher— NMDOT 26 Herb Torres — LCPS Paul Howard - DAC 27 Bob Gamboa George Pinal — EI Paso MPO 28 John Moscato Cathy Mathews 29 George Pearson 30 31 1 CALL TO ORDER 32 33 Mayor Cadena called the meeting to order at 5 10 p m 34 35 Murphy Commissioner Krahling 36 37 Krahling Present 38 39 Murphy- Trustee Arzabal 40 41 Arzabal Present 42 43 Murphy Mayor Pro Tem Archuleta 44 45 Archuleta Present 46 1 I Murphy Councillor Jones 3 Jones Present 4 5 Murphy- Mayor Cadena 6 7 Cadena Here, as well 8 9 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY - None 10 11 3 PUBLIC COMMENT 12 13 Traylor- I'm Cal Traylor and I'm (inaudible) half of the Pat Garrett City Park (not 14 speaking into microphone — unable to hear what he is saying) 15 16 Cadena Mr Cal, why don't you give it to staff and they will pass it out for you 17 18 Traylor- The background on this has to do with Pat Garrett. 19 20 Cadena Mr Traylor, well first of all thanks for your very effective history lesson on 21 this It's all interesting and very important. As you know we're a 22 transportation committee and I think we've had, staff can correct me or 23 maybe have a response, but we've had some discussions, is there 24 anything planned and I know on this Committee we've talked about any 25 road going through there would have to accommodate that site, but I'll let 26 staff say if there is anything further than that or if there's anything on the 27 agenda tonight that needs to be addressed in relationship to this particular 28 site 29 30 Murphy- Thank you, Mr Chairman 1 think it was a year ago this month or maybe 31 even two years, I don't remember precisely, but we did have discussion on 32 the alignment of Mesa Grande Drive come before here and we had the 33 developers on either side of that roadway or the projected developers for 34 either side of that roadway, they all pledged to you that they would 35 certainly take care of that site and they would treat respectfully and I think 36 that was the direction that the Board gave for everybody to move forward 37 and I think that the City is well aware of that and this Body is on record of 38 supporting the historical site and if we see anything that would threaten 39 that we certainly could bring it back. 40 41 Mayor- Let me ask the Committee, would you be comfortable with me as a Chair 42 writing some type of memo knowing that we recognize that site and we'd 43 like to encourage or promote its preservation or something 44 45 Arzabal I have no problem 46 2 I Archuleta I have no problems with that, but I also want to add that the City Council 2 also recognized the importance of that at our meetings when we were 3 dealing with Philippou at the time, so that would be a good idea Mr 4 Traylor what would the letter of support do? What do you expect that to 5 (interrupted) 6 7 Traylor- Well, just to make it public that you are aware of this and that it does not 8 conflict with your plans 9 10 Cadena I guess what I'm suggesting is, really it's going to be up to the City of Las 11 Cruces to decide if it's a park because we're really a transportation 12 committee, so I think from our Committee it would be more appropriate 13 that we recognize that there is a site there and we're not supporting any 14 transportation highways or streets through there That would be more 15 appropriate, I think You as a City Council can do what you wish as far as 16 the park because we're not a park committee 17 18 Traylor- Well, I went to the City map office last Friday afternoon expecting to see it 19 drawn on the maps already, that street diverted around that spot but they 20 knew nothing about it and yet it has not trickled down to them So I need 21 to accelerate our work with the City to get that recognized, that project 22 recognized and I might ask if my supporters back there have (inaudible — 23 turned away from the microphone) 24 25 Thomas My name is David Thomas I dust wanted to make it real clear the 26 historical value (gave a brief presentation on the history of the monument) 27 28 Archuleta Have you considered or has the family considered registering it as a 29 historical site? 30 31 Thomas Yes, we have a man that was working on this and seems to be the 32 shortcut is to get the City to recognize it and establish it as a park area, 33 protected that way, that's shorter time Thank you 34 35 Jones Thank you, Mr Chairman, I really don't have any questions but I would 36 urge that we recommend to you that you write a letter in support of 37 protecting this area so far as transportation issues are concerned and that 38 we obviously oppose any interference in transportation and road 39 construction in that area I'm sure we can craft an appropriate memo 40 41 Cadena Okay and I'll have staff send out a draft for all of you to look at before 1 42 make it official 43 44 Jones Thank you and maybe even, I don't know, we can vote on it at our next 45 meeting unless we need it before then 46 3 I Cadena That would be appropriate We can make an official action, put it on the 2 next meeting 3 4 Jones Mr Chairman and that might avoid the issue I know that sometimes at 5 City Council we talk about the issue about setting policy without noticing 6 the public and by doing 7 8 Cadena It's a point well taken We put it onto the next meeting for a resolution or 9 letter of, resolution of support or something of that nature Staff? 10 11 Murphy We'll go ahead and put that on the September agenda 12 13 Cadena Any other public comments on anything that's not on the agenda? Yes sir, 14 come on up 15 16 Pearson George Pearson I don't know if you make recommendations to the 17 Department of Transportation as member organizations The City of Las 18 Cruces has asked and the Town of Mesilla asked and the County is 19 working on a Complete Streets Resolution The DOT needs to get on 20 board with that, in particular when repaves roadways, they don't go all the 21 way out to the shoulder which makes it hazardous for bicyclists If that's 22 something this Board can do, I'd like you to consider it. Thank you 23 24 Cadena Staff, your response 25 26 Hume Mr Chair, members of the Committee, a couple of years ago, actually 27 about one year ago, you all passed a resolution endorsing complete 28 streets for the MPO region and within that resolution you also encouraged 29 all of the member agencies including the NMDOT to pass similar 30 resolutions As Mr Pearson pointed out the Town of Mesilla and the City 31 of Las Cruces have passed similar complete streets resolutions and the 32 County will be bringing one forward for their consideration as well, so his 33 point is well taken and this Committee has actually already encouraged 34 the DOT to do that, with that I can answer any questions 35 36 Cadena Very good, any questions, comments? Let's move on then 37 38 4 CONSENT AGENDA Those items indicated by an asterisk (*) will be voted 39 on by one motion with the acceptance of the agenda. 40 41 Cadena Can I entertain a motion to 42 43 Arzabal So moved 44 45 Archuleta I second 46 4 I Cadena Moved and seconded to pass the consent agenda Any discussion? All in 2 favor? 3 4 ALL IN FAVOR 5 6 5 *APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7 8 51 June 10, 2009 - APPROVED under the Consent Agenda 9 10 6 ACTION ITEMS 11 12 61 Resolution 09-12 A Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Las 13 Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 2008-2013 Transportation 14 Improvement Program — APPROVED under the Consent Agenda 15 16 6 1 1 LCMPO-TH-05-07 1-25/Engler Road Underpass - $4,500,000 17 18 Jones Mr Chair, if I may interrupt real fast, thank you and forgive me, Andy 19 During the conflict of interest inquiry, I didn't respond but some of these 20 items, I see Mr Moscato in the audience and it's my understanding while 21 I'm not privileged to it, I understand he may have a, some kind of 22 arrangement with the qualifying broker where I have real estate license 23 I'm not a party to that agreement. I'm not a party to any other 24 arrangements there may exist, but just to be clear and to be open, I want 25 to disclose that. I have no opportunity to profit Mr Moscato's actions, but 1 26 just wanted to disclose that. I have reason to believe that he may on 27 some actions have an agreement on some of his real estate with the 28 qualifying broker where my license is registered I don't see any reason 29 that it would create a conflict though 30 31 Cadena I appreciate your disclosing that. Any other members of the Committee 32 have any questions or issues about prescribed potential conflict of 33 interest, I guess? 34 35 Arzabal I'm just asking, do you need a motion, Mr Chair? 36 37 Cadena Would the Committee like to consider all of these on one motion or do you 38 want to do one at a time? 39 40 Perez. Mr Chairman, I'd like to consider them individually, please 41 42 Arzabal I'd like to schedule them all because the first five, they've funded am 1 43 correct? They had been funded the last two We are looking for, I think 44 we could talk about that, but the first five have been funded so if we can 45 do the first five 46 5 I Perez I'd be okay with that. 3 Cadena Anyone else? Okay, is there a motion, a second to approve 6 1 1 through 4 6 1 5 and then we'll open up for discussion 5 6 Arzabal So moved 7 8 Jones Second 9 10 Cadena Okay, moved and seconded, staff, if you'll discuss the first five, and then 11 we'll handle the other two separately 12 13 Hume Thank you, Mr Chair Just as one point of clarification, the first item on 14 the list there, the 1-10 Engler Road underpass The project has not been 15 funded but the funding sources for it have been identified in the year 2011 16 The other four projects have been funded and they are in various stages 17 of being worked on currently DOT has a presentation about all five of 18 these projects and so I will let Michael Gallagher from NMDOT go through 19 his presentation and we can answer questions 20 21 Cadena Alright, come forward 22 23 Gallagher- Good evening, Mr Chair, Board members This evening we actually have 24 four TIP amendment requests This evening the request that I want to talk 25 briefly, they span the entire region of the MPO We have a project in the 26 north end of the MPO, the south and the east and the west. This first 27 request, request #1 is the 1-25/Engler Road We would like Engler to be 28 changed to Kennedy Road We've discussed it with staff The request for 29 this is to increase the program funding for design services and 30 construction This project complies with the MPO Transportation Plan 31 This project will have a positive impact of improving connectivity, service 32 and decreasing congestion at the north end of town of the Engler 33 Road/Kennedy/1-25 area The total cost of this project is $4 5M with the 34 breakdown shown, $500,000 in fiscal year 09 for professional services 35 and then $4M in 2011, using interstate maintenance dollars 36 37 Cadena Can you go back to the map and show it? 38 39 Gallagher- Sure This would be right here, right where my mouse is, right where the 40 arrow is, excuse me, right in that area 41 42 Cadena So you're connecting Engler and Kennedy and you're suggesting that it be 43 called Kennedy, is that right? 44 45 Gallagher- Well, the underpass, the area of the underpass would be closer to 46 Kennedy Road as opposed to Engler Road and that's the reason why 6 1 2 Cadena Okay, I follow you 3 4 Jones Mr Chairman, if I may since we're on this item Is it your expectation, Mr 5 Gallagher, that the transportation thoroughfare there would go from Engler 6 on the east mesa, underneath the freeway at the, what I assume is a 7 grade separation and then intersect with Kennedy and then Kennedy 8 would intersect with Armstrong, Armstrong/Engler and then where Engler 9 terminates I know there's a realignment at the end of Engler on Valley 10 Drive where it goes to and I guess my question is, is there any change in 11 the scope of the alignment or simply we're talking about the issue with the 12 grade separation? 13 14 Gallagher- There's not a change in scope 15 16 Jones Okay, alright. Thank you 17 18 Gallagher- Mr Chair, the next project if I move on, is request #2 19 20 6 1 2 LCMPO-TH-09-30 1-25 Pavement Preservation, MP 0-25 9 - 21 $8,294,000 22 23 Gallagher- This is a pavement preservation project on 1-25 For this request, we 24 would like to change the fiscal year, revise the termini and increase the 25 program funding This project, it mentions the pavement preservation 26 We would be milling and filling the driving lanes on 1-25 This project will 27 have a positive impact for the MPO of extending the road life, which 28 decreases future maintenance costs and increases safety Right now this 29 is programmed for fiscal year 2010 We want to change that to 2009 and 30 increase the termini as shown, to increase the termini from the zero to 31 nine We want to go from that to the 0 12 to mile post 25 This actually 32 spans the Las Cruces MPO in the South Central RPO Next we want to 33 increase the funding Right now it's currently programmed for $6M, we 34 want to increase that to $8,294,000 It would be funded through interstate 35 maintenance dollars Interstate maintenance dollars can only be used on 36 the interstate One of the reasons for this request is that over the year 37 some of our projects that we've estimated have been under bid We've 38 received low bids on those projects, so we have a savings this year of 39 nearly $2 3M so we wanted to bring up a project and use those interstate 40 maintenance dollars to do pave and preservation on I-25 41 42 Cadena Questions, comments on this particular project? Move on, move on, 43 please 44 45 7 1 6 1 3 LCMPO-TH-09-31 US 70 Metal Barrier Ext. @ Rinconada & S 2 Ranch - $135,000 3 4 Gallagher- Request #3 would on US 70, Rinconada to Sonoma Ranch, basically this 5 project is for the installation of metal barriers It does comply with the 6 MPO Plan It will provide improved safety on US 70 The project cost is 7 $135,000, using State safety funding and this would be for fiscal year 8 2009 9 10 Cadena Alright, questions on this one? Go ahead 11 12 6 1 4 LCMPO-TH-09-32 Corridor Studies @ University & Engler Rd 13 - $750,000 14 15 Gallagher- Last but not least, is request #4 This is for corridor studies on 1-25, 16 basically a corridor study on 1-25 It includes the corridor Engler/Kennedy, 17 that I mentioned earlier, as well as, a corridor study on University Avenue 18 at 1-25 For this project, it is for professional services for a corridor study 19 to determine the needed improvements of either the underpass at 20 Kennedy/Engler and to determine any improvements at University for 21 alignment and to improve traffic flow This complies with the MPO Plan 22 and has a positive impact in the determination of system improvements, to 23 improve road service and connectivity The project cost for professional 24 services if $750,000 for fiscal year 2009 25 26 Cadena Questions, comments? Who made the original motion? 27 28 Arzabal I did, Mr Chair 29 30 Cadena Would you accept a friendly amendment to delete 6 1 5 since it's been 31 withdrawn? 32 33 Arzabal Yes 34 35 Cadena Anybody oppose? 36 37 Jones No, Mr Chairman, my second would follow that recommendation as well 38 39 Cadena Very good, then let's go ahead and vote on the original motion Do you 40 want to do a roll call, Andy or Tom? 41 42 Hume Councillor Jones 43 44 Jones Yes 45 46 Hume Councillor Archuleta 8 1 2 Archuleta Yes 4 Hume Trustee Arzabal 5 6 Arzabal Yes 7 8 Hume Commissioner Krahling 9 10 Krahling Aye 11 12 Hume Commissioner Perez 13 14 Perez Yes 15 16 Hume and Chair 17 18 Cadena Yes 19 20 Cadena Very good, motion does pass 21 22 6 1 5 LCMPO-TH-09-33 1-10 ITS Deployment; MP 0-164.264 - $2,573,750 23 - WITHDRAWN PER MICHAEL GALLAGHER, NMDOT 24 25 The scope of work has changed on this project to where it is not included within the Las 26 Cruces MPO It's within the Southwest RPO solely at this time 27 28 6 1 6 LCMPO-TH-09-34 Sonoma Ranch — current end to Dragonfly 29 Road - $10,978,675 30 31 61 7 LCMPO-TH-09-35 Peachtree Hills — Sonoma Ranch to Jornada 32 - $2,315,180 33 34 Cadena Let's go ahead and move onto 6 1 6 and 6 1 7, does the Committee wish 35 to consider those two at one time? 36 37 Arzabal I would, so moved 38 39 Jones That's fine, Mr Chairman Do we need a motion or we just I 40 move to approve for the sake of discussion 41 42 Archuleta Second 43 44 Cadena It's been moved and seconded, so staff 45 9 I Hume Mr Chair, members of the Committee, Mike Johnson, Department 2 Director from City of Las Cruces Public Works has a brief presentation 3 and then also other members are here to speak on behalf of Las Cruces 4 Public Schools, Mr Torres and also Mr Moscato and Matt Kenney are 5 here as well so we may here some comments from all of them as well at 6 your discretion 7 8 Cadena Alright, well let's start with Mike 9 10 Mike Johnson made a brief presentation 11 12 Cadena Mr Torres, do you want to come up and then we'll open to questions that 13 you want. 14 15 Torres Thank you, Herb Torres, Las Cruces Public Schools Mr Chairman, 16 members of the Committee, I don't want to be redundant, Mr Johnson has 17 certainly covered the topic well The one thing I will address is that the 18 reason that we are in the situation we are with the roadways is because 19 specifically of what Mr Johnson has addressed and that the developer, 20 Mr Philippou had previously made commitments to the school district 21 regarding infrastructure, utility infrastructure and roadways to those sites 22 and then when those sites were being looked at and being selected and 23 they were selected because of that commitment that was made 24 Unfortunately, that has not happened and the district has and was too far 25 in the process for its site selection and construction and design of those 26 schools in order to move away from that as far as where the school sites 27 were needed based on the population growth that we have in the east 28 mesa and so, therefore, we come before you for your support in order to 29 be able to move forward and hopefully have the infrastructure that we 30 need as roadways 31 32 Cadena Mr Torres, what's the plan date to open those two schools? 33 34 Torres We've broken ground on both of those schools already back in June 35 They are both currently under construction and the opening dates for both 36 of those schools is scheduled for August of 2010 37 38 Cadena So basically a year from now 39 40 Torres A year from now 41 42 Cadena Why don't the two of you stand there and I'll open it up to the Committee 43 for comments or questions Who wants to go first? 44 45 Krahling Mr Chair, I'll just jump out there first. I lust have a couple quick questions 10 1 Where are the utilities going? Are there utilities going under Jornada or 2 are they going to go under Sonoma Ranch to Peachtree? 3 4 Johnson Mr Chairman, Commission Krahling, I'm going to answer this is general 5 broad sense because I haven't actually, there will be utilities and Sonoma 6 Ranch as a mayor arterial, I'm sure you'll see sewer Are you asking 7 specifically for the schools? 8 9 Krahling I'm asking specifically for the schools 10 11 Johnson I'll defer that. 12 13 Torres The utilities as far as for the schools currently are going to run from the, 14 the connection is going to be from Sonoma, along Peachtree and then 15 through the property because of the fact that if you noticed 16 17 Cadena Can you put that map to 18 19 Torres If you noticed on that map, those two properties are adjacent to each other 20 and so what the original intent was, was to run the utilities from Sonoma 21 Ranch, right in here, off of the completion of Sonoma Ranch and then 22 along Peachtree to the elementary school and then run through that 23 property through the middle school for any utility that needed to be done 24 There is already some utility work up along Lisa Lane that will also service 25 the middle school as far water The current water source for that 26 particular area is Moongate and they have already been committed to 27 provide the water source for the school As far as sewage and other 28 utility, that would be brought on along Peachtree 29 30 Krahling So you're going to be doing any utility, putting in the underground utilities 31 along Jornada Road? 32 33 Torres At the particular time, my recollection based upon the last work that we did 34 with the engineers, most of it is going to go from along Peachtree There 35 may be some need for along Jornada, but I don't believe that at this 36 particular time, the last time we looked at that most of it is going to be 37 along Peachtree and then through the properties 38 39 Krahling Okay, my next question is why are we extending Sonoma Ranch all the 40 way to Dragonfly and not just to Peachtree Hills? The immediacy and the 41 need of this seems to be because of the schools 42 43 Johnson Right, Mr Chairman, Commissioner Krahling, I would answer this from a, 1 44 would tell you that from my experience that we've looked at Del Rey 45 Boulevard, we believe and I would tell you that in the event that this 46 project was identified to be funded by an outside funding source be that 11 I federal or State DOT funding, we want to make sure that we have a bigger 2 project area than a smaller project area, in terms of, they may come to us 3 Think the area that we're talking about, the elementary school with 4 Peachtree and Sonoma Ranch, would be about $4 5 million, I think is the 5 number I've seen Potentially, if we were to obtain, say they were to come 6 forward with $5-6 million, then we would have the ability to take that even 7 further because we've identified the scope a little bit bigger and included in 8 this in the package 9 10 Cadena So is the idea to get it on the TIP and potentially phase it as money 11 became available? 12 13 Johnson That's correct. 14 15 Krahling Okay, I might want to come back to that. The TIP project list is that 16 prioritized? 17 18 Hume Mr Chair, members of the Committee, about six months ago we set out 19 an open call for projects and we received 10 projects from the local 20 entities and some of them actually, the Las Cruces Public Schools were 21 project sponsors on a couple of them They went through a very rigorous 22 process of ranking by our advisory committees and you all approved the 23 ranking of them at your meeting, I believe it was in April of this year So 24 there are 10 projects that are currently ranked by this Board 25 26 Krahling So these become #11 and #12? 27 28 Hume That is at the discretion of the Board These projects did not go through 29 the entire ranking process with presentations and scoring by our advisory 30 committees There was a judgment call made by staff on these In the 31 federal regs it says that the TIP shall include all regionally significant 32 projects regardless of their funding source From staff's perspective, 33 these are two regionally significantly projects They are part of, one is part 34 of a minor arterial, one is part of a principal arterial Arterials in our area 35 certainly are regionally significant projects The other aspect is, in our 36 conversations the issue of funding source was very significant from staff's 37 perspective We have been told that there are no federal funds available 38 and federal funds are not going to be used, so from our perspective these 39 we were not going to be in direct conflict with funding sources being 40 sought by the other ten projects The indications that were giving to us 41 were it could be State funding, local and perhaps, private funding for these 42 projects In your Resolution, which was unfortunately, not included in your 43 hard copy I missed it. It was on the website, but for some reason it didn't 44 get in the packet. On Page 2 we have a statement let me switch 45 microphones I want to bring this up so that it's available for the public to 46 see as well 12 1 2 First of all, we recognize that the Technical Advisory Committee did 3 request to table this item and we actually have a letter from the Vice Chair 4 of the TAC to the Policy Board and if Mr Howard would like to come up 5 and made comments about that, we would certainly invite him to do that, 6 but in this Resolution what we're saying here is that these amendments, in 7 other words, all the amendments that you're considering this evening only 8 apply to the current TIP, the 2008 — 2013 TIP I'll dust read it verbatim, 9 prior to including unfunded projects, which would include these two 10 projects, funding has not been identified to MPO at this point. Prior to 11 including these in the 2010 — 2015 TIP said unfunded projects will follow 12 the entire MPO TIP process Basically, what we're offering here is a bit of 13 a compromise What we're saying is that if funding is identified, 14 specifically not federal funds because we already have those projects 15 ranked, but other funding sources, that their in our TIP and can be moved 16 forward as projects If these projects do not find funding between now and 17 September 30th when the new TIP goes into effect, what we would request 18 is that we go through the entire TIP process so that these projects are 19 ranked fairly with the other ten projects that you all ranked earlier this year 20 so everyone is on a level playing field, whether they're seeking federal 21 funds or any other funding source That is our wording that we're 22 submitting to you all as the Policy Board for consideration At this point 23 you have a lot of different options that you can go on You can, if you 24 want to just simply amend them in and make them part of the ranked list; 25 you can do that as items 11 and 12 You can go with the language as 26 written here You can table these as TAC did for future discussion 27 because if you feel you don't have enough information on them and with 28 that what I'll do is I'll let you ponder some of these options that you have 29 and I will be available for questions as well 30 31 Krahling Mr Chair, one more question and then I'll go ahead and yield 32 33 Cadena Let me go to Mayor ProTem here, she's been bugging me We'll go back 34 to you Mayor ProTem 35 36 Archuleta Thank you, Mr Chairman Mr Torres, I have a question for you and then 37 followed by Andy What are the numbers of students anticipated in those 38 two schools? 39 40 Torres Each of those schools is rated at 600 for the elementary and 900 for the 41 middle schools, Council Woman 42 43 Archuleta So there's a lot of traffic going up in that direction Now Andy, if the 44 schools were not there, would we be having this conversation now? 45 13 I Hume That's a good question, with Sonoma Ranch we maybe, but with 2 Peachtree Hills, probably not. 3 4 Archuleta Okay, I was at the ground breaking of the schools and I had to travel that 5 road and it is bad and it hasn't even been traveled yet, so when the 6 schools open and the buses start going and the traffic starts going in that 7 direction, it's going to be a nightmare I'm going to go on record right now 8 that I will support it. Thank you 9 10 Cadena Commissioner Krahling, I'm sorry did you want to finish your comments 11 and questions? 12 13 Arzabal Mr Chair, I'm sure the Committee knows I'm a school teacher so I'm 14 going to put the school hat on and I think one of the biggest things is 15 safety You know, we always talk about safety and you know, I've driven 16 that road and I agree with Mayor ProTem Archuleta, it is in bad shape and 17 needs, listen I'm 100% for it because it's the safety of not only the 18 students but the adults and the whole liability issue going into that and 19 with 1500 students projected for 2010 that's a lot of vehicles going to that 20 street so I support this 100% 21 22 Hume Mr Chair, if I may, Paul Howard, Senior Planner and Vice Chair of the 23 TAC is here, he may like to say a couple of words 24 25 Cadena Would you like to come up? 26 27 Howard Mr Chairman, I'm Paul Howard The Chairman of the TAC is not 28 available and actually asked me to step in It's a little tricky because I'm 29 one of the people that helped raise the motion to table this issue because 1 30 didn't think we had enough information You've received a lot more 31 information tonight then we had at the TAC meeting last week. 32 Unfortunately, I still feel that there are some still unanswered questions 33 and I tried to address this in the handout you have before you tonight. If 34 you have any more questions, you can be free to ask those of me Mr 35 Johnson's answered some of the questions already I think the concern 36 that the TAC had overall was that knowing the timing and how you do 37 UPWP projects, it takes a lot of time It's like the animal's earth, elephant 38 gestation cycle, it's a slow, tedious process and a lot of noises and we just 39 didn't think it was realistic to try to get this done as rapidly, as obviously 40 the schools needs are going to high, but the time frame isn't going to set 41 well with when they're opening So that's basically all I have 42 43 Cadena Questions for Mr Howard? 44 45 Perez* Mr Mayor, I don't know if he needs to stand up here, but he can jump if 46 this applies to him I always have the joyous position of being the one 14 I person that talks about the elephant in the room, but I'm lust going to flat 2 say this If you're a developer and your arrangements with whatever 3 private developer you had made fell through, we wouldn't be having this 4 discussion and it is very frustrating to me that the school district can come 5 in, kind of halfway deal with land that's out in the middle of nowhere and 6 I'm going to talk about the high school in a minute because we got a third 7 one to think about and say, you know all we're doing is building schools 8 and I've heard you say it before and this is not Las Cruces Public Schools, 9 this is I think a State level or a comment to the State level I don't know 10 when we are going to get to the point where the State understands that I1 lust because they got a free piece of land or a cheap piece of land or 12 we're able to come up with some convoluted deal with a developer, that all 13 of a sudden the public is saddled with running infrastructure to these God 14 forsaken places that you found and it's infuriating to me that our priorities 15 are flipped Dona Ana County has miles and miles and miles and miles of 16 roads, this is not a priority That part of Sonoma Ranch is going to serve 17 the high school and Dripping Springs is not a priority and all of a sudden 18 we're dumping up and down because you all found land that was cost 19 effective to put a school on and again, this is not you Mr Torres, I realize 20 these are the rules that you work under to be able to put a facility in, but 1 21 have a very hard time, do I agree with safety for schools, absolutely 1 22 have two kids in public schools in Las Cruces that have very limited 23 access that will end up at that high school at Dripping Springs My point 24 here is I don't like the system The system needs to be changed and 1 25 want to see the State step up here They're the ones who need to come 26 back and say these are the rules that you've imposed on this school 27 district; they need to step up We don't need to reprioritize our entire lives 28 to figure out how to do this The other one is the statement that we made 29 that and I'm just laughing at the irony of this, oh we need a road in and a 30 road out. Jornada's not going to be enough to serve this school Yeah, 31 well neither is Dripping Springs and nobody seems to have any concern 32 with that and that wasn't even considered for the TIP, not even 33 considered So if we're going to support this, we support access for all 34 three of those schools I want Dripping Springs on this TIP as well If 35 we're building roads for schools, we're putting them on the TIP, which with 36 ever funding that we have, if we end up having to reprioritize our federal 37 funding, then we do with it all three schools and that includes the other 38 section of Sonoma Ranch or the extension of Roadrunner, whatever it's 39 going to take in improvements to Dripping Springs because we all just said 40 in this room that it requires two roads Jornada and Peachtree going in 41 and out because otherwise it wouldn't be safe, then do it for the high 42 school too The high school has 2,000 students, this has 1500, not even 43 on the TIP and that TIP application was submitted and said we're not 44 going to consider it at this point. Do it all or don't do it. Thank you, Mr 45 Chairman 46 15 I Cadena Did you want to respond, Mr Torres and let's focus on Andy, maybe Mike, 2 both of you guys can get up here and talk to us about Dripping Springs 3 What is the current plan there 4 5 Torres Mr Chairman, Commissioner Perez, let me just address the high school 6 issue lust because it was raised by the Commissioner As far as the 7 roadways that impact the new high school project, that's Sonoma Ranch 8 Boulevard, that's Dripping Springs and that's also Missouri at the time that 9 we discussed that. All of those three projects were projects that the 10 school district came forward and made presentations at the TIP meeting 11 that we were just talking about at the MPO Policy meeting before All of 12 those three went through the priority process and two of those three 13 projects were ranked in the top four and so they are on the TIP that came 14 to you back in April 15 16 Perez. So they're on the TIP but they're not on the amended? Where did they 17 end up in the priority list now that we've spun everything? They're on the 18 list to have that road in place for 2011? 19 20 Hume Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, those projects were as Mr Torres noted 21 are on the top of the ten projects that were ranked by the Policy 22 Committee At this point and time those projects remain unfunded There 23 has been no funding identified for any of those federal, State, local funding 24 at all 25 26 Perez So I'm sorry, I guess the question should have been, where do they stand 27 on the priority for funded projects, because the funded projects are these 28 right here, so there down in that we don't know how we're going to fund 29 them but I don't remember them being on the top ten priorities but I'm 30 happy 31 32 Torres Again Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, as far as the previous process, the 33 complete MPO TIP process that we went through, of the three projects 34 and I can't tell you for sure which one was one, two or three but of the 35 three projects, Sonoma Ranch, Dripping Springs and Missouri and 1 36 believe that it was Dripping Springs and Sonoma Ranch, particularly, that 37 were ranked in the top four Now whether they were two and three or 38 whether they were one and three, but they ranked in the top three or four 39 Now those are unfunded projects, of course and at the time that that 40 process was begun and at the time that that process was made known to 41 use, we came forward and hopefully, that they eventually will find funding 42 because we're pursuing other funding sources as well We're not relying 43 strictly on them As far as this particular project that came forward, 44 because of the fact that we became aware that there was a potential to 45 bring this one forward These two schools are going to open earlier than 46 the high school and so therefore, that's why we brought these at this 16 I particular time and that's why we're asking that there be consideration to 2 look at funding for these schools so that these schools can have the 3 infrastructure roadways that they need by the time they open 4 5 Johnson Mr Chairman, Commissioner Perez, real quick You heard me mention 6 our capital improvement plans as part of our impact fee process that we're 7 considering We've also identified Sonoma Ranch between Lohman and 8 Drippings Springs and improvements on Dripping Springs as a project that 9 should be completed within the first five years, if that in fact is 10 implemented by our City Council, as a potential funding source 11 12 Cadena Mike, out of curiosity, where are you in that process? 13 14 Johnson The impact requires a two-faced process and requires the implementation 15 of a land use plan for the area and then you must develop a CIP plan It 16 includes an analysis that provides you with what the fees should actually 17 be for our drainage roadway and public safety No guarantee that all three 18 would be implemented, maybe one or two We're halfway through that 19 process We're in the process of getting our Phase II report and then 20 we're going to take it back to Council, probably in the next several weeks, 21 1 would say to several months for consideration and Councillor Archuleta 22 and Councillor Jones are both smiling like they can hardly wait. It also 23 generates a considerable discussion that takes place in our community 24 25 Perez Mr Mayor, if I could dust make a follow-up comment there The point of 26 the rant is not to get everybody bent out of shape It's to air it out in this 27 room and I guess the question is what is, I guess it's PSFA or whatever 28 the higher levels of the schools, what are they doing to fix this I mean 29 have they gone to the Governor Have they gone to the DOT and said 30 does anybody have money left. Look, we a disaster waiting to happen 31 This certainly isn't the first time with schools You look at Onate, you look 32 at Vado, we continually build schools without infrastructure in place, 33 whether it's fire flow or whether it's roads or whether it's water or sewer or 34 whatever it is, they continually end up being built and we're trying to panic 35 back fill with infrastructure and now we've got three schools coming in two 36 years or three years and I don't see the State hustling at all, but we're 37 trying to, again repnoritize and shuffle and look for funding on this level 38 and that does tweak me So what is the State doing to repond 39 40 Torres Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, Public School Facilities Authority, which 41 is the State agency that the State relies on as far as giving authority for 42 construction of school projects and public projects, they clearly as a part of 43 their policy and as a part of their regulations, they clearly support to the 44 percentage that has been determined by the ability of a district to be able 45 to fund it's capital outlay projects They fund a portion of those capital 46 outlay projects according to the ability of each school district to be able to 17 I do that. In our case, they fund our projects to the tune of 67% of the 2 project. We fund 33% of the project; however, they provide no funding for 3 any infrastructure outside of the site All site development is part of that 4 funding Anything that must be done as far as infrastructure development 5 to the site is not part of their funding That falls strictly on the district or the 6 local entities, be the County, be it the City, etc 7 8 Perez And I'm aware of that, but they know that they can't open a school without 9 infrastructure and I'm amazed that the State knowing this and with three 10 schools and again, two of them were termed as a crisis situation, this is I l why we're flipping all the rules to try and get this to work and the State is 12 not responding I understand that the school district certainly can't come 13 up with more I also understand why you picked the sites you picked 14 because you're trying to put the money into the building and not the site 15 The rules are bad I get what you guys are working with I don't what it 16 would take, maybe a couple of us going up to the State and saying no, no, 17 we're not doing it, we're not opening your schools Figure out a way to get 18 some infrastructure down here to back these guys up Not hacking 30,000 19 square feet off the building, you have to have a school open with 20 infrastructure and that includes roads and utilities 21 22 Torres Mr Chair and Commissioner Perez, if I can, one more comment on that 23 issue Because we know that this is the situation as far as any 24 infrastructure that doesn't exist and the fact we sometimes make site 25 selections because of the affordability, if you will, so that we can put more 26 into the actual structure rather than to the site itself; the district has made 27 and I think this has been public record that the Superintendent Rounds 28 has said time and time again, the district has made arrangements within 29 it's own funding scheme to the extent that it can to look at whatever is 30 necessary to make those roadways and infrastructure reach those 31 schools, so I will tell if this funding doesn't come through, it will cost the 32 district more to do that but those schools will open and that infrastructure 33 will be provided Now, we would rather not have to look for that funding 34 within our means and our projects, if there is in fact other public dollars 35 available, whether they be State or federal because the school is not in 36 the business of building roadways, obviously, but the Superintendent has 37 made it very clear that whatever roadways and infrastructure is necessary 38 to get to that high school, whether it be on Sonoma, whatever 39 improvements may be necessary to do to Dripping Springs, whatever 40 improvements have to be done at Peachtree and at this particular time, 41 Jornada or any part of Sonoma that would be necessary, that we will in 42 fact identify and have identified funds to have to do that. We're here 43 before you today to hopefully be able to set aside those funds into other 44 construction projects that we need rather than roadway projects 45 18 I Perez And I imagine you have a couple of teachers too that you'd like to pay and 2 that was never my suggestion or my intention to dip back further into a 3 district that's already strapped That isn't the point. The point is to go 4 back to the State If we're, I guess, coming on the heals of the original 5 projects where we're saying well we had projects underbid and we had 6 money left over so we're just going to in and do overlay or whatever 7 pavement improvements on 1-25 You have an extra $2M, we've got three 8 roads that need to be improved to serve schools I guess, again, the point 9 is to go back to the State level, maybe the DOT as appropriate and get 10 them funded and not be looking at the federal dollars as the priorities and 11 again, never the intention to dip further into the school district. I'm already 12 aware of how strapped and the places you're taking I guess the point is 13 I'm offering to help as best we can to put that pressure on If that's the 14 decision we need to make and if there is a way to do it where this Body 15 can pull in that discussion, again, whether it's DOT or whether it's another 16 entity on the State level to say we'll do this but we expect the State to 17 pony up and not be hitting on the district. That isn't right. 18 19 Torres Understand and you're point is well taken and we certainly are glad and 20 willing to sit down with you folks to assist in any way that perhaps that 21 point can be made to the State 22 23 Cadena Thank you, Mr Torres 24 25 Jones I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, if there's somebody else on Thank you very 26 much and a couple of questions One is for Mr Johnson and first I have 27 to another disclosure My wife works for the public school system too, at 28 Central Office now and I hope she's enjoying it and everything's alright. 29 She hasn't caused to much chaos there, but Mr Johnson and if you could 30 go back to the illustration of the roads, either you or maybe Andy There 31 was another one, maybe that's it and it was just a bigger scale, that must 32 be it. Mr Johnson, with respect to funding that comes about and some 33 opportunities to do something on Peachtree, do you have a number on the 34 top of your head Well, I guess this is the point, we recognize we big 35 issues with Peachtree Hills from where it runs from Holman all the way 36 down, we've talked about it, it needs a high degree of improvement up and 37 down that area from east to west Is that not so, would you agree with 38 that? 39 40 Johnson Mr Chairman, Councillor Jones, that's correct and I hesitate to say this, 41 but it's kind of a no man's land because it's the City/County, the City limit 42 line at a lot of places The City doesn't claim it and the County doesn't 43 claim so we've kind of 44 45 Jones And it also borders some BLM and maybe some State land too and so to 46 look for the development community to somehow repair some of that, 19 I there's not a whole lot of opportunity there under the current funding 2 mechanisms that we have if we don't something like adopt an impact fee 3 system Would you say that, I mean the improvement of Peachtree Hills 4 from Sonoma Ranch to Jornada, would that a significant amount of relief 5 for the entire project in the improvements we're need to do on Peachtree 6 Hill over time? 7 8 Johnson Mr Chairman, Councillor Jones, yes, that would, it would be a half 9 section, the northern half adjacent to the school would be constructed and 10 it would again, help to bring the connectivity that we need from Peachtree 11 Hills probably all the way to Holman, quite frankly 12 13 Jones And that would help some of our drainage issues in that area too, would 14 that also help some of that? 15 16 Johnson That's correct, yes, in fact we're looking at some project on this State land 17 or we're trying to catch some of that flow that's coming through there 18 19 Jones I know we talked about a pond in that area, as we grow in that area we're 20 going to need more ponding, I think, in section 16, right and thank you, 21 that helps a bunch Oh, I guess the next question is Sonoma Ranch, 22 that's on the CIP that we're discussing with the impact fee schedule at this 23 point, is it or is it not? I can't recall 24 25 Johnson Mr Chairman, Councillor Jones, the new, revised version is going to have 26 this section of Sonoma Ranch in the plan It was not originally presented 27 to the Council We've removed Valley Drive from that and several other 28 roads and we added this one because it was nearing, it's in the 29 development process and one of the next connections that we believe we 30 would need is part of that five year plan 31 32 Jones Right, well and I had a discussion with someone the other day that talked 33 about and Commissioner Perez I think outlined it fairly well Sometimes in 34 the development process, in this case it's a school and I understand how 35 to (inaudible) in a different situation because they look further, there are 36 variables, but sometimes the chart of events is sometimes upside down, 37 find the cheap dirt and then go from there and there's an argument that 38 can be made as maybe the dirt cost is the last decision or in the later part 39 because there are so many costs and obstacles, whether it's zoning and 40 master planning and utilities and roads and everything else, you get down 41 to the dirt, maybe that's not the right way to make these decisions, but 1 42 understand the school's position I mean they aren't responsible for, 43 they're motivated in a different way and their budgets are different. I think 44 there's a couple of things that come to me on this and that is I like to think 45 and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know, if we find a mechanism to fund 46 these items, I would hope that would mean that those funds would 20 I otherwise devote to this and I envision one day we will arrive at an impact 2 fee or some other alternative funding mechanism I see and I hope 3 frankly, that the idea of looking for development to fix these and do these 4 projects as they go along will go away and we'll find another stream of 5 revenue because of the problems we've had and I think if someone could 6 write a book about the Del Rey experience and why It's a great case 7 example of the problems we face and I won't go into that, but to the extent 8 we can fund this in some other manner, I think there are funds that we 9 would divert to other things that we need just as much so it's not like a lost 10 opportunity, it's basically shifting of resources If we capture resource to 11 do these roads here that means if we adopt an impact fee system, well 12 those impact fees that we collect we use some where else that we'll need 13 as well My guess is also and if I'm wrong, I hope someone will tell me, 14 but to the extent we're successful, the school potentially as Mr Torres 15 alluded to and they have a huge liability on their hands with respect to 16 these roads and of course, they're looking for relief for that liability and the 17 roads that are related to the new high school and again, to the extent we 18 find funding for something like this, it relieves their liability and maybe now 19 what resources they have they can shift to address the roads in the high 20 school environment or vice versa, either way and I guess what I'm saying 21 is to me it looks like we ought to pursue all avenues possible to solve 22 these problems and one, we need to rush forward internally to the City 23 with our impact fee system or some other recurring funding system and 24 I'm open to that. That conversation I've had with some of the opponents is 25 okay, if you don't like the impact fee system, please recommend an 26 alternative and it's been terribly silent, but to the extent we can fund this, 27 we will use those monies in other ways We also would need to look at 28 our funding streams within the City and adopt something different than 29 what we have in place and so I see opportunities and to the extent we're 30 successful one place, we'll take those savings for lack of a better word 31 and I think we'll use them else where, perhaps in this case the high school 32 environment. Thank you for listening 33 34 Cadena Thank you, Councillor Let me offer a few words I think it's important to 35 put them on this list and make them eligible for funding, whether that's 36 State, private, a combination thereof, potentially in the future, federal, and 37 1 think the resolution here or I don't think anyone's implying that we're 38 going to put them ahead of the ten priorities that we took through the 39 process, it's the idea to get them on there and if and when we need to do 40 that then this Board will have to sit down and hash that out. The other 41 thing without opening a can of worms and I agree that, you know, some of 42 the stuff that State, I mean, for instance, that repaving of 1-25 which is 43 needed lust like a lot of projects are needed are specified toward 44 interstates and I think maybe that's where some of your frustrations are 45 coming, that some of that, maybe there ought to be ways of moving some 46 of that kind money, and then thirdly, without opening a can of worms, 1 21 I mean we talked about a developer making a commitment. I guess it's 2 been transferred over to another developer and so on, it seems like in the 3 future along with these impact fees, as Councillor Jones was saying, if 4 we're going to make those kind of commitments that they ought along with 5 the property as opposed to the developer, but that brings us back to this 6 point and we've been here before and I understand the frustration of 7 people for asking things at the last minute, but I think we have to consider 8 everything that's being impacted here I mean, there's schools under 9 construction, yeah we all have priority projects and we have to weigh al 10 those differences and dust do what we thinks best and then try to improve 11 the process in the future If there's anything to be learned here, you know 12 it's a challenge for all of us and staff and the various entities including the 13 City, County and the schools Mr Torres and the Superintendent have 14 obligated to try to work with us in the future to try to prevent this kind of 15 thing I'm not sure if they could have seen this one forthcoming, so I think 16 we need to deal with this one and then try to improve on the process and 17 it's not always going to be perfect. That's why we're elected and we're 18 here to make these tough decisions that are not going to make everyone 19 happy 20 21 Hume Mr Chair, may I address, you mentioned procedures, TIP procedures in 22 your comment and I wanted to let the Committee know that one of the 23 things that staff is looking at is codifying the procedures and the policies 24 for getting the project on the TIP One of the sources of confusion from 25 the TAC's perspective and understandably so, was that those first ten 26 projects went through a very rigorous, involved process In fact, the 27 advisory committees each spent about 3 — 3 '/2 hours considering those 10 28 projects and asking a lot of questions and they we're thoroughly vetted 29 Scores were assigned to them and tallied and then presented to you all for 30 consideration These projects did not go through vigorous process and 31 so, but because again, the request was not made or at least not presented 32 to staff for seeking federal funds We did not see that adding them to the 33 TIP would be a direct conflict. The indication was given to staff that 34 perhaps some State or local funds would be sought for these projects, 35 which is why we made the decision to go along this faster process The 36 point of my comment is this, we need something in writing approved by 37 this Board that says if you're project fits into column A, here are the steps 38 you must follow in order to get that project onto the TIP If it falls in 39 columns B or C or X, these are the procedures that it needs to follow to 40 get onto the TIP and having that document is a very important step in 41 order to better organizing how projects get on the TIP I'm happy to say 42 that we have initiated that discussion actually at our last TAC meeting so 43 we've already begun the discussion of how to set some of the those 44 policies and procedures in place 45 22 I Cadena Well, as Chair, I would support that I think it'd be much less, we'd get 2 much less grief if there was a process in black and white of how to do that. 4 Perez. Mr Chairman, just one final comment to and assuming we'll take this step, 5 I'm still really fuzzy on why the Sonoma Ranch to Dragonfly, I share 6 Commissioner Krahling's concerns I'm not arguing that it might have 7 some benefit, but I understand the urgency for the rest of the project. I get 8 it, but the rest of that, I mean yes, I think we can milk some benefits out of 9 it but I don't understand why the urgency and why that particular portion of 10 it should be jumping the process 11 12 Johnson I don't know if I was entirely clear Mr Chairman, Commissioner Perez, 13 Del Rey is a good example and Councillor Jones and Councillor 14 Archuleta, probably this is more of an internal issue of what happened 15 We've got a specific amount of funding, say $2M for a project and we 16 identified the project to go from, I'm just making up streets here because 17 I'm mixing projects and from Mars to Settlers Pass and we said we need 18 $2M, well we bid the project and the project came in at $1 6M but we had 19 limited the scope of the project so we have $400,000 and we said well, we 20 want to go in further and the response we got back was you said from A to 21 B, well we want to go further and so we went through a rather involved 22 process that potentially allows us to bid that as an added alternate, but 23 when you limit smaller, my intent was to say I believe we should have the 24 entire stretch for the fact that if we say we need $4 5M for the roads to 25 take Sonoma to Peachtree and Peachtree there and we actually did that 26 project and it came in at $3 75M, then we have the ability to add that 27 additional portion of say Sonoma Ranch and take it for as far as it would 28 take us as part of the project 29 30 Perez: And my intention with my original rant was if you have that money leftover, 31 put it in the high school road because that's already on the TIP, rather 32 than approving, this absolutely can be added, alternate, I understand there 33 is some economy of scale of constructing in the same location, but my 34 point is these projects should be packaged If there is money left over, if 35 there is not other funding leveraged for that, that's an added benefit where 36 if you end up with a little extra money there, I can see taking it to Lohman 37 On this one, just throwing it out to take it take it to Dragonfly so that people 38 have another was to access the Dona Ana's doesn't make any sense to 39 me, so I think I would ask my colleagues maybe to consider if we're going 40 to do this school roads, let's do them as a package If we're going to build 41 that safety net, can we consider either a different priority, something else 42 that's in here that's a higher City priority or the rest of the school needs 43 44 Johnson Mr Chairman, if I could, Commissioner Perez, in the event that the 45 scenario was to occur that I described Frank can correct me if I'm wrong 46 Frank Guzman, our district engineer here I believe that if you did not 23 I have the ability to expand the scope of that project that was identified that 2 the remaining funds would essentially go back into the general fund or the 3 project fund that is was originated out of in the DOT's area, it could 4 potentially be reallocated to another part of the State and I don't know if he 5 wants to comment on that, but I would love it if that was that easy to move 6 those funds 7 8 Perez. Well, I'm not saying to move the funds I don't think you're all of what I'm 9 saying which is your additive alternate on the project, it would be 10 designated in this project and additive alternate would not be the 11 Peachtree to Dragonfly Your additive alternate would be Lohman to the 12 new high school, for example on Sonoma Boulevard instead of extending 13 this section of Sonoma Ranch, you would extend another part. It would be 14 tied to the contract. It would be an additive alternate but at least it fits the 15 same intent of the original funding, which is to get access to the three 16 schools I don't see why that can't be stated in the scope of work, rather 17 than running a road to nowhere 18 19 Guzman Mr Chair, certainly, you know the budgets are challenging for us even at a 20 State level I think its (inaudible) from the DOT's perspective that the 21 process needs to be such that once these projects within the TIP then 22 they are eligible, Mr Chairman as you suggested and Councillor Jones 23 suggested that then they would be eligible for not only State funding but 24 other types of funding to that end, but if we don't follow through with the 25 process which is what we're doing here tonight, then it probably excludes 26 it from that 27 28 Cadena Okay 29 30 Perez Mr Chairman, I don't think I followed that at all 31 32 Johnson Mr Chairman, if I could add just a thing, Commissioner Perez, if we had 33 half a million dollars or $400,000 that was left over after built the identified, 34 1 would tell you to take a bite out of the elephant that would be from 35 Sonoma Ranch from Lohman to Dripping Springs That would be a very 36 small portion of what we would be able to bid, build or add to that. I'm not 37 sure that I'm trying to think of the estimate of what the roadway was 38 (interrupted) 39 40 Cadena Frank, can you come back up Several of these projects are unfunded 1 41 think the only ones that got funded, was it the top three priorities that are 42 currently funded so on those remaining seven and now we have another 43 two, how would you guys decide how to fund those and how much and 44 how much would our priorities of the next seven projects weigh into what 45 the decisions that were being made, if you can answer 46 24 I Guzman Yeah Mr Chairman, it's a little bit difficult to answer, but you certainly saw 2 today on the presentation that Michael Gallagher did, those are some of 3 thought processes that we go through and some of the bullets that he 4 presented as to the overall system here in Las Cruces in the MPO area as 5 to how we would look at those different aspects and make decisions for 6 different projects to be funded to that end 7 8 Cadena Okay, some projects, obviously like the pavement preservation, you guys 9 are the leaders on that, but on those other projects that were local ones, 10 do they not come from us as far as, for instance, our Committee chose, I 11 think it was Benno Road, Calle del Norte and Del Rey, so what I'm getting 12 it, if we got this on the list wouldn't we have any input as to what projects 13 and how far along, how much money was put into those? 14 15 Hume Mr Chair, just one point of correction The projects that you're referring to 16 were on the ARRA funding list. None of the top ten projects on the TIP 17 funding list have been selected 18 19 Cadena Yeah, I got confused We had two different things Remind me, what 20 were some of the top ones on that didn't get funded that weren't actually 21 on the ARRA. 22 23 Hume The top four projects on ARRA? 24 25 Cadena I remember University, the shoulders or the multi-purpose path 26 27 Hume The shoulders on University Avenue between Main and NM 28, #2 was 28 Dripping Springs Road, #3 was Fairacres Road and #4 was Sonoma 29 Ranch Road from Lohman to Dripping Springs 30 31 Cadena Right, so by putting this thing on this list, they wouldn't be any higher than 32 any of those projects that are currently on there, would they? I'm asking, 1 33 don't know 34 35 Hume That would be at the Policy Committee's discretion 36 37 Cadena Okay 38 39 Arzabal Mr Chair, can I make a statement. As far as what the resolution, it's 40 strictly to put it on the TIP for them to be eligible for any funding, federal, 41 State or local funding Am I correct in saying that? 42 43 Hume Mr Chair, Trustee Arzabal, again the intent is to put it on the current TIP, 44 if no funding is found between now and September 30th and I just had a 45 brief conversation while other presentations were going on, they would 46 need to go through the entire TIP process to be ranked by our advisory 25 I committees in order to be on the 2010 TIP and that's something that's 2 actually in your Resolution The other aspect though is that no funding 3 sources have been identified and told to MPO staff To the best of our 4 knowledge there are no federal funds available between now and the end 5 of the federal fiscal year on September 30th, so any funding that would be 6 available from our knowledge would be State, local or private funds and 1 7 just want to make that very clearer for the Committee, because if ARRA 8 funds are available, Mr Chair, you are correct We have seventeen 9 unfunded ARRA projects that were ranked by this Committee so if there 10 are ARRA funds eligible, we should go to #4 on the ARRA fund list. If 11 other federal funds are available through the TIP process, we should start 12 with #1 or whatever the first project is that funds are eligible to be spent on 13 those projects These projects should not vault above any other projects 14 that you all have identified previously unless you choose that be the case 15 16 Arzabal I understand that, but my point is they need to be on the TIP to be eligible 17 for any money and that's correct? 18 19 Hume Yes 20 21 Arzabal And that's what we're doing here tonight? 22 23 Hume Correct. 24 25 Arzabal Okay 26 27 Cadena Alright, is there any further discussion by the Committee or can I call for a 28 vote I believe I had a motion, a second 29 30 Perez. Mr Chairman, I would ask that these two projects be separated for 31 separate votes 32 33 Cadena Okay, we can certainly do that if everyone agrees 34 35 Jones I think I did the second, Mr Chairman 36 37 Cadena Who did the original motion? 38 39 Hume Actually, the original motion was by Councillor Jones and I believe the 40 second was by Trustee Arzabal No, I'm sorry, Councillor Archuleta 41 42 Murphy- Excuse me, Andy Mr Chairman, I believe we had already separated out 43 the first five and you already voted to approve 1through 4 on there and the 44 action we've been discussing had been specifically for 6 and 7 45 26 I Cadena Yeah, that's correct but now Commissioner Perez is asking that we 2 separate 6 and 7, so I'm just trying to figure out procedurally how we're 3 going to do that and I think it's up to the person who made the motion 4 5 Jones Mr Chairman, if Robert's Rules of Order will allow that to do, I would 6 move that we approve item, I would like to change my motion to move to 7 approve Item 6 1 6 LCMPO-TH-09-34 and that would be my corrected 8 motion 9 10 Arzabal Second 11 12 Cadena I think it requires the person that made the second, doesn't it? 13 14 Jones The original second? Mr Chairman, if that would be the case, I think it 15 was Councillor Archuleta, I think 16 17 Archuleta Second 18 19 Cadena Our motion and second now is to consider only 6 1 6 and is there any 20 further discussion on that, if not let's have a roll call vote 21 22 Hume Councillor Jones 23 24 Jones Yes 25 26 Hume Councillor Archuleta 27 28 Archuleta Yes 29 30 Hume Trustee Arzabal 31 32 Arzabal Yes 33 34 Hume Commissioner Krahling 35 36 Krahling Yes 37 38 Hume Commissioner Perez 39 40 Perez No 41 42 Hume Chair 43 44 Cadena I'll vote yes 45 46 27 1 6 1 6 LCMPO-TH-09-34 — PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-1 2 3 Jones Mr Chairman, I move that we approve 6 1 7 LCMPO-TH-09-35 4 5 Arzabal Second 6 7 Cadena Alright, any discussion on this particular motion and second? Seeing 8 none, I'll ask for a roll call vote 9 10 Hume Councillor Jones 11 12 Jones Yes 13 14 Hume Councillor Archuleta 15 16 Archuleta Yes 17 18 Hume Trustee Arzabal 19 20 Arzabal Yes 21 22 Hume Commissioner Krahling 23 24 Krahling Yes 25 26 Hume Commissioner Perez 27 28 Perez Yes 29 30 Hume Chair 31 32 Cadena I'll vote yes 33 34 Cadena Thanks to all of you for the meaningful information and discussion 35 36 6 1 7 LCMPO-TH-09-35 — PASSES 6-0 37 38 62 Resolution 09-13 A Resolution amending the 2009-2010 39 Unified Planning Work Program 40 41 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation 42 43 Cadena Comments, questions, let's have a roll call vote 44 45 Murphy- Councillor Jones 46 28 I Jones Yes 2 3 Murphy- Mayor ProTem Archuleta 4 5 Archuleta Yes 6 7 Murphy- Trustee Arzabal 8 9 Arzabal Yes 10 11 Murphy- Commissioner Krahling 12 13 Krahling Do we have a motion we're voting on? 14 15 Cadena Did we have a motion? 16 17 Jones Mr Chair, I think I moved to approve, did I not? Thought I did 18 19 Cadena Well, for sake of the record let's do 20 21 Jones Mr Chair, I move that we approve 6 2 22 23 Arzabal Second 24 25 Cadena Alright, let's try that again Thank you for pointing that out Commissioner 26 27 Murphy- Councillor Jones 28 29 Jones Yes 30 31 Murphy- Mayor ProTem Archuleta 32 33 Archuleta Yes 34 35 Murphy- Trustee Arzabal 36 37 Arzabal Yes 38 39 Murphy Commissioner Krahling 40 41 Krahling Yes 42 43 Murphy Commissioner Perez 44 45 Perez. Yes 46 29 I Murphy Mayor Cadena 3 Cadena Yes 4 5 PASSES 6-0 6 7 7 DISCUSSION ITEMS 8 9 71 2008-2013 Transportation Improvement Program Administrative 10 Modification 11 12 Andy Hume gave a brief presentation 13 14 72 Committee Training Transportation Legislation Reauthorization 15 16 Andy gave a brief presentation 17 18 Andy stated the House, Senate and President Obama have signed off on a bill providing 19 $7 billion to the Highway Trust Fund This should keep the Trust Fund solvent through 20 September 30th 21 22 Andy stated that they have the distinct privilege of having Chairman Oberstar, who is 23 chair of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee visiting Las Cruces on 24 August 19th, 3 30 p m at the recital hall by the Music Department at NMSU, right off 25 Espina MPO staff will be there 26 27 73 Staff Updates 28 29 7 3 1 Transport 2040 30 31 Caeri Thomas gave a brief presentation 32 33 7 3.2 Joint Policy Board meeting between LCMPO and EPMPO 34 35 Tom Murphy reminded everyone of the first ever joint EI Paso/Las Cruces MPO Policy 36 Boards meeting on Friday, August 14th, 11 00 a m in EI Paso 37 38 7 3 3 NMDOT news and updates 39 40 Mike Gallagher announced that the Calle del Norte project in the Town of Mesilla, it 41 didn't receive the full funding amount that was requested for the ARRA, but NMDOT did 42 find district dollars to apply to that project to fully fund the project. The district 43 recognized it as an important project for the Town of Mesilla and as well as for the MPO 44 Policy Board 45 46 Mayor Cadena expressed his appreciation 30 1 2 7 3 4 Development Review 3 4 Development Review information was provided in Committee members packets 5 6 8 COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 7 8 Perez I have a quick question The proposed bus route between Las Cruces 9 and EI Paso, why is proposed to not have a stop at UTEP? 10 11 Murphy- Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, I will try to answer that. I believe it will be 12 stopping at the EI Paso West Side Transit Center or what serves as the 13 west side transfer point for Sun Metro and I believe in the interest having it 14 move quickly from one end to the other, I think that was the reason behind 15 it. We will have Greg White from the Transit & Rail Bureau at the meeting 16 on Friday and I can pose the exact question to him and get a definite 17 answer from those who programmed the route 18 19 Perez Where is the West Side Transit Center? 20 21 Cadena Does anybody know that? 22 23 UNKNOWN Mr Chair, Board members, I believe the West Side Terminal is in the 24 downtown area, the EI Paso downtown area, that's my recollection 25 26 Pinal I'm Geoge Pinal with the EI Paso MPO Transportation Manager I believe 27 the West Side Terminal that we we're discussing, if I'm not mistaken is 28 right there off of Rincon Circle, where you have by Mesa Street. 29 30 Cadena Okay, how far is that from UTEP? I guess I'm assuming the point is 31 because when it was discussed here in New Mexico, one of the issues 32 was to connect NMSU and I think we accomplished that, so I guess we're 33 lust trying to 34 35 Pinal I'd double verify that. 36 37 Jones Mr Chairman, is Rincon Circle between Coronado High and Mesa at the 38 Mesa exit, do you all know? 39 40 Cadena I believe it is, but anyway maybe it's a good question to bring up at 41 Friday's meeting 42 43 9 PUBLIC COMMENT - None 44 45 46 31 1 10 ADJOURNMENT 2 3 Cadena I'll entertain a motion to adjourn 4 5 Jones So moved 6 7 Krahling Second 8 9 ALL IN FAVOR 10 11 Meetin adjourned at 7 10 p m 12 13 14 15 Chair 32