Loading...
11-08-2000 I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 POLICY COMMITTEE (PC) MEETING 3 Wednesday,November 8, 2000 4 Las Cruces City Council Chambers 5 6 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Policy Committee (PC) meeting held on Wednesday, 7 November 8, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 N. Church Street, 8 Las Cruces,NM. 9 10 Members Present: Chairman Tommy Tomlin 11 Councillor John Haltom 12 Commissioner Joseph Cervantes 13 Trustee Nora Barraza 14 Commissioner Ken Miyagishima 15 16 Members Absent: Trustee Carlos Castaneda 17 Councillor Steven Trowbridge 18 Mayor Michael Cadena 19 Commissioner Carlos Garza 20 21 Staff Present: David Carpenter(Las Cruces MPO) 22 Tim McAllister(Las Cruces MPO) 23 Lisa Fuselier(Las Cruces MPO) 24 25 Others Present: Dale Kemp (Interim Transit Director) 26 Shirley Armstrong 27 Mike Armstrong 28 29 30 I. CALL TO ORDER 31 32 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomlin at 7:05 p.m. 33 34 Tomlin: This is the November 8, 2000 meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy 35 Committee. 36 37 38 II. REVIEW OF MINUTES 39 40 Tomlin: We have the first item of business as a review of the minutes from the September 13, 41 2000 meeting. Entertain a motion for acceptance of the minutes. 42 43 Haltom: So moved. I wasn't here but I guess it's alright. 1 xk 4 I Barazza: Second. 2 3 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded for acceptance of the minutes. Any discussion? Seeing 4 none, all those in favor of adopting the minutes as submitted signify by saying "Aye." 5 6 All: Aye. 7 8 Tomlin: All those oppose, "Nay". Motion carries unanimously. 9 10 11 III. NEW BUSINESS/ACTION 12 13 A. Resolution No. 00-010: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 14 Planning Organization's Policy Statement for the placement of bicycle and 15 pedestrian facilities. 16 17 Tomlin: Under"New Business" we have Resolution No. 00-010, it's a resolution adopting the 18 Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Statement for the placement of bicycle 19 and pedestrian facilities. 20 21 Haltom: Move approval Mr. Chairman. 22 23 Cervantes: Second. 24 25 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded for approval. David. 26 27 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good evening. Before you tonight is a 28 policy statement, it is intended to be a stand alone policy statement that encourages the placement 29 of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on projects constructed with the MPO. This policy is the result 30 of the US Highway Department, US Department of Transportation's effort in 1999 under the 31 TEA 21 legislation that encourages the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The US 32 DOT adopted their policy language in I believe January of this year after much work with the 33 Federal Highway staff and members of the American Association of State Highway and 34 Transportation Officials. The US Department of Transportation have asked the States and local 35 governments, including the MPO's, to adopt a similar policy. Included within your packet was a 36 copy of the US DOT's policy with it's exact language. This policy language was reviewed by the 37 MPO's BFAC at their October 17, 2000 meeting in which they made minor modifications and 38 made a recommendation for adoption by the Policy Committee. When MPO staff met with the 39 Policy Committee last, in September,we had indicated we were going to make it as part of the 40 MPO's Transportation Plan and make it an amendment. In discussing with the BFAC and among 41 staff,we determined it would best, it be a stand alone policy. Contained within your packet we 42 made a copy of the Transportation Plan language that relates to a goal of the bicycle facilities 43 within the plan: "Advanced use of bicycles as a viable mode transportation within the MPO area 2 I as well as encouraging bicycle facilities to be incorporated into all transportation projects unless 2 exceptional circumstances existed." When we developed with the BFAC, the policy language, 3 this policy language, the first page makes reference to what those extreme or exceptional 4 circumstances are. They are listed under Item A, numbers 1, 2, and 3. First item A-1 relates to 5 where bicyclists and pedestrians would be prohibited by law from using the roadway. Number 2 6 is where the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to 7 the need or probable use and number 3 is where the sparsity of the population or other factors 8 indicate an absence for need. An example of that is item number three on the proposed bridge 9 over US Highway 70 at the interchange with I-25 because that is such a high bridge, the State 10 Highway Department did not include a bicycle facility as part of that. They did consider it, but 11 because of the extreme need and the changes, they did not include it and that's where this 12 document is a prime example of where it would be used. The difference between the US DOT's 13 language and ours is the US DOT uses the word "shall" and in most of the policy documents that 14 the MPO has adopted over the years, we have not use the word "shall." We have made it optional 15 and we have used the word "may" or "should" and that is continued in the Exhibit A as an 16 attachment to the resolution. That is all staff has,we will be happy to answer any question that 17 you may have. We do know that there are members of the public that would like to speak on this 18 issue. 19 20 Tomlin: Okay, members of the committee have any comments? 21 22 Cervantes: I have a couple Mr. Chairman. 23 24 Tomlin: Beg your pardon. 25 26 Cervantes: I have a couple. 27 28 Tomlin: Okay, go ahead Commissioner. 29 30 Cervantes: Among the three examples that you gave us where there might be some other counter 31 (inaudible), I guess interest from it in establishing the bike lanes. There's the disproportionate 32 cost factor, I guess, and in looking through the minutes it appears there was some debate about 33 disproportionate cost being defined as ten percent as opposed to twenty percent. Could you 34 explain how that came about and what the recommendations were with regard to that debate. 35 36 Carpenter: The issues were related to, the Federal Policy says twenty percent. We were having 37 discussions and were having concerns at the MPO staff level that on some of our bigger projects, 38 twenty percent would be enormous amount. If you look at US Highway 70 project, in its 39 entirety,the project is 85 million dollars. If you take twenty percent, that's a little over 17 million 40 dollars for bicycle and pedestrian facilities where, as ten percent is 8.5 million dollars which by 41 some standards, would be considered highly disproportionate. Though it may be justified it could 42 be considered by some to be disproportionate. That's when the MPO staff in discussing it with 43 the BFAC made that recommendation that we lower the percentage. Not that the MPO staff 3 i 1 could live with the higher percentage, we could, but that was one of our concerns is because the 2 projects that the MPO is seeing now and the local governments are seeing now is in order for 3 these projects to get done,we're talking about millions upon millions of dollars and it's extremely 4 high. Not that the bicycle facilities are not going to be used, it's just that the expense associated 5 with them, it would be very hard for us to spend 8.5 million dollars on a bike and pedestrian 6 facilities for all of US Highway 70. 7 8 Cervantes: Why is that different then what the standard that was adopted nationally? 9 10 Carpenter: Because there's different expenses that we don't know the justification or the rational 11 behind the US DOT's policy. 12 13 Cervantes: Then the only other question I had was the third example given where bicycle and 14 pedestrian ways may not be established or would be where there's a sparsity of population and 15 I'm not sure whether there's any where in here that we can find what sparsity of population is. I 16 mean, how are we going to establish whether a bike lane is or is not warranted and say it's 17 because of sparsity of population. 18 19 Carpenter: I doubt that we would ever use in the MPO boundaries sparsity of population as a 20 scenario. I don't know that we would. There's always a possibility. The other thing that we 21 might determine as part of our analysis in the development of these projects is that we can do a 22 better facility on an adjacent roadway or similar roadway and it might not be justified because 23 there is one in close proximity that's parallel and achieves the same goal. I don't know that we 24 have gone that in-depth, that far and we found it. We essentially mimicked the Federal Policy 25 with the exception of the ten percent rule and Item E on the last page which we added is "The 26 encouragement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities does not guarantee that such a facility will be 27 established within each project. The policy statement encourages that facilities should be 28 considered in new and reconstruction projects within the urbanized area." One of the things that 29 the MPO has to keep in mind is the local governments do have the say, especially in dealing with 30 the projects, if the local government does not want to implement such a facility for whatever 31 reason, they feel it's unsafe or unwarranted not just beyond these exceptional circumstances,that 32 is their option and we're not going to push that issue onto the, from the MPO onto the local 33 governments. 34 35 Cervantes: Thank you Mr. Chairman. 36 37 Tomlin: Anyone else from the Policy Committee? Members of the public? Yes ma'am. Could 38 you please come up and use the microphone and give us your name for the record please. 39 40 Mrs. Armstrong: Okay,my name is Shirley Armstrong, I think you can hear me okay without 41 that. I am a member of the Mesilla Valley Bicycle Coalition and I'm a member of the Bike and 42 Chowder Club of Las Cruces which has about fifty members who ride their bicycles three times a 43 week in the entire City of Las Cruces. I was asked to come here tonight by Trina Witter who has 4 i I been acting on the Mesilla Valley Bicycle Commission. She's in Santa Fe today for a meeting and 2 was unable to be here but she asked me to share with you some of her concerns and my husband 3 Michael is here with me and after reading the e-mail that she sent me and I must admit I didn't get 4 it until this afternoon and so I haven't had much chance to read over it. I agree with many of the 5 points and I'm sure that most of the bicyclists in our community would also have some questions 6 about some of these things. The two main issues that Trina was concerned about were first of all 7 it was her understanding that the bicycle amendment that was recommended, it's taken from the 8 guidelines of the Department of Transportation, guidelines for bicyclists and pedestrians. In a 9 couple of previous MPO meetings she says it's in the minutes that, that amendment will or that 10 document will be amended as part of the comprehensive transportation plan, as opposed to being 11 a stand alone document and her concern was that a stand alone document would not need to be 12 considered as part of, you know, it's sort of like well this is a good idea but unless it's part of the 13 comprehensive transportation plan she feels it would be severely watered down. Now I would 14 like to get your feedback about that. The second issue is something David was just talking about 15 and those are issues of wording the, from the original document as proposed by the Department 16 of Transportation and the way it is now sitting on your desk and there were some specific things 17 including that last one that David just mentioned, Section E was not at all apart of the federal 18 guidelines and I think I read it as and I think Trina probably was wanting me to say this, that it is 19 sort of a disclaimer of all of the above is sort of what it sounds like, the encouragement of bicycle 20 and pedestrian facilities does not guarantee that such facilities will be established within the 21 project. I think that's implicit in the wording of the previous parts and this is just sort of an out 22 that can be referred back to is the way I read that so I think Mesilla Valley Bicycle Coalition 23 would recommend the non-inclusion of that section, Section E. As far as interchanges which is 24 under D-2, we just would like to point out that it's awfully hard when you've got bicycle paths 25 going down a street and you want to get from point A to point B and all of a sudden you come to 26 an interchange which has a lot of traffic in the first place, it's dangerous for cars, it's dangerous 27 for pedestrians and all of a sudden you're out there on a bicycle or on foot and what for heaven 28 sakes do you do. Our bicycle group, is as you can see, composed of not young people all though 29 we personally have four cars, we drive the streets frequently, I see bicycles of all ages, all walks of 30 life, I see more bicycles every year I live in Las Cruces, I've been here eight years now and I just 31 am concerned with this, is an ongoing problem and it's a ongoing situation, it can be a big 32 advantage to our city to have a comprehensive bicycle plan and I don't want to go through all of 33 the details that Trina suggested but there are some definite issues with wording that she asked me 34 to share. So I don't know if you want me to go through each one individually, it would not take 35 very long. 36 37 Tomlin: What's the wishes of the committee? One of the questions I would have before you do 38 that, might help us decide what we want to do. We have this document whether it's stand alone 39 as it is here or whether it's part of the overall transportation plan, how binding is it on the 40 governmental bodies here on Dona Ana County, Mesilla, and the City of Las Cruces to make sure 41 that each highway project includes this planning and this consideration? In other words, if the 42 City Council decided to waive this requirement in a project early on in it's planning stages does 43 that eliminate the, and is that a problem? 5 I Carpenter: No sir. Mr. Chairman,members of the committee, in a letter that was forwarded by 2 the New Mexico Division of the Federal Highway Administration to Peter Rahn, the Secretary of 3 the New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department. In this statement it says "the FHWA 4 encourages the state, local governments,professional organizations, other governing agencies in 5 communities to formally adopt this policy." It is not a mandate from the US Department of 6 Transportation, it is not part of the code or federal regulations. We would like to say that all of 7 the governmental agencies that are supporting members of the MPO would consider this a policy 8 for adoption, but there is no requirement that they do so. There is no difference between it being 9 a stand alone document or being fully incorporated into the MPO Transportation Plan either. We 10 rely on numerous documents that the MPO has adopted that are not part of the Transportation 11 Plan, the Interstate Highway Access Study, the US 70 Reliever Route Study. We still reference 12 those on many occasions and we're just now seeing projects that were recommended as part of 13 those stand alone studies to be implemented. We are going to be looking at other documents that 14 we're going to be forwarding to you that are stand alone in the future that would be a 15 continuation and further the overall MPO efforts. 16 17 Tomlin: Cause I think one of the things with Item E that you've alluded to in policy together, I 18 almost consider that "E" as a little notice putting you on notice. I think a lot of people have a 19 tendency to be lulled by the adoption of these policies and these planning statements. It's just like 20 a comprehensive plan for the development of the city, it is a guideline, it does not sit, in long we 21 would like to think that "well if we get that adopted then we can kick back and we don't have to 22 worry about reviewing it and monitoring it," I think the bicycling community in Las Cruces and 23 Dona Ana County, Mesilla has to maintain an active role in the review of any roadway project 24 that's being considered in the community to make sure that the elected officials wherever they are 25 and even with the State Highway Department, is considering a bicycle facility and giving them do 26 consideration. 27 28 Mrs. Armstrong: We do that. 29 30 Tomlin: I understand that, but even with talking with Trina on several occasions personally, you 31 know, I have to point out, I wanted to point out to her and I pointed out to her many times that 32 you have to be careful that you don't think that this is going to solve your problems and you're 33 able to walk away from it. 34 35 Mrs. Armstrong: No, we also just don't want them watered down and sort of pushed to the side 36 as a side issue that's not considered as part of the comprehensive transportation plan and I guess I 37 would have a question if I'm allowed to ask one and that is why did you decide to put it as a stand 38 alone document and opposed to an amendment to the comprehensive transportation plan which it 39 was our understanding it was going to be? 40 41 Tomlin: David, do you want to answer? 42 43 6 I Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, members of the public, staff made that 2 decision in discussing the fact that we are just, we had just passed the MPOs Transportation Plan, 3 we were out to print, we just got it printed last week and there was also the fact that we've 4 adopted other things and it's easier for us to adopt as an MPO an amendment or a stand alone 5 document then it is for us to the coordinated public involvement process that requires for us to 6 adopt the Transportation Plan. It was an oversite on our part, if the Policy Committee desires the 7 staff to make it a part of the MPO Transportation Plan,we will do so. We are flexible on either 8 way. We can make it a stand alone document or we can incorporate it into the Transportation 9 Plan. 10 11 Tomlin: Or do both. 12 13 Carpenter: Or do both. When we developed the transportation plan this year, there was the issue 14 that was raised by the bicycling community about the exceptional circumstances and when the 15 MPO Policy Committee considered it in June of this year, the plan language and is referenced in 16 your document, the goal of the bicycling community would have said "advanced use of bicycles as 17 a viable mode of transportation within the Las Cruces MPO and then as area as well as encourage 18 bicycling facilities to be incorporated into all transportation projects." That would have been the 19 end of the sentence. We knew that the staff was working with the BFAC in light of this federal 20 policy and Ms. Witter asked for the "unless exceptional circumstances exist" and we added that as 21 an amendment at the time of the adoption of the MPO Transportation Plan. We added the words 22 "unless exceptional circumstances exist" in light of this policy. Staff is willing to accept it either 23 way at the direction, this is just a little easier for us to handle administratively. And there are 24 several documents that we have that are stand alone but staff is also willing to incorporate it into 25 the Transportation Plan. Staff is also willing to look at other issues within the document if it were 26 to remain stand alone as well. We can change the percentage back,we can eliminate Item E. 27 28 Tomlin: And that is something that we the Policy Committee needs to decide what we want to do 29 and how we want to direct staff to deal with that. I personally have no problem with, (inaudible) 30 may be problematic of amending the plan to include this statement. I also think that it's good to 31 have this statement separate because at least if you're going to change that and drop it, some 32 future MPO, then they're going to have to do both of those things and I think that provides kind 33 of a buffer , instead of getting pushed aside even if the plan were some how to be redrafted then 34 this would be eliminated then you would have the stand alone policy. If they decided to take the 35 stand alone policy and eliminate that it might still be part of the plan so it does not hurt to have it 36 in both places, I think that's probably a good idea. Again, I think that if the bicycling community 37 is concerned about Item E for example, eliminated it in my opinion doesn't do anything. 38 39 Mrs. Armstrong: That quite doesn't answer my question. 40 41 Tomlin: It makes them feel better but it doesn't do anything for us because when push comes to 42 shove and each individual governmental entity here on the MPO decides to not include a bicycle 43 facility then that's their choice even though this policy and it's in the plan, they still have the 7 I option of not doing it once it's all considered. The thing that they have to do is just look at it, 2 that's a requirement, you have to look at it and then you can decide and then that's when it 3 becomes very, very important that the community members that are interested in promoting bike 4 facilities get out there and try to convince the governmental bodies that are considering it, that it 5 is worth the extra money and if we have the extra money. I mean, that's always a big factor 6 anymore in the cost of doing these things is, is it warranted given the need. As a bicyclist, I 7 would like to have them everywhere, but as a City Councillor I realize that there are limitations in 8 funding that prohibit their inclusion in some projects. That's unfortunate but you know, that's life 9 from top to bottom no matter what you're doing. Commissioner. 10 11 Cervantes: Mr. Chairman, as lawyers we love to use the same words to say the same thing several 12 different times, but I agree with your analysis of E, I don't think it does anything new. I have a 13 motion that we amend the Resolution No. 00-010 to eliminate the subparagraph E. 14 15 Miyagishima: Second. 16 17 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded to eliminate paragraph E from the Resolution. 18 Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of elimination signify by saying "Aye." 19 20 All: "Aye." 21 22 Tomlin: Opposed "Nay." Motion carries unanimously. We will eliminate Item E. 23 24 Cervantes: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion that we amend the MPO Transportation Plan to 25 include Resolution 00-010. 26 27 Miyagishima: Second. 28 29 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded to amend the plan. Whether we have to reprint it or add 30 an addendum on the back end of it and staple it, I think we can. 31 32 Carpenter: Staffs question for you is would it be as an addendum as part of your motion like 33 creating an additional appendix or do you want staff to incorporate it into the body of the text 34 because staff is not prepared to do that tonight. We can make it as an appendix easily. 35 36 Tomlin: I understand that. What we have to do is that we have to be, we have to recognize that 37 you have already printed it. 38 39 Carpenter: Printing, it's not an additional problem, it's the fact that staff is not prepared to 40 incorporate it into the MPO Transportation Plan tonight. We have not taken this language and 41 seen where it would fit best. 42 43 8 , s I Tomlin: I understand that,but what we want to do is I think, the motion is to include it in there 2 and if you have to have time in order to redo it and work it in,that's fine but we want it in there 3 somewhere and until that is done, then you can put it on as an appendix till you have a chance to 4 do that. 5 6 Haltom: And I guess a question also is, would that necessitate a system of public hearings in 7 addition to what you've already had? 8 9 Carpenter: Staff will have to look at that again. Generally there is a, I know there's a forty-five 10 day public comment period on actually how we receive public comment,but we would most likely 11 have to have at least one public hearing and it could be before this body as part of your regular 12 public hearings when you have it. I think that's sufficient. 13 14 Tomlin: Cause I think when we go back and if we stop and think about the and again I know that 15 it would have been appropriate to amend it at the time it was on the table where it may not be 16 without the public hearing at this point in time but it was discussed at the meeting where we went 17 ahead but we needed to adopt that and the instruction to staff was "we're going to adopt it, go 18 ahead and review this to bring it back" because if we needed to,we would amend the plan in 19 order to incorporate this because we couldn't stop the process because of the things that were 20 ongoing at this point in time, so if that's alright with your amendment we'll attach it and instruct 21 staff to do whatever is necessary to have it incorporated into the text of the plan at the 22 appropriate location. 23 24 Haltom: Okay. 25 26 Tomlin: Any other discussion on the amendment? 27 28 Cervantes: Amendment to the amendment. 29 30 Tomlin: You want to amend the amendment? 31 32 Cervantes: You've already done so. 33 34 Tomlin: Okay. Well, is that alright with everybody? 35 36 Haltom: Yes, the amended. 37 38 Tomlin: Okay, amended, amended, okay. Alright, all those in favor of the amendment signify by 39 saying "Aye." 40 41 All: "Aye." 42 43 9 y I Tomlin: All those oppose "Nay." Let the record show that the motion passed unanimously. So 2 we'll get that done and it'll be awhile and public hearing. 3 4 Haltom: Were there other things. 5 6 Tomlin: Yes sir. 7 8 Mrs. Armstrong: I would just like to say two more things. 9 10 Tomlin: We need to get you back to the microphone over there. 11 12 Mrs. Armstrong: Just quickly two more things. There were changes that Trina had suggested, 13 changes and I'm not, you know, I just got this today. I'm not sure were the original one came 14 from, I'm not sure who made the changes but she said that for example in B, Section B where it 15 says "In rural areas, it is encouraged that paved shoulders should be, it is encouraged that paved 16 shoulders be included on roadways used by more than 1,000 vehicles per day" and so on. She 17 said the original document instead of saying that said "paved shoulders should be included in all 18 construction, all new construction and reconstruction projects on roadways." Each one, well not 19 each one, there were maybe five or six of the different sections where the wording had been 20 changed substantially enough that she was concerned about at although I really don't want to go 21 over all of that tonight, I just want you to be aware that, that the federal guidelines were a little 22 more strongly worded than the way they are worded here and the second thing I just wanted to 23 say, I heard you talking about obtaining federal loans and this not being a requirement,just as an 24 interested citizen, it seems that it might be a carreat when going out for future federal dollars or 25 city, county, or state road projects to say "oh and by the way, we've included your federal 26 recommendations in pedestrian and bicycle use." You know,we've done this and we've done this 27 and we're really good guys, therefore justify. Okay, thank you very much. 28 29 Tomlin: Okay, yes sir. 30 31 Mr. Armstrong: This is bicycle day I guess. I'm Mike Armstrong and I just had a few quick 32 comments I wanted to make. This is just generally about bicycling and our approach toward what 33 we'd like to see people understand about bicycling. In order to make bicycling a viable mode of 34 transportation, you really have to be able to use the city streets one way or another not necessarily 35 all of them,but basically a network of streets so that you could get all over town and all around in 36 different places. It means being able to use those and to do that safely it helps greatly if there are 37 lines,white lines along the side of the street and the bicycle signs that say "Share the road" which 38 I've noticed have been put up in quite a few places now in the last say, year or two but a 39 continuing effort in that direction would really be useful. Also then as an adult recreational 40 bicycle rider, I'd like to make a comment about the bike paths and our approach or our look, our 41 view of bike paths or what are called more commonly the multi-use paths, I think in your 42 terminology. The multi-use paths are great for people to jog on, there good for people to walk 43 on, they're wonderful for women to push strollers on and that sort of things, even maybe roller 10 I blading is, now that's getting a little farther out of the usability of these things because roller 2 bladers go so fast. Some do anyway. But for bicyclers,we consider a bicycle ride from a 3 recreational point of view, any where from 30 to 60 miles as a reasonable ride. So a three mile 4 bike path or multi-use path which people say "well gee, that's really great," you know,we would 5 cover that in about two, three minutes. No, not three minutes,that be 60 miles an hour. We 6 would cover that in say 10 minutes and you know, you'd have to go to get a 60 mile ride, it's just 7 not practical so it doesn't do anything for an adult recreational rider. The other difference is the 8 speed. The people that are on there using multi-use paths for walking are maybe going two, three 9 miles an hour,we're going something 20 to 30 miles an hour, so it's dangerous. It's not safe for 10 us and then the slow use to be on the paths at the same time, so these multi-use paths are virtually 11 useless for recreational bicycle riders. What we are interested in there would be some streets that 12 we can either use for transportation purposes that would get you around town but would also get 13 you out of town and then you get on the highways and you're able to travel at higher speeds and 14 sometimes that a group of twenty people going at 20 miles an hour. Just want to be sure to 15 explain that to you and then the finally thing is the bike lanes to put these white lines and signs up 16 is relatively inexpensive compared to building a bike path or a multi-use path. Thank you. 17 18 Tomlin: I think that we've addressed all of those issues at least in the City and in the MPO in 19 looking at designs and would agree with you, I think that in our designs that if possible, you don't 20 share a bike path with roller bladers, men pushing baby carriages, I'm going to get you out of 21 trouble Mr. Armstrong, and other options like that. I think that we recognize, I think more 22 importantly the staff and the engineering people recognize that and even though we use them and 23 we term them as multi-use facilities because we still have training wheels on bicycles and little 24 kids on bicycles and therefore we don't want to exclude bicycles because by excluding bicyclist 25 then you've pushed them off. 26 27 Mr. Armstrong: That's right and I tried to make a point of adult recreation bicycling instead 28 because for little kids, yes that's ... 29 30 Tomlin: And as a recreational bicyclist I admire your 30 to 60 mile things as a piece of cake 31 because my butt won't last that long on my bicycle seat. 32 33 Mrs. Armstrong: You work up to it. 34 35 Tomlin: I've been riding my bike for five years and I'm still not up to it. Twenty miles is about all 36 I can take. 37 38 Mr. Armstrong: Well,we've got a lot of time, so we spend it riding. Thank you. 39 40 Tomlin: But we appreciate your comments and again I think that we have looked favorable on 41 trying to improve the situation for cycling in Las Cruces in a reasonable manner and I think this 42 policy does that. It may not go as far as the avid bicyclist would like, the one that actually does 43 get out there and ride their bike to work,back from work, to pick up groceries, and do all of 11 t I those other things. I think that's probably more the exception to the rule at least in my experience 2 and observation because while some of us ride our bicycles to some places as a form of 3 transportation we don't, we're not as committed as others are. So I think this is a good policy, I 4 think this is a good approach, we've worked with the BFAC and staff has and with other people 5 that aren't part of those organizations to try to come up with a reasonable approach. It does not 6 mean that we can't modify it as we go along and find that there are some things that we need to 7 change and want to do or not doing correctly as a result of having this experience and so I'm 8 ready personally to vote and to approve this,but again to keep an open mind and an open 9 dialogue with the community members who are interested in cycling and that kind of thing to 10 move forward. 11 12 Cervantes: I move approval of the resolution as amended. 13 14 Haltom: Second. 15 16 Tomlin: Alright, any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." 17 18 All: "Aye." 19 20 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Let the record indicate that the Resolution 00-010 passes 21 unanimously. 22 23 B. Resolution No. 00-011: A resolution supporting the issuance of a contract for 24 the development of a Short Range Transit/Public Transportation Plan for the 25 Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization and the City of Las Cruces. 26 27 Tomlin: The next item is Resolution No. 00-011, it is a resolution supporting the issuance of a 28 contract for the development of a Short Range Transit/Public Transportation Plan for the Las 29 Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization and the City of Las Cruces. 30 31 Haltom: Move approval Mr. Chairman. 32 33 Cervantes: Second. 34 35 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded for approval of this item,David. 36 37 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Under the MPO's Organization in which it 38 was established through the City of Las Cruces as it's administrative agent with the State 39 Highway Department. Any time we expend the MPO's funds for the issuance to a sub-contractor 40 to do work on behalf of the MPO, we're required to have the City's approval of that contract but 41 we're also required to have the MPO's endorsement of that resolution, endorsing resolutions for 42 the issuance of that contract. What MPO staff has done in cooperation with the Transit 43 Department has gone out for a Request for Proposals and we've received proposals from five 12 1, `i I I consultants for the issuance for the development of a Short Range Transit/Public Transportation 2 Plan for the City of Las Cruces Transit Department. In 1986, the Transit Department was formed 3 by the City of Las Cruces. In 1988, a Short Range Transit Plan was developed at that time, that 4 was the last time it was developed. We've taken MPO funds in order to develop a Short Range 5 Transit Plan/Public Transportation Plan for the Transit Department and for the MPO. Under the 6 MPOs Transportation Plan, we identified in the public transportation section, two parts. The 7 development, the need for development of a Short Range Transit Plan within the immediate five 8 year period. We also included a Long Range Public Transportation, Transit Plan which would 9 look at the years beyond five years to probably ten and fifteen years, even up to twenty. This is 10 the first item under that issue and so we're asking for your support by issuing this resolution so 11 we can award this contract. This successful contractor as it is proposed now for consideration by 12 the City Council for the City of Las Cruces is Arthur N. Gaudet & Associates of Carrollton, 13 Texas,which is a suburb of Dallas. Mr. Gaudet's speciality is scheduling but his overall 14 performance,he's got 31 years of history in public transportation planning, he's worked both in 15 the transit field and in the consulting field. He was the most successful out of five candidates, he 16 took the opportunity to come to Las Cruces and ride our bus system for a day and a half, unlike 17 any of the other consultants that submitted their contract and that's where we are. We're asking 18 for your support. 19 20 Cervantes: Mr. Chairman. 21 22 Tomlin: Yes. 23 24 Cervantes: I have a question real quick. What is the source of the funding? 25 26 Carpenter: The source of the funding is State Highway funds primarily from the Federal Transit 27 Administration, 5303 Planning funds which are directly each year to the MPO. 28 29 Cervantes: Would the scope of the plan that's proposal the short term or the long term include 30 study throughout the MPO area or is it limited to the existing transit service area? 31 32 Carpenter: Under the Short Range Transit Plan right now, we are looking to solve the problems 33 with the existing transit and public transportation system as it exists including the rural transit 34 service that is proposed to start in December with the County. So the 5311 funds that are being 35 used there. We're looking at the overall improvement to the existing system as it is today. 36 37 Cervantes: Is there any reason,why the consultant that would be engaged in this contract could 38 not be asked to study the same to the extent of the MPO area? 39 40 Carpenter: Yes, we don't have the funding to the project. We have only enough funding to look 41 at the entire existing system. 42 43 13 t ,r I Tomlin: You mentioned that this is money that's made available to the MPO but isn't it in fact 2 made to the City Transit Department? 3 4 Carpenter: Actually, we've changed that. It is made to the MPO each year. 5 6 Tomlin: Directly to the MPO. 7 8 Carpenter: It is to the MPO but this is one of the issues that we wanted to look at first before we 9 go into long range as far as the expansion of the transit system and into the MPO areas and how 10 do we achieve that goal. 11 12 Tomlin: Okay, you mentioned that the City Council would then have to approve this. 13 14 Carpenter: Right, they would have to actually approve and award the contract because they are 15 the administrative agent for the MPO. The money goes to the City of Las Cruces. 16 17 Tomlin: Yeah,we're the fiscal agent ... 18 19 Carpenter: As the fiscal agent. 20 21 Tomlin: ... for the MPO. 22 23 Cervantes: Mr. Chairman, I guess my, your answer to my question was that the monies not 24 available to say it's throughout the MPO area. What efforts did you all make to try and find out 25 whether that can be done for the same budget? Did you ask the consultant what additional money 26 it would cost to do that to the area? I just feel that because the monies being appropriated from 27 the MPO that they should be some consideration of Mesilla and the County residents not just 28 residents of the City for the expenditures of these monies. I understand that the City is within the 29 MPO and that might be appropriate,but before we rule that out, I'd like to know that we've 30 exhausted the opportunity to either take this opportunity of the plan to look at the impact 31 throughout the MPO area. 32 33 Tomlin: I can't remember when at one of the other meetings that we've had here, the Policy 34 Committee whether in discussing this and we've discussed it before of whether it was a consensus 35 of the committee to approach it this way. I'm not sure whether(inaudible) doesn't give that 36 background information in the packets so it wouldn't be clear unless and I don't remember, I 37 don't know if anybody else does or not. 38 39 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, to try to shed a little more light into it. We 40 did not specifically exclude it but we did not specifically ask your question Commission Cervantes 41 but no we did not do that. We have a total budget $35,000 for the project. The contract is 42 approximately$31,000 and there is the potential that we can use the additional $4,000, I don't 43 know that it will actually get us where we're going but we're going to look at the overall existing 14 4 .4 a 1 transit/public transportation system which includes not only the fixed route bus service that you 2 see on the city streets everyday, it also includes the dial-a-ride service, the service that is provided 3 between an agreement between the City of Las Cruces and NMSU for it's Aggie shuttle,the 4 service that is provided to the Village of Tortugus in cooperation with the County, and the 5311 5 funding that has just been implemented or will be implemented relatively soon to serve the 6 southern end of County. It also includes the welfare-to-work component that the Transit 7 Department also has which it also covers part of the County and the City and the Town of Mesilla 8 and so forth. 9 10 Cervantes: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that staff in approving this resolution be asked to 11 discuss, I think what everyone understands my agenda is on behalf of the County residents and the 12 residents of Mesilla and the other members of the MPO in working with a consultant whether it's 13 an additional $4,000 or maybe he has to cut some corners on some of the other areas he's perhaps 14 projected some of the expenditure of his time or money, but I'd ask this boards consideration to 15 keep in mind that the MPO is more than just the City residents, it's the County and Mesilla 16 residents and some consideration for this plan into Mesilla or into the County I think would be 17 appropriate. 18 19 Barraza: Mr. Chairman. 20 21 Tomlin: Yes. 22 23 Barraza: I think at a previous meeting we had discussed this and I thought we hadn't said to 24 include the Town of Mesilla and Dona Ana and other little small surrounding areas. 25 26 Tomlin: Well, when we did the rural transportation study that established the southern route that 27 was approved by the majority of the MPO. I mean, that's what we did with that but I think that 28 the approach that would be best to take care would be to have the consultant to look at what it 29 would cost us to include the scope of work that Commissioner Cervantes talked about and we've 30 got $4,000 there and if it's more than that then I think what we have to do is look at what funding 31 we could use to supplement that and it may be funding from the County if you're interested in 32 expanding that into the County area of the MPO, whether we want to split it three ways in order 33 to try to get that done at this point in time. I don't know whether it's necessary based on what 34 we're trying to do, to do that but I have no problem with that but I would suggest that we 35 approve the resolution, instruct staff to visit with the consultant to see if we can expand it to the 36 entire MPO boundary area and if we can include that what it would cost and if$4,000 doesn't 37 cover it then it would be up to us and we may not do it at an MPO meeting but we may go to the 38 County Commission, the Trustees, and the City of Las Cruces to see if we will be willing to split 39 the cost of that to amend the contract to include those scopes. 40 41 Cervantes: (Inaudible)because again without talking with the consultant, I don't know, I do not 42 assume that he charges by the square foot or by the mile,he charges by the hour and if he sets 43 forth a certain specified amount of time for$35,000, if we say we want that study to include the 15 1 entire area of the MPO, I don't know if it would cost us any more money, I think we can still say 2 we're working within a$35,000 budget, we want the maximum bang for our buck but because 3 the monies being appropriated by the MPO on behalf of the MPO, it ought to go beyond just the 4 existing City service area, it ought to include the entire MPO. 5 6 Haltom: Mr. Chairman. 7 8 Tomlin: Go ahead Councillor. 9 10 Haltom: I see this means of planning how we can better serve the area that can be served. I mean, 11 if you come and try to talk about looking at a transportation plan that would cover the whole 12 metropolitan area then the question becomes, who's going to provide that,how can you provide 13 that and we do have what with two million dollars a year, what is it running now? 14 15 Kemp: What's that sir? 16 17 Haltom: Pardon me, I'm (inaudible). 18 19 Tomlin: Dale. 20 21 Haltom: Dale, what do we spend on the transit system annually? 22 23 Kemp: The overall system is, you're right, a little over two million bucks but the actually funding 24 comes from Federal Transit Administration on that and our gas tax. 25 26 Haltom: And our gas tax? 27 28 Kemp: Right, the gas tax that we get. The general fund is actually contributes with$300,000. 29 30 Haltom: Okay, thank you. I guess the question I'm asking, are we interested in finding out how 31 to better serve the areas that we can serve and do serve or is the interest in having a plan to serve 32 the whole MPO? That gets you into the question of who pays for it. 33 34 Tomlin: Well, see I thought that with the rural and we looked at the rural transportation plan that 35 we looked at, at the area outside the MPO, you know, and so that had already been taken care of 36 and that was the basis for making the decision to do, to run bus service down south and I don't 37 know to, I mean we considered Dona Ana, I can't remember what was approved,because I voted 38 against it,but I don't know whether, but I thought we already did that and that we made the 39 decision that we entered into the agreement with the County and with the City of Las Cruces 40 Transit system to serve those areas that made sense as far as ridership and viability of a serve and 41 so we've done that already so even though I have no problem, I'm not sure what we're going to 42 have them look at that hasn't already been looked at since the scope of this work with the 43 improvement of service rather than expansion and that kind of thing. Miyagishima. 16 1 Miyagishima: Mr. Chairman and not to put words into my colleagues mouths and I think what the 2 Commissioner Cervantes is trying to get at and I concur is that if this is a grant for the MPO and 3 since we're a three member bodies, three different member government bodies that and granted I 4 agree, it's a very expensive venture to do that and I can't see the County get into that business in 5 the very near future,but it would be nice for it to at least be addressed even if it's in the small 6 fashion and if it might cost a little bit more. I'm here to propose 40-40-20 split with Mesilla with 7 20% and us the other 40 but you know, I think,just identify it maybe go in a little bit more detail 8 than what was originally was when you talked about the North Valley and the South Valley. 9 Something to maybe, lay maybe a small ground work in the event in the future, if the County was 10 to go into that which it may or may not do but you never know. I mean we'd probably be the first 11 County, for a County to actually do that, I know Cities do,but Counties that would be,but you 12 never know, you can't close out that window. So I think that's basically what you were trying to 13 say. 14 15 Cervantes: Mr. Chairman if I may. Councillor Haltom I appreciate your comments. In fact I 16 share with you, I voted against the rural route as well for probably I'm sure the same reasons that 17 you were skeptical and I certainly don't have anything, this plan setting service throughout the 18 whole MPO area, but this plan might make sense and the City's efficiency might be benefitted by a 19 route to Mesilla or periodic route or two. I guess all I'm trying to say is I would want the 20 consultant to be aware that we don't want him just studying the City existing routes,but this is an 21 MPO study as Commission Miyagishima said, two of the three bodies are not in the City and the 22 consultant ought to give some appropriate consideration to routes outside the existing service 23 area of the City. 24 25 Tomlin: Well, we can do that but I don't know what,we don't have the copy of the RFP that 26 went out that the consultants responded to, to determine whether that is going to create a major 27 change in the scope of work that's outlined in this agreement. 28 29 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman,pardon me, for the committee members benefit. When we initially 30 developed the proposal there was an initial scope based on the RFP then we have made two 31 subsequence amendments to it as far as data collection efforts and public input and public hearing 32 process. We added, we felt like we needed to make those changes that the data collection efforts 33 were beyond the assistance, the MPO staff doing that technical work and we felt like we needed 34 to add an additional public input hearing. So we have changed the scope from the very beginning 35 of the RFP. I believe that it is possible that we can talk to the consultant. The other thing is that 36 we need to expend this funds quickly, it's not immediately,but we do need to expend these funds 37 and because we do have a surplus within the budget and the potential for the surplus, there is a 38 provision in the contract on page 5 of 8 that says "C. Payment for Special Services. Payment for 39 Special Services, shall be developed under a separate contract, should the City determine that the 40 need for such Special Services at any time under the duration of this Contract and agreeable to the 41 Consultant." I can discuss it with the consultant tomorrow, relatively quickly and then get back 42 to you but it would most likely be more beneficial for us to do it as a subsequent contract between 43 the City and the consultant with the modification to the scope to see what we can actually get for 17 1 $4,000. I don't know what we can get and most of it, the situation now is the analysis of where 2 the existing service is provided and how we can improve upon that and it may very well be 3 expansion to a trip into Mesilla or adjacent to Mesilla and other connections elsewhere and we're 4 looking at the overall issue of where's our Ridership coming from, where do they want to go, 5 what's wrong with our routes, getting them there on time, what is an acceptable time for them to 6 be on the routes, and other things, so it is part of the overall system so I think it's very acceptable 7 for us to look at that and do it as a subsequent contract as allowed under this proposed contract. 8 9 Tomlin: Okay, I think that one of things that we need to make sure that we do on the 10 documentation submitted to the Council for consideration is to make sure that it is clear to the 11 Council that we are doing this as the fiscal agent for the MPO and that it is an MPO project that 12 has been recommended by the Policy Committee and that therefore they're just going through the 13 formalities of awarding the contract on our behalf. 14 15 Carpenter: Alright. 16 17 Tomlin: Any further discussion. 18 19 Cervantes: I move approval of Resolution 00-011, do we have a motion? 20 21 Tomlin: Okay. 22 23 Haltom: Second. 24 25 Tomlin: All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." 26 27 All: "Aye." 28 29 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Let the record indicate that the motion passes unanimously. 30 31 32 IV. STAFF REPORTS/OTHER DISCUSSION 33 34 A. Status of U.S. Highway 70 Project 35 36 Tomlin: The next item of business is staff reports/other discussion. Dave, do you have anything 37 else? 38 39 Carpenter: There's Wayne Prescot from the State Highway Department and then I have some 40 other items for the Commission. 41 42 43 18 I Prescot: Thank you members of the bar. My name is Wayne Prescot and I am with the State 2 Highway Department. With me tonight is Darrell Wade of Parson Brinkerhoff. We've come 3 again to give you an update of where we're at and where we're going. I'll let Darrell talk about 4 the ongoing construction but just quickly, for design we have the next project, the designs 5 complete. This would carry the corridor construction to the Mesa Grande interchange and then 6 the frontage roads to Porter Road but not the Porter Road interchange so we can handle left turns 7 in that area. The designs complete and the department acquiring a right-of-way. Our present 8 schedule calls for a bid opening on the second of February. I have some reservations whether 9 we'll get the right-of-way secured in time to do that but we're making every effort to do that. It 10 might be a month later than that. The design for the rest of the corridor to NASA Road is 11 probably 75%complete at this stage. All the major elements have been completed. We've done a 12 internal value engineering study to determine how we can stay within budget. We've come up 13 with some ideas that provides for future expandability but doesn't change the functionality of the 14 present system that really kind of involves the outer interchanges and the roads underneath. 15 Going from two left turn lanes to one left turn lane essentially and one through lane and still have 16 the U-turn lanes and then in the future when it's needed we can add the expanse to the bridges. 17 We're designing them for that contingency and we can expand to the full section which is two 18 through lanes and two left turn lanes in each direction plus the U-turns. So we're doing some 19 things like that to stay within our 80 million dollar budget. We've gotten closer, in fact, we're 20 pretty close, we're still a little over a million bucks or so but we're working so much with 21 estimates right now, we really need to see how the next project comes in. But we're pretty 22 confident. Right-of-way acquisition for that portion will get started as soon as we finish the last, 23 so we hope to have it out to advertisement in May or June and open bids. Get started a couple 24 months after that by the time we actually get started. With that schedule,we should still be 25 complete, virtually complete by the end of 2002 with the entire system. With that, I'll let Darrel 26 bring you up to date on the construction that's ongoing now which is Sema Construction that's 27 the interchange, the system interchange with I-25, the Del Rey Interchange and the frontage roads 28 in that area. A lot of work in a small area but 12.5 million dollars worth of work in a small area 29 so Darrell. 30 31 Wade: Thanks. As you can tell, I've got a cold. The work is starting to progress pretty rapidly 32 and if we get back our Las Cruces weather in the next few days, we'll start paving the frontage 33 roads in that area. We're hoping to shift traffic over in (inaudible) next month over to the 34 frontage roads and then we will be building the main line. So you'll see a significant difference in 35 the next month and I think the traffic disruption's been pretty minimal to this point. I don't know 36 if any of you have driven through there but, you know, we changed the signal at Del Rey and did 37 a dual left. I think that really helped improved the traffic at that location. It doesn't back up to 38 Telshor anymore and we'll keep that operation that way through the construction. If you get a 39 chance, go out and look at our new walls that we're building out there. I'm pretty proud of them, 40 they look good. Contractors doings a great job, there's a local contractor building those, McNutt 41 Construction is building those walls, doing a great job and drive slow when you go through our 42 project please. Any questions? 43 19 I Tomlin: I think it's really amazing the way they've done that. We all worried, at least I did, I 2 worried about nothing was happening and he said that the way they scheduled their work and got 3 everything gathered and then when they hit the ground running, they've been running full tilt it 4 seems like and making a lot of progress and that's been pretty good and I've managed to make it 5 to K-Mart and back in one piece and I think the things that they're doing and the traffic control 6 approach that you guys are doing is very effective and I hope that we can get it done when we 7 shift traffic to the frontage roads can continue with that kind of traffic movement. It's very good. 8 9 Wade: Yeah,we don't like having the contractor go out and tear a bunch of stuff up and not be 10 ready to put it back. It's better to have them mobilized before they get out. 11 12 Tomlin: Any other questions or comments? One of the things on the Highway Department I'd 13 like to thank. We had a presentation on Monday about the Lohman Interchange and our staff had 14 some of the computer generated graphics to show the Council. We've seen some of that in the 15 presentation as part of the public hearing that the Highway Department made here two months 16 ago I guess it was now. And that was very helpful and I think the public in attendance there 17 appreciated the graphics and the way it was done and I just wanted to thank the Highway 18 Department where you guys for sharing that information with our staff to make an effective 19 presentation to City Council. 20 21 Wade: I'll make sure and pass that on to Tony Abbot who's the project development engineer. 22 He'll be glad to hear that. Thank you. 23 24 Tomlin: It was very helpful, appreciate it very much. Anything else? 25 26 Carpenter: Mr. Chairman we have quite a busy agenda for January,just to put you on notice for 27 those of you who will be here in January, Mr. Miyagishima. Election of Officers, we've delayed 28 that since August, we have to adopt the yearly calendar for the Policy Committee, our Opens 29 Meeting resolution, and we are definitely going to have a TIP amendment. We received, the City 30 of Las Cruces received a federal appropriation into this years highway bill for the development of 31 the railroad and transportation museum at the depot and we need a TIP amendment for that. 32 That's a$187,900, that is a no match requirement, it's a straight ear-mark. They had requested 33 $500,000 but we'll take the $187,900. Then we also have the award of, we will have a similar 34 resolution as to what was considered tonight for awarding another contract on the MPO's behalf 35 for our Travel Behavior Survey for the entire MPO area. We're hoping to use that data to end 36 that project to update our transportation model which will help us in our TIP development every 37 year and other projects as corridors come along. I'm optimistic on having that resolution in 38 January but we're going try and that's it with this. I will hand out the new transportation plan. 39 40 Tomlin: I want to thank Ken for his service. Ken's term with the County Commissioner will end 41 January 1, he was ineligible for re-election due to term limits that remain in effect of results of the 42 voting that took place yesterday. They didn't over turn that. 43 20 1 1 Miyagishima: It wouldn't have helped me. 2 3 Tomlin: It wouldn't have helped you. 4 5 Miyagishima: It would have helped Gilbert Apodaca. 6 7 Tomlin: But it was interesting and Ken, I appreciate your dedication and showing up and I would 8 like to have the staff get a certificate or plaque or whatever to give to Ken in recognition of his 9 service to the MPO. He's been, many times the only County Commissioner, here in the old days 10 before Cervantes joined the group and so we appreciate that very much. 11 12 Miyagishima: A plaque would be better than a piece of paper. 13 14 Carpenter: Okay, so noted. 15 16 Tomlin: Okay,just bill the County. 17 18 Carpenter: That is your official copy of the MPO Transportation Plan that I referenced earlier 19 today. We will be forwarding copies to your other members of your respective bodies and to 20 your town clerks or your county clerk and the city manager for Mesilla. We're also forwarding 21 copies to the State Highway Department and the Federal Government under our requirements and 22 they are also available for sale at the MPO offices at 575 S. Alameda. Based on the size of the 23 maps and the size of the document the sell price is $25. 24 25 Tomlin: Is that autographed copy or not? 26 27 Carpenter: If you would like. 28 29 (All talking at once) 30 31 Carpenter: The autograph is free if you provide the pen and that's it, and I do have one other 32 introduction. Ms. Lisa Fuselier is the new MPO Planner. She has been with the City Planning 33 Department for about 1 %2 year. 34 35 Fuselier: Close to two years. 36 37 Carpenter: Close to two years. 38 39 Tomlin: Time goes by fast. 40 41 Fuselier: Yes it does. 42 43 Carpenter: She's leaving City subdivisions and moving over to MPO Planner. 21 �4 I Tomlin: I bet you she's broken hearted about that, isn't she. 2 3 Carpenter: Only slightly. 4 5 Haltom: You're going to take a shot at this? 6 7 Fuselier: Yes sir. 8 9 Carpenter: And we're glad to have her aboard and that she will help us a lot and with that Mr. 10 Chairman, staff is ready for adjournment just like you. 11 12 Tomlin: Good,Dave good job on your first meeting as the MPO Officer. We appreciate your 13 efforts. 14 15 Carpenter: Thank you. 16 17 Cervantes: Just one last thing. Your clock is wrong, you'd probably ought to have that changed. 18 19 Tomlin: No, what we figured out if we just left it that way, that we can cut the overhead cost of 20 changing the clock, the labor involved in that by 37 cents. 21 22 Cervantes: Actually, I don't know why I brought that up, that's probably good, that way the 23 Mayors never late because he's always what running thirty minutes. 24 25 Haltom: He's always on time if you ask him. 26 27 (All talking at once) 28 29 30 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS 31 32 None. 33 34 35 VI. ADJOURNMENT 36 37 Tomlin: Do I have a motion to adjourn? 38 39 Haltom: I move we adjourn. 40 41 Tomlin: Public input?No, I'm sorry. Any public comments? I think I'd recognized our public to 42 figure that they had their comments because they're all, except without their bicycle helmets, I 43 don't recognize them. 22 V 1 Miyagishima: Second. 2 3 Tomlin: All in favor of adjournment signify by saying "Aye." 4 5 All: "Aye." 6 7 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Motion carries. Thank you very much. 8 9 Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 10 11 12 13 APPROVED 14 15 16 17 18 19 Chairman Tommy Tomlin Date 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 23 L A S C R U C E S D O N A A N A M E S I L L A METROPOLITAN .v. PLANNING ORGANIZATION P.O.BOX 200001 LAS CRUCES NM 188004 PHONE(505)528-3222 1 FAX(505)528-3155 AGENDA for the LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION The following is the agenda for the meeting of the Policy Committee of the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to be held Wednesday, November 8, 2000 at 7:00 p.m., in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The City of Las Cruces does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability in the provision of services. The City of Las Cruces will make reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability who wishes to attend this public meeting. Please notify the City at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3222 (Voice) or 528-3157 (TTY). This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. 1. CALL TO ORDER 11. REVIEW OF MINUTES A. September 13, 2000 Policy Committee Ill. NEW BUSINESS / ACTION A. Resolution No. 00-010: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Policy Statement for the Placement of Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. B. Resolution No. 00-011: A resolution supporting the issuance of a contract for the development of a Short Range Transit/Public Transportation Plan for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization and the City of Las Cruces. IV. STAFF REPORTS / OTHER DISCUSSION A. Status of U.S. Highway 70 Project V. PUBLIC COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT