Loading...
05-13-2009 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 Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 5 00 p m at City Hall Council Chambers, 200 N Church 6 St., Las Cruces, New Mexico 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 9 Councilor Gil Jones (CLC) 10 Councillor Sharon Thomas (CLC) 11 Trustee Carlos Arzabal (Town of Mesilla) 12 Trustee Sam Bernal (Town of Mesilla) 13 Scott Krahling (DAC) 14 Councillor Dolores Archuleta (City of Las Cruces) 15 Commissioner Karen Perez (DAC) 16 17 MEMBERS ABSENT Leticia Duarte-Benavidez (DAC) 18 19 STAFF PRESENT Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 20 Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) 21 Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) 22 Andrew Wray (Las Cruces MPO) 23 K Naoma Staley (LC MPO — Safe Routes to School) 24 25 OTHERS PRESENT Joseph De La Rosa (NMDOT) 26 Michael Gallagher (NMDOT) 27 Harold Love (NMDOT) 28 John Moscato (BVLC) 29 Cathy Mathews (League of Women Voters) 30 Marjorie Burr (League of Women Voters) 31 Jorge Granados (DAC) 32 Sonia Perez Ortiz (EI Paso MPO) 33 George Pearson 34 35 1 CALL TO ORDER 36 37 The meeting was called to order at 5 00 p m 38 39 Mayor Cadena asked Tom to take a roll call 40 41 Murphy- Trustee Arzabal 42 43 Arzabal Here 44 45 Murphy- Councillor Archuleta 46 1 I Archuleta Here 2 3 Murphy- Commissioner Krahling 4 5 Krahling Here 6 7 Murphy- Trustee Bernal 8 9 Bernal Here 10 11 Murphy Councillor Thomas 12 13 Thomas Here 14 15 Murphy- Mayor Cadena 16 17 Cadena Here We do have a quorum 18 19 2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY 20 21 Cadena Is there any conflict that any Committee has and has not already been 22 stated? Let the record show that Commissioner Perez is here as well 23 24 3 PUBLIC COMMENT 25 26 Councillor Thomas stated that Representative Steinborn was supposed to be present to 27 have public comments about the memorial that he presented at the State Legislature for 28 commuter rail but was unable to attend this meeting and Councillor Thomas requested 29 that this item be put on the June agenda 30 31 4 CONSENT AGENDA Items indicated by an asterisk (*) will be voted in one 32 motion with the acceptance of the agenda. 33 34 Mayor Cadena requested that the agenda be amended for the meeting to end after the 35 Action Items because there is a meeting at the County that many of the Committee 36 members have to attend Mayor Cadena requested a motion 37 38 Trustee Arzabal motioned to accept the agenda 39 40 Commissioner Perez requested that the Committee address Berino Road, Item 7 2 41 42 It was recommended that a time limit be put on the Berino Road discussion 43 44 Councillor Archuleta seconded the motion 45 46 ALL IN FAVOR 2 1 2 5 *APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4 51 April 8, 2009 5 6 The minutes were approved as part of the Consent Agenda 7 8 6 ACTION ITEMS 9 10 61 *Resolution 09-08 A Resolution Adopting the LCMPO Annual Self- 11 Certification for the Federal Highway Administration and Federal 12 Transit Administration 13 14 Resolution 09-08 was approved as part of the Consent Agenda 15 16 62 Resolution 09-09 A Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Las 17 Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization 2008-2013 Transportation 18 Improvement Program 19 20 Andy Hume gave a brief presentation 21 22 Mayor Cadena indicated for the record that Councillor Jones was present for the 23 meeting 24 25 Michael Gallagher (NMDOT) gave a presentation 26 27 Perez. Mr Chairman, could I interrupt with just a question here Could you 28 explain to me how it is that the concerns and the deficiencies are 29 essentially the shoulder width, guardrails, and drainage issues, can you in 30 10 words or less, can you link those deficiencies with the need for an 31 additional lane? I understand shoulder improvements I understand 32 guardrails, I understand some drainage improvements, but the third lane 33 I'm missing the link there Could you explain that to me? 34 35 Gallagher- Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, but with this project there's actually three 36 lanes in each direction Each lane will be 12 feet in width, okay; the 37 additional lanes would be within New Mexico right-of-way, that's the 38 median In addition, the shoulder widths will be increased by 10 feet on 39 each side, so what will happen with this and the accidents that we've seen 40 is the accidents have been, some accidents have been attributed through 41 turnovers What the added lane on each side, you have less of a grade 42 separation on the inside where the median is and with the increased width 43 of the shoulder you have less of a grade separation on the shoulder side 44 45 Perez: So in order to address, I'm still not seeing the link with the lane Again, 1 46 understand the additional shoulder width and that makes sense to me 3 I because that's a noted deficiency, but I don't understand how adding a 2 third lane, you're wiping out the median by adding a third grade, so you're 3 getting rid of the 4 5 Gallagher- Correct, Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, there will be a third lane in each 6 direction A portion of the median will still exist but that third lane would 7 help compensate the grade separation that exists between the inside lane, 8 which is adjacent to the median That third lane would help alleviate those 9 grade separations that exist now 10 11 Perez I'm still missing that but I'll have to get clarification later, go ahead 12 13 Gallagher- Okay, I'll continue 14 15 Thomas Mr Chairman, let me try Is it not possible to fix these things without 16 adding a third lane? That's a different way of asking the same question 17 18 Cadena Before we get into that I'm assuming the third lane also has something to 19 do with the amount of traffic, not lust the (inaudible — interrupted) 20 21 Gallagher- Right, Mr Chair, this is primarily a safety project. While the additional lane 22 could add additional capacity, right now there is not a capacity issue with 23 1-10 It's a safety project. The additional lane would, as I mentioned 24 before, help alleviate the grade separations I don't know how else to 25 26 Thomas Well, what does the grade separation have to do with the safety things, 1 27 guess is the missing piece? 28 29 De La Rosa Mr Chairman, Commissioners, Councillors, I'm Joseph De La Rosa with 30 the NMDOT Part of the issue is when there is someone coming headed 31 in the wrong direction, there have been five head on collisions that 32 resulted in a fatality; when you're actually forced to leave the roadway into 33 either the median or off on the outside shoulder, there's no where to go If 34 you have two lanes of traveling roadway and you're traveling at a rate of 35 speed that's approximately 70 — 80 mph, which is the average speed in 36 that corridor, something happens in front of you, ideally you would like to 37 get into another lane and continue to decelerate, steering clear of any 38 issue, but continuing in the lane of traffic If you just had a wider shoulder 39 for example, there isn't the same driver response time and the same driver 40 behavior observed with shoulder as there would be with the lane It's kind 41 of a complex thing to explain We went through I would say that there's 42 probably about a 1,000 pages combined of the Phase A, B, and C reports 43 that cover all of the different alternatives, which range from keeping the 44 existing two lanes and dust going in and putting cable barrier to 20 foot 45 shoulders, I mean there are a number of things you could do, but it's 4 I economically in our best interest once you go in and you start adding wide 2 shoulders to go ahead and lust make it a additional driving lane 4 Thomas I guess I would not agree with the economic development because the 5 research that I've done shows that if you put in commuter rail you take 6 people off of the highway, you reduce the accident rate, you reduce the 7 safety problems, and you get better economic development. So I realize 8 that this project is ready to go and it's got everything done and it's got the 9 money and that we need the jobs and we need to do it, but at the same 10 time I would argue and I think I can do it successfully that you get better 11 economic development from commuter rail and that we need to move 12 forward with that as well as Congressman Teague said last week, we can't 13 just always add more lanes, we've got to be more creative and more 14 strategic as we go along I'll stop there 15 16 De La Rosa Mr Chairman, Councillor Thomas, if I may, if I said something about 17 economic development, I misspoke, what I meant to say is it's more 18 economically feasible once you go in and start building cost benefit wise 19 another lane to go ahead and make it a driving lane for safety concerns 20 21 Thomas Except for the fact when you add lanes, you increase capacity but you 22 loose it within two years, so you know, it's an awful lot of money 23 24 De La Rosa I'm not going to argue 25 26 Cadena Let me ask a question for you, two questions, what happens at the border 27 because we're going to three lanes and then between the border and then 28 EI Paso there's still some part of that will be two lanes, how do you tie it 29 together and is there any plans from the Texas side to make that three 30 lanes? 31 32 De La Rosa TXTDOT has developed a third lane project from 1-10 at the State lane to 33 approximately the Sunland Park Drive area, it isn't funded and it is not 34 ready to move forward at this point. 35 36 Cadena So can you tell me how you, I guess you just design those three lanes to 37 come together with the two somewhere in the Anthony area? 38 39 De La Rosa That's correct. There's a lane drop basically taking it back down to the 40 two lanes at the Texas State line 41 42 Cadena Okay and you said that you're building two additional lanes in the median 43 If those lanes get closer together is there some type of barrier or how does 44 that affect safety, I guess, or you're talking about head on but if we're 45 bringing them closer together, can you explain that? 46 5 I De La Rosa It'd be similar to what exists on the Texas line right now There's a cable 2 barrier in some places and then a concrete barrier at the closest section 3 It'd be typical to any urban type freeway 4 5 Cadena Just wanted to hear that. Alright, any other comments or questions? 6 7 Jones Yes, Mr Chairman, if I may Could staff explain again the differences in 8 the funding changes with this change and where the monies will come 9 from? 10 11 Gallagher- Well, I won't go to any particular slide In the TIP right now it was a 12 program for $29 million The total cost of this project is $50 million, of that 13 $50 million, $36 million would be within the Las Cruces MPO and tonight 14 what we're requesting, one of the TIP amendment requests is to increase 15 the program funding amount from $29 to $36 million Of that $36 million 16 the funding would come from $10 million of ARRA money, which has been 17 approved and then the remaining $26 million within the Las Cruces MPO 18 area would be funded through State GRIP dollars 19 20 Perez Mr Chairman, just a small clarification there, I believe in one of your first 21 slides that you said something also about the project being reprioritized so 22 it's moving from 2012 to 2009, are we also approving that tonight? 23 24 Gallagher- Correct, there are three TIP amendment requests Moving this from fiscal 25 year 2012 to 2009, adjusting the (didn't understand wording) from Mile 26 Post 150 Y2 to existing 157 to 146 2 beginning and the end 159 3, and 27 then the third, as I already mentioned, increase the funding from $29 28 million to $36 million 29 30 Perez. If we were not and I hate to jump ahead, Mr Chairman, but just in the 31 interest of time, if we were to not approve this amendment request this 32 evening what would happen to the money from ARRA? 33 34 Gallagher- Well, Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, I would say that the ARRA money 35 available could possibly be, you know Joe correct me if I'm wrong, but 1 36 believe that money could be in jeopardy The issue with the ARRA 37 money, it was approved under the assumption that this project is design 38 ready and it could be let for the construction within a certain time frame so 39 tonight if this is approved at the MPO Board meeting this still has to go in 40 front of the NMDOT Commission Before we can bring it from the 41 Commission, we have to have approval from the Las Cruces MPO Policy 42 Board, so if it's not approved tonight, then we would have to wait until your 43 next meeting but then we skipped a Commission meeting so now we're 44 looking at potentially August and that puts us in jeopardy because this is 45 not why the ARRA money was awarded The ARRA money was awarded 46 given the time frame that this project could go to construction 6 1 2 Perez. Mr Chairman, the concern that I have is that we have one and I think I'm 3 not mistaken in saying a half of another project that was, in fact didn't 4 make it onto the ARRA list, that went to the Governor and my concern is 5 we approve this project knowing that two of our priority projects were 6 removed from the ARRA list and I have a problem with that. One of those 7 is Berino Road, it's $2 5 million and the other half of Calle Del Norte 8 funding for the Town of Mesilla didn't make it on the ARRA list to the 9 Governor and so the overwhelming impression that I'm left is that this 10 project is being repriontized despite our priority listing and it's being 11 increased and it's also not a project that apparently all of us are buying 12 into in concept, so that's my struggle right now, if all of our priority projects 13 were in fact on the ARRA list as we prioritized them, frankly I might have 14 less of a problem than I'm having with this right now 15 16 De La Rosa Mr Chairman, Commissioner Perez, the short answer is this funding if not 17 approved and programmed for this project would be subject to 18 reprogramming by the State Transportation Commission for another 19 project. The two pots of money are essentially separate The one that is 20 coming to this project was State DOT discretionary funding, which meant 21 that it was subject to the Transportation Commission's selection and the 22 funding that you're talking about was the sub-allocation for local 23 government projects So theoretically, this could go towards a project like 24 Berino Road except as Mike explained this project is ready to go and 25 Berino Road is not. 26 27 Perez Actually Berino Road will be ready to go within 30 days, so we can talk 28 about that when we get to the Berino Road item, but again my concern 29 and again we're discussing priorities here This Board and the MPO staff 30 have identified priorities because we are here locally and we know what 31 our priorities are I don't know that we've bought into this priority and 32 again I'm looking at a move from 2012 to 2009, that's a big shift in priority 33 and a lot of dollars allocated Thank you, Mr Chairman 34 35 Cadena Maybe you guys can answer this question, is there not another allocation 36 of money coming forward where potentially Berino and Del Norte could be 37 reconsidered? 38 39 Gallagher- Mr Chair, that's correct. We received word that there will be another 40 funding cycle, another additional ARRA money; additional projects may be 41 certified by the Governor for ARRA money When that date is, when that 42 will be, that information has not been released yet to our districts, but 43 we're understanding that could be any day 44 45 Cadena And has the department, I know there's been a lot of discussion of the rail 46 runner as well, how does making that three lanes affect that? I mean 7 I does that just stop those discussions or is that still a potential project 2 regardless if you have those lanes or not? Is there someone in here that 3 can answer that? 4 5 Gallagher- Well, Mr Chair, I don't think adding the additional lanes in the east 6 bound/west bound, I don't think that that would prohibit any further 7 progress on a rail runner from Las Cruces to El Paso There has been 8 discussions of potentially using the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe, 9 that's only at the preliminary discussion and that took place as Councillor 10 Jones knows and Councilor Archuleta, that took place at the EI Paso, the 11 joint EI Paso City Council and Las Cruces City Council meeting A 12 representative from Burlington Northern gave a discussion on the existing 13 rail line that goes from EI Paso to Las Cruces and that is obviously outside 14 of the NMDOT right-of-way 15 16 Cadena Okay, let me throw this out as the Chair, I know that probably we're not all 17 happy how we got here I think the politics of it to be blunt is that if we 18 don't approve this, that might well not necessarily goes to those projects, it 19 will most likely go up north some where, so I think we ought to consider 20 approving this and then continue, I know this stimulus project because it's 21 very confusing, we've gone to a lot of meetings, there are a lot of 22 deadlines, the deadlines change and requirements change and I think, 23 you know it's frustrating for some of the entities especially down here 24 south, but I think we ought to focus on trying to get that additional road 25 funded by reclassifying it. I mean we can still continue to do that. There's 26 another meeting next week here in Las Cruces dealing with that and if we 27 can continue to push forward for funding for those two projects, but I mean 28 whatever the wishes of the Committee are, but I think that's what the real, 29 in my opinion, the politics of it. 30 31 Jones Thank you, Mr Chairman and I tend to agree with your point of view It 32 would be a different discussion if we we're basically saying we have a 33 budget of money, how do we want to spend it, but I don't here that being 34 the case and I see Mr Gallagher agrees I think what we see is a 35 situation here where we have an opportunity to make an improvement and 36 1 do think it is an improvement having commuted back and forth from EI 37 Paso for many, many years and the evidence up here also suggests that's 38 the case I think we have a situation of use it or lose it and while there is a 39 lot of excitement about the rail runner, again it's the same situation, it's not 40 as if we could take this money and put it in escrow and wait till the rail 41 runner comes up and we could then decide to use it then if and when the 42 commuter rail turns out to be a solution I think we are so, so many steps 43 away from commuter rail and I know on the consultants view point that we 44 hired at the South Central Regional Transit District, they cautioned us 45 about jumping too quickly into the commuter rail at this point because 46 there are a lot of pitfalls in doing so One of which is that one might argue 8 I you need to generate some demand first, maybe perhaps through a bus 2 environment or something of that nature and again, I don't see any loss 3 here I know that we are talking about building towards the median but 1 4 don't think we eliminate fully any opportunity with commuter rail down the 5 road I think we make a safer environment. I see traffic buildup on 1-10, 1 6 think we're addressing that and not at the loss of any other thing or any 7 other opportunity, in my view Although one might argue it might be 8 harder to put that rail down the center lane at some point in the future, if 9 that's the decision but that's just one of a minor step of some many I 10 mean we still have the Burlington Northern question I think we would be 11 reckless if you didn't look at a Burlington Northern solution and so we've 12 given all these variables and given the time frame I hate to pass up this 13 opportunity and with respect of the timing of this project, how many times 14 do we sit in this room in one capacity or another and say well, golly the 15 projects moved out one more time I mean look at Highway 85, it's moved 16 out so far now that I don't know when it will ever get done So I think we 17 ought to seize the opportunity, avoid inflation risk and we ought to move 18 forward with this project because I don't see, I just don't see a downside to 19 it. Again, I would see a downside if we were handed a pot of money and 20 were asked where to spend it but that's not the case and I just see too 21 many opportunities and not enough downside risks I think we should 22 move forward and vote on this in the affirmative 23 24 Cadena Alright, Councillor Thomas 25 26 Thomas Thank you, Mr Chair 1 agree we should seize the opportunity while we 27 have it. I think that some of us are feeling that here this thing was setup 28 for 2012 and somehow it got all of the requirements it needed, it got all the 29 engineering done, it got all these things done when other projects that 30 were on the list to come up much sooner did not get that kind of support 31 and so yes, we need to do it. I'm not convinced that we can't make it 32 more safe without adding a lane but that's alright, I'll pass on that. But 1 33 do think that we need to pay attention to commuter rail as much as we've 34 paid attention to adding lanes and as we move forward here I would hope 35 that some attention will be made to that project and so it can be moved up 36 in the way this project was moved up and I just want to pass out a copy of 37 one article about Representative Teague's for funding for a corridor study 38 and I hope that's going to move forward quickly and I will give you this 39 article so that we all have the exact name of the legislation so we'll know 40 when it comes up because it has strange name, Southwestern Transit 41 Corridor Planning and Fuel Use Reduction Act. Just so everybody knows 42 what it is 43 44 Cadena Trustee Arzabal and then Commissioner Perez 45 9 I Arzabal I guess just listening to concerns, I guess my only concern is this sets 2 precedents so for other projects and I know the big thing right now is 3 safety That's one of the reasons it is and I agree with that; I just hope 4 that however the MPO votes, you know, that we're not setting precedents 5 for other cases that come up before us and okay, everybody's going to, 6 we're going to get moved from 2011 to 2009 or stuff like that. That's my 7 only concern is setting precedent for this and if could 8 9 Cadena Let me just speak briefly on that I've been on this Committee for 20 years 10 and that's what happens They are on the list but they can be shifted in 11 years depending on where the money is and what source it is I mean the 12 goal is actually to get them moved up It's better than the opposite as the 13 Councillor has said is when we move them back, I think that 14 15 Arzabal Thank you, Mr Mayor 16 17 De La Rosa Mr Chairman, if I may, just to add to that. This project has been under 18 development since 2004 The reason it was in 2012 is because it was 19 originally scheduled for construction in 2008, but when 2008 rolled around 20 we didn't have enough money to build it, we moved it out to 2012 We got 21 additional money through ARRA and that is why we're moving it back up 22 to now If we we're to wait till 2012, the $50 million that it costs would not 23 be enough and we'd be basically in the same situation The reason that it 24 seems that it's jumping ahead of other projects is because it was ahead of 25 them about five years ago 26 27 Cadena Alright, Commissioner Perez and then there are any other Committee 28 members that haven't spoken want to speak 29 30 Perez. Mr Chairman, just two brief points One, I would like to consider 31 postponing this whether it be to our next meeting or to a special meeting, if 32 we need to have one, to make decisions for two points of clarification 1) 33 I'd like some assurance that that $10 million is actually go to go away 1 34 mean we've got, gentlemen, and this is not any reflection on you what so 35 ever, but we have two representatives from District 1 that are telling us 36 that is the case but we really have no assurance in that that is in fact the 37 intention of the money and that there is not, in fact, a pot of money that we 38 can draw from and 2) 1 would like some time to look at the technical 39 information that supports the addition of the third lane That just does not, 40 I'm still seeing a disconnect between those two solutions and I understand 41 we've had public meetings so there is information, but I would like an 42 opportunity to look at that and understand that we're not just approving 43 this because there happens to be a pot of money in front of us With 44 questions being out there, I'm not comfortable with that tonight and I need 45 those two clarifications before I'm to make a decision So I would put that 46 out as a suggestion 10 1 2 Cadena Thank you, does anyone else like to speak? 3 4 Krahling Yeah, Mr Chair, I think my biggest concern, what I'm sensing from all this 5 conversation that's going on is that there seems to be a disconnect 6 between the priorities of this Board and the priorities of the DOT and that 7 gets me really frustrated Whether we're talking about this project or we're 8 talking about Berino or we're talking about Calle de Norte It doesn't seem 9 to be consistent that we would be talking about bringing in this project in 10 and making it a priority and giving it the funding that we're given it when 11 there are so many other projects out there that this Board, be it rail, be it 12 other roads on our list This is the priority that's basically being imposed 13 on us That you get the money, here it is and this is how you're going to 14 spend it, approve it, or you don't get the money That doesn't seem like 15 the right way to do these things That's my comment, thank you 16 17 Hume Mr Chair, if I might address a couple of things, please, Mr Chair First of 18 all, given all the discussion about this project; there are certainly other 19 projects that are on the TIP amendments that we've provided to you We 20 would ask if you do in fact decide to go a different route, if you want to ask 21 for an amendment to this resolution, which would be to discuss this project 22 separate from the others, we would ask that you do that so that the other 23 projects can move along through the amendment process Otherwise, we 24 would be asking for a vote on these set of amendments as they sit before 25 you The second thing that I want to mention specifically regarding rail is, 26 the Las Cruces MPO has been in contact with the EI Paso MPO as well as 27 representatives from Mr Teague's office to discuss rail issues and as 28 Councillor Thomas pointed out there will, hopefully, be money provided 29 through the next transportation legislation to do rail feasibility study With 30 that, Mr Chair, I'll turn it back over to you 31 32 Cadena Yes, Councillor Jones 33 34 Jones Thank you, Mr Chairman I know this is confusing and these things 35 happen awful fast, but as was mentioned, since I was elected I know 36 we've talked about 1-10 improvements We've talked about the third lane 37 and we've talked about the fly over and so while certainly this Body 38 changes over time and that's a natural course of events This has been 39 an on-going project. I think it's a very critical project for safety and a very 40 critical project for basically the efficiency of travel as it exists today and 1 41 agree wholeheartedly, if one attends an NMDOT meeting, one can see the 42 desperation for funds and it becomes very clear, very quickly that we 43 cannot pave our way out of transportation issues, but the other side of that 44 is it's a long term issue and let's not pass up an opportunity to do 45 something in the short term because it will take a long time to move 46 forward So this has been a project that we've looked at for a long, long 11 I time and it is an opportunity We ought to be very careful about loosing it 2 and it's one that I think will be valuable As I mentioned before, 1 3 remember the other thing when I first started on this Committee back 4 about three years ago, I was reading minutes from a 2001 meeting about 5 Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Valley Drive improvements to the City limits We 6 have never even broken ground on Phase 1 and I don't see where we will 7 The last talk we heard, we were talking about improvements from Picacho 8 to Teshero Road and then the more and more I hear we're not even going 9 to get that far in the next year to two years, so here we are we're going to 10 be 11 years, well, 9 or 10 years later and nothing is going to happen, 11 obviously because of funding issues If we postpone we run the risk of 12 loosing this opportunity and this is an opportunity that has been building, a 13 lot of investment has been made I don't know what the engineering 14 expense that's been made so far but I think we ought to seize this 15 opportunity that's been on the books for quite some time 16 17 Archuleta Thank you, Mr Chairman If we should table this, I think it was Andy who 18 mentioned that it has to two or three other New Mexico, where does it go 19 next, refresh my memory 20 21 De La Rosa Mr Chairman, if I may I can tell you it goes next to the State 22 Transportation Commission which is meeting next week 23 24 Archuleta Okay and then from there? 25 26 Cadena What date does the Commission have their meeting? 27 28 De La Rosa I believe it's the 21St, next Thursday 29 30 Archuleta Next Thursday 31 32 De La Rosa If I may, just as a point of clarification on the funding Again, the $40 33 million in GRIP funding that is essentially going to this corridor out of the 34 $50 million price tag It's set by legislation and it would not be eligible for 35 any other priority or any other type of project in your entire area It is a 36 fixed, complicated set of bonding that was proposed by legislation and is 37 tied to specific corridors In this district alone, District 1, which is a six 38 county area, there are competing projects which are NM Highway 11, US 39 Highway 180 from Deming to Silver City and this was made the priority by 40 not only the Commission and the DOT, but in this entire for the GRIP 41 corridor So the first thing that would happen to that GRIP funding should 42 this not move forward is that becomes available for those other corridors 43 The $10 million in ARRA funding, again whether you take my word for it or 44 not, I can assure you there are several other competing GRIP projects on 45 a Statewide basis that are ready to go to construction in the next slot 46 where this is currently poised to go, so at this point DOT doesn't really 12 I have anything else we can add to this subject so I'm going to sit down 2 and 3 4 Cadena Yeah, I think there's some concern about the design about the design as 5 far as the safety net. I think that's a relevant concern As far the funding 6 sources, I mean there's no reason not to take the NMDOT at their word as 7 to how this funding source is, whether we like it or not, can only be 8 identified for certain projects and most likely would not affect any other 9 projects, I mean could not be used for the projects that we listed as 10 priorities 11 12 Arzabal Mr Chair, I think with that being said and as far as the project, it was 13 supposed to start in 2008, it got moved back, when you actually look at it 14 for another year, so I'm ready to move on I'd like to make a motion to 15 adopt the amendments to the LCMPO 2008-2013 Transportation 16 Improvement Program 17 18 Krahling Second 19 20 Cadena Your motion as listed for all the projects? 21 22 Arzabal Yes 23 24 Cadena Alright, are we ready to vote? 25 26 Hume Mr Chair, it was moved by Trustee Arzabal and I believe Commissioner 27 Krahling seconded it. Are there any further comments, Mr Chair would 28 you like a call for the vote 29 30 Hume Trustee Arzabal 31 32 Arzabal Aye 33 34 Hume Councillor Archuleta 35 36 Archuleta Aye 37 38 Hume Commissioner Krahling 39 40 Krahling Aye 41 42 Hume Trustee Bernal 43 44 Bernal Aye 45 Hume Councillor Thomas 46 13 I Thomas Yes 2 3 Hume Commissioner Perez 4 5 Perez No, but let the record reflect it's because I don't feel like I have adequate 6 information on this particular project. 7 8 Hume Councillor Jones 9 10 Jones Yes 11 12 Hume And Chair 13 14 Cadena Yes 15 16 Hume Thank you, sir The motion passes 17 18 Cadena Thanks to all of you I think the DOT as well as the staff here is hearing 19 that this Committee is committed to those studies with the rail runner so 20 we really need to focus and move forward on those studies at least. 21 Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and answering our questions 22 23 7 DISCUSSION ITEMS 24 25 71 Proposed boundary adjustment between Las Cruces and EI Paso 26 MPOs —Tabled to June meeting 27 28 7.2 Proposed reclassification of Berino Road 29 30 Tom Murphy gave a brief presentation 31 32 Cadena I think the goal here, if I'm not mistaken is for our meeting in June for us to 33 vote on this reclassification making this road eligible for the funding that 34 we're looking at, but I'll defer to the County I'm not sure if that's what they 35 are trying to do as well 36 37 Perez: Mayor Cadena, that actually is a point but it would be mute unless we can 38 get the project on the ARRA and it's apparently been removed or it was 39 not sent forward to the Governor on the ARRA list. Apparently because of 40 some concerns that it may not be project ready, it is in fact project ready 41 and it is my intention to go to the Governor tonight if we can get out of 42 here and ask him to put it back on the list where it belongs 43 44 Cadena I think that would be good I've also had discussions with Tom and what 45 we want to do is draft a letter from this Committee, unless there's 46 opposition, to support that project as well as del Norte 14 1 2 Perez. Exactly, the second concern was and again this goes back into the 3 discussion of priorities I believe that this Committee made our priorities 4 very clear and that we went through a lot of time and technical 5 consultation among the Committee to develop our priorities, only to have 6 the projects reprioritized and to have projects actually disappear from the 7 list. Half of Calle de Norte and $2 '/2 million for bedding a road and I don't 8 know a nice way to say I find that unacceptable We know what our 9 priorities are and I intend to take those priorities to the Governor directly 10 11 Cadena I think that's a great idea I think at least what I'm hearing from different 12 sources is that there is going to be more money available so that's why 13 this Committee needs to, yourself and individuals and as a Committee we 14 need to continue to try to lobby for those important projects and I would 15 encourage us to do so in any method that you feel acceptable, which is 16 individual contact, letters and so and so forth 17 18 Krahling I'm interested to know where does it come off the list. Who makes the 19 determination that it doesn't belong on the list? We created the list, right, 20 that great meeting two months ago, three months ago It then goes, 21 where, where, where and where 22 23 Murphy- MPO staff then transmitted that list to District 1, that was our designated 24 point of contact to send it on and I will turn it over to the District. 25 26 De La Rosa Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, we forwarded your list, exactly 27 in the way that you prioritized it, onto our general office in Santa Fe, who 28 checked it against the criteria including was the functional classification 29 correct and eligible for federal aid funding, were all certifications including 30 environmental clearances, right-of-way, and other certifications on-hand or 31 expected to be on-hand within 30 days and then beyond that there was a 32 window that was 30-60 days and then there was 60 days and more and 33 that was as of March 17, 1 believe was the time frame At that time, Berino 34 Road was not proper functional classification lust as it currently isn't, nor 35 were the proper certifications on-hand, therefore, we categorized it as a 36 more than 90 day recommendation, that went onto the Governor's Office 37 of Recovery and Reinvestment, I believe it's called, something along those 38 lines, where they ultimately made recommendations on what the Governor 39 certified to the Federal Highway Administration that would be done in a 40 certain time frame That's more or less the way that the process worked 41 42 Krahling So it was included, it was just into more than 90 days classification? 43 44 De La Rosa That's correct. It is currently still included and is a prioritized project for 45 this area, just as your priorities reflected 46 15 I Cadena Do you have any recommendations as, for instance, we're trying to get 2 this reclassified, is that something that is advisable? 3 4 De La Rosa Mr Chairman, I would hope that everyone understands that your priorities 5 are our priorities and we work very hard to try and meet the needs of the 6 citizens of this area We have been working very closely with the staff of 7 Dona Ana County, our staff, both locally and at the general office, to do a 8 number of things Ultimately the Federal Highway Administration 9 designates the functional classification, reclassification of roadways We 10 have no control ultimately over the Federal Highway Administration We 11 are working to make this recommendation favorable We believe that it 12 does meet the criteria to be reclassified, however, the process is what it is 13 and once we turn that over to the Feds, they can take any where from a 14 day to, you know, forever to approve We just really don't know There's 15 no set time frame or schedule to know if and when that will happen and 16 when it would be eligible for federal funds 17 18 Perez. Mr Chair, just to correct a couple of miss-statements The ARRA list is 19 actually is 30 days and four to six months, since this road is due to be 20 classified in June, March, April, May, June, four months, it should have 21 been left on the four to six month category and is it not also true that in the 22 interim you have discovered that you were in fact mistaken and that the 23 environmental certification is in place, lacking only the classification of the 24 road? 25 26 De La Rosa I stand corrected, I believe the red category was four to six months, again 27 from March, which would put this in the kind of summer time frame The 28 bottom line is we did not feel that it was ready to go in either of the first 29 categories and we did make a recommendation that it be on what was 30 called red list. There was green, yellow and red Green — immediately, 31 yellow— interim, and then red — the longer term We did place it in the red 32 and as a point of clarification it's still to this day does not have the 33 environmental certification that is needed to be eligible for federal funds 1 34 will stick with that. 35 36 DID NOT STATE NAME Do all the roads have to have that certification? 37 38 De La Rosa The ones that are currently funded and certified do or are expected to 39 have it before the four to six month time frame 40 41 Cadena It seems like we all have the same goals is to try to get this road 42 reclassified and get it and it's still on some list and try to make 43 improvements on it and I know the County is here so if we all work 44 together on that I think that we can make some progress, so I would 45 expect that our next meeting in June to have a report as to where we are 46 on that particular objective 16 1 2 Thomas I'd like to ask though that when projects go forward and there are 3 problems with them that we find that out right away so that we can start 4 working in whatever way we can to correct any deficiencies, this is a little 5 late for us to be finding out that exactly what the problems were 6 7 Cadena I think we can make it a goal of staff for any of our priorities to get a list of 8 what got where and why and what's needed and what our time line is to 9 try to reach these, is that acceptable? 10 11 Archuleta Mr Chairman, you eluded to a letter from you to the Governor from all of 12 us, does that still stand? 13 14 Cadena If that's acceptable, I think it was, actually Tom did you want to 15 16 Murphy, Yes, Mr Chairman, I think that the idea was to kind of present the letter to 17 communicate directly from the MPO At least to put the project on his 18 radar and his office of ARRA implementation that way the next funding 19 rounds then this would certainly stick out, it will lump out of the page at 20 him 21 22 Cadena And we can certainly provide copies and address some of the concerns 23 that were brought up tonight. 24 25 Perez. And again, I would encourage the MPO that it is not only Berino Road but 26 it's the other half or the $600,000 for Calle de Norte, which is ready but 27 with a mix of funding, for whatever reason half the funding got dropped off, 28 that we also restate that as our priority and we stick to our list We made 29 a list; we made it for a reason and I think it's important that the Governor 30 understands where the priorities with the MPO and that we planned them 31 and selected them for a reason Thank you 32 33 73 Location Study Implementation —Tabled to June meeting 34 35 74 Committee Training Transportation Legislation Reauthorization — 36 Tabled to June meeting 37 38 75 Staff Updates 39 40 7 5 1 Transport 2040 updates —Tabled to June meeting 41 7 5.2 NMDOT news and updates —Tabled to June meeting 42 7 5 3 Development Review —Tabled to June meeting 43 44 8 COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 45 46 Cadena Are there any other Committee or staff comments? 17 1 2 Murphy Yes Mr Chairman, I'd to introduce the MPO's newest staff person, 3 Katherine Naoma Staley She is the Safe Routes to School Coordinator 4 She began on Monday and she will be taking over the program and 5 coordinating the Safe Routes to School program 6 7 9 PUBLIC COMMENT 8 9 Pearson During the discussion I heard a comment where it was said that if we're 10 going to build a shoulder, we might as well build a travel lane, but for the 11 different users of the roadway a shoulder is necessary and also provides 12 extra safety In particular, you were talking about the 1-10 corridor, that 13 expansion, bicycles are an allowed use on a large part of that roadway 14 and so when that project is done care should be taken that the shoulder is 15 provided and maintained in an adequate way for bicyclists This would be 16 consistent with the complete streets model that this Committee has 17 passed a resolution supporting, perhaps it might be appropriate for this 18 Committee to send to NMDOT a resolution that they should adopt the 19 complete streets The State of Hawaii has recently adopted complete 20 streets as a statute so it is fairly well adopted, accepted as a policy that all 21 roadway users need to considered for all roadway projects Thank you 22 23 Perez Mr Chairman, just a minor point. Commissioner Benavidez wanted me to 24 express, she's holding the fort at the County and hopefully holding the 25 Governor there until we can get there those of us that are going over there 26 and she didn't want anyone to think that she was not attending the 27 meeting, but she understood that the business would be limited and she's 28 trying to help us in that way 29 30 Cadena It's completely understandable and just for all of you to know this means 31 that our June meeting is going to have a lot of items on it so please let's 32 try to plan to attend it and be prepared to be here for a while and get a lot 33 of important business completed 34 35 10 ADJOURNMENT 36 37 Cadena I'll entertain a motion to adjourn 38 39 Archuleta I so move 40 41 Arzabal e 42 43 44 Chair 45 18