Loading...
02-11-2009 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 Wednesday, 5 February 11, 2009 at 5 00 p m at City Hall Council Chambers, 200 N Church St., Las Cruces, 6 New Mexico 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) 9 Councillor Dolores Archuleta (City of Las Cruces) 10 Councilor Gil Jones (CLC) 11 Commissioner Karen Perez (DAC) 12 Councillor Sharon Thomas (CLC) 13 Trustee Carlos Arzabal (Town of Mesilla) 14 Leticia Duarte-Benavidez (DAC) 15 Scott Krahling (DAC) 16 17 MEMBERS ABSENT Trustee Sam Bernal (Town of Mesilla) 18 19 STAFF PRESENT Tom Murphy (Las Cruces MPO) 20 Andy Hume (Las Cruces MPO) 21 Caerllion Thomas (Las Cruces MPO) 22 Becky Eich, Transcriptionist 23 24 OTHERS PRESENT Ray Matthews, NMDOT 25 Mike Bartholomew, CLC Transit 26 Pat Oliver-Wright, NMDOT 27 Joseph De la Rosa, NMDOT 28 Chandler Duncan, Wilbur Smith & Associates 29 Emile Bourdet 30 Michael Gallagher, NMDOT 31 Louis Grijalva, CLC 32 Henry Corneles, DAC 33 Jerry Cordova, CLC 34 Frank Guzman, NMDOT 35 Robert Armijo, DAC 36 Ricardo Dominguez, EPMPO 37 George Pearson 38 Dean Schmerbauch 39 40 1 CALL TO ORDER — (5 02 p.m ) 41 42 Cadena We're going to go ahead and call to order this MPO meeting of February 43 11 th, 2009 44 45 46 1 1 2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY 2 3 Cadena Is there any conflict of interest that needs to be stated that has not 4 previously been stated? 5 6 3 PUBLIC COMMENT 7 8 Cadena I'm going to move onto public comments Does anyone in the public have 9 any comments to make? 10 11 4. CONSENT AGENDA Those items on the consent agenda and those indicated 12 by an asterisk (*) will be voted on by one motion with the acceptance of the 13 agenda. Any Policy Committee member may remove an item from the consent 14 agenda for discussion by the Committee 15 16 Cadena Any changes to the agenda, staff? 17 18 Murphy- Mr Chair, staff would like to propose two changes to the agenda We'd 19 like to in anticipation of other lengthy items, we'd like to strike 20 discussion item 7 1, the Committee training on context sensitive solutions 21 And then also we would like to strike staff update, 7 2 3, that update was 22 provided last month 23 24 Cadena All right. Does anyone object to the changes on the agenda? 25 26 Jones Mr Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda as modified with 27 recommendation of staff 28 29 Cadena All right, it's been moved 30 31 Arzabal Second 32 33 Cadena And seconded All in favor 34 35 ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS - AYE 36 37 Cadena Motion does pass 38 39 5 * APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 14, 2009 40 41 6 ACTION ITEMS 42 43 61 Resolution 09-03 A Resolution Accepting Deliverance of the Final 44 Report of the Las Cruces MPO Location Study - NMDOT Staff, Wilbur 45 Smith & Associates. 46 2 I Cadena We'll go ahead and move on to action items, and the first one is 6 1, 2 Resolution 09-03, a resolution accepting deliverance of the final report of 3 the Las Cruces MPO Location Study, NMDOT staff, Wilbur Smith & 4 Associates Tom 5 6 Murphy- Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, this is the delivery of the final 7 report for the location study that most of you have been very involved in, in 8 the last six months And to begin the discussion and the presentation of it, 9 I'll introduce Ray Matthew from the New Mexico Department of 10 Transportation, General Office Planning Division 11 12 Matthews Good evening Chairman and Policy Board Members The motion before 13 you tonight is to accept the plan, the Location Study This is a culmination 14 of efforts that occurred within the last eight months The 15 recommendations principally were developed out of the workshop efforts 16 that many of you attended You've seen the recommendations I guess at 17 other meetings We are happy to bring this to you We think it's a good 18 document. We think the consultant did a good job and it is built on some 19 solid analytical work. The format we think is easy to follow The 20 recommendations are in a table form and they're also developed in a 21 timeline form which is in a chart, and furthermore they're also developed 22 by agencies so you know you can take your respective agency and see 23 what you know recommendations are applicable for you Before we get 24 onto the presentation by Chandler, the slide presentation, I would like to 25 take this opportunity to introduce the Planning Division Director for the 26 New Mexico DOT, that is Pat Oliver She came tonight and wants to say a 27 few words briefly if you will 28 29 Cadena Definitely Welcome 30 31 Oliver- Thank you Mr Chair, Commissioners, and Councilors My name is Pat 32 Oliver-Wright, and I'm the DOT Planning Division Director out of the Santa 33 Fe General Office First I need to apologize, we were hoping that we 34 would have my counterpart at FHWA here tonight as well However, they 35 still do not have travel budget. They are operating on continuing 36 resolutions for their budget and so he was not able to attend We are still 37 hoping that one of the recommendations in the report was to improve 38 relations with FHWA, and we're hoping that that will be something that can 39 be implemented But I'm really happy to be here tonight for this report. 1 40 think this is the second organizational study we've done for MPO in New 41 Mexico We did one for Santa Fe and I think we all learned and improved 42 not only the MPO itself, but the DOT learned a lot, and so all the players 1 43 think have improved our communication and the process for our region 44 So, thank you for considering this tonight, and I look forward to working 45 with you 46 3 I Cadena Great, and I think we agree with you 100% The whole process was 2 interesting We were all educated and I think we're at the point where we 3 should adopt this and I think from here we can move forward positively 4 together 5 6 Matthews Before Chandler comes up, I'd just to say a word about the facilitation for 7 the Joint Powers Agreement. That's one of the recommendations in the 8 study I just wanted to let the board know that we are moving ahead with 9 implementing that. The DOT is going to draft a contract for a third party 10 facilitator for that. We would like that to occur within three months after 11 you have accepted the report. The reason for that three month timeframe 12 is a lot of these things are still going to be fresh if you will and the results 13 of the workshop won't be that long then, and you'll have to go back and 14 kind of relearn what the issues were So with that, I'd like to have 15 Chandler come up here and he's going to give you a slide presentation on 16 the recommendations of the study 17 18 Duncan Thank you again for having me Again, I'm Chandler Duncan from Wilbur 19 Smith and Associates And this is the final presentation on the final 20 recommendations Today's presentation will be fairly brief because this is 21 all material that was presented last time, so it's just or mostly it's just to 22 kind of recap what's there and then to give the Committee an opportunity 23 to have any discussion that they care to have upon adopting hopefully the 24 report. 25 Also, there are a couple of amendments that will be coming out. 26 There will be an amended report coming that does have a couple of fairly 27 minor things on there that I just wanted to draw to your attention before 28 recapping what our recommendations are And then just to give you an 29 opportunity to make any comments or ask any questions you may have 30 There are three areas where there will be some amendments and an 31 amended report. One is there is some language with reference to projects 32 funded through the MPO Just as a matter of clarification the report's 33 going to be made consistent where we always use the term programmed 34 because the MPO is actually taking funding from other sources and 35 programming projects from that. Also, on the recommendation regarding 36 the New Mexico DOT district investment targets, we're going to be 37 clarifying The targets are developed and finalized through a statewide 38 process and that the MPO will be involved in conversation about what the 39 implications of that is for the district and for the MPO here And so we're 40 going to be clarifying that language consistently in the report though 41 making a couple of minor changes And then also we are going to just be 42 putting in some language to clarify that when we talk about bringing new 43 projects into the TIP, that were not in the Long Range Transportation Plan, 44 we're going to have some language that just specifically says that, yes, the 45 Long Range Plan has to be amended when new projects come in, but that 46 amendment is not an assumption that it will automatically happen It's just 4 I that that's the process that one goes through to consider possible new 2 projects So those are some areas where the language will be changed 3 some The recommendations will continue to be as they have been, just 4 the report will be made consistent so that language appears throughout. 5 The recommended actions are a number of actions that you've 6 already seen in the report, so I was just going to go through them to kind 7 of refresh your memories maybe a little better on what's in there without 8 wading through all 40 pages The first action is the renegotiation of the 9 Joint Powers Agreement, which Ray had talked about. And the items for 10 negotiation are in the report. The second action has to do with developing 11 a report MPO staff developing a report on the role of an advising 12 engineer to support the MPO The third action has to do with participation 13 in New Mexico DOT general office trainings sponsored for MPOs The 14 fourth action has to do with what they call user groups or technical groups 15 of MPO staff with other staff that are involved in the region with areas like 16 GIS and modeling to try to collaborate on ways to best use those 17 technologies and methods The fifth action has to do with changing the 18 bylaws to recognize ad hoc committees and task forces, and it is specified 19 in the report kind of what that might look like The sixth action has to do 20 with the bicycle, pedestrian, and technical advisory committee member 21 reports being given directly to the Policy Board here rather than through 22 staff to facilitate that communication The seventh action involves the 23 invitation of FHWA for an annual address to the Policy Board together with 24 the New Mexico DOT The eighth action has to do with two things, 25 changing the composition of the board to include representation by the 26 New Mexico DOT and all likelihood the district engineer, as well as 27 members of the state legislature The ninth recommendation has to do 28 with providing the MPO with a report annually where New Mexico DOT will 29 come and address this board regarding how the investment targets are 30 developed and where they stand with respect to the STIP, which is the 31 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 32 The tenth action has to do with incorporating fee for service 33 arrangements for non-core services that the MPO may provide for its 34 member organizations, in consultation with the Federal regs which are 35 actually in the first technical report that came in the study as to what core 36 and non-core services are The eleventh recommendation is to include 37 Dona Ana County financial participation as an item in the Joint Powers 38 Agreement negotiation, that's in action one The twelfth action has to do 39 with including coordinated projects, line item, and unified planning work 40 program, which basically would allow the MPO to be ready to participate in 41 projects together with City, County, or other agencies that would want to 42 look at things that might ordinarily be where they have some additional 43 funding, would join with the MPO to look at something that is beyond sort 44 of what would be in the typical core functions The thirteenth action is to 45 define performance areas in the next update of the Long Range 46 Transportation Plan, and there is an example of that given in the report 5 I that has been used in some other areas The next action is to include 2 land use compatibility as a performance area that would involve probably 3 consulting with the area comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances 4 when updating the long range transportation plan The next item is to 5 identify specific performance measures in the Long Range Plan Those 6 would be things like congestion, delay, there are number of different 7 measures that again some examples are given in the report. 8 The next item is to base key performance priorities on the long 9 range transportation plan public involvement process, which is to give the 10 public an opportunity to look at what aspects of system performance are 11 important in the long-term, and then select the different performance 12 measures based on input from the public at that point. The next action is 13 the New Mexico DOT will address the Policy Board on STIP development. 14 These sorts of goes along with the recommendation on invest targets that 15 this board is apprised and that staff are coordinating and collaborating on 16 state and MPO programming Action eighteen sort of goes along with 17 that, is it implement a single transparent scoring process for projects in 18 New Mexico DOT and the Las Cruces MPO, which is how things actually 19 get into the program and how things get into the plan, that there's 20 transparency and staff are seeing eye-to-eye and you can get consistent 21 answers from both entities throughout that process 22 The next action has to do with just the staff continuing to participate 23 in ongoing training activities with EI Paso to take advantage of anything 24 that's offered here, and to include them in any training here so that the 25 skills and the knowledge base remains fairly consistent. The next action 26 has to do with them having biannual joint staff meetings with the EI Paso 27 MPO and that's something that is already in progress towards you know 28 becoming a reality The next action has to do with in the next Long Range 29 Transportation Plan update to identify any particular policy areas or issues 30 in EI Paso that may affect the performance of the transportation system in 31 Las Cruces, and to continue tracking those as the Long Range 32 Transportation Plan update becomes effective The next action has to do 33 with developing and implementing ongoing internal training activities like 34 MPO 101 The belief is that the value of that will increase over time as 35 people benefit from more and more success of opportunities to learn 36 things each time it happens The next action is to continue active 37 participation in external training, not only with New Mexico DOT, but 38 FHWA, Webinars, American Planning Association, also American 39 Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, all have good training 40 opportunities that is recommended that staff continue, and board 41 members as much as possible participate in And finally, we recommend 42 continuing active participation in conferences, workshops, and special 43 events I know that I went through those very quickly, but obviously, 44 there's a lot of material there and everyone's had a chance hopefully to 45 look at it. 6 I The next thing I wanted to cover is just something that was not 2 covered in last month's presentation which has to do with the staging of 3 actions and sort of what it means to adopt a report. Adopting the report is 4 saying, yes these are good ideas, these are good actions Actually 5 implementing is something that will probably occur over time, and this is 6 addressed in the final part of the report. Some actions are already in 7 place, for example, some of the training activities and other things are 8 already going on Some may be new actions that would commence 9 immediately that you could swing into action and start doing pretty quickly 10 Some of them would commence when the new Joint Powers Agreement 11 or new changes in bylaws would take effect, which could happen within 12 the next year Others would have to wait on the next Long Range 13 Transportation Plan update or other changes, so some of them are more 14 long-term in nature And some of them are continually existing policies 15 where you're going to probably see more impact by consistently doing it 16 over a long period of time, and those were the ongoing actions that were 17 recommended So basically, what implementation looks like, and this is 18 just sort of the timeline that in the report and the actions are again listed in 19 the tabular form And the purpose here is not to go over all the actions 20 again so much as to just to kind of illustrate what I just mentioned, that 21 some of these actions you'll probably find that you can do in the fairly 22 short-term within the next year; some of them will go on throughout the 23 next Long Range Plan update, some of them will be triggered by 24 completing the Joint Powers Agreement; others will have to wait on the 25 Long Range Transportation Plan, and some will go on throughout the next 26 several years 27 So by adopting the report, it's not making a commitment to do any 28 or all of these things all at one time, so much as it is a commitment to work 29 towards some of these areas of progress probably over the next one to 30 five years And that is basically lust sort of a recap I know I went through 31 that fairly quickly because I think we've kind of been through this a couple 32 of times and I'll be glad to answer any questions, and also just sort of open 33 it up for discussion that the board may wish to have 34 35 Cadena All right, Committee members, where do you want to start? Councilor 36 Thomas 37 38 S Thomas Thank you Well when I read the what we're voting on, it said that we 39 may implement these, so is that what you're pointing to right now? Is that 40 over time these may be implemented? I guess I'm a little unclear about 41 you're saying some of them may be implemented when the Long Range 42 Transportation Plan is worked on, so when these activities begin, they just 43 automatically trigger these recommendations, or does it come back to the 44 Policy Committee or how does that work? 45 7 I Duncan Those actions that are identified as actions for the Policy Committee are 2 things that the Committee would have to act on separately for them to 3 become Policy 4 5 S Thomas I see 6 7 Duncan That's the intension So this is just kind of holistically saying, yes we want 8 to steer in that direction But for example, you're not saying you're not 9 committing to a new Joint Powers Agreement per se, you're just saying, 10 yes, we agree with the intension to sort of enter into that process But you 11 would still have discrete action in order to make that a reality 12 13 S Thomas I see Thank you That clarifies that. And then, Chairperson, do we want 14 to do general comments first before we move to individual points? And 15 my other question was we did get comments responses from the staff 16 and are we going to hear about those as well? 17 18 Cadena Well we can do it any way you want. But I think the staff has probably 19 shared those comments, have we not? Yes? Okay So why don't we go 20 with any comments that you or anyone else on the Committee may have 21 1 think I want to point out as far as the actions and the time period, it's part 22 of the study that we're somewhat adopting, so we're actually adopting the 23 sequence of how that time sequence 24 25 Krahling Mr Chair 26 27 Cadena Yes 28 29 Krahling As I read the agenda, it says that we are "accepting deliverance of the 30 final report of the Las Cruces MPO Location Study " Accepting 31 deliverance doesn't necessarily mean accepting the findings of the report 32 and buying into the timeline that and I think you were kind of getting 33 that is, am I wrong? 34 35 Cadena. No 36 37 Krahling I mean we're accepting this report to us We're not saying we're endorsing 38 any aspect of the report. We're just saying hey, you delivered it, we got it, 39 thank you 40 41 Cadena That's true, but if you have questions or concerns or comments about it, 42 now would be the time 43 44 Krahling Now would be the time 45 8 I Cadena What I'm just saying is that we're not tied into the time period that's put 2 into here, I think it's a suggestion, that's something that we ought to 3 consider seriously of trying to implement these things I think the point is 4 that by next week they're not all going to be implemented That the idea is 5 to have some type of sequence to get it done 6 7 Krahling Thank you 8 9 Cadena Councilor Jones 10 11 Jones Thank you Mr Chairman We often see comprehensive plans and other 12 plans where they have recommendations, but we don't necessarily adopt 13 them for whatever reason, a lot of times they're budgetary But whether 14 we accept this or adopt it, those are key phrases we need to consider 1 15 count about five to six items where there is five items I guess, well 16 maybe six, where there are some different viewpoints that are 17 incorporated between staff, either the consultant or perhaps NMDOT I'm 18 hoping staff will run through those and outline you know how significant 19 those differences are and what's recommended We need to address 20 them I think at some level and I hope staff will be prepared to work on that 21 tonight. 22 23 Cadena All right Tom Before we even do that, maybe you could clarify what we 24 would be if we pass this resolution what exactly we're passing 25 26 Murphy- Mr Chairman, if you pass the resolution, as stated by Commissioner 27 Krahling, you're accepting delivery of it. The resolution clearly states that 28 you may adopt any or all of the actions as suggested or parts of them 29 You're not making that decision tonight. As things come up, as the 30 timeline rolls on and you know it comes time to adopt it, that's the point in 31 which you will make the decision, you or any succeeding Policy 32 Committees you know could even change mind and say, well no we 33 pursued that, now we feel that that's not a good idea So by adopting this 34 resolution tonight you do not commit yourself to any future course of 35 action You always have the option to not do anything down in the future 36 37 Cadena I think that's great. At the same time, we spent a lot of time with all these 38 workshops and so on, so I think the goal is to at least review each of those 39 recommendations carefully and hopefully we'll implement some of them 40 for the benefit of the MPO 41 42 Murphy- That's correct. Most of the actions suggested in here you know, well all of 43 them have been developed as part of, you know, collaborative effort 44 between pretty much everyone here in the room You know there are 45 certain points where staff felt that needed some further clarification That 46 we couldn't exactly you know come to exact agreement on the language of 9 I it. And it really falls to you, the Policy Committee, who is the MPO to 2 make final decision on how the MPO operates If you'd like, I would go 3 through you know the staff comments 4 5 Cadena Yeah, I think that's what the wish is, and if you could summarize that the 6 best that you could 7 8 Murphy- This is included in your packets on the action item First off, within the 9 report under decision one action one there are some references to 10 including within the JPA mechanisms for governing the TIP application 11 Staffs overall perspective that TIP processes are set by Federal 12 regulations that do change more often than Joint Powers Agreements 13 have changed for the operation of the MPO and that that is not an 14 appropriate place to discuss that. Whether it's in the JPA or not is 15 probably innocuous because Federal regulations would override that. 16 Second major point that we made was that trying to precisely align the 17 MPO and the NMDOT scoring processes for TIP projects may not you 18 know probably won't work in the long run It's nice to have in the spirit, 19 but District 1 has a larger geographical area than the MPO There are 20 different funding sources that they may utilize that cannot be utilized within 21 the MPO, and other considerations They were part of the development of 22 our TIP process and our ranking procedures, and so we think that their 23 concerns can be adequately addressed within the process, and that those 24 two processes don't have to be identical There is a lot of agreement. 25 An additional one is a thought that there should be some thought to 26 including a member of the Regional Transit District on the Policy Board 27 And that along Policy Board make up that maybe you know from what 28 we've heard from other MPOs around the state and probably the 29 availability of legislatures to sit on a board, it's an excellent topic to be 30 discussed, but we don't think that it should be a foregone conclusion that 31 the report says, change the policy board to include these members We 32 think that the discussion should merely be opened up 33 A comment within the development core functions, again those are 34 set by regulations The JPA did suggest that axillary functions that MPO 35 staff needs carried out would have fee schedule would propose a fee 36 schedule for duties carried out by staff that are above and beyond the core 37 functions The core functions could possibly change We think that that's 38 something that can probably be kept within subsidiary document that 39 establishes a fee structure and that the JPA should merely refer to 40 establishing a fee structure and that the Policy Committee may adopt a 41 fee structure and amend it by resolution 42 Again I hadn't seen the updated glossary, there's nothing put out of 43 a very concrete definition of what the coordinated projects would mean, 44 that would be included as a UPW item This is under decision seven, 45 action 12 Under decision seven, actions 10 and 11, staff again does not 46 agree that the TIP discussion belongs within the JPA. Then I believe that 10 I the rest of the actions, there are no conflicts with And again, I guess 2 we're looking for a resolution of acceptance of delivery Again that means 3 that the actions that we have it in hand, but we will act on it as the 4 Policy Board sees fit as things move forward With that, I'll stand for any 5 questions 6 7 Cadena All right, questions? Councilor Jones 8 9 Jones Thank you Mr Chairman Mr Murphy if I understand right you're not 10 seeking resolution of these disputes or this difference in areas, is that I 1 what I'm hearing? 12 13 Murphy- Mr Chairman, Councilor Jones, that's correct. We think that many of 14 these things just staff thinks that these things you need to be made 15 aware of, but that resolution is not needed tonight. 16 17 Jones Mr Chairman, one more comment. Then, if that's the case because I was 18 reading through this and unfortunately, I didn't get my packet until 19 sometime later yesterday, I was worried about how we were going to 20 resolve these If indeed we are going to adopt this tonight, would you 21 recommend or would it be valuable to acknowledge that there are some 22 differences of opinion so that that's part of the record so that as we go 23 forward, as this document has a life of its own that it's memorialized that 24 there are some differences? 25 26 Cadena I think that would be appropriate if that's the wishes of the 27 committee 28 29 Arzabal That's fine Mr Chair 30 31 Cadena Unless staff disagrees 32 33 Murphy- Mr Chairman, I think that we covered that within the resolution itself under 34 item two under therefore be resolved by the Policy Committee That the 35 recommendations contained within may be adopted all or in part at the 36 discretion of the Policy Committee It says that you're retaining your 37 discretion and not every action needs to be adopted 38 39 Cadena All right. Does that suffice Councilor Jones? 40 41 Jones Yes 42 43 Cadena Okay Are there any other comments or questions from the Committee? 44 Councilor Thomas 45 11 I S Thomas Thank you Mr Chair, I have a question about the Regional Transit District. 2 What's the relationship between the MPO and the Regional Transit 3 District? There was a suggestion in here that we include someone from 4 that district on the board so I want a little fuller explanation about how 5 those two groups interact. 6 7 Murphy, Right now the Regional Transit District, it's really a start up organization 8 and the MPO in cooperation with the South Central Council of 9 Governments is really providing the staff support at this time The Council 10 of Governments is acting as the fiscal agent for the RTD, and MPO staff, 11 mainly myself, has been really doing a consulting part consulting might 12 be a strong word, but the coordinating part on the planning side of things 13 The RTD is a separate distinct political unit. Under state law it is, you 14 know all three of your jurisdictions have a board member on there Out of 15 this group, Councilor Jones is the board member from the City of Las 16 Cruces Once the initial planning for the RTD is completed with the 17 service and financial plan, basically, the MPO's role on that would be 18 really as a regional partner in transportation and planning and we would 19 coordinate with them And the RTD would be able to have its own staff 20 and do their own planning activities So once that has happened you 21 know the MPO's involvement will be drastically reduced The discussion 22 as far as an RTD member being included on the MPO Board kind of 1 23 think it would need a lot of discussion and some kind of idea to resolve it. 24 Just to give an example, if the chair of the RTD board was determined to 25 be the appropriate person to sit on the Policy Board, essentially that would 26 make right now Councilor Jones basically two votes on the Policy board, 27 so there'd be some mechanics that would need to be worked out so a 28 situation like that wouldn't arise Did I address your question or was I too 29 off? 30 31 S Thomas No, that's fine 32 33 Archuleta Mr Chairman, point of order, Gil Jones is going to check and see if this 34 meeting has been posted We have a quorum of Council with Councilor 35 Nathan Small 36 37 Cadena Do you typically post 38 39 Archuleta. All meetings 40 41 Cadena Potential quorums? 42 43 Archuleta. Yes 44 45 Cadena Well I mean every meeting's a quorum because you have potentially three 46 members 12 1 2 Murphy- Yes, every meeting's potentially a quorum of County and Town And this 3 is a legally advertised board of its own, so I believe it doesn't need to be 4 listed as a potential quorum 5 6 Jones Mr Chairman 7 8 Archuleta He stepped out. (REFERRING TO COUNCILOR SMALL) 9 10 Jones Thank you Good I was concerned I don't know that, noticed that there 11 was a potential quorum here I'm a little concerned with precedent. 12 13 Cadena. I think staff needs to clarify that. Because see in Mesilla three's a quorum, 14 so every meeting, not tonight because Trustee Bernal's absent, would be 15 a quorum, if it wasn't posted as an official meeting 16 17 Murphy- That's right. Because we do have a quorum of the County Commission 18 here tonight and I believe the understanding of that is that this meeting is 19 publically advertised you know in the Sun News, so it's its own legal 20 meeting with a posted agenda 21 22 Cadena But I appreciate you acting cautiously Maybe that can be clarified so if 23 one of your other Councilors comes in 24 25 Jones Mr Chairman we'll attempt to clarify that point. But thank you for your 26 patience Apparently the notice I'm looking at, there is no notice, but 27 that doesn't mean this is the only avenue to notice meetings, so point well 28 taken I'll make the inquiry as to whether this is correctly noticed in the 29 future 30 31 Cadena Not a problem 32 33 Murphy- We're discussing the relationship with the RTD, with the MPO 34 35 Cadena Did that answer your question? Any other questions? Anyone in the 36 public wish to make a comment at this point before we call for a vote on 37 this resolution? 38 39 Jones Mr Chairman, forgive me, if I may ask one more question that relates 40 back to the RTD Forgive me because I stepped out obviously, Mr 41 Murphy, in the discussion there was some context about the type of 42 membership that would be in the RTD, RTD membership that would be on 43 the MPO if that ever were to occur Because my first thought was, well 44 gee, for the moment I'm a member of both of those entities, but I think the 45 language in the report, I didn't note the page, said that it would be a 13 I different the membership nature would be a little different. Do you 2 remember what the qualifying matter was? 3 4 Murphy- I think at some point in the report it was suggested that an RTD board 5 member exclusive of Las Cruces, Dona Ana, or Mesilla be the appropriate 6 person As I explained, when you had to step out was that if it was the 7 RTD board chair being the person designated, you in fact would have two 8 votes on this body which again probably would not be a prudent thing for 9 us to do 10 11 Jones Thank you and I appreciate the suggestion in the report. I knew there was 12 a cure to that dilemma Thank you I yield Mr Chairman 13 14 Cadena All right. There was a motion and a second, right? 15 16 Archuleta No 17 18 Cadena Before we even do that, we never even had a roll call, because I didn't ask 19 for one Can we do a roll call first just to make it an official part of the 20 record? 21 22 Murphy- Commissioner Krahling 23 24 Krahling Present. 25 26 Murphy- Mayor Pro-Tem Archuleta 27 28 Archuleta Here 29 30 Murphy- Councilor Thomas 31 32 S Thomas Here 33 34 Murphy- Trustee Arzabal 35 36 Arzabal Here 37 38 Murphy Commissioner Benavidez. 39 40 Benavidez Here 41 42 Murphy- Councilor Jones 43 44 Jones Here 45 46 Murphy Commissioner Perez. 14 1 2 Perez. Here 3 4 Murphy- Mayor Cadena 5 6 Cadena. Here All right, is there a motion for the resolution? 7 8 Arzabal So moved 9 10 Archuleta I second 11 12 Cadena It's been moved and seconded Any further discussion, comments? 13 14 Krahling Mr Chair 15 16 Cadena Yes 17 18 Krahling Real quick, what are the steps from here? We're accepting this Where 19 are we going after this? What's happening next with this thing? 20 21 Murphy- I believe the first step is to commence the JPA process which the NMDOT 22 general office is progressing with steps in that. There are also several 23 other items that can proceed independently such as coordination with EI 24 Paso MPO, changes made in the Long Range Transportation Plan 25 Things that are progressing to some standard and I think what we would 26 need to do is kind of give periodic Location Study updates as far as where 27 the progress is In fact, under committee and staff comments I do have an 28 update on one of those items 29 30 Krahling And as far as the conflicting opinions on some of these items, you all will 31 work those out on your own, not involving us? 32 33 Murphy- No Actually 34 35 Cadena Let me interrupt. I think the appropriate thing we do, I as a chair and all of 36 you as committee members to decide and maybe we can put this as an 37 item for the next meeting, of what's the process that we want to take 38 What we can take is the recommendation provided where it says action 39 two, active five, we decide we want to move that to year two or year five or 40 whatever it is and have staffs recommendation and see if we can come to 41 some consensus of how we're going to implement it. But it could be an 42 actual action item on its own, if that works for you 43 44 Krahling That sounds good Just before I voted on whether or not we're starting 45 a process here so before I voted on that I wanted to just clarify that. 46 Thank you 15 1 2 Cadena Would that be agreeable to everyone? 3 4 Arzabal Yes 5 6 Perez. Mr Chair 7 8 S Thomas May I ask a question? 9 10 Cadena Sure Who's first? 11 12 Perez. Just a follow-up question there It seems like it would be appropriate 13 because we are Commissioner Krahling's right. We're accepting this 14 report and we don't really have a clear direction on what's going to be 15 implemented in spite of us I mean I went through and looked in there 16 are action items that are initiated by the MPO Policy Board and that's 17 maybe a third, and then there's another two-thirds of things that will be 18 implemented just by the fact you know we finished it and we accepted it. 1 19 think what might be appropriate is that we condition the acceptance on the 20 fact that we'll discuss the implementation schedule as a separate action 21 item Literally make that as part of the as the motion So amend the 22 motion 23 24 Cadena It's been moved and seconded, would the Councilor accept her 25 amendment. 26 27 Arzabal Amendment. 28 29 Murphy Mr Chair, if I may offer a clarification 30 31 Cadena Yes 32 33 Murphy- The resolution is worded that we're accepting delivery of it. We're not 34 accepting it. And with this board, the Policy Committee, you are the MPO 35 and you may always act as you see fit at the time that decisions coming 36 Staff is not the MPO We're merely your support in this So by virtue of 37 the resolution you're not committing yourself to anything You're really 38 saying is, we saw it, thank you We will proceed 39 40 Cadena Commissioner Perez 41 42 Perez. I'm hearing two different things in the presentation If that is in fact what 43 we're doing I'm great. Let's blow and go However, if we're going to be 44 triggering action of anybody, ourselves or somebody else, then we need to 45 be making a different we need to qualify the decision So, I'm going to 46 take you at your word on this last statement and say, this is what we're 16 I voting on tonight and we accepted it and thank you very much Then 1 2 would like to request that the action item again for the subsequent meeting 3 would be to discuss the implementation schedule for the action items that 4 are on here But that doesn't need to amend the motion, that's just a 5 request I think for a subsequent agenda item That's easy enough and I'll 6 be happy 7 8 Cadena That'll be on the next agenda, implementation 9 10 Perez. Thank Mr Chair 11 12 Cadena Councilor Thomas 13 14 S Thomas Thank you We'll I'm hearing two things as well and I'm hearing that you 15 know for example they're already looking for some outside person to help 16 work on the be negotiating the JPA and that some things are already 17 being triggered and that doesn't fit with what we're saying at the same 18 time, that we're just accepting the report and nothing's no 19 implementation is being started I agree that there's some confusion here 20 21 Cadena Can staff clarify what's already being implemented? Maybe that was a 22 consensus that we got through the committees 23 24 Murphy- Yes, certainly Items that are currently being implemented, really most 25 prevalently is the pursuit of greater coordination with the EI Paso MPO 26 One of the things that 27 28 Cadena Let me interrupt you That's been discussed at several items, it didn't 29 seem like anyone objected to that. So that could be I mean we're 30 already doing that separate of whether it's in that documentation or not. 31 So I don't think that would make a difference What else is there? 32 33 Murphy- Things like the committee trainings that we've been providing over the last 34 year and half That's another thing that's been discussed here and staffs 35 been given the direction to proceed on that. A lot of the suggestions in 36 reference to the Long Range Transportation Plan, things such as adopting 37 performance measures That's really something that's kind of been the 38 best practices for other MPOs around the nation as far as when updating 39 their Long Range Transportation Plans That's something that you know 40 we're looking at within ours We've presented on how we wanted our 41 LRTP to look before this body and staffs been given the direction that 42 those are good items to proceed And I think mainly along those lines, 43 those are the actions that are currently being implemented 44 45 Cadena All right. So as far as adding members and all those other things, would 46 have to take an official action of this Committee here? 17 1 2 Murphy- Yes, sir 3 4 Cadena Okay Does that make everyone feel a little more comfortable? 5 6 Arzabal Yes 7 8 S Thomas JPA. That's not renegotiating what stage are we at in that? 9 10 Murphy- The JPA. That'll be something that'll be pursued NMDOT item to 11 pursue to begin on there I think that really the JPA is what establishes 12 the MPO and that basically happens kind of above the MPO's heads 13 Really if either of the Town, the City, the County does not agree to enter 14 into the negotiation process or if some you know negotiations among the 15 entities can't be resolved, really the end fact is that a new JPA won't be 16 enacted But that's something that there was a JPA negotiated among 17 your three governments when the MPO was first created and really what 18 the recommendation is, is that your three governments go back to the 19 board and revisit that. 20 21 Cadena That's true and I agree And we seem to come in agreement or have a 22 consensus of that at the workshop Is that agreeable? Yes, Ray, you 23 want to come up? 24 25 Matthews About the JPA. It was something that came out of the workshop for a 26 couple of reasons The current JPA is very old and really needs to be 27 reworked anyhow But we saw that reworking of the JPA as a way to 28 accomplish some of the recommendations in the report. Some of them 29 are that changing the voting membership, that would be done through the 30 JPA. And the process is that the elected officials will meet with the 31 representational governments and the DOT would get together and 32 through the facilitator come up with an agreement about the voting 33 membership So, in order to get that started on our end, because in that 34 summary that's listed as one of the tasks that the DOT would start to 35 implement, we have begun that and what we've done is we've contacted 36 our state coordinator who contracts and arranges for a third party 37 facilitator The process for that is we have to develop a contract, and 38 actually you know that's what I'll be working on and it'll go through our 39 contract department. We'll be coordinating with the board through Tom to 40 find out a good set of dates so everyone can agree you know to meet on 41 that date At that meeting would be the people who can have the authority 42 to be basically the signatories on the JPA. So, and I think there's eight 43 areas that are called out in that JPA, eight recommendations, issues to 44 look at in the JPA. So I hope that helps If you have any questions on 45 that. 46 18 I Cadena Does that JPA then go to that particular government agency, the 2 municipality, or County? 3 4 Matthews It would go to each municipality who's a signatory or you know in this case 5 it would be the Town of Mesilla, the City of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, 6 and NMDOT as signatories to approve that JPA before it could be 7 implemented 8 9 Cadena So it doesn't necessarily go to the Council or the Commissioners and sort 10 of thing? 11 12 Matthews I would think that it would go to them separately 13 14 Oliver- I haven't had too much experience with JPAs, but Mr Chairman Pat 15 Oliver-Wright, NMDOT, Planning Division Director But the JPAs that I've 16 seen generally have to have approval of the governing bodies of each 17 entity that signs that JPA. So I would think that it would have to go before 18 your Council and your Commission, generally 19 20 Cadena All right. Thank you 21 22 Murphy- Mr Mayor 23 24 Cadena Yes 25 26 Murphy- The current JPA I believe went through all three government boards 27 before it was allowed to be signed off 28 29 Cadena So when it goes to your other councilors, trustees, commissioners, they're 30 probably not going to have a clue so as the MPO Committee person it'll 31 probably be your responsibility to help explain that so you can get it past 32 the various entities Are we ready for a vote? 33 34 S Thomas I just have one more question 35 36 Cadena Go ahead 37 38 S Thomas So this JPA I heard it's said here that it will include some of the 39 recommendations in this report? So that means recommendations being 40 put into the JPA without coming back to this group, and so we have no 41 input as a Policy Committee into how that gets changed from what we're 42 operating under now to what would be the new? 43 44 Cadena Come on up Ray 45 19 I Matthews No, you wouldn't be adopting the recommendations What we're through 2 that facilitation process is setting up a process whereby you would 3 consider the issues For example, the voting member is one of them So 4 you would be considering it. By you know agreeing to be part of that 5 facilitation process, you're entering into it. You're not necessarily adopting 6 the recommendations ahead of time The reason we have a facilitator is 7 we understand that there's going to be some negotiations and some give 8 and take possibly on some of these issues, these areas like voting 9 membership and things like that. So, it's not a foregone conclusion 10 11 Cadena So go to the entity to agree to negotiate and then after the negotiations it'll 12 come to us and then eventually get back to the individual entities 13 14 Matthews Yeah That's correct. What would come out of those negotiations would 15 be a new JPA and it may adopt some of the recommendations of the 16 report. It may modify some of them, but the process for that would be the 17 negotiation with the JPA. 18 19 S Thomas So what I'm saying is what I'm hearing is that in this JPA negotiation 20 some of these recommendations may be adopted and yet the people who 21 are involved in that negotiation are the City manager, a Town clerk, a 22 County manager, and someone from the DOT, and that doesn't include 23 anybody from here so we're not agreeing to anything 24 25 Matthews I thought we had a pretty extensive list where it did include the 26 representative governments on the Policy Board 27 28 S Thomas What I'm looking at is action one which says that, renegotiate the Joint 29 Powers Agreement. And it says key negotiators include, Las Cruces City 30 manager, Town of Mesilla town clerk, Dona Ana County manager, and 31 NMDOT general office manager as designated by the governor, and that's 32 only four people that are listed as being part of the negotiations 33 34 Matthews Right. You're correct. They would be part of the negotiation process, but 35 then they would take that document back to the governing board and at 36 that point the governing boards would review the document and decide 37 whether they want to and you as a member of the Las Cruces City 38 Council then would review that and you would have an opportunity to say, 39 1 agree with this or not, and likewise with the Commission So each 40 governing body as a whole would be reviewing this document. 41 42 S Thomas So the people who sit on this Committee, the Policy Committee, have 43 input solely through their membership in the particular board or 44 commission and their municipality or their government agency? 45 20 I Matthews Tom is suggesting that the MPO Policy Board Chairman be part of that 2 negotiating team 3 4 Jones Mr Chairman 5 6 Cadena I would consider that, let's hear Councilor Jones 7 8 Jones Thank you Mr Chairman This is a question that, similar kind of question 9 that comes up at the ETA, the Extra-territorial Zoning Authority And that 10 is whether the Authority negotiates it own agreement between the City and 11 the County And the answer to that situation is no that the JPA that forms 12 the Extra-territorial Zone is an agreement between the City and the 13 County In the same measure, this agreement, the JPA is an agreement 14 between the different respective bodies It is not an agreement amongst 15 ourselves individually as members of this body here So we have to keep 16 that in mind And because basically we're here at the whim of the 17 governing bodies that we represent, we are not here on our own volition, 18 so to speak. So we represent our different bodies and that's a critical 19 point, partially because there are times when there may be competing 20 interests The interests of the City of Las Cruces may compete with the 21 interests of the County, funding is an issue, it comes up here And so 22 or Mesilla, etc, and so forth, and NMDOT So it is those bodies that need 23 to align and come to an agreement and then with that said, then we need 24 to represent their interest. That is the natural formation of that agreement. 25 Now I'm sure I would hope that through some commentary we could 26 advise representatives from our respective bodies what we think are 27 critical individually in our other capacity, myself as a City Councilor, and 28 Commissioner Perez as a County Commissioner, etc and so forth We 29 should all have that ability to make comment, but we have to step back 30 and realize that this the JPA is an agreement between the 31 governmental bodies, not an agreement amongst ourselves collectively at 32 this dais today I hope I'm clear I hope that makes sense 33 34 Cadena. All right. Councilor Thomas 35 36 S Thomas Thank you I think that's fine if that agreement has to do with the 37 existence of this body But if it also that negotiation is also going to 38 negotiate some of the recommendations in this report, then I'm not sure 39 that it isn't over stepping its bounds I guess I need more clarification on 40 just what the purpose I am assuming the purpose of the JPA, the way 41 we did it for example for the Animal Services Center has more to do with 42 the existence agreement of the existence of the body, but to then 43 include some of the things that are in this report. That doesn't seem to fit 44 to me 45 46 Krahling Mr Chair 21 1 2 Cadena Yes 3 4 Krahling It seems to me that my concern on this is that when we are accepting 5 this Location Study and then we are moving forward with the renegotiation 6 of the JPA that it creates the impression that we are moving forward with 7 the renegotiation of the JPA because of this Location Study and the 8 findings of this Location Study And I wouldn't want to create the 9 impression that I am saying, we need to renegotiate the JPA for the 10 following reasons that are listed in the Location Study, here they are 11 Decision one, action one, etc , etc And so perhaps it would be up to us 12 individually to go to our County manager, City manager, etc , and make 13 sure that they know during the negotiation process that there are concerns 14 with some of these items There is a list of staff input. There's the 15 Location Study They need to know you need to consider all of these 16 things when you are in the negotiating process Does that make sense? 17 18 Cadena Yes, that makes sense It seems that the 19 20 Krahling I'm comfortable with it, thank you 21 22 Cadena Is this the normal process Ray in any other MPO that you've done It 23 seems to be (inaudible) as to how we would do this unless staff or anyone 24 else can correct it. 25 26 Oliver Mayor, Chair, and councilors and commissioners It really has varied 1 27 could not say that it's a normal process anywhere, but having a report that 28 helps you look at your organization and look at similar organizations 29 around the country and then updating a Joint Powers Agreement that's 30 probably at least 20 years old, is not a bad method of proceeding So 1 31 can't say that it's normal and this is the way it always works, but it's 32 worked similar in Santa Fe when we did the organizational study there, if 33 that helps 34 35 Cadena Councilor Jones 36 37 Jones Thank you Mr Chairman Hopefully we can final this up, but I think it 38 makes clear and I think I would hope the records of this, the verbatim 39 records of this meeting they are verbatim if I recall 40 41 Cadena Definitely 42 43 Jones Yes, will reflect clearly that we are accepting the report, but not 44 necessarily accepting all the conclusions of the report. As such, I think the 45 issues as what it states with regard to the JPA or any other conclusions, 46 the disputes or disagreements, however one wants to term it, we're not 22 I taking judgement on those, we're not accepting the conclusions about a 2 JPA, we're not doing anything The matter at hand is whether or not we 3 accept the report absent of its conclusions And I think that's clear in the 4 minutes 5 6 Cadena I think that's perfectly clear, and staff is clear and everyone up here is 7 clear 8 9 Jones Thank you And I think it's time to vote 10 11 Cadena The only question is, is Councilor Thomas' concern is that we're kind of 12 doing this in reverse, but if this is the established way to do it, then the 13 way as Commissioner Krahling has mentioned, if you have those 14 concerns you need to communicate them to your respective person that's 15 negotiating And also, when you're sitting up there when it comes before 16 your respective entity, that you voice your concerns and make sure, or do 17 the best you can to represent what you know 18 19 Arzabal I totally agree with that. 20 21 Krahling That makes sense 22 23 Cadena All right, if there's nothing further, there was a motion and a second, so 24 can we have a roll call vote? 25 26 Murphy- Commissioner Krahling 27 28 Krahling Aye 29 30 Murphy- Mayor Pro-Tem Archuleta 31 32 Archuleta Yes 33 34 Murphy- Councilor Thomas 35 36 S Thomas Yes 37 38 Murphy- Trustee Arzabal 39 40 Arzabal Yes 41 42 Murphy Commissioner Benavidez 43 44 Benavidez: Yes 45 46 Murphy- Councilor Jones 23 1 2 Jones Yes 3 4 Murphy Commissioner Perez 5 6 Perez. Yes 7 8 Murphy- Mayor Cadena 9 10 Cadena Yes Thank you 11 12 6.2 Resolution 09-04 A Resolution approving an amendment to the 2008- 13 2013 TIP to provide project placeholders for Federal Economic Recovery 14 Package 15 16 Cadena All right, the next item is Resolution 09-04, a resolution approving an 17 amendment to the 2008-2013 TIP to provide project placeholders for the 18 Federal Economic Recovery Package Andy 19 20 Hume And just when you thought it wasn't going to get any more confusing 21 tonight. With that introduction, I thank you very much Mr Chair, members 22 of the Committee I'm happy to be before you this evening There have 23 been a lot of very fast moving discussions and actions by congress over 24 the past couple of months regarding the first it was called economic 25 stimulus, then it was called economic recovery, and now I think it's got a 26 name about this long, something about recovery and rebuilding or 27 something like that. So, we're just going to call it Economic Recovery for 28 the rest of the evening and we'll all sort of stay on that level that's 29 discussed so we don't try and confuse too many terms Because the 30 reality is that we have a lot of tough decisions to make tonight. And I'm 31 not going to sugar coat that. The Technical Advisory Committee made 32 some recommendations on adding placeholders for projects that your 33 local governments submitted for consideration under the Economic 34 Recovery Bill, and they were included in your packet. And by the way 1 35 have to I actually was the cause for you not getting your packets in a 36 better timely manner, because I was hoping to have the information all 37 nice, neat, wrapped up in a bow, and then all of a sudden there was a lot 38 of very fast and furious events that happened over several days, and so 39 it's my fault. 40 But we also have some additional information, so whatever you 41 have in your packet that looks like your typical TIP report, we're going to 42 go on the one that we dust passed out this evening, because it has some 43 11th hour changes that were made, some recommendations that were 44 made by the TAC, the Technical Advisory Committee And then also we 45 have another spread sheet, it's the four page spread sheet that was 46 passed out this evening as well It was not in your packet, that actually 24 I has some additional information that we're going to go over and we're 2 going to use this as the basis for some ranking that we're going to be 3 doing this evening And we have extra copies of these things as well if 4 members of the public would like copies 5 First of all, I want to direct your attention to the item that looks like 6 your regular TIP report that we passed out. It's entitled February 11th, 7 2009 amendment. These were the items that the Technical Advisory 8 Committee recommended to pass on to you for consideration There are 9 a number of items, I'm not going to go through all of them I'm going to hit 10 some high points On page one, Berino Road and the Brahman Road are 11 a couple of the larger, particularly Berino Road, County projects that were 12 submitted On page two, there were some large projects that were 13 submitted by the City of Las Cruces including some maintenance projects, 14 overlay, micro-surfacing The Town of Mesilla submitted a couple of 15 projects that are on this list, Calle Del Norte and Snow Road were 16 submitted for consideration And then starting on page four are a list of 17 about 10 or 12 projects that would be considered for RoadRUNNER 18 Transit. 19 While we're talking about this, I'm going to bring up the next item 20 Now keep in mind, those were the items that were forwarded to you under 21 recommendation from the Technical Advisory Committee There have 22 been some discussions, perhaps there are discrepancies there were 23 discrepancies between the House bill and the Senate bill about funding 24 amounts and criteria for projects and things like that. So, what we decided 25 to do is to present every project that was submitted by your entities, 26 regardless of whether let me back up for just a moment. I apologize 27 We're sort of going to fly by the seat of our pants here tonight, so 28 there might be some backtracking just to let you know It was impossible 29 to prepare for this because of the fast motion of this action Originally, the 30 Federal criterion was, ready to go and depending on your perspective 31 either 120 or 90 days, and the project had to be on a roadway that was 32 classified as collector or higher In rural areas it was major collector or 33 higher So initially a first cut was made of all projects that did not meet 34 that criteria and unfortunately the Town of Mesilla was the biggest loser, to 35 use a phrase You lost all your projects, because none of them of your 36 original list were classified as collector or higher Because of some 37 apparent discrepancies and I would like to recognize Commissioner Perez 38 for pointing out some one of those that, correct me if I'm wrong, was in 39 the Senate bill The Senate bill allowed for some of those monies to be 40 used on local roads Now while the compromise between the two bills 41 was struck today, we still don't have all the details of what that 42 compromise was And because President Obama has not signed it yet, 43 there could still be some last second tweaking of things 44 So what we decided to do is bring all of your projects to you, let you 45 rank them all, keeping in mind that it's probably going to be collectors or 46 higher That's probably going to be the end result, and we're going to 25 I work with those projects as you rank them in our discussions with the DOT 2 about what projects get funding I hope that's clear We're going to work 3 through it and if it isn't clear please ask questions and we'll keep a 4 dialogue going as we go through 5 6 Perez. Mr Chairman 7 8 Cadena. Yes 9 10 Perez I had a question I had an opportunity to ask Mr Hume a question right at 11 the beginning of the meeting that I'd like to share with everybody else, 12 especially with the Town of Mesilla And the question that our staff had 13 had when I met with them this afternoon was if they are not classified for 14 some reason at this point, what does it take to get them classified 15 There's a technical requirement, it has to be it's got to meet some 16 technical requirements, but the question I had and I'm not sure we'll be 17 looking for an answer on this is, do we need to have public meetings? Is 18 there a public hearing process? Is there advertisement notification? Will 19 this knock us out because of the time limit? And we're going to be working 20 a little bit with that, but I think the gut reaction back to it was, yes, we 21 probably do because it's a modification to the plan, we would have to 22 do the 30-day notification period, but it wouldn't necessarily knock us out 23 of the time limits if we're shovel ready Right now that 30-day notification 24 period might not hold us up So I'd like to be able to still consider if we 25 need to get roads classified a proactive plan to get that done because it 26 does really affect the County Obviously the County and Town of Mesilla's 27 roads primarily, but if we can be creative, innovative with that process, 28 make sure we get the notification out there and that classification there, 29 even if we don't get the leeway on the local roads, we might be still able to 30 work within the system So I didn't want to keep that information under my 31 belt. 32 33 Cadena All right, very good 34 35 Perez, We need to consider that too 36 37 Hume And I also Mr Chair if I may, make sure we want to point out that even 38 if we were able to accelerate, or not accelerate but consider reclassifying 39 a roadway, if it doesn't meet the criteria for reclassification we don't 40 want to give any false hope to any of the entities that a roadway lust 41 because you asked for it would be reclassified Because there are certain 42 criteria that it does have to meet. I just wanted to make that very clear 43 44 Cadena I think definitely we're clear on that. Yes, Councilor Archuleta 45 26 I Archuleta Thank you I have a question and I'm not sure actually I'm not sure if 2 this is the place to present it. At our last MPO meeting, we had the 3 representative from EI Paso and he alluded to a long range plan 4 transportation from EI Paso to White Sands And I question Las 5 Cruces has more employees at White Sands than EI Paso, but they're still 6 planning on it and so I question well why not Las Cruces to White Sands 7 And there is an article in the paper that I cut out from last week and this is 8 from Walter Rubel who is the managing editor of the Sun News and he's 9 asking the same question So is this something he says, the most 10 pressing transportation needs in the coming years will be from Las Cruces 11 to White Sands Missile Range and that's because of the planned 12 expansion Is this something that we could add to that or just not belong 13 in this packet or please guide me? 14 15 Hume Mr Chair, Councilor Archuleta, it depends on what type of project I think 16 you would be asking for Keep in mind that these have to be ready to go 17 on either under contract for construction or actually under construction 18 within 90 days 19 20 Archuleta Okay 21 22 Hume And so if it would be a project that would require a great deal of planning 23 and design, it would not be able to handle that. If it would be perhaps 24 something involving an upgrade to the current Park & Ride system that the 25 DOT offers That might be something that could be considered and would 26 be much easier to accomplish within that 90-day period The longer term 27 solution though is specifically identifying that issue in our Long Range 28 Transportation Plan and working through that mechanism and looking at 29 solutions through that. 30 31 Archuleta Okay, so we can do that? 32 33 Hume Absolutely 34 35 Archuleta Okay Thank you 36 37 Cadena All right. 38 39 Hume So, Mr Chair, what I would suggest we do first of all is on page one, I'd 40 like to go through the four page spread sheet that has every project that 41 was submitted by the entities 42 43 Cadena Okay 44 45 Hume I'm not going to go through all of the projects on there, but I will say that 46 page one, as you see there's a column that says lead agency about half 27 I way across the top Lead agency identifies either City of Las Cruces on 2 page one, Dona Ana County on page two, or the Town of Mesilla, actually 3 it says NMDOT, but these are within the Town of Mesilla. So this would 4 be, Mr Chair, something you and Trustee Arzabal would discuss, on page 5 three On page four are RoadRUNNER Transit projects and these 6 what we'll do is we'll take a brief recess and allow each individual entity to 7 look at your page and rank the projects, discuss among yourselves and 8 rank the projects And then we would come back as a group and rank the 9 projects for RoadRUNNER Transit. Now we have representatives from 10 each jurisdiction I think 11 12 Perez: Mr Hume 13 14 Hume Yes 15 16 Perez: We're going to have to make a quick attorney call on that. I don't know if 17 we can function within the MPO as a quorum I'm not comfortable that we 18 can split off, talk to staff, because we have them on stand-by, and make a 19 decision for Dona Ana County within the context of this meeting So if we 20 could recess and before we get into discussions if we can check that, 1 21 think we're going to hit the same quorum item that the City might have hit 22 at the beginning I just want to check I'm hoping we're okay 23 24 Cadena I think that's fine to do that. But from my experience, we've done this in 25 the past with both issues and these are meetings that are posted and so 26 there are no issues with quorum 27 28 Perez. Not to set priority and policy outside of the context of the MPO Let me 29 just try and get a hold of one of our guys real quick. 30 31 Cadena Okay 32 33 Hume If I might make a statement that maybe might help in the discussion too 34 When we're talking about these items These items we're looking for 35 Federal funding and the MPO has the authority to rank projects that 36 Federal funding is being sought for 37 38 Perez: I'm not questioning the authority of the MPO I'm questioning the ability of 39 a quorum of Dona Ana County to meet and rank 40 41 Hume Okay 42 43 Perez So that's I'm just going to check. Anybody else wants to check they 44 can check too I've already been slapped down once I don't want to be 45 slapped down two times 46 28 I Hume Okay 2 3 Cadena All right. In the interim, the City can do what they feel There are only two 4 of us so it's definitely not a quorum 5 6 Archuleta We don't have a quorum here It takes four 7 8 Cadena You don't have a quorum either, so it doesn't matter So let's meet and 9 see what the County's going to do in the interim 10 I 1 Hume So we'll break for a quick recess then, Mr Chair 12 13 Cadena. That's fine 14 15 Jones Move to recess, Mr Chairman Do we need time specific? Do we need a 16 motion to recess? 17 18 Cadena I don't think we do 19 20 Jones Okay, that's fine 21 22 Hume Just one more point, thank you On the list of County projects, the last two 23 projects that are on the list there for the County, Amparo Road and West 24 Canal Road crossing, those cannot be considered under the ranking, 25 because they do not reside within the Las Cruces MPO area So those 26 would not be eligible for discussion by the County 27 28 RECESS OF APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES, 6 16 though 6 45 p m 29 30 Cadena All right, to continue with our meeting here Andy Mesilla's was easy 31 We ranked number one Calle Del Norte, and number two was Snow 32 Road And I'll let the County go ahead and talk about their, if a 33 representative from the County would go through the list. 34 35 Krahling I'll go through it. 36 37 Benavidez Mr Chairman, I dust want to clarify something for the record 38 39 Cadena Sure 40 41 Benavidez: Commissioner Krahling and Commissioner Perez met with County staff 42 and I opted out. Just for the record 43 44 Cadena Yeah, we'll definitely make that part of the record 45 46 Benavidez Thank you 29 1 2 Krahling The list that we discussed, Berino Road is our first priority, Brahmann 3 Road second, Shrode Road third, Dragon Fly fourth, Blue Topaz fifth, 4 Comanche Road sixth, Swannack seventh, and then I believe you 5 instructed us the other two could not be considered by the Las Cruces 6 MPO 7 8 Hume That is correct. 9 10 Perez. I just wanted a clarification Dragon Fly Road is a proposed principal 11 arterial Is that okay? Does that meet the criteria? 12 13 Hume Yes, it does 14 15 Perez. Okay And then priorities, Berino Road, Shrode Road, and Blue Topaz 16 would all require classification, but we believe that they would meet the 17 criteria, but they would have to go through the process 18 19 Hume Okay So you don't I believe Berino Road is classified as a collector or 20 higher, major collector or higher Yes So it would be okay 21 22 Perez. Good So our top two priorities are already classified and then Shrode 23 Road, our third priority and Blue Topaz which would be our fifth, would 24 require classification Both of them are connections between other major 25 roads and due to the traffic counts and other data that we have staff is 26 confident that they meet the criteria 27 28 Hume Okay Mr Chair, Commissioner Perez, and for the other Commissioners 29 in the County, what I would appreciate is perhaps getting something in 30 writing from the County Public Works Department identifying those two 31 roadways and giving an explanation as to why they would suggest 32 reclassification of those roadways, so we can have something in writing to 33 move forward with and talk with our Technical Advisory Committee please 34 And an e-mail is fine, just to define in writing 35 36 Perez And Mr Chairman, Mr Hume, we are getting acknowledgement from staff, 37 so it shall be done 38 39 Cadena All right, great. 40 41 Hume Thank you 42 43 Cadena Which representative from the City wants to read the list? 44 45 Archuleta I can do that. 46 30 I Jones Mr Chairman, I actually took a copy of the list and gave to Mr Hume so if 2 someone wants to read it, that's fine, but Mr Hume has it. 3 4 Cadena Councilor Archuleta 5 6 Archuleta Yes, just follow me so we make sure that we're right. Okay, number one 7 is Del Rey Boulevard arroyo 8 9 Hume I have that as number one 10 11 Archuleta. Number two Street Microsurfacing Improvements 12 13 Hume Yes, that is number two 14 15 Archuleta Number three is North Telshor 16 17 Hume Correct. 18 19 Archuleta Number four is Amador Avenue 20 21 Hume Yes, that's correct. 22 23 Archuleta Number five is EI Molino Phase V 24 25 Hume Yes 26 27 Archuleta Number six is Solano Avenue 28 29 Hume Okay 30 31 Archuleta Number seven is Street Overlay and ADA Improvements 32 33 Hume Yes 34 35 Archuleta Number eight is Street Crack Seal Improvements 36 37 Hume Okay 38 39 Archuleta Number nine is Roadrunner Parkway 40 41 Hume Okay 42 43 Archuleta Number 10 is CLC/EPEC Streetlight Conversion 44 45 Hume Okay 46 31 I Archuleta And 11 is Main Street Plaza 2 3 Hume Okay, very good Okay, now that we've looked at all of those and I thank 4 you very much for all of your work in ranking those projects There are 5 two more items that we need to do First of all keeping in consideration 6 that we had somewhere in the neighborhood of about $30 million worth of 7 projects in our area and it's probably going to work out that we're not going 8 to get that much money, I mean that's a pretty good assumption on our 9 part. What we'd like to do is have you all take the first couple of projects in 10 your list and discuss among yourselves here in discussion where you think 11 you would like to see any funding, like the top priorities in the area And 12 work out here among your Committee We also have I'll interject here 13 We have NMDOT staff here We are going to be meeting with DOT staff 14 as well as City, County, Town of Mesilla staff tomorrow and we're going to 15 be talking about the rankings that you all did tonight and what we can do 16 with those as far as getting some of those projects funded But we would 17 like to know what you all want as far as your top maybe three, four 18 projects coming out of this area From then we'll move onto 19 RoadRUNNER Transit and discuss those projects 20 21 Krahling Mr Chair 22 23 Cadena. Yes 24 25 Krahling Are we going to be limited by the number of projects we can fund or the 26 amount of money we can have? I think that's probably obvious We're 27 going to be limited by the amount of money that we have to spend around, 28 right? 29 30 Hume That's correct. 31 32 Krahling I guess I'm just trying to figure out it is that we should think about ranking 33 all of these projects, and whether it should be based on money or it should 34 be based on priority I'll have a hard time ranking these 35 36 Hume Mr Chair, Commissioner, and really to the entire Committee, what I think 37 you all should base your rankings on are what project has the biggest 38 need for our area, safety-wise, whether it's multimodal concerns, whatever 39 the case might be When we get together and discuss and find out 40 actually first of all how much money we actually get, we're going to be in 41 competition with the rest of the with the RPOs and a little bit with EI 42 Paso MPO as far as the total funding that District 1 gets So if you want to 43 rank your top projects on there and you justify them that they are ready to 44 go, they are of serious need I'll just use an example, the project that the 45 City ranked as their number one project, Del Rey That project connects a 46 roadway that really is only one way in, one way out directly from the City; 32 I otherwise you have to go all the way up around Dona Ana Interchange to 2 come back in to serve if that roadway gets cut off And in fact I believe it 3 was last year that roadway did get cut off due to heavy rains, it got 4 washed out. So emergency services, other issues like that wouldn't have 5 been able to get in there had there been problems in that area They 6 would've had to go all the way out and around So 7 8 Jones Mr Chairman And I would add, can't help but interjecting, it also services 9 the neighbors in the County to the north 10 I1 Hume That's correct. Thank you for pointing that out. So, perhaps that's the 12 reason why the City ranked that project as number one If it turns out that 13 the project is absolutely ready to go and in the discussions of how that 14 money is going to be distributed, that $2 million project could very well be 15 one of the projects that funding is submitted for I wouldn't worry about 16 funding I don't think we can in our situation, in our discussion, worry as 17 much about funding as we do about which projects have the highest need 18 in our area That's really what we look at when we look at MPO issues 19 20 Cadena All right, to start the discussions, I think the number one project from each 21 entity should probably be the top three Berino Road I know for the 22 County has all kinds of needs Was that the top one? 23 24 Hume Yes, sir 25 26 Perez. It does Mr Chairman, can I just make a point before we get too far into 27 this? 28 29 Cadena Yes 30 31 Perez. Mr Hume, you indicated that there was a total of $30 million worth of 32 projects, and I'm just eyeballing this real quick and Mesilla has about $3 2 33 million, Dona Ana County with all of their priorities has approximately $4 34 million, so I'm assuming the balance of them is the City projects I think 35 you're putting a task before us that I'm not going to say it's impossible, but 36 I'm not familiar with the bulk of the City's projects I know EI Molino for 37 very odd reasons and I know Del Rey Boulevard because I've worked up 38 in Dona Ana, but I'm not familiar with most of your projects, so to look at 39 these globally and again I'm aware of less on Snow Road than I am on 40 Calle Del Norte, for me to sit as an MPO person and try and sell my 41 project to somebody else is not going to make sense out of context. And 42 really it does come down to the amount of money we get, not necessarily 43 the number of projects Really I mean need is in the eyes of the beholder 44 So I'm wondering if there isn't a whether we want to divide these up by 45 money amounts and say we're going to take the top you know $3 million 46 or $2 5 million from each one of these priorities, because the City has 33 I multiple projects that are under a million, or you know start with $2 million 2 worth of projects from each one and then kind of add our second and third 3 priorities in some sort of quantity Because we're just flat maybe 4 everybody else is more rational than me, but I just don't I personally 5 don't have the ability to understand the need especially on the City 6 projects as I do with the County's and I just don't see us coming to a 7 consensus on that at all So does anybody have a suggestion of how we 8 might kind of prioritize these without evaluating need, because I think 9 that's beyond us, too lofty, but beyond us? 10 11 Cadena Councilor Jones 12 13 Jones Thank you and I think I understand My head is still swimming But really 14 we're talking about $30 million, I think, is that right, with the number we're 15 playing with, give or take 16 17 Perez That's what Mr Hume was tossing out there 18 19 Hume It's under that, but yeah it's rough 20 21 Jones Okay 22 23 Perez. And some of that's RoadRUNNER Transit, it looks like about $3 million on 24 RoadRUNNER Does that include the $3 million for RoadRUNNER? 25 Sorry to interrupt Councilor Jones, I'm just trying to 26 27 Jones No, that's fine I appreciate the clarification Thank you 28 29 Hume Yes, the City's total is just over $18 million, the County's total is about $4 2 30 million, the Town of Mesilla is about $3 2 million, and then RoadRUNNER 31 transit which actually comes out of a different amount. I apologize I didn't 32 mean to cause confusion RoadRUNNER Transit is $12 million, which 33 gets us up close to the $30 million mark or so, but it actually comes out of 34 a different funding It comes out of FTA instead of FHWA. But Mr Chair if 35 1 may, first of all I want to recognize Commissioner Perez' concerns Staff 36 has the same concerns The speed at which this whole stimulus package 37 is put together has us concerned, the DOT, all of your staff, and your 38 respective staffs' concern as well And the task we are asking you to do 39 tonight is huge When we actually get to TIP ranking, which we'll talk 40 about and our TIP application process, you'll have in your hands, you'll be 41 able to read the justification for why projects are coming before you In 42 this case, you can't. We do have staff here to answer questions, if there 43 are questions about need But whatever the Policy Committee's decision 44 is on this, staff will support, we'll work with it as much as we can because 45 frankly, as Councilor Jones pointed out, our heads are swimming as well 46 with this whole thing 34 1 2 Archuleta Mr Chairman 3 4 Cadena Yes 5 6 Archuleta Can I ask a question to Mr Hume? Okay, for the record, and are any of 7 these entities required to put any match money for these projects? 8 9 Hume I don't believe so No, there's no match required for these projects 10 11 Archuleta Will they be eligible to receive administrative fees for, in other words there 12 are no adman fees included in here? 13 14 Hume My understanding is that these projects should be ready to go, and so it 15 would basically be any cost to bid for construction or what have you, 16 would need to be included in these fees 17 18 Archuleta Okay 19 20 Hume But as these projects are ready to go, or should be ready to go, the bulk of 21 these would be actually turning dirt and building structures and things like 22 that. 23 24 Archuleta Okay, thank you 25 26 S Thomas Mr Chair 27 28 Cadena Yes 29 30 S Thomas And my understanding is that if we put a project on this list and then it 31 doesn't it's not ready to go and it doesn't start in the amount of time so 32 stated, then we lose the money 33 34 Hume Yes, that money can be reassigned to another project. 35 36 S Thomas And it doesn't necessarily go to some other project we have here My 37 understanding is it goes back to the DOT if it doesn't 38 39 Hume That is a possibility Again, we're meeting with the DOT tomorrow; MPO 40 staff is along with the other EI Paso MPO, the RPOs, and local staff If 41 when we're looking at the breakdown of these projects and how you all 42 ranked them compared with the other rankings from RPOs and MPOs in 43 our area, it could very well be that the next project in the ranking or the 44 next project in line would be another project here in the MPO, but there is 45 no guarantee of that. 46 35 I S Thomas And so you are asking us out of the three pages, the three lists, to pick the 2 top three or four, you weren't asking us to list them all the way through? 3 4 Hume No, I wanted you to list them all the way through 5 6 S Thomas You wanted us to list them all the way through 7 8 Hume Yes 9 10 S Thomas I think that's impossible And do we have any idea about the total amount 11 might be, because here are numbers I've heard I've heard that you know 12 we might get around close to $5 million, $4 6 or something like that. If you 13 take the top three projects, you're already up to $3 8 million 14 15 Hume And Mr Chair, if I might clarify 16 17 Cadena Yes 18 19 S Thomas I mean the top one from each the top number one from each of them 20 21 Hume Correct. I'm sorry, yes When you met individually, you ranked all of your 22 projects 23 24 S Thomas Right. 25 26 Hume Okay It was my confusion, sorry about that. 27 28 S Thomas Okay So you're not asking us to now combine all those? 29 30 Hume That's correct, yes I would like you to consider your top couple of projects 31 and discuss them If it's the interest of the board to simply take your top 32 projects and put them in some sort of ranking, or top two projects, 33 whatever you would like to do, or if you just I don't know, if you just 34 don't want to do that and want to let your individual rankings go that you 35 discussed about, that might be an option as well The sky's the limit here 36 There's no what you guys decide is the way we'll go because 37 38 Cadena As Chair, what I'm going to suggest is either being here till tomorrow or 39 just going on we've already met. We've each discussed our priorities 40 Each entity has their top projects and leave it at that. 41 42 Perez, Mr Chairman, you know I hear what Mr Hume is saying There's a 43 possibility that you know if he sends this as he can't send it up as three 44 different lists It's got to go as one list from the MPO 45 46 Cadena Right. Well then, let me 36 1 2 Perez. So wait a second We've got you know one through seven for the County, 3 one through 12 or 11 or something for the City, and then we've got two for 4 Mesilla We really when they start parring down this list, we don't want 5 them to hack off Mesilla just cause it was listed third You know what 1 6 mean? We've got to figure out some way to we've got to rank this 7 somehow overall And either we have to if we're going to evaluate it on 8 need or population or weigh it somehow, we're going to skew it. I really 9 think that we ought to propose you know a couple of big projects based on 10 money amounts or conglomeration of projects, and then work our way 11 down the list there based on size or individual importance and just go, you 12 know, until we run out of projects 13 14 S Thomas May I make a suggestion? What if we just take the three number one 15 projects and discuss what order we want those to be in and then the three 16 number two projects and discuss the order for those and then after that it's 17 City, County, City, County I mean just make them alternate 18 19 Cadena That's fine 20 21 Krahling That's fine 22 23 Hume Mr Chair Oh, I'm sorry Pat Oliver-Wright would like to add something to 24 the discussion that might clarify 25 26 Cadena Sure 27 28 Oliver- Yes, Mr Chair, Councilors, and Commissioners It might shed some light 29 on this to let you know how we're going to be ranking them statewide, and 30 this was straight from the guidance we got from Federal Highway 31 Administration What they have told me repeatedly is this really isn't a 32 transportation bill It's a jobs bill And the biggest emphasis on this is 33 project readiness If it's not ready to go, then you will really be 34 jeopardizing the funding if you put forward a project that is not ready And 35 so what we've done statewide, and Las Cruces MPO projects as well, we 36 asked for the same check list that we use for all our projects for readiness, 37 and that is target bid dates, percent the design is completed, your 38 certification dates for utilities, and environmental documentation At the 39 meeting tomorrow, we're asking the local entities who are ready to bring 40 their plans and bring those certifications, so that they can show that 41 they're the most construction ready I know there will be a pool of projects 42 that are ready, but we need to rank them by and I've been ranking them 43 by month of target bid date So keep that in mind as you do your 44 deliberations 45 37 I Perez. Sorry, Mr Chairman One more variable to throw in the mess, and I'd like 2 to ask your advice on this If we're looking at job generation, we're going 3 to generate more jobs if we have more individual projects because they're 4 going to go to individual contractors, than we will if we put in one big 5 project. If I have a $2 million road project, I'm going to mobilize Caliber 6 Construction and he's going to mobilize a crew of however many people 7 he has, 50 If I mobilize five road projects and I mobilize Caliper, Smith 8 and Aguirre, Burn Construction, I'm trying to think of everybody I know in 9 the area who does road stuff, then I'm going to be able to mobilize 200 10 people, 250 people So when we're looking at the criteria, do we want to 11 mobilize more contractors, or do we want to move more money? Which in 12 your opinion or from what you've heard would put us in a better place? If 13 we're trying to generate jobs, I think we ought to throw as many smaller 14 fobs that we can get out on the streets as we can 15 16 Oliver- Mr Chair, Commissioner, that's a very good point. And we have not 17 received any guidance about job generation But I definitely can see your 18 logic and that definitely makes sense The other portion is just to make 19 sure that on these smaller jobs that to reclassify a road can take several 20 months, and so if it's on a local road you'd need to be careful that you 21 don't miss that timeframe because of trying to reclassify something But 22 yes, that's a very valid point. 23 24 Cadena Yeah, if you look at the list they're all if you look at the City's they're all 25 $1, $3 million, so I think the idea to get back to the idea of the ranking 26 the one, two, three, four, five, six, and then alternate the City and the 27 County will still work for that because they're all about the same And if 28 not, you can bring that up when we come to that specific project. 29 30 Jones Mr Chairman I think you have a good point there I mean it's hard to 31 weigh and it's a real challenge tonight. But, I can't help but look at what 1 32 think are most important from the City and ranking it that way, and I know 33 it's hard to put into the algorithm, you know the job creation And I'm not 34 sure, I mean frankly I'm not in the position I can make some guesses as 35 to which would make more jobs, but is my guess wrong or am I making 36 jobs for another community, not our own, I mean local employment versus 37 something else So I have to fall back on what I think is best for our 38 community And so I'm in support of what was suggested is going down 39 the first top several, you know, number one County, number one Mesilla, 40 number one City, or whatever, and then doing the same iteration and 1 41 don't know, either debating the top number one for each of us, and which 42 one should go on top, and then going to the second one and third one, 43 and then just alternate it all the way down, something of that nature 1 44 don't know another way to do this 45 46 Cadena Yes, more guidance 38 1 2 De La Rosa Joseph De La Rosa, New Mexico DOT One other thing I wanted to 3 mention in light of Councilor Jones' comments on the discussions on what 4 is going to be you know producing more jobs, one of the things that we'll 5 be looking at, first and foremost as Pat mentioned it's going to be project 6 readiness But there's only going to be a certain amount of funding that 7 comes down through the legislation, we anticipate, that is directed for local 8 governments Some of that maybe directed specifically to projects such 9 as transportation enhancements You know, we're still waiting to see how 10 that shakes out. But, as we're looking at a statewide basis, the DOT will 11 be letting some projects as well that'll be employing primarily large 12 contractors And if we're going to be looking at projects first and foremost 13 on project readiness, second will come project cost and how that's going 14 to fit into the budget. And so if you had essentially a certain fixed number 15 that comes to District 1, which covers a six County area, you would be 16 looking at projects that are submitted by all of the local jurisdictions in six 17 counties And some of them such as $3 million projects, we have some 18 that were upwards of $5 million, you know the goal I think would be to try 19 and spread the money around if possible to allow for jobs and 20 development projects in as many areas as possible So you know if all 21 projects are equal and you know there's going to at some point be a 22 decision to let five $1 million projects in five different counties that are all 23 project ready, or one $5 million project in one community, those types of 24 decisions will essentially be, or eventually have to be made And we're 25 not saying we know how we're going to do that, but that is the exercise 26 we're going through today, is to get an idea for what is first and foremost in 27 the Las Cruces MPO area, the priorities How ready are they going to be 28 will be discussed tomorrow? And then once we know essentially how 29 much funding we have, there will be some programming again of as many 30 projects I think is possible within the amount of funding we have, 31 assuming that all projects are on an equal footing for project readiness 1 32 don't know if that made sense or made matters worse 33 34 Cadena I still think we need to rank the top six projects and then just alternate the 35 City and County based on how they did their individual ranking So if 36 anybody wants to make a motion so we can start the discussions, so we 37 can start from there 38 39 Hume Mr Chair, can I point out one more thing? 40 41 Cadena Yes 42 43 Hume This is not the end-all be-all for any of these projects, because keep in 44 mind that we still have the standard TIP process And so any projects that 45 are on here that you really feel strongly about that these projects need to 46 go forward, we can work with your respective staffs to fill out a TIP 39 I application and have them considered in the regular ranking for Federal 2 funding through the TIP process So, hopefully that might alleviate some 3 of your projects, like this, you know if some of the lower ranked projects, 4 like we really need that project this isn't the last time we'll ever discuss 5 them I just wanted to say that. 6 7 Cadena Right and I think the State and others have made it clear, the project we 8 put as number six, they may decide as number one and so on and so 9 forth So I think we just need to get the list out there what we think and 10 take it from there 11 12 S Thomas Are you looking for a motion? I move that we agree on the ranking of the 13 top three projects, number one from each municipality and ranking four, 14 five, and six from number two from each municipality, and we alternate the 15 rest. 16 17 Arzabal Second 18 19 Krahling Mr Chair 20 21 Cadena. Yes 22 23 Krahling Which one's number one and which one is number two? 24 25 Cadena. We're going to discuss that. 26 27 Krahling We're ranking, we're not just creating groups Which one's number one? 28 29 S Thomas That we decide the ranking one, two, and three from by looking at 30 number one from each one and then four, five, and six. 31 32 Cadena We still have to do what she's asking 33 34 Krahling Okay, gotcha 35 36 Arzabal So Mr Chair, the Del Rey for Las Cruces, that's the number one ranking, 37 am I correct? 38 39 Archuleta. Yes 40 41 Arzabal For $2 2 million That has to do with safety 42 43 Archuleta Yes 44 45 Jones Mr Chairman, do we have a motion we need to vote on or can we begin 46 discussion? I'm lost. 40 1 2 Cadena There's a motion and a second It's been moved and seconded we can 3 discuss 4 5 Jones Okay, thank you 6 7 Archuleta We have a motion on the floor, so they need to take a roll call 8 9 Cadena Or we can discuss 10 11 Jones Okay, I missed 12 13 Cadena But it doesn't matter We can vote on that and if you well then no 14 because then we're going to need a specific 15 16 Perez: For purposes of discussion 17 18 Cadena There's a motion and a second for purposes of discussion 19 20 Jones Okay, thank you 21 22 Cadena Councilor Jones 23 24 Jones I defer to your colleague that I wasn't sure if I cut off the questions, excuse 25 me Did you finish? 26 27 Arzabal I just as far as the City, the main reason for it being voted number one 28 was safety 29 30 Jones There's a big safety element to that property That's at the bottom of the 31 Sandhill Arroyo that floods and the problem with development in that area 32 is there's only one entry and one exit for several developments up and 33 down Del Rey When the Sandhill Arroyo floods, it's very hard to traverse 34 when the water's running and it gets silt and it's hard to passage In fact, 1 35 had a constituent that recently wrecked a motorcycle in that ditch, or that 36 area after because of the silt. So that's one of the reasons I'm so 37 concerned about that area The other reason that Go ahead 38 39 Arzabal And as far as the County, Berino I'm just looking you know what's the 40 reason behind Berino being number one, anybody 41 42 Perez Berino Road has a history this is actually the Phase 2 of Berino Road 43 We're about halfway through it. It connects two major highways, really 44 Stern Drive and New Mexico 478 It's a major commerce route and just 45 lined on both sides of the road with residents that have a tendency to 46 flood So this is not only a pavement project, but it's a drainage project 41 I too And again goes back to health and safety of the residents in the area 2 The flooding out there was atrocious and the damage to the truck traffic 3 makes it worse And this has been our top priority for going three years, 4 and we haven't been able to finish the project. 5 6 Arzabal Mr Chair, if I can I think both of them have really good ideas, but I mean 7 the Town of Mesilla we have you know Calle Del Norte at $1 1 million for 8 that project. If it does I mean I'm lust hypothetically saying Mesilla goes 9 number three, I'd really recommend for Mesilla to be number four as well 10 11 Cadena Okay, so what you're saying whatever the projects end up one, two, three, 12 in the reverse order for four, five, six, is that what I'm understanding? 13 14 Arzabal Yes 15 16 Cadena Okay, does anyone object to that? All right, for the sake of discussion 1 17 think everyone knows Calle Del Norte, the issue there is the new it's in 18 poor condition The new state park is there, the Bosque Park and then it's 19 also being used as people from the Fairacres area or Highway 70, West 20 Mesa to come into town or go to New Mexico State, so really it's the 21 amount of traffic has increased greatly 22 23 Archuleta And Mr Chairman I also heard that you're planning to add a bike lane on 24 that. 25 26 Arzabal Yes 27 28 Jones Mr Chairman, I thinking the same thing The cyclists' use that a great 29 deal 30 31 Hume Mr Chair, just a point of clarification This particular project would only be 32 a mill and overlay project, fixing what's already there The TIP application 33 that was submitted by the Town of Mesilla for building shoulders onto the 34 roadway is something separate and is not considered in this project. 35 36 Cadena That's right and one of the reasons is we don't think we could have it 37 design ready 38 39 Hume Project ready Yes, exactly 40 41 Cadena But that second phase or when we did that would fit right into the overlay 42 It wouldn't have to be torn up or anything like that. For clarification, can 43 you tell me what was the second choice for both the City and the County? 44 42 I Hume I have them up on the screen here Mr Chair, the ones in yellow are the 2 first choice from all three entities, and the ones in blue were the second 3 choice, and in the middle the lead agency is listed there for us 4 5 S Thomas Mr Chair 6 7 Cadena Yes 8 9 S Thomas So if we did reverse order then we would start with number four would be 10 Snow Road? 11 12 Cadena Yes 13 14 S Thomas Right, and then five would Brahman, and then six would be Street 15 Microsurfacing Is that what we're looking at? 16 17 Arzabal We're looking at Berino being number one 18 19 Hume No, I just put these here They're not in any order I'm waiting to hear a 20 specific recommendation 21 22 Arzabal Second for the County 23 24 Krahling Brahman 25 26 Arzabal Brahman 27 28 S Thomas Weren't we talking about Del Rey number one, and Berino two, and Calle 29 Del Norte three 30 31 Arzabal We haven't gotten that far 32 33 Cadena What I think Carlos is recognizing there are only two people from Mesilla 34 up here 35 36 Perez. Do you have City staff here for streets? Sorry I don't know you guys as 37 well Do we have any population numbers or traffic counts for the Berino 38 Road and the Del Rey Boulevard? I think our staff brought Berino Road 39 Maybe we can look at it from an impact standpoint since and see what 40 kind of population impact. Maybe that'll help us screen it as well And 41 Mesilla, any ideas of the potential impact because I know there's been a 42 ton of new development on that Calle Del Norte 43 44 Arzabal The annexation 45 46 Perez. No traffic counts on that? I thought we'd done that. 43 1 2 Arzabal We have them, but we don't have them tonight. 3 4 Hume I'm pulling up the traffic flow map here 5 6 Perez. Okay 7 8 Benavidez Mr Chair, I would also like to find out the traffic fatalities or accidents 9 which will that be an impact also? 10 11 Cadena Should be 12 13 Benavidez. We don't have a count on that. 14 15 Perez. And Mr Chairman, Mr Hume, these are the traffic counts, is that what 16 we're looking at on that map? 17 18 Hume Yes, this is traffic counts right now that we're looking at here The traffic 19 count on Del Rey Boulevard was just over 9,000 here between Mars and 20 Bataan Memorial And then further up the traffic count here was I think 21 that's 6,762 22 23 (Inaudible) 24 25 Hume Yes, they are from different timeframes, but they're the best data that 26 exists 27 28 Perez: So, 7,000, 8,000 kind of average? 29 30 Hume Yes 31 32 Perez: Okay And Mr Chairman I'm not suggesting that this be the only criteria, 33 but it's another thing maybe to look at. 34 35 Cadena Definitely To look at. Do you have the same thing for Berino? 36 37 Hume And then Berino okay Berino Road here is about 1,500 38 39 Perez- Okay 40 41 Arzabal What was Del Rey? 42 43 Hume One count was 9,000, the other was 6,700 And then to respond to 44 Commissioner Benavidez' request about crashes We can go and look up 45 crashes They're on the website We can look up through UNM crash 46 data 44 1 2 Benavidez. Well, seeing the numbers I figure that the higher the number for what is it, 3 Del Rey Boulevard, I would assume there would be more accidents 4 because of the traffic. So I'm assuming that that 5 6 Hume Actual traffic numbers may be higher, but traffic rates might not be, or 7 crash rates rather Because I mean if both let's say if there are six 8 crashes on both roadways, the crash rates for Berino Road would be 9 higher simply because there's few traffic 10 11 Benavidez. I see 12 13 Hume There are more opportunities for crashes on Del Rey, so we would expect 14 more So that's something to take into consideration too 15 16 Benavidez: Okay Thank you 17 18 Cadena Let me ask a question while we're thinking about that, for the City Street 19 Microsurfacing, it says various roads, but I guess those roads have been 20 identified by somebody as being collectors 21 22 Hume Yes, Mr Chair, the list of the roadways was provided to us from City of 23 Las Cruces and they've all been anything that's under a collector has 24 been taken out of that list. 25 26 Cadena Okay, so there's an actual list, but just for the sake of space, that's why 27 you have various 28 29 Hume Correct. 30 31 Cadena Okay 32 33 Hume I can send that list to you if you'd like to see that list. 34 35 Cadena I'm just asking 36 37 Hume And just so that we don't leave out any considerations here, on Calle Del 38 Norte, one count is 2,300 and looks like basically 2,300 is the count on 39 Calle Del Norte 40 41 Cadena Well I mean to the one person that lives there, that's obviously going to be 42 their biggest priority, so there are a lot of things to consider 43 44 Hume Absolutely 45 45 I Cadena But I mean, for the sake of argument, I think Trustee Arzabal here wants 2 to make a motion 3 4 Krahling Isn't there motion already on the floor? 5 6 Perez. There's a motion on the floor, I think it's just 7 8 Cadena Well then he wants to make a 9 10 Arzabal To discuss it right? 11 12 Cadena. He wants to make a he wants to add to that motion or actually have an 13 idea of how to rank these 14 15 Arzabal Maybe, Del Rey, Las Cruces being number one Berino number two, 16 Town of Mesilla, Calle Del Norte number three Then it goes back so it'd 17 be Snow Road being number four And then since the it'd be the 18 County Brahman Road, is that correct? That'll be five and the City's 19 second choice be six. 20 21 Perez: What's the City's second choice? 22 23 Hume The Street Microsurfacing improvements I have the top two projects from 24 each up on the screen as well 25 26 Arzabal Anybody want to add or subject or and then I just it would alternate 1 27 guess like Councilor Thomas has said as far as the City and the County 28 29 Cadena Yeah, I think we could leave that up to staff, right? 30 31 Arzabal As far as the rest of the projects alternating according to your ranking 32 33 S Thomas Because we would end then with a City project, so then we would go to 34 County, City, County, and City 35 36 Arzabal Right. 37 38 S Thomas The rest of the way down the list. 39 40 Cadena Now if somebody wants to change someone's mind, now is the time 41 42 Perez. Mr Chairman, I guess I hate to keep on throwing variables in here, but 43 there are two concerns I have, one of them is cost, because if we do that, 44 then we end up with two, four, six, $7 million, $7 5 million, $7 6 million of 45 the top four and don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with both of 46 the Town of Mesilla's priorities being funded, but I'm looking at it from a 46 I cost breakdown I'm looking at it from a job generation breakdown 2 because you never know that someone may get a wild hair and look at 3 that, because that was the intension of the stimulus package And I'm 4 also still kind of looking back on the traffic counts, and I don't know 5 6 Arzabal If you look back on the traffic counts then Calle Del Norte has more than 7 Berino 8 9 Perez. Right. Well and I'm trying to look at that's exactly I'm trying to be fair 10 and I'm trying to look at it from a I'm trying to look at the variables 11 the things again that are obviously most important to me are the ones that 12 1 brought I up I guess that's logical So I'm still haven't reconciled those 13 in my head, and I guess I'm looking at this and saying, okay our second 14 priority happens to be a $200,000 project. So, before I'm real comfortable 15 throwing another million dollars or $2 million into the other pot, the 16 question is, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to slip another small our 17 third priority is an iffy one, but both our third and fourth priorities are just a 18 couple hundred thousand dollars So I'm kind of looking at that and 19 thinking just from a how much money are they are going to give us and 20 a cost standpoint. I might want to slip a second County project in there 21 because our second priority is pretty small So, I kind of want to throw that 22 out there for consideration because Dragon Fly and we've talked about 23 that from 24 25 Arzabal I mean you do have two projects there I guess I'm not 26 27 Perez. Yeah we do Shrode road, there's a possibility because it has a 28 classification issue that our fourth priority would move up That's a 29 $200,000 project. Dragon Fly, and that's been identified by the MPO as 30 being a fairly major component of the bypass route So that is one that is 31 important to us also as a group So I'm kind of throwing on the table from 32 the County standpoint I guess I'd like to see another one in there if we're 33 going to be throwing multiple million dollars in the other projects And I do 34 feel strongly that at some point someone's going to look at this and say, 35 how are we going to throw these projects around locally because we're 36 going to get more contractors going the smaller the projects are, the more 37 contractors can be involved because there are some limitations on the 38 bonding capacity of the contractors We want to keep the money locally 39 and we want to make sure we get as many people busy as we can 40 41 Arzabal If you look at the big projects, they're also they're spending more 42 money and they'll be working for longer So I mean we could go back and 43 forth 44 45 Perez. Or they could bring them in from you know Kansas or Texas or whatever 46 and take the money out of local because we can't bond big projects 47 1 2 Cadena. I think those are variables beyond our control So I mean I think what 3 you're asking, or you think that there needs to be another project for the 4 County's second choice maybe you and the County need to decide 5 6 Perez Yeah, because our second choice is little 7 8 Cadena Maybe you guys need to change that one project. 9 10 Krahling Mr Chair I mean I wonder whether or not the Brahman, Dragon Fly could 11 not be considered one project. I mean it's they're connecting I mean 12 that project is we're talking about this road here and here on this road 13 What are those two numbers add up to? I'm not looking at. 14 15 Perez, It's $400,000, together 16 17 Krahling $400,000 together I mean that's 18 19 Perez. $200,000 each 20 21 Krahling That's less than half of what the second project that the City is proposing 22 23 Perez. Right. 24 25 Krahling I think that maybe if you're looking at this from a fairness point of view 26 that would be I think fair 27 28 Cadena I agree 29 30 Krahling I mean we'd still have an argument to say why don't we make it three, you 31 know, I mean 32 33 Cadena I don't have a problem with that, but does it meet the criteria? Can you 34 identify two streets together as a project? 35 36 Hume Mr Chair, I don't think actually that would be the issue I think the issue 37 would be if the two projects have different levels of project readiness And 38 that would be something that your staff would have to 39 40 Krahling They don't. They don't have different levels of readiness 41 42 Hume They don't? 43 44 Krahling I guess for the point of discussion I was saying throw them together, but 45 you know technically on the list you'd put, you know, we're just adding 46 another project in there to go underneath Brahman 48 1 2 Jones Mr Chairman If I hear the County right then what the way this list would 3 read and I've heard two individuals speak from the County, it would be 4 we have Del Rey, Berino, Calle Del Norte, Snow Road, then Brahman, 5 then interject Dragon Fly, and then the City project, the various roads, etc 6 and so forth would be number seven, and then we've dealt with seven of 7 those 8 9 Cadena I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on it. Is that what you ? 10 11 Krahling I guess that's what I was you know (inaudible) 12 13 Cadena Does the City have any comments? 14 15 Jones I'm all right. And I see from the signs of my colleagues that it would be all 16 right. So, then we have the top seven ranking And Mr Chairman, if staff 17 could line that out as I just described, then I think we will have something 18 concrete that we can take action on 19 20 Cadena All right. That sounds I appreciate everyone's cooperation 21 22 Jones Mr Chairman, one other comment if I may I'm not sure if this is all 23 incorporated in the motion and I wonder if we should withdraw the motion 24 and then invite dialogue, adopt this and then as a second action go 25 through the second part of the list, just a thought. Just trying to make this 26 as orderly as possible given the cooperation from everybody 27 28 S Thomas That's fine, I can withdraw the motion 29 30 Perez Mr Chairman is that really necessary, because I think the action from 31 there was just to alternate City, County, City, County, whatever 32 33 Arzabal Because it's right there 34 35 Perez Following our priority list and so that's kind of a foregone conclusion 36 37 Cadena If everyone's good with that. 38 39 Arzabal I'm fine with that. 40 41 Jones If we're all straight on what the motion reads, I guess I'm a little confused 42 43 Archuleta Yes 44 45 Jones But if I'm the only one confused 46 49 I Perez. Let's clarify it for the record 2 3 Jones Could we read back the motion maybe, or can we restate the motion? 4 5 Arzabal Okay, I think I make the original motion as far as the was it number one 6 Del Rey, and then Berino 7 8 S Thomas No, I made the motion to do it in a certain process and we seconded that, 9 and then we went ahead and did the process 10 11 Arzabal Maybe it'd be better to withdraw the motion and 12 13 S Thomas Right and restate it. 14 15 Arzabal Make a motion with the seven priorities 16 17 S Thomas Yes, so I'll withdraw the motion and let's restate it. 18 19 Hume Mr Chair, as a point of clarification, the resolution that you all are 20 considering is approving an amendment to the 2008-2013 TIP to provide 21 the project placeholders for the Federal Economic Recovery Package 22 The process in which you designate placeholders, ranking higher or lower 23 24 25 Cadena Doesn't matter 26 27 Hume Is part of this process I think all we need is a motion on the resolution 28 We can go through the processes of ranking and then once we agree on 29 how we ranked everything, that is what's going to take place within this 30 placeholder list. 31 32 Cadena So then your motion would be to approve as just 33 34 Jones Mr Chairman, I think what the motion would be if I understand Mr Hume 35 correctly is we have to create this list and essentially it'll act like an exhibit 36 and we're adopting the exhibit. Is that a fair way of putting it? 37 38 Hume That would be fair 39 40 Jones So I think what we've done here is we've completed the first part of our 41 task and we have seven items, then we've talked about what to do with 42 the rest and I think it's for lack of a better word, one, two, three, one, two, 43 three process Of course, I lobby for the City to be the next one because 44 that's because I am with the City 45 50 I Arzabal I was going to say that too just for it to be fair Because I'm saying, can 2 you leave that up to staff or do you want to see it up on this board 3 4 Jones I'm happy deferring the staff Does staff understand? 5 6 Hume Yes, and the lower cell, A10, 1 alternate County to City 7 8 Arzabal It should be City to County because the County got two projects 9 10 Perez. Except I'm sorry Mr Chairman I'm just looking again at the amounts 11 here You're priority number three for the City is a million dollar priority 12 So 13 14 Arzabal I think we've got to give and take somewhere all of us here 15 16 Perez. Yeah, I mean, again I'm just looking at amounts For us to have combined 17 for a $400,000 request, you know if they're going to go through it in this 18 order, you know we need I think we need to look at the monetary 19 amount. So we take another million dollars and I don't know I'm 20 throwing that out. My colleagues can say what they need to say too 21 22 Jones Mr Chairman, I appreciate the concern of Commissioner Perez. 23 However, I guess I think we've done an excellent job of coming up with a 24 method and we've been very cooperative and I really am incredibly 25 impressed in this process and how well we've worked together, and 26 appreciate the work of staff Going further, I'm not sure that we can read 27 into the ability of the United States Government to analyze all of this 28 across the nation We're one little splinter, and correct me if I'm wrong 29 and maybe even with New Mexico with all the communities around, I think 30 we've done an excellent job I think the system whereby we've gone 31 through this well is what we're guessing as to how some of these 32 evaluations might take place There are some other variables we don't 33 know about. 34 35 Cadena Just for the sake of argument, what's the next City and the next County 36 project? 37 38 Hume Mr Chair, the next project for the City would be the North Telshor project, 39 mill and inlay And for Dona Ana County, it would be Shrode Road which 40 is $400,000 That was one of the ones I think we identified that might still 41 be a local roadway, so I think the next one would be 42 43 Perez: Blue Topaz. 44 45 Hume Blue Topaz, yes 46 51 I Cadena. So we want to skip that one? You want to skip Shrode? 2 3 Hume And in reality the rest of the projects from the County, as far as cost goes, 4 only the one on Swannack Road is at or over $500,000 5 6 Cadena. Okay Well I think we're all in agreement, the first seven, right? So we're 7 discussing number eight. 8 9 Hume That's correct. 10 11 Cadena Is there a motion for number 12 13 Jones I don't think we have a motion Mr Chairman I'm not sure we're in a 14 position to have a motion if indeed we're going to go forward and that is 15 create this whole list and only adopt the whole list. 16 17 Cadena Okay, well let me have some more argument on who's going to be number 18 eight and maybe we can come up with a consensus, from someone else 19 20 Krahling Mr Chair I just got I'm looking at all these numbers and saying, you 21 know what, all right, these numbers as they are add up to $10 million If 22 we get more than $10 million I would be extremely happy having received 23 the projects that we have listed from the County on that list. I think we're 24 really getting into our dreamworld if we think it's going to be more than $10 25 million and so I'm more than happy 26 27 Cadena. I agree 28 29 Krahling Conceding the point from the County and saying the City can have the 30 next project as number, what is it, eight? What is the number now? 31 32 Hume It would be number eight. 33 34 Krahling And then from there and rotate it. 35 36 Arzabal Just rotate City and County 37 38 Archuleta Yeah, just rotate 39 40 Krahling I'm more than happy to vote in favor of that. 41 42 Perez. And honestly Mr Chairman, looking at the list and after the discussion 43 with our staff, we do have problems with classifications of the road and 44 one of them that very well may not be shovel ready So I don't think we're 45 conceding anything frankly at this point, so I've had it. 46 52 I Krahling Let's just do it. 2 3 Cadena All right. 4 5 Hume I will make that amendment in our notes That we will go alternate from, 6 starting with number eight the next City project and County, and alternate 7 from there 8 9 Cadena Okay, but the original motion and second you got, is that all you need? 10 11 Hume Actually, again Mr Chair, what we want to do is we want to have a motion 12 on Resolution 09-04, and what we're doing here is the process of fine 13 tuning the items in that resolution 14 15 Cadena I understand So Councilor Thomas did you want to make that motion? 16 17 S Thomas I move that we adopt Resolution 09-04, is that right? 18 19 Archuleta I second it. 20 21 Cadena All right, anything further? 22 23 Hume And Mr Chair, this will be exhibit A within that resolution 24 25 Archuleta Mr Chairman, I think it would be better if either the County or Mesilla 26 second instead of both of us from the City 27 28 Arzabal Second 29 30 Archuleta Thank you 31 32 Cadena Good idea 33 34 Hume And the second was from 35 36 Cadena Trustee Arzabal 37 38 Hume Thank you 39 40 Cadena All right, anything further? Anybody? All right. Let's have a roll call vote 41 42 Hume And actually Mr Chair we have one more thing that we need to do We 43 actually need to go through and look at RoadRUNNER Transit as a group 44 and decide ranking of projects with RoadRUNNER Transit as part of this 45 as well because they were included in the placeholders by TAC 46 53 I Cadena Again, maybe I'm out of line, but could we not have a recommendation 2 from the Transit Director on that? 3 4 Hume We very well could, he's here 5 6 Jones And I'm sure he's eager to be in such a hot seat. I see the sweat pouring 7 8 Bartholomew- Mike Bartholomew, Transit Administrator for the City of Las Cruces The 9 way this list was put together is, as Andy mentioned before, there is so 10 much change going on so quick with what the rules may be with this 11 Economic Stimulus money, we basically threw a lot of projects in there as 12 contingencies, well if it goes this way we could get this because we might 13 not be able to get that instead So even though the Senate and the House 14 have approved a version, they're in a conference now on it, and so it could 15 even change from what it is now there So in a way it would be nice if we 16 could all find all of these ending up on the TIP and if something was 17 ineligible, we would just drop it later But I can kind of go through a little 18 bit of a history of how each one of them was put in there As far as staff 19 goes, the second from the last one was an operating request. And we had 20 initially thought because this funding is coming through FTA, through 21 Section 5307 that we might be eligible for other 5307 projects that include 22 operating And that was really intriguing to us because the whole purpose 23 of the Economic Stimulus was to quickly infect money into the community 24 and at least in transit it's through our operating is how we would do that 25 rather than buying buses and bells and whistles for the buses, which the 26 money may not actually go into the local community for that. 27 Our idea with the operating was that we would use our exiting 28 rolling stock and expand our hours of service We don't go late enough 29 into the evening, not early enough in the morning, we don't have enough 30 service on the weekend So we could use our existing rolling stock and 31 use staff to expand the service I just returned from a conference where 32 we met with FTA officials and our transit associations who negotiate 33 directly with the congress folk and it's just the likelihood of operation 34 ending up being eligible in the final version is extremely unlikely, in spite of 35 a lot of lobbying from transit. However, it would be nice if it was in the TIP 36 if that changed occurred 37 38 Jones Mr Chairman if I may? Mike, if I understand what you're saying is from a 39 job infusion standpoint operations is probably maybe key, but it's also the 40 least likely to there's a low likelihood that it would be adopted Did 1 41 understand that correct? 42 43 Bartholomew- That's correct. 44 45 Jones If I may Mr Chairman? 46 54 I Cadena Yes 2 3 Jones I note there's a central component and it's not exporting dollars to buy 4 infrastructure to come in, but actually constructing and doing things within 5 our City and so Mr Bartholomew if you could elaborate perhaps on the 6 intermodal center which I think at least in the City, we're all familiar with 7 8 Cadena Let me get clear on this Andy, are you asking us to rank these, what are 9 there, 10 projects? 10 11 Jones Eleven 12 13 Cadena One through eleven, is that what you're asking? 14 15 Hume Mr Chair, it's at the discretion of the Committee If you want to rank them 16 as the Committee, you can do that. If you would like Mr Bartholomew to 17 provide you with a ranking what he would like to see, you can also do that 18 as well 19 20 Cadena Right, but I mean that's basically what you want, one through eleven, 21 regardless of who does it? 22 23 Hume Yes, please 24 25 Cadena All right. Well I would like to suggest, I'm not sure how much any of us 26 have knowledge on this, but that we concede to the director to rank these 27 one through eleven and then forward us that. You don't even have to do it 28 now unless the Committee wants it, and forward us that information 29 30 Arzabal I'm fine with that. 31 32 Jones Mr Chairman, if I may ask. Mr Bartholomew, are you prepared to rank 33 these? And if you aren't I'll understand 34 35 Bartholomew- Again, its things that I would like to rank them and I can rank them in 36 how I would do it first, hopefully they would all end up in the TIP at some 37 point. That if a particular project was ineligible because of the final rules 38 that we could move onto the next. But I could do that. And I'm willing to 39 make comments also on the two construction projects that are on here 40 41 Jones Mr Chairman, I'd love to hear the construction projects, but absent that if 42 my colleagues with the City are happy, then we'll allow staff to rank those, 43 if that's all right with the City staff 44 45 Cadena You need a motion staff? You don't need anything? Okay, then why don't 46 you brief us on the two construction projects? 55 1 2 Bartholomew, Okay The correct numbers are up here on the screen for the two 3 construction projects and the municipal operations center; this would be 4 for the transit component of the operations center that the City plans to 5 build out on Motel Boulevard where they would like to move all their 6 maintenance and operation facility The estimated cost based on the 7 conceptual design for the transit part is over $5 8 million The intermodal 8 center is the cost of that project will exceed $3 million and while we do 9 have some funding for the intermodal center, it's not going to be nearly 10 enough to buy what we would like for the intermodal center since that 11 grant is getting old Now the one problem with the two construction 12 projects is the rule is they have to be shovel ready The intermodal it's 13 problematic on both of them that they would be shovel ready in the 90-day 14 timeframe Now one of the things I learned at the conference too is that 15 Congress hasn't even really decided or given good strong direction on 16 what they mean by the project needs to be ready Could be obligate it into 17 project, have a signed contract within 90-days, is that good enough, or do 18 we actually have to have some, you know a shovel in the ground in 90- 19 days That's a big difference between those two And I think that in both 20 cases it's kind of problematic that we're going to be able to meet that 21 deadline, but if we were able to pull it together, it'd be nice if it was in the 22 TIP to use the money for that. 23 So, I suppose after operating, I like the construction ones because 24 that would at least perhaps inject more money locally into the economy 25 and create more jobs The other items that are on there, like the mobile 26 data terminals for the paratransit vehicles, those are enhancements that 27 we could use that wouldn't require additional staff, that are capital 28 purchases that would be really easy to do and those would probably, 29 given the problematic things that we see with operating and the 30 construction, that we would be looking at some of those items Those 31 would allow us to in Dial-A-Ride, they could automatically from the 32 computer program dispatch out the rides There would also be the 33 navigational features, so a driver all he would have to do is punch a map 34 and it'd show him exactly how to get there Mobile data terminals for the 35 second item would also be put in the fixed route buses that would be to 36 communicate quickly with drivers Those would also be used in 37 emergency type situations where buses were needed Putting a public 38 restroom at the central transfer point would be an easy one to do We 39 could get that in real quickly in the 90 days The rolling stock ones, buses 40 and light duty buses, those were put in the original request that we did 41 through the City with the understanding that we would be expanding 42 service However, it doesn't do any good to buy buses if we don't have 43 the money to provide the operating to expand the service So those are 44 little problems with those and I would rank those probably lower 45 And there are other ADA, accessibility improvements, would make 46 improvements to the bus stops, more ADA accessible around town as 56 I needed A Park & Ride facility, which is one construction project that 2 actually I skipped over that maybe a likelihood to get done in 90 days and 3 that would be up at the Venus transfer point on Venus Street between 4 Bataan and Northrise where the City already owns some property in there 5 That we could pave it, put some nice facilities for waiting for buses and 6 perhaps could even be used in conjunction with the White Sands Park & 7 Ride too as a Park & Ride location So that's a strong possibility that 1 8 would rank high, rank that one relatively high And bicycle racks are an 9 amenity that would be easy to add in and quickly purchase with that as 10 well 11 12 Cadena And this Committee recognizes the importance of the whole system, but 13 you know we like to defer to your expertise in ranking those And none of 14 us know even tomorrow the rules could change, so all we can do is put 15 them out there and see what happens So that's all we're asking you to 16 do And we appreciate you providing us with that information 17 18 Bartholomew- With the Policy Committee's permission, I'll give a list then to the MPO 19 20 Cadena Yes, thank you, unbelievable What's next Andy? Need a roll call? 21 22 Hume Yes Mr Chair, if there's no other discussion, we can do a roll call on the 23 Resolution 09-04 24 25 Cadena Please 26 27 Hume Commissioner Krahling 28 29 Krahling Yes 30 31 Hume Trustee Arzabal 32 33 Arzabal Yes 34 35 Hume Councilor Archuleta 36 37 Archuleta Yes 38 39 Hume Councilor Thomas 40 41 S Thomas Yes 42 43 Hume Commissioner Benavidez 44 45 Benavidez: Yes 46 57 I Hume Councilor Jones 2 3 Jones Yes 4 5 Hume Commissioner Perez. 6 7 Perez Yes 8 9 Hume And Chair 10 11 Cadena Yes Thank you for all that. 12 13 Hume Thank you very much for enduring through that. That was a lot of work 14 and great job 15 16 7 DISCUSSION ITEMS 17 18 7 1 Committee Training Context Sensitive Solutions 19 REMOVED FROM AGENDA. 20 21 7.2 Staff Updates 22 23 Cadena Staff updates 24 25 7.2.1 TIP Administrative Adjustment 26 27 Murphy- Mr Chair, first we had TIP administrative adjustment provided the 28 information in the packet. I'll call Andy back up if you have any specific 29 questions about any of the adjustments provided in the packet. 30 31 7.2.2 LCPS High School site 32 33 Murphy- Next update was the high school site Staff put together some slides, I'll 34 kind of hurry through them and get some general direction from the 35 Committee on where we're to proceed Just to orient everybody, here's 36 the proposed high school site north of Dripping Springs, west of proposed 37 Sonoma Ranch Overlay with the thoroughfare plan, showing Missouri up 38 to the north and proposed Sonoma Ranch This is one suggestion that 39 developed out of this that we would like to take through the TAC and the 40 BPAC and maybe eventually come back for consideration as a 41 transportation amendment. In the previous slide, you see proposed 42 Roadrunner Parkway ends at proposed Missouri in the Thoroughfare Plan 43 currently What staff would propose we look into is to extend the 44 Roadrunner Boulevard alignment to the east to intersect in with Sonoma 45 Ranch and then onward through Porter and Weisner, and then 46 concurrently eliminate the Missouri minor arterial on the Thoroughfare 58 I Plan Also, deal with added access to the high school in forms of bicycle 2 access and look at some routing for what are termed bicycle boulevards 3 A bicycle boulevard essentially is a general purpose roadway that has all 4 vehicle traffic on it; however, you do treatments that kind of really 5 discourage through trips on motorized vehicles, prohibit through 6 movements, and prohibit turns on it in other areas, details to be worked 7 out at a later date That's one of the things we would look at adding in 8 order to address access towards the new high school These could 9 change, certainly we could look at perhaps using Weisner or Enchanted 10 Boulevard as those access points, Dyer, or even maybe Missouri could be 11 that. We would want to discuss this with the BPAC and with the TAC 1 12 guess here's a picture that staff put together showing the treatments, 13 motor vehicles are required to turn at this intersection, bicycles are 14 allowed to continue forward So it reduces the impact of through motor 15 vehicle trips within a neighborhood 16 And then also at question was the right-of-way for Dripping Springs 17 and Caeri went and measured using the GIS measurements, the various 18 right-of-way was for Dripping Springs Road As you see near the NMSU 19 Golf Course it's around Telshor Boulevard it's 150-feet. It narrows 20 down to 90-feet soon after, expands back up to 100-feet as it crosses the 21 subdivision right before the Farm and Ranch After the Farm and Ranch 22 Museum, it narrows down to 80-90 feet. As you get to where the 23 intersection of proposed Sonoma Ranch would be, it's around 85-90 feet. 24 And then the curve around A Mountain narrows to 80-feet and then begins 25 to expand again past there So that's admittedly it's a GIS 26 measurements and there could be some error with the mapping, but it's 27 generally it gives us a good idea of generally what's out there With 28 that, I'll try to answer any questions 29 30 Cadena Questions, comments? 31 32 Perez: Mr Chairman, I have a quick question I hope I know that the school 33 district had this submitted, the school road submitted on their request for 34 the TIP and Mr Hume indicated at the beginning of the meeting that for 35 some reason they're just not ready and they wouldn't be included Can 36 you explain to us why that TIP request would not be included from the 37 school district? 38 39 Murphy- I don't remember the exact specifics of their applications It was missing 40 some information Andy, if you could refresh my memory Just a point of 41 clarification, it's not eligible for the Economic Stimulus, but it will be part of 42 the TIP ranking that we're taking through the TAC and BPAC next month 43 And you will consider it at the April Policy Committee meeting 44 59 I Perez. I guess the question was is why is it not ready for the Economic Stimulus? 2 Because I know the Sonoma Ranch Boulevard design is substantially 3 complete So, why would that not be considered? 4 5 Murphy- MPO staff wasn't aware of its readiness for stage of completion and then 6 the governing, controlling entity didn't submit it as part of the package 7 8 Perez. Got it. Thank you 9 10 Cadena All right, anything else? 11 12 7.2.3 MPO Quarterly Meeting Update 13 REMOVED FROM AGENDA. 14 15 7.2.4 NMDOT news and updates 16 17 Cadena Let's go onto Department of Transportation 18 19 Murphy- They indicate they don't have anything 20 21 Cadena You said everything you want to say already? 22 23 7.2.5 Development Review 24 25 Cadena Development review 26 27 Murphy- Provided for as information and staffs ready for any questions 28 29 Cadena Anybody? 30 31 8 COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 32 33 Archuleta Excuse me Mr Chairman, let's go back to committee and staff comments 34 35 Cadena Sure 36 37 Archuleta I just want to make sure this road from Las Cruces to White Sands will be 38 included somewhere 39 40 Murphy- Restate that please 41 42 Archuleta The road to Las Cruces the road from Las Cruces to White Sands 43 44 Cadena You're suggesting that we need to put it on the TIP or something? 45 46 Archuleta Yes, as we discussed earlier 60 1 2 Murphy- Yes, staff has that. 3 4 Archuleta Okay Thank you 5 6 Cadena All right, anyone else? 7 8 Murphy- Just one more staff comment. We are working with the EI Paso MPO to 9 arrange a joint Policy Committee meeting between the two MPOs We'll 10 keep you as dates come up we will keep you posted 11 12 Cadena Great. 13 14 Murphy- And then also, staff will be beginning the for the Long Range 15 Transportation Plan, staff will be beginning holding public meetings 16 beginning Monday, February 23rd at the we'll have meetings in Vado, 17 at the Dona Ana Community College on Tuesday, the 24th Then 18 Wednesday the 4th we'll have a public meeting on the East Mesa 19 Recreation Center, Friday March 6th, meeting at Mesilla Town Hall and 20 then Saturday March 7th, meeting at the Branigan Library The purpose 21 of these meetings is to involve the public in the early stages of the 22 Transportation Plan update All the weekday meetings will take place 23 from 11 00 a m to 7 00 p m , be open house, allow people to come in, ask 24 questions as they have them, and then the Saturday one will be from 25 1200to600pm 26 27 Jones Mr Chairman 28 29 Murphy- And there is a handout that I believe has been passed out to you 30 31 Cadena Yes 32 33 Jones I'd like to thank staff for those updates, and would also remind this body 34 that the South Central Regional Transit District will host a workshop on the 35 19th 36 37 Murphy- That's correct. 38 39 Jones At the Dona Ana County Complex and I look forward to seeing folks there 40 We're excited about that project and input would be valued 41 42 S Thomas And Mr Chair I had a question about that workshop I notice on the 43 agenda it says lunch at noon, and then it starts at 145 So, before 44 extending the invitations to people should we tell them to come at 12 45 45 or? 46 61 I Murphy- That's a very good question I think we should tell people to RSVP so that 2 we can adequately be prepared 3 4 S Thomas For lunch 5 6 Murphy- Yes 7 8 Cadena All right, very good 9 10 Benavidez: Mr Chairman 11 12 Cadena Yes 13 14 Benavidez. I wanted to make a comment to Councilor Thomas 15 16 Cadena Sure 17 18 Benavidez. I thought you said these meetings didn't last this long 19 20 Perez. Mr Chairman, just a point of information on the community meetings for 21 the transportation planning open house You have one planned for the 22 February 24th at the Dona Ana Community Center The 24th and the 25th 23 are Colonias Day in Santa Fe, and a lot of people from the north valley, 24 very active groups from the north valley, Radium Springs, Dona Ana, 25 usually sends a big deligation and those are most likely the people that 26 would be interested and to be wanting to attend this So I wonder if you 27 might take another look at that date for the Dona Ana area or switch it with 28 another area that is not colonias oriented because we might not get the 29 participation that we'd want to 30 31 Murphy- I think at this point we've actually sent out an advertisement. I think we 32 would look at turnout and if turnout was not what we would hope we would 33 have another meeting out there another day 34 35 Perez. That'd be great. And don't be offended if they're not there That's 36 probably why 37 38 Murphy- Thank you for that information 39 40 9 PUBLIC COMMENT 41 42 Cadena Public comment? 43 44 10 ADJOURNMENT— (8 01 p.m ) 45 46 Cadena A motion to adjourn? 62 1 2 Archuleta. Move to adjourn 3 4 Krahling Second 5 6 Cadena Meeting adjourned 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cha 63