Loading...
06-05-2014 1 MESILLA VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 4 The following are minutes for the meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the 5 Mesilla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which was held June 5, 2014 at 6 4:00 p.m. at Dona Ana County Government Building, 845 N. Motel Blvd., Las Cruces, New 7 Mexico. S 9 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Bartholomew (CLC Transit) 10 Larry Altamirano (LCPS) 11 Bill Childress (BLM) 12 Louis Grijalva (CLC Public Works) 13 John Gwynne (DA Flood Commission) 14 Jolene Herrera (NMDOT) 15 John Knopp (Town of Mesilla) 16 Harold Love (NMDOT) 17 Luis Marmolejo (DAC) 1a Rene Molina (DAC Engineering) 19 Willie Roman (CLC Transportation) 20 Jack Valencia (SCRTD) 21 Greg Walke (NMSU) 22 23 MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbi Lujan (Town of Mesilla) 24 Jesus Morales (EBID) 25 26 STAFF PRESENT: Chowdhury Siddiqui (MPO staff) 27 Orlando Fierro (MPO staff) 28 Tom Murphy (MPO staff) 29 30 OTHERS PRESENT: Denise Westin, Bohannon-Huston 31 Jennifer Hill, Bohannon-Huston 32 Anna Lauren de la Mora 33 Paul Pompeo, Southwest Engineering 34 Dara Parker, Senator Heinrich's Office 35 36 1. CALL TO ORDER 37 38 Meeting called to order at 4:01 p.m. 39 40 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 41 42 Valencia: I would like to call the meeting to order and look at Item number 2, 43 Approval of the Agenda. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the 44 agenda? If so the Chair will entertain a motion for approval. 45 46 Walke: So moved. 1 1 2 Bartholomew: Second 3 4 Valencia: It's been moved and seconded, any amendments to the agenda? If not, 5 all those in favor signify by saying aye. 6 7 All in favor. 8 9 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 10 11 3.1 May 1, 2014 12 13 Valencia: We have a sign-in sheet for the members that have, of the TAC that are 14 here, so we do have a quorum? I want to state that and anyone who 15 makes comments with regard, from the TAC that we introduce ourselves 16 for minute purposes so that the minute taker will have the ability to 17 differentiate who is speaking. That brings us to Item 3, Approval of 18 Minutes, May 1, 2014. Has everyone had an opportunity to review the 19 minutes? 20 21 Walke: I have a couple of really tiny corrections. On page 4, line 32-33, it say's 22 "one of the things it will have is by next months, next year...... I don't 23 remember which it is, I think they meant by next month, we'll be looking at 24 adopting the updated Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Do you know, 25 Tom, whether that was next month or next year? 26 27 Murphy: We will be updating the MTP next year. 28 29 Walke: Next year. 30 31 Murphy: We've started some public outreach activities sooner but the plan itself will 32 be updated next year, so we'll change that to next year. 33 34 Walke: So that should probably say "next year" and then at the top of Page 9, the 35 third line, Missouri was the top "ranked" project, not "tanked". 36 37 Valencia: Well, it hasn't tanked yet but there's still an opportunity. 38 39 Walke: That's all I had. 40 41 Valencia: Any other corrections to the minutes, if not the Chair will entertain a 42 motion to approve the minutes as amended. 43 44 Walke: So moved. 45 46 Bartholomew: Second. 2 1 2 Valencia: Moved and seconded, any other comments, questions or amendments? If 3 not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. 4 5 All in favor. 6 7 4. PUBLIC COMMENT— No public comment 8 9 S. ACTION ITEMS 10 11 5.1 Transportation Improvement Program 2014-2019 Amendment 12 13 Valencia: Under 5.1 Transportation Improvement Program 2014-2019 Amendment, 14 Mr. Murphy. 15 16 On May 8, 2013, the MPO Policy Committee approved the 2014-2019 Transportation 17 Improvement Program (TIP). 18 19 The following amendment(s) to the TIP have been requested: 20 CN FY Agency Project&Termini Scope Change Bridge LC00100 2014 NMDOT -25 Reconstruction/Widening Change BOP from Missouri Bridge &Addition of Auxiliary MP 1.5 to MP 0.8 Lane $610,000 in FY2014 for design, Baylor $5,950,000 in 2015 Canyon and FY2015 for G100030 & Dripping Unpaved Section Road Reconstruction— construction, of Both Roadways Pave unpaved sections 2016 Springs $3,220,000 in Roads FY2016 for construction, $828,000 County Contribution Intersection with New Traffic Signals and LC00140 2017 US 70 17`^St. intersection New Project improvements 3 At BNSF RR Crossing $30,000 in FY2014 2014 Design and Install new for design, LC00210 & Goathill Rd 110196791-least of lights and gates at $220,000 in Dona Ana Rd, 2015 crossing FY2015 for north of Las construction Cruces) At BNSF RR $30,000 in FY2014 2014 Crossing Design and construct for design, LCO0220 & NM 226 #01974413(west of new crossing surface, $290,000 in 2015 intersection with lights, and gates FY2015 for Benno Rd) construction 1 2 This amendment will not affect any other projects currently listed in the TIP. 3 4 Murphy: Thank you Mr. Chair. Staff is requesting a recommendation of approval 5 on Item 5.1. These are amendments to 2014-2019 TIP. On the particular, 6 particular amendments are outlined starting on page 18 of your packet. 7 Briefly, we'll quickly run through them, Missouri Bridge, change in 8 terminus; addition of Baylor Canyon Road paving project through the 9 federal lands and the County; a new traffic signal on US 70 and 171" Street 10 by the Department of Transportation; and then two railroad safety 11 crossings by the rail bureau on Goathill Road and NM 226. If you have 12 any more detailed questions on any of those items I'll try to answer, but 13 essentially those are the amendments that we're requesting a 14 recommendation to the Policy Committee on. 15 16 Valencia: Any member of the Committee have any comments regarding, if not, then 17 1 take it you need a motion to approve the TIP amendment. The Chair will 18 look for a motion. 19 20 Gwynne: So moved. 21 22 Altamirano: Second 23 24 Valencia: It's been moved and seconded, is there any further discussion? If not, all 25 those in favor signify by saying aye. 26 27 All in favor. 28 29 5.2 FY 2015 - FY 2016 Unified Planning Work Program Adoption 30 31 The UPWP is a biannual document that outlines transportation, planning activities to be 32 conducted by MPO Staff as well as processes that MPO Staff will participate in, but not 33 oversee. The UPWP also includes a budget, allocation of staff time and money toward 4 1 accomplishing the tasks. The UPWP must be in compliance with the Metropolitan z Transportation Plan. 3 4 Valencia: That brings us to Item 5.2, FY 2015-2016 UPW, Mr. Murphy. 5 6 Murphy: Thank you Mr. Chair. Again we are asking a recommendation of approval 7 to the Policy Committee. This is for the Federal Fiscal Year 2015 and 8 Federal Fiscal Year 2016 Unified Planning Work Program for the MPO. 9 We had it here last month as a discussion item. As you were walking in, I 10 apologize that we didn't get it into your hands sooner, but we handed out 11 to you the updated document from May's meeting. We did have it on our 12 website for, to allow for public comment, for 30 days. Just to highlight the 13 changes, since I stood before you last, if you direct your attention to page 14 9 of your packet and I'll go down through the table of contents and where 15 the changes have been made. We added, added a line, the Task 1.8 to 16 account for state and federal coordination. Our work with, our typical work 17 interacting with FHWA/FTA and NMDOT, as well as more active 18 participation in the Statewide Long Range Plan update which is ongoing. 19 We added under Item 4.6, an item that somehow we missed, our 20 coordination with the Regional Transit District, that we'll provide planning 21 support as needed to the RTD, as well as attendance of the Board 22 meetings for the RTD. Finally, Item 5.6, we've added the 2014-2015 23 Urban Sustainability Accelerator. The City of Las Cruces applied for and 24 is going to be receiving some technical assistance through the Urban 25 Sustainability Accelerator program, which is run through the, through 26 Portland State University. The particular focus of this process would be 27 trying to implement complete streets onto EI Paseo Road in conjunction 28 with the road safety audit that was conducted a few years back, as well as 29 the City's area blue print which they worked on last year and was 30 approved through City Council. So this is a grant aiming to further work 31 on EI Paseo in order to make it a more complete street and that's in 32 conformance with the MPO's Transportation Plan. Also the big items in 33 Appendix A, we have the budgetary information figured out, starting, which 34 is on page 29. That handles the major changes since this Committee saw 35 this last. I'll stand for any questions. 36 37 Valencia: Any member of the Committee have questions for Mr. Murphy? 38 39 Walke: In Section 5.6, under responsibilities it lists a NMSU Civil Engineering 40 Department and the College of Engineering. Do you know what the 41 difference in those two are? 42 43 Murphy: Mr. Chair, Mr. Walke, the difference being in them, is the City's been 44 working with several individuals, not only with the MPO of the City and 45 NMSU. Two of the individuals from NMSU, one identified themselves as 46 being in the Civil Engineering Department, and the other one identified 5 I themselves as the College of Engineering. I presume they are more of the 2 Dean's level office. 3 4 Wake: Alright, thanks. 5 6 Valencia: Additional questions, any member of the public here to speak on this 7 item? 8 9 Herrera: Mr. Chair. to 11 Valencia: Jolene. 12 13 Herrera: I have a question. Tom, on the budget, on page 29, I'm just looking at 14 your program total there, that $609,000, does that include the funding that 15 you want to rollover from 2014? 16 17 Murphy: Yes that will include the anticipated rollover from, particularly from the 18 special projects, the corridor studies, the Short Range Transit Plan that we 19 don't anticipate completing by October 1. 20 21 Herrera: Okay, thank you. 22 23 Valencia: Any other questions by any member of the Committee and/or the public? 24 If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. 25 26 Herrera: Move to approve. 27 28 Valencia: It's been moved, is there a second. 29 30 Bartholomew: Second 31 32 Valencia: Any additional discussion, questions for amendments? If not, all those in 33 favor signify by saying aye. 34 35 All in favor. 36 37 5.3 Transportation Asset and Safety Management Plan 38 39 Mesita Valley MPO's Transportation Asset and Safety Management Plan (TASM Plan) 4o represents one of the management plans recommended by the MPO's current Metropolitan 41 Transportation Plan (MTP). It is designed as the first step in implementation of coordinated 42 asset management for transportation infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the following 43 agencies: New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT), New Mexico State 44 University (NMSU), Dona Ana County, City of Las Cruces and Town of Mesilla. 45 6 1 The overall purpose of this Transportation Asset and Safety Management Plan is to z develop strategies, projects and tasks for implementation of a management approach to 3 regionalized decision making related to transportation system improvement, maintenance 4 and replacement. This plan has been developed under the framework of MAP-21, Moving 5 Ahead of Progress in the 21st Century Act. MAP-21 is a performance-based program; 6 therefore, a broader purpose of this Plan is to develop a data collection and prioritization 7 process that can be used to evaluate the performance of the transportation planning efforts s as they align with the criteria used in MAP-21. 9 10 Bohannan Huston, Inc. is currently preparing this Plan for Mesilla Valley MPO. 11 12 Valencia: Next is Item 6, Discussion Items, no I apologize, is Item 5.3 the 13 Transportation Asset and Safety Management Plan and I know we have 14 some guests here that are going to present after your intro, I'm sure, Mr. 15 Murphy. 16 17 Murphy: Thank you Mr. Chair. We have Denise and Jennifer here again. You've 18 seen them a lot throughout the past year. I think they've done a lot of 19 great work for us. What we're asking for this afternoon is for a 20 recommendation from the TAC to the Policy Committee on the adoption of 21 this document, which we hope will help guide us in our planning efforts 22 moving forward. With that I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Denise 23 so she can walk through her presentation. 24 25 Valencia: I guess my first point of clarification on the title as I see it, it says Las 26 Cruces MPO. 27 28 Westin: I was just going to apologize for that. 29 30 Valencia: Well, you can do it twice. 31 32 Westin: Old habits die hard. Just grabbed an old presentation and grabbed the 33 wrong front screen, so good afternoon Chair and Committee members 34 and again I apologize for that. We are here, and we appreciate the 35 opportunity to be here one more time to be bringing you the final edits to 36 the Mesilla Valley MPO Transportation Asset and Safety Management 37 Plan, known as the TASM Plan. So we, I'm not going to go through the 38 whole asset management process again, we've all been through that. 39 We've been a great team on this. We have actually, really appreciated 40 your support on this process and what I'm going to do this afternoon is just 41 sort of respond to the comments that I heard at the last meeting, and the 42 comments we've received in the emails since then. So a quick overview, 43 we edited the EBID maps, we enhanced the signage section, included 44 some transit criteria, developed a section on drainage infrastructure, and 45 then did some outreach and created an entire section and a 46 recommendation on an asset management leadership committee. So the 7 1 EBID, I made you a copy of the sections we changed. I didn't recreate the 2 entire document in this draft form because I figure you have the one from 3 last time. If you have any comments today I'm still willing to integrate 4 them in quickly before we make a final version, hopefully, upon your s approval, for the Policy Committee next week and then at that time I will 6 make sure that I bring enough hard copies of the final version for Tom, for 7 all of you to have after that time. So I just created paper versions of the a actual sections that we made the edits to, so that you feel comfortable 9 being able to review those and give your approval on those particular 10 sections. So we worked closely with Chowdhury and Orlando and made 11 sure that we had the correct reference and the correct, you know, 12 reference to the EBID trails and we removed those and referenced them in 13 a way that felt more comfortable to both of those agencies. Then we had 14 one comment on the signage and Mr. Gwynne, if we did not respond to 1s this as you had requested please clarify for me, but I felt that your concern 16 was really about making sure that that reference to signage was 17 comprehensive, and that. So what I did was I went back in and I made a 18 clarification that the signage is an asset, that is, both can be regulatory, 19 directional, informational and that in fact it does require a considerate cost 20 and does need to be considered under the asset management process, 21 but that each agency individually can determine how best to incorporate 22 which signs they want to include. So does the Town of Mesilla want to 23 include all of their way finding signs or do they just want to include their 24 regulatory signs? I mean, I think under the federal guidelines, under 25 MAP21, that you'd have to include sort of your regulatory signs, but it 26 would be an individual decision at an agency level on whether you wanted 27 to include informational signs or way finding signs, but does that address 28 your comment? 29 3o Gwynne: Yes, very good thank you. 31 32 Westin: And then, Mr. Bartholomew was really great and gave us all of these sort 33 of really specific decision making questions and criteria he uses to 34 determine where transit sites are located. I know they're tiny on our 36 screen, they're not really for you to read, as much as for you to see that he 36 has an integral list of criteria that he uses on a daily basis to make that 37 decision. I put that in the plan. I think that's really important. Those are 38 the, that's the level of effort that each individual agency might want to go 39 to at, for each asset, as it's appropriate. So at the end of the day the great 40 words of wisdom, the sites with the fewest constraints are usually, you 41 know, built first, or they get the improvements done most quickly. So, 42 does that address your comment? 43 44 Bartholomew: Uh huh. 45 8 1 Westin: Good and then Harold absolutely gave us the comment to include z drainage infrastructure and it wasn't one of our original assets. It didn't 3 come through the scope, it wasn't identified in isolation, it does sort of, you 4 know, it is considered under curb and gutter, it is considered in broad s costs on road ways, but what I did was I built an entire section on drainage 6 infrastructure so that we could really identify the value of it as an asset in 7 its own right, and so that we can address the costs and the risks impacts s from it, but given the fact that they are so, you know, there's such a 9 variation of drainage infrastructure that can be either be a standalone 10 project or another component of another asset. I didn't go through in this 11 TASM plan and evaluate the costs, the lifecycle, the lifecycle costs, or the 12 risks for each drainage type, but I did recommend at agency level that you 13 do that under your asset management plan implementation and that, 14 associated with that you would have to develop your own inventory and 15 inspection process for each of those drainage infrastructure types. I think 16 the most unique thing about the drainage infrastructure is that sometimes 17 they're done as part of a transportation project and sometimes they're 1a done separately on their own. So that is, that is actually you know, a way 19 for on a regional basis, where you can sort of corral that together and 20 really make that connection of getting those drainage projects done in 21 association with your transportation projects. Not only do you make the 22 implementation more effective, you can consider additional funding 23 sources for those drainage projects, and I think all of that really helps you 24 build sort of an asset management approach to drainage infrastructures 25 that's slightly unique, compared to the other assets which are a little bit 26 more black and white. Jennifer handed out a copy of that chapter, so if 27 you have any concerns about it over the next day or so you have 24 28 hours. Don't hesitate if it doesn't, if it doesn't feel right to you, you just let 29 me know and we'll add some wording or we'll expand it a little bit and 30 make sure that it's addressing that drainage infrastructure as an asset. 31 And then I think the biggest piece that we added was the recommendation 32 to create this asset management leadership team and it was a request of 33 the Committee to do a little bit more research on this and we did, and we 34 went ahead and did a peer review with the Ohio Department of 35 Transportation, who has one of the most successful asset management 36 leadership teams in the nation, and they were really gracious, actually, 37 and spent quite a bit of time on the phone with us chatting about how they 39 developed it and how well it works. No big surprise, they have the same 39 sort of group of stakeholders that we've identified here. They have 40 FHWA and the Department of Transportation Districts involved, the 41 Council of Governments Regional Planning. They have it broken down 42 into three levels, you can see there, where the Asset Management 43 Leadership Team is everybody, they have a smaller executive level 44 component of that, which is the decision, which you know really does the 45 hard work, they meet on a monthly basis, and they make, they make the 46 recommendations, and then a very small group of the IT Council, which 9 1 actually makes the final decisions on that. So how they got this started is 2 they invited all the stakeholder agencies they could think of to the group, 3 to the first kick-off meeting. So there were hundreds, you know, like a lot a of people at this meeting, but then just sort of to give everybody the s information and the education on what asset management is. But then 6 they were really clear with these agencies that they had to pick two 7 representatives, that's, they got two representatives, two slots, because s they wanted to make sure that they brought consistency and commitment, 9 and accountability at the agency level for this Asset Management 10 Leadership Team. So at the end of the day, they have about that 35 11 member executive level component that meets on a monthly basis and 12 gets things done. So some of the work that they did, they did at the 13 beginning as a leadership team, has already been done here in the TASM 14 plan. You know, we, as a group here, developed goals, we have the 15 stakeholder lists completed, we've evaluated your data gaps, the assets 16 that you're going to want to cover, so you have a really good start with this 17 TASM plan and you're ready to move right on into collecting that adequate 1e data, creating those consistent parameters so you can make those 19 prioritization decisions and the best news of all, is there wasn't really any 20 extra funding allocated to this process. They really just went to the 21 agencies and requested the time commitment from the staff members and 22 the leadership to be on that to be a part of that leadership team. So I'm 23 not saying it's free but it is a measure of a time commitment at the agency 24 level. So the primary tasks and the greatest benefits from developing a 25 management leadership team is to really engage in that regional 26 prioritization process, as you know, which is the greatest benefit from 27 doing asset management at a regional level. The other interesting thing 28 that the Ohio DOT did was to create sort of an objective evaluation of the 29 needs so that you wouldn't be pitting agencies against agencies and 30 assets against assets, is that they actually did a survey, sort of an 31 anonymous survey on asset, on the needs assessment for each asset and 32 that way the data came back to make the comparison and it wasn't 33 necessarily provided by somebody's strong political drive on which assets 34 needed to rise to the top. So they found that to be a very productive way. 35 They literally just used Survey Monkey and they worked with the university 36 and they found some good connections with the university, and they 37 collected the data to help them prioritize their needs. Then, obviously, to 38 have the ability to have a leadership team that can maintain that regional 39 coordination, can bring validity to those decisions and really keep the 40 asset management data updated and establish a, you know, a local and a 41 regional spot to keep the data. I know that question came up last time and 42 Tom graciously offered that the MPO would be happy to do that but I won't 43 commit him to that. But something like that, so that it's all in one location as and there's not confusion about where that data is being collected. So as those are the edits that we did. We're pretty excited to be able to finalize 46 the plan for you and but we're happy, like I said, we're happy to take any 10 I comments on those edits, anything else we can do to make this plan work 2 for you, we're happy to hear about that tonight. 3 4 Valencia: Any questions from our Committee? I do have one, in the data collection 5 and all of that, is there a monetary amount that is provided to the assets 6 and if so, is there a depreciation or replacement kind of value to the, in 7 totality of what, what you discovered in your inventory? a 9 Westin: Absolutely, I mean we gave some samples in the plan itself on sort of cost 10 to certain assets and that is the, one of the most beneficial questions you 11 can ask, is when is it most valuable to replace that asset and when you 12 know, cause it's a lot more valuable or it's a lot more beneficial financially 13 to get in earlier, do maintenance, keep things updated than it is to wait 'til 14 the end and have to replace the entire asset. So we gave some samples 15 in the TASM plan that would actually, that are real estimates on cost, 16 based on engineering data. But certainly the agencies would have to get 17 in and look at their historic expenditures and really enhance that 18 component when they're actually implementing asset management. Does 19 that answer your question? So for like drainage infrastructure I didn't go in 20 and give cost, I didn't give approximate cost for that just because of the 21 various, you know, wide range of potential drainage infrastructure 22 required. But when they're implementing the asset management plan they 23 would have to really take some time to 24 25 Valencia: There's a tradeoff between doing a new project or utilizing that same 26 source of funding for maintenance. Greater longevity out of the use of 27 the... 2s 29 Westin: Totally. Right and historically those decisions had been made in isolation, 30 in separate silos right? You have your maintenance decisions made over 31 here, and your capital improvement projects made over here. But one of 32 the goals of asset management is to marry that decision making process, 33 for the better use of public funds and the better level of service provided to 34 your residents. 35 36 Valencia: In the business world they utilize depreciation and that for tax advantage 37 and things of that nature. In the private, in the public sector, it's for 38 replacement. 39 40 Westin: Right. I don't think you're going to get any tax cuts. 41 42 Valencia: Any other comments? 43 44 Herrera: Mr. Chair. 45 46 Valencia: Jolene. 11 1 2 Herrera: I just have a question, I guess it's more general, how do you see the asset 3 management leadership team working within the MPO? Because I think 4 you did a really good job. I just read through it briefly, outlining what Ohio 5 DOT did, but on a smaller scale within this MPO, do you kind of see the 6 Policy Committee being like the executive. 7 s Westin: I think you can set it up anyway you want and 1 think that's a really good 9 point, that you may only need two components of that triangle, right. 10 Because you're not going to get more than 30 people on your larger piece 11 of your stakeholders. So yeah, I do think and absolutely if you want to 12 double up and have your Policy Committee be your decision making 13 group, then you're not asking extra efforts from people, you know, and you 14 could really keep this TAC as your sort of asset management leadership 15 team if you felt comfortable and you felt like it was comprehensive 16 enough, you could do it at that that level. But that's really your decision or 17 you might find benefit from grabbing, maybe an additional staff member 19 for each of these agencies so that you have the extra leg work that you 19 need, somebody else who's really able to spend the time and the effort, 20 doing the data collection and understanding what's going on at the, you 21 know, at the staff level, combined with your TAC representative and then 22 together that's your committee and then you go to the Policy Committee to 23 get your decisions made. 24 25 Herrera: Thanks and I guess, if I could extend the question over to Tom, how, have 26 you thought about haw, kind of the implementation of this plan will go? 27 28 Murphy: I think what Denise alluded to; I think it would really start with this 29 Committee. This Committee historically has been who we've relied on for 30 the expertise. I don't really see, you know, expertise lying in different 31 areas, maybe supplemented by additional members of your agencies but 1 32 think informally this Committee has historically been that and I think 33 formalizing it and just making it move forward into a usable work product. 34 35 Herrera: Thanks. The reason that I'm kind of asking this question is because, as 36 you both know, the State is also working on an asset management plan 37 and I think you guys are ahead of the game in that and it's just some ideas 38 to think about how you're going to about implementing it, so maybe we 39 can see how that's going to work on a smaller scale and try to scale it up. 40 So let's not recreate the wheel right? 41 42 Westin: Right and as we have mentioned several times, whatever you do at this 43 level really does need to align directly and coordinate with whatever is 44 being done at the state level to make sure that you are in federal 45 compliance, if nothing else. 46 12 1 Valencia: Any additional comments or discussion? Mr. Murphy you want approval 2 of this, I assume. The staff recommendation? 3 4 Murphy: Yes, we're asking for recommendation to the Policy Committee. 5 6 Valencia: The Chair will entertain a motion for 5.3, the Transportation Asset and 7 Safety Management Plan. 8 9 Altamirano: So moved. 10 11 Gwynne: Second. 12 13 Valencia: It's moved and seconded, any further discussion amendments? If not, all 14 those in favor signify by saying aye. 15 16 All Approved. 17 18 Valencia: Thank you Denise. 19 20 Westin: Thank you and I do want to thank you. It's actually been a very enjoyable 21 project, so we appreciate the opportunity. 22 23 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 24 25 6.1 Arroyo Road/Nation Monument Impact Discussion 26 27 In light of the recent creation of the Organ Mountains National Monument, concern has 28 been expressed regarding potential impacts to the MPO Thoroughfare network. This item is 29 intended to discuss potential impacts to Arroyo Road, the closest MPO thoroughfare to the 30 national monument. 31 32 Valencia: Going to the next item, Item 6.1 Discussion Item, Arroyo Road National 33 Monument Impact discussion. Mr. Murphy. 34 35 Murphy: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. As many of you are 36 aware since we last met, there was announcement of the new national 37 monument designation for the Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National 38 Park. We looked at it and we were also specifically requested by the City 39 that we evaluate its impact on the existing MPO plans. Happy to say 40 there's only one, even close impact and that's, you'll see on the screen, 41 we got a snap shot out of the proposed or the functional classification 42 proposed Thoroughfare Plan, which shows that proposed Arroyo Road is 43 a proposed principal arterial that crosses the pre-existing BLM recreation 44 area and the monument boundaries are close to within that area. So the 45 question being was where does this proposed right-of-way cross over the 46 monument proper and what impacts would that have to our planning 13 I process. As you can see from the zoomed out version of the z Thoroughfare Plan, is that Arroyo Road does, has been planned to be a 3 very important connection for the region, connecting the Dona Interchange 4 to 1-25 in the West, eastward up the East Mesa, ultimately ending as a s principal arterial at Weisner Road, which is proposed to be a major north 6 south for the region in connectivity to the US 70 points further east. Also 7 with the major development known as Metro Verde, immediately east of s the proposed monument area, this facility could provide traffic relief to US 9 70, which is, we know is right now one of our most heavily traveled 10 thoroughfares. So, working with the staff from Senator Heinrich's office 11 and from Mr. Childress at the BLM, we've gotten some more information 12 about how those boundaries line up and this one, I appreciate this photo 13 of Mr. Childress'. The Arroyo Road, it connects into the Desert Wind 14 alignment as it ultimately goes onto the Dona Ana Interchange. With this 15 monument boundary, you see that the dirt road of Desert Wind Way is 16 outside the monument boundary and then it would connect here. You can 17 see the golf course in the upper right hand corner of that picture and then 18 here's a zoomed out view. We have that, so essentially we're here today 19 to discuss whether we want to move forward with doing any kind of 20 amendments to the Thoroughfare Plan or do we feel that the, or feel that 21 it's adequate as is. I think I'd like to open it up for discussion. zz 23 Valencia: What is the timeframe for the expected build out of Arroyo Road? I mean 1 24 know there have been many discussions over the years of the so called zs "loop' system in Las Cruces that is a component of it, also from Santa 26 Teresa up to the airport, is the discussion of the West Mesa Road, and 27 that. What are the estimates of that really becoming a roadway? za 29 Murphy: As with most of the proposed thoroughfares on our system plan, it's 30 mostly been a matter of the function of how development proceeds. 31 Development builds our thoroughfare system and then turns its over to the 32 respective governments for maintenance. This particular section of Arroyo 33 Road goes through federal land that we now know absolutely will not be 34 disposed of, so it will continue to cross public lands. There's really no 35 funding source lined up for that section of Arroyo Road now, and then 1 36 guess if I can kind of just reference the TIP amendment that you voted on 37 earlier this meeting, the paving of Baylor Canyon Road, that's something 38 that the federal lands recently, recently was able to, or came up with the 39 funding to pave that roadway even though it's been a widely used 40 roadway within our region for, I would say decades. So the short answer 41 is there's nothing programmed for it, so 1 cannot give a timeframe and I'll 42 defer to Mr. Childress if he knows more than I do. 43 44 Childress: As far as the buildup of the road, I haven't heard any, there's no 45 indications that there's movement in the direction, we haven't received a 46 right-of-way. But I would like to reaffirm the position that the road is 14 1 outside of the recent monument that was established through z proclamation and even if it wasn't there's language in the proclamation 3 that allows us upgrade or improve existing rights-of-ways. This is 4 probably viewed as a revised statute, 2477 route, the counties and cities 5 are allowed to improve prior to FLPMA, which was established in 1976. 6 So those are claims and we view those as valid claims until they're 7 adjudicated or we receive a FLPMA title 5 right-of-way applications, which s we're able to approve it through that process. So the road is, the edge of 9 the road on its north side, we view that as the boundary for the new 10 national monument. So the road can be improved to the south or it can 11 even be improved in the edge of the nation monument because of the 12 language in the proclamation. 13 14 Valencia: That was going to be my next question, is there anything prohibiting the 15 buildup? So that answers that. Any other questions? 16 17 Marmolejo: Where is it, more or less, is it that area in green above, in the Goathill 18 area, or where about are you talking about? 19 20 Murphy: If you can see the arrow, this is the Goathill itself. Currently Desert Wind 21 exists as an unpaved roadway serving some single family residential uses 22 and then it continues eastward. This appears to be the current trail head 23 parking lot for the BLM recreational area and it gets a little narrower as 24 you proceed eastward but it's still discernable, and it heads in towards the 25 Metro Verde and then you see the new golf course there on the upper 26 right hand side of that. 27 28 Valencia: You satisfied Luis? Any other questions? I guess my comment, as far as 29 moving forward on this, it's obvious that it isn't imminent, and it's not an 30 emergency, so I mean we have time to, you know, take it at another 31 meeting for further discussion. Is that what you're looking for? 32 33 Murphy: Mr. Chair, this was placed on the agenda at the request of the City. 34 They're currently working on a special assessment district for building of 35 roads in Metro Verde and I think that there was some concern that the 36 roadway would have to dead end at the monument boundaries and would 37 not be improved further, but viewing the information that I've learned since 38 we've placed this on the agenda today and I would view this as really a 39 non-issue and that it could be..... 40 41 Valencia: We've just been briefed and we have no objection of it moving forward on 42 the City level. 43 44 Murphy: We're not asking for any action, it's a discussion item, but if anybody 45 thought that it merited a closer look, we could continue to study that and 46 bring it back to further, to future meetings. But as of this point, if staff were 15 1 to give a recommendation, I think we would recommend that the 2 Thoroughfare Plan remain unchanged in this regard. 3 4 Gwynne: Mr. Childress I have a question. I believe BLM has, what, three to five 5 years to put together the operation and maintenance plan for the 6 monument. Would this be included as part of that plan because it's right 7 on the boundary? 8 9 Childress: Yes, we'll probably take about five years, we'll take about five years to 10 develop a land use management plan, which will make decisions on 11 designating routes that exist within the monument boundaries. We'll have 12 to sort of think about this a little bit in terms of where the road exists and 13 whether or not the road would need to be expanded into the boundary of 14 the monument versus on its edge. If it's on the edge we wouldn't, it 15 wouldn't depend on that land use planning process to make that decision. 16 But also, in saying that, I think that any plans to move forward with an 17 application, what we call a Title 5 right-of-way application from the City or 18 whomever, we could still move forward with processing that request. Very 19 similar to what we're doing on the Baylor Canyon and Dripping Springs, 20 we've got the FLAP funding to pave those two small segments of each of 21 those roads and our plans are to move forward even though they're in the 22 middle of the national monument. All the other routes out there that BLM 23 is responsible for, roads, trails, all of those remain open and of use until 24 we go through the land use planning process as well. 25 26 Gwynne: Thank you very much. 27 28 Valencia: What is the pleasure of the Committee? Mr. Murphy? 29 30 Murphy: I don't know if there are any members of the public that would like to 31 speak to this. 32 33 Valencia: We'll open it up for public discussion right now on Item 6.1. Do we have 34 members from the public that would care to make comment specifically on 35 this item? With none being seen, or I see some movement in the 36 audience. Just state your name for the record. 37 38 Parker: I'm Dara Parker, I'm with Senator Heinrich's office. I just wanted to, 39 actually before the Committee, thank Tom for his work with, it was then 40 Senator Bingaman's office, and working through that area and making 41 sure that we had the information from your Thoroughfare Plan to make 42 sure that everything was compatible as well and so I'm glad things are still 43 shaking out the way it was intended. But I did just want to thank everyone 44 for their work on that. 45 16 i Valencia: Thank you. Do we have any other member of the public that cares to 2 make comment on this item? Seeing none, Mr. Murphy. 3 4 Murphy: That concludes my presentation, and unless there is any compelling need, s 1 don't think that we'll look at this again unless it's requested separately. 6 7 Valencia: Thank you. Well I think the Committee concurs with you, so we'll allow it s to maintain its path. 9 10 7. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS 11 12 Valencia: We'll go ahead and close discussion on that, we'll move to Item 7, 13 Committee and Staff Comments. Any member of the Committee have any 14 announcement, comments, or anything with regard to the area that your 15 represent? I have one. The Regional Transit District is rolling out South 16 Valley service on Monday, on South Main Street, Highway 28, Chaparral, 17 and Sunland Park area. I want to thank the DOT, Mr. Loven, Jolene for 18 your efforts in assisting us with our signage, and we're looking forward to 19 providing public transit service in this region. Our schedules can be seen 20 on scrtd.org starting next Monday, and they can call 855-RTDBUSS. 21 22 Herrera: Mr. Chair? 23 24 Valencia: Yes, Ms. Herrera. 25 26 Herrera: I guess I'll follow up your comment about NM28, specifically. We had a 27 couple of public meetings over the last two weeks about that roadway. 28 We're going to be starting a chip seal project on it, on June 16, and the 29 reason that I wanted to bring it up for you specifically and then for Mr. 30 Altamirano, is because we're going to have a pilot car operation. 31 32 Valencia: A what car? 33 34 Herrera: A pilot car operation, we'll have lane drops, so it'll be one lane in each 35 direction, with a pilot car to lead traffic through, so expect, probably, 20-30 36 minute delays, in four mile section. 37 38 Valencia: And beginning on June... 39 40 Herrera: June 16. 41 42 Valencia: And how long is that going to run? 43 44 Herrera: So far the project manager has said that we should only be out there 45 about 13 or 14 days on the road. So it's going to go really quick, but just 46 be aware that for a couple of weeks we're going to have that going on and 17 1 the schedule right now is from 7:00 a.m. until about 5:00 p.m. They might 2 go longer to finish up on time. 3 4 Valencia: Can you provide me your contractor information so that I can have our 5 people to have a clearer understanding as how these detours or delays 6 would impact our service, so we that we can get a rider notice out to the 7 affected parties? s 9 Herrera: Sure. 10 11 Valencia: Thank you. 12 13 Herrera: Oh, I guess I should clarify that we're chip sealing the entire section of 14 roadway and we're starting at the Texas state line and working our way 15 into town. 16 17 Valencia: That's only heart attack number 57 this week for me so. 18 19 Herrera: Well. I thought you should know now instead of encountering it out on the 20 road. 21 22 Valencia: Which I totally appreciate. 23 24 Altamirano: Mr. Chair? 25 26 Valencia: Mr. Altamirano. 27 28 Altamirano: I have a question for Jolene. So then the starting date, June 16 and then 29 for possibly, let's say twenty days, which would put us into the end of July 30 and stuff, in looking at pilot car situation, where that is determined by the 31 amount of vehicles that going one way or the other, if we have to turn 32 around, you're not blocking off any of the access roads to it, correct? 1 33 mean, you're not going to close off any roads? 34 35 Herrera: Not that I'm aware of, no. That wasn't discussed at the public meetings 36 and I'm pretty sure the project manager would have brought it up 37 specifically. I don't think we're going to have any side streets closed at all, 38 it's just going to be leading people slowly through the construction. 39 40 Altamirano: So we can get in and out still without any particular problem? Okay, thank 41 you. 42 43 Herrera: I can get you information on the contractor as well. Bridget Spedalieri, you 44 both know her, she's coordinating. 45 18 1 Altamirano: Right, I missed it, I was out of town. They had the public hearing, but. 2 Thank you. 3 a Valencia: Any other members of the Committee have any comments? s 6 Knopp: Just a reminder, we don't meet in July, right? 7 8 Murphy: That's correct. 9 10 Valencia: Mr. Murphy, any, you or your staff have comments? 11 12 Murphy: Mr. Knopp got my only one. 13 14 Valencia: Then I'll close committee and staff comments, unless I see another hand. 15 16 8. PUBLIC COMMENT — No public comment 17 18 Valencia: With that we'll go to public comments, a second time during the course of 19 the meeting that we allow any member of the general public to make 20 comment. Does any member of the general public care to speak on any 21 issue that was not on today's agenda? If not, we'll close public comment. 22 And that brings us to adjournment. 23 24 9. ADJOURNMENT 2s 26 Valencia: The Chair will take a motion to adjourn. 27 28 Walke: Mr. Chair I do have a question. In my packet there was another agenda 29 item which was part of the TIP program modifications. Was that included 30 in our vote on the TIP modifications? 31 32 Valencia: Under 5.1? 33 34 Walke: It's called agenda Item 7.0, and it has to do with an increase in 35 apportionment in Roadrunner Transit. 36 37 Murphy: Mr. Chair, Mr. Walke, I apologize that I didn't make that clear, that I didn't 38 explain that under staff comments. These are TIP administrative 39 modifications that the agencies are allowed to process without approval ao from the Board. They happen rather frequently and we've been providing 41 them in your packets as informational items. 42 43 Walke: So this is just for information? na 19 1 Murphy: Right, yeah, and we didn't think that it rose to the level of discussion 2 unless there's a specific question but we wanted you to have the 3 information. a s Walks: Thank you. 6 7 Valencia: No other comments, Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. s 9 Mike Bartholomew motioned to adjourn. 10 11 Greg Walke seconds the motion. 12 13 All approved. 14 is Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 16 17 18 I 19 Chair 20