Loading...
06-14-2000 I LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2 POLICY COMMITTEE (PC) MEETING 3 Wednesday, June 14, 2000 4 Las Cruces City Council Chambers 5 6 Following are the verbatim minutes from the Policy Committee (PC)meeting held on 7 Wednesday, June 14, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 N. 8 Church Street, Las Cruces,NM. 9 10 Members Present: Chairman Tommy Tomlin 11 Councillor John Haltom 12 Councillor Steven Trowbridge 13 Trustee Nora Barraza 14 Commissioner Carlos Garza 15 16 Members Absent: Trustee Carlos Castaneda 17 Mayor Michael Cadena 18 Commissioner Joseph Cervantes 19 Commissioner Ken Miyagishima 20 21 Staff Present: Brian Denmark (CLC/Planning MPO) 22 Tim McAllister(CLC/Planning) 23 Kirk Clifton (CLC/Planning) 24 25 Others Present: Mark Leisher 26 Pat Oliver-Wright 27 Dale Kemp 28 Mike Noonchester 29 Alfred Rucks 30 Laurie Evans 31 32 33 I. CALL TO ORDER 34 35 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Tomlin at 7:00 p.m. 36 37 Tomlin: I would like to call the meeting to order. We have a quorum. We have a representative 38 from the Town of Mesilla, from the City of Las Cruces, and by telephone per our bylaws, 39 Commissioner Garza from the County. 40 41 II. REVIEW OF MINUTES 42 43 Tomlin: So the first item on the agenda is Resolution No. 007. 1 I Haltom: Wouldn't it be the minutes. Don't we have a review of the minutes, Mr. Chair. 2 3 Tomlin: What happen here. 4 5 Haltom: I move acceptance of the minutes Mr. Chairman. 6 7 Tomlin: Okay, let's do the minutes first. Do I have a second? 8 9 Barraza: Second. 10 11 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the March 8 and May 10 12 meetings of the Policy Committee. Is there any corrections or discussions? 13 14 Haltom: None that are worth making. 15 16 Tomlin: Okay, none. All those in favor of accepting the minutes signify by saying"Aye". 17 18 All: Aye. 19 20 Tomlin: All those "Nay". Let the record show that the motion passes unanimously. 21 22 III. NEW BUSINESS/ACTION 23 24 A. Resolution No. 00-005: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 25 Planning Organization's 2000 Transportation Plan 26 27 Tomlin: The first Resolution is Resolution No. 00-005, four zeros okay. A resolution adopting 28 the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2000 Transportation Plan. 29 30 Haltom: I move approval Mr. Chairman. 31 32 Tomlin: It's been moved by Councilor Haltom for approval, do I have a second? 33 34 Barraza: I second. 35 36 Tomlin: It's been seconded, alright. We're now ready for discussion. Mr. Denmark. 37 38 Denmark: Mr. Chairman,members of the Policy Committee (inaudible), I've already covered the 39 discussion of the plan over the last two meetings so I'll just open the floor to any questions that 40 you might have with the exception of one item. The Mesilla Valley Bicycle Coalition has 41 requested that an amendment occur to the bicycle element of the plan. Specifically they're 42 wanting the Policy Committee to adopt the U.S. DOT's Policy Statement on a requirement that 43 bicycling and walking facilities shall be incorporated into all transportation projects unless 2 1 exceptional circumstances exist. And they also request that the definition of what exceptional 2 circumstances mean being incorporated as well. I talked to a Trina Witter yesterday and 3 informed her that if she's wanting, if the Coalition is wanting all of that language to be 4 considered by the Policy Committee, they really need to go through the Bicycle Facilities 5 Advisory Committee because there's too much information that we'd have to look at and I didn't 6 even have a chance to look at it in detail. So what I offered to do to show that we're willing to 7 consider what they are wanting to do is essentially a minor amendment on page 29 in which we 8 modified the goal of the overall bicycle plan. Highlighted in yellow, the section that they're 9 requesting to be considered which says "that they will encourage bicycling facilities to be 10 incorporated in all transportation projects unless exceptional circumstances exist" and then what 11 she said they would do is go back to the BFAC to address what"exceptional circumstances" are. 12 I also explained that we normally don't use the word shall in dealing with policy documents, it's 13 encouragement or should or may, things of that sort. So I advised her that when she meets with 14 the BFAC that they keep that in mind as well. 15 16 Garza: Mr. Chairman. 17 18 Tomlin: Yes. 19 20 Garza: Can I make a motion for an amendment for that Res, for the Policy Committee request? 21 22 Tomlin: Sure. Is there a second? 23 24 Trowbridge: I second. 25 26 Tomlin: Okay it's been moved by Commissioner Garza and seconded by Councilor Trowbridge 27 to incorporate the suggested language into the Goal section of the Bicycle Facility. Any 28 discussion on the amendment. 29 30 Garza: None here. 31 32 Tomlin: I beg your pardon. Oh, none here, okay I'm sorry: I think one of the things that,that if 33 you recall in a documentation that we received from the BFAC,that they recognize that there are 34 some circumstances that would prohibit the incorporation of the bicycle paths in some road 35 projects. They've already recognized that, that there might be some limitations because of the 36 available right-of-way and that kind of thing. I think that this is a reasonable request and I think 37 that from my stand point encouraging the development of bicycle facilities in every place that's 38 possible to enhance they're value of transportation purposes is well advised and I think that we 39 would see more bicycling used for transportation if we had the facilities and it was not,you 40 know, a hardship on some people that are not as daring, some of us are,we try to do (inaudible). 41 I think this would be an acceptable amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment? If 42 not, all those in favor signify by saying "Aye." 43 3 1 All: Aye. 2 3 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Let the record show that the motion passes unanimously. Alright 4 now we have the amendment, any further discussion on the (inaudible)? If not, all those in favor 5 signify by saying"Aye." 6 7 All: Aye. 8 9 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Let the record show that the motion passes unanimously. 10 11 B. Resolution No. 00-006: A resolution adopting the Year 2020 Traffic Forecasts 12 performed for the U.S. 70 corridor in Las Cruces, from I-25 to NASA Road 13 14 Tomlin: Alright, the next item is Resolution No. 00-006: A resolution adopting the Year 2020 15 Traffic Forecasts performed for the U.S. 70 corridor in Las Cruces, from I-25 to NASA Road. 16 17 Haltom: I move approval Mr. Chairman. 18 19 Barraza: Second. 20 21 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded for approval of the Resolution. Discussion. 22 23 Denmark: Mr. Chairman, the consultants on the U.S. Highway 70 project have amended the 24 traffic forecast modeling data that was conducted several months ago in relationship to the 25 overall design and construction of the project. Essentially the numbers that were originally done 26 only went to the year 2015 and they're required to have twenty year forecast. They also 27 determined that as part of the modeling effort that was done that some of the numbers did not 28 appear to be as accurate as they should be and so they made those modifications. It was then 29 taken to the Technical Advisory Committee who ultimately recommended approval of these 30 forecasting numbers for the Policy Committee. With that Mr. Chairman I'll be happy to answer 31 any questions. 32 33 Tomlin: Any questions for anyone? All those in favor of the Resolution signify by saying 34 "Aye." 35 36 All: Aye. 37 38 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Let the record indicate that the motion passes unanimously. 39 40 C. Resolution No. 00-007: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan 41 Planning Organization's Fiscal Year 2000 through 2005 Transportation 42 Improvement Program (TIP) 43 4 I Tomlin: The next item is Resolution No. 00-007: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces 2 Metropolitan Planning Organization's Fiscal Year 2000 through 2005 Transportation 3 Improvement Program. 4 5 Garza: Moved. 6 7 Haltom: Second. 8 9 Tomlin: It's been moved by Mr. Garza, seconded by Councilor Haltom for approval of the 10 Resolution. Mr. Denmark. 11 12 Denmark: Mr. Chairman, every year we're required to adopt a Transportation Improvement 13 Program and this year is a little different scenario that we're under. I think all of you are familiar 14 with W.I.P.P. scenario that we're currently under and essentially there isn't much we can do as 15 far as our TIP with the exception of basically coping what is currently adopted by the State 16 Highway Commission as far as their STIP and so we went through and made the necessary 17 changes to reflect what they know as of today. There are a couple of corrections that we would 18 like to add. One is on page 1 at the very bottom of the list. The TAC recommended that this 19 project be listed on the TIP however, it is not a federal funded project that a legislative funded 20 project to the State and therefore it shouldn't be on the TIP. It would be on the City's Capital 21 Improvement Program. 22 23 Trowbridge: Are you referring to Triviz? 24 25 Denmark: Yes sir. It would be a recommendation that we remove that item. Also on page 3, a 26 little about half way down, the Calle de Sol sidewalk project has been completed. We were 27 informed by Mesilla so that would be removed as well from the TIP. 28 29 Haltom: I move that we accept those changes. 30 31 Tomlin: Is there a second? 32 33 Barraza: Second. 34 35 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded that the changes suggested by Mr. Denmark to the TIP be 36 incorporated. Any discussions? All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." 37 38 All: Aye. 39 40 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." The motion passes unanimously. 41 42 Denmark: What were anticipating Mr. Chairman is that we'll be coming back to the Policy 43 Committee once the W.I.P.P issue is resolved and the State Highway staff has a better feeling of 5 I how fundings going to work and how it will effect their STIP. So we're expecting over the next 2 two or three months coming back to the Policy Committee with a more detailed TIP on how 3 things are going to be structured. The State has also reviewed the Transit section and has given 4 us comments on that and we've made those corrections as well so with that Mr. Chairman I'd be 5 happy to answer any questions. 6 7 Tomlin: Any questions from anybody? Members of the public? Seeing none, all those in favor 8 of the Resolution as amended signify by saying "Aye." 9 10 All: Aye. 11 12 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Motion carries unanimously. 13 14 D. Resolution No. 00-008: A resolution endorsing a grant application submitted 15 by RoadRunner Transit for federal funding of the Job Access and Reverse 16 Commute Program (Welfare to Work) 17 18 Tomlin: The next item is Resolution No. 00-008: A resolution endorsing a grant application 19 submitted by RoadRunner Transit for federal funding of the Job Access and Reverse Commute 20 Program also know as Welfare to Work. Do we have a motion to adopt this Resolution? 21 22 Garza: So moved. 23 24 Haltom: Second. 25 26 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded for the Resolution to be approved. Mr. Denmark. 27 28 Denmark: Mr. Chairman,the Transit Director, Mike Noonchester's here along with Alfred Rucks 29 from New Mexico works to answer any questions you might have about their application to 30 acquire monies to provide transportation services to welfare recipients within the MPO area. As 31 part of the Federal requirements it requires an actual plan, service plan on how they're going 32 provide those services and the MPO Policy Committee has not adopted a plan. The MPO Policy 33 Committee though is required to provide approval or support of this and so please take note to 34 the Resolution which indicates that it's written in the affirmative and that you would be 35 endorsing the grant application is you vote Aye for the Resolution but it will be subject to an 36 actual plan being submitted to the Policy Committee for review and consideration. 37 38 Haltom: I second. 39 40 Garza: Mr. Chairman. 41 42 Tomlin: Yes, Mr. Garza. 43 6 1 Garza: Do they plan on submitting a plan to us? 2 3 Denmark: The Transit Departments sent via an E-Mail a proposed plan to me this afternoon 4 however I haven't had a chance to look at it or obviously bring it forward to the Policy 5 Committee for your consideration. 6 7 Garza: They're agreeable to provide accessible (inaudible)? 8 9 Denmark: Right, their application that they submitted was essentially their plans, it wasn't in a 10 format that the Policy Committee is familiar with so they have put together the plan with the 11 information that they have and we will be processing it probably at the next meeting. 12 13 Garza: Okay. 14 15 Tomlin: It's my understanding that we're RoadRunner Transit which is a City operation is 16 obligating itself in (inaudible) if it gets this grant to engage in this activity. Is that right or if we 17 get the grant, it's a study grant and it would be up to the City Council whether we agree to 18 provide those services under the contract? 19 20 Denmark: That's correct. It's my understanding based on the application that the services that 21 they would be providing for welfare recipients within the MPO area, so you're talking about the 22 5 mile area around the City and they're providing service to and from work or anything related to 23 work. Which mean that they actually can be providing service outside of the MPO area so 24 someone might be a welfare recipient within the MPO but their job might be down in Anthony 25 for example and they would be obligated to provide that service. 26 27 Tomlin: With the grant funding, Mr. Noonchester,would you mind coming up to the podium. In 28 the analysis that you're doing in the proposal, have you provided a scope of impact that our 29 contracting to do this might have on our operation within the City or are we going to have a 30 totally separate, separately funded, separately staffed operation that's going to be funded 100% 31 by the State and the Federal Government requiring the City to provide no in-kind services or not 32 capital or operating expenses? 33 34 Noonchester: That's the way we are operating currently. As you're aware that the City was 35 awarded this funding last year and the City Council approved it and in accordance with the grant 36 we are operating services now for the New Mexico Works. 37 38 Tomlin: And this, is this particular proposal,this is just an extension of what we've already 39 agreed to? 40 41 Noonchester: Yes. 42 43 Tomlin: And has the Council acted on this particular proposal? 7 I Noonchester: They did last year. 2 3 Tomlin: No, I'm talking about, we have a new proposal here. 4 5 Noonchester: That's right. 6 7 Tomlin: And we haven't acted on this yet? 8 9 Noonchester: No. 10 11 Tomlin: Okay. So is this going to be that if the grant is offered then it will be,the Council will 12 have the opportunity to either approve it or turn it down? 13 14 Noonchester: As always they will,yes. The announcement on the grant appeared in March. 15 Grant proposals were due the I` of May and discussing it with the City Manager we noted, it's 16 pretty short time, and we indicated in order to proceed matching funds would have to be secured. 17 In April we traveled and met with HSD and Department of Labor folks and they committed to 18 providing the matching funds because the program's extremely important for them. So before 19 we had that we couldn't even prepare a grant application because it is a one to one match, 50% 20 match. So with that we had about two weeks to get the grant application ready and submit it. 21 22 Tomlin: Mr. Denmark. 23 24 Denmark: This application that your applying for next federal fiscal year? 25 26 Noonchester: Yes which would begin October. 27 28 Tomlin: I think the MPO needs to understand that what we're doing is, as the MPO is approving 29 this to, if it's approved,to submit this so the Council can consider whether they want to be the 30 contractor, as you will,to provide these services. 31 32 Noonchester: I might indicate, if I can take a moment and read you some Federal (inaudible)that 33 would explain the MPO's responsibilities if this grant is to go forward, it might clarify some of 34 the things for you. 35 36 Tomlin: Okay,what are you reading from? 37 38 Noonchester: This is the Federal Register. 39 40 Tomlin: Do we have a copy of that here in the packet? 41 42 Noonchester: No. 43 8 I Tomlin: Okay. 2 3 Noonchester: I had previously sent it but I'll be glad to send you more copies. Anyway it says 4 "The regions with populations between 50,000 and 200,000, MPO's will recommend projects to 5 the State which will select the applicants to be considered for the Federal Job Access and 6 Reverse Commute Grants." So what you really need to do is recommend to the State 7 Government projects for this area. It goes on "The plans required for Job Access Reverse 8 Commute are short term operational service plans that are meant to address gaps in current 9 transit service that(inaudible)welfare recipients and low income persons from reaching jobs and 10 employment support services. The planning process may be initiated by any interested State 11 (inaudible) group in an area. The FTA encourages MPO's to serve as the regional forum." They 12 go on to say " In some urbanized areas under 200,000 and rural areas, State select the applicants. 13 The FTA urges MPO's to designate a single recipient who would submit a consolidated 14 application. State's are urged to serve as a designated recipient for grants to small urbanized 15 areas and non-urbanized areas." The State recently completed in February, March their plan for 16 the State and we have a copy of that and we just printed off all 450 pages from the (inaudible). 17 They have an executive summary and those are also available to the MPO to understand what the 18 State is doing in this area. So as far as we're concerned we have been working with Human 19 Services agencies for a couple of years. The amount of coordination required with Human 20 Service agencies to do this kind of grant, it's just overwhelming. It's interesting that the Federal 21 Government makes such requirements and that at the same time gives you about five weeks to 22 prepare a proposal. So we're not aware that theirs any other project being proposed for this MPO 23 area. Maybe Mr. Denmark has dealt with some others but I'm not aware of any so as far as we 24 know we're probably the only project that should be submitted to State if you choose to submit a 25 project. Pat Oliver-Wright is here from the State and might explain exactly what they're doing. 26 27 Tomlin: Do you have a question for Mike? 28 29 Trowbridge: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Noonchester,you,when quoting from the Federal 30 Register you referred to the MPO will serve as a forum. Forum for groups to come forward and 31 put forward their proposals. 32 33 Noonchester: Boy I wish I had a good definition of what they meant. Let me indicate what we 34 actually did do. 35 36 Trowbridge: Can I describe one scenario that impressed me was, do you image that this body,the 37 MPO according to that,we would be entertaining or listing to proposals from various groups 38 here and then scoring them and then recommending, making our recommendations to the State? 39 40 Denmark: Mr. Chairman, Councilor Trowbridge,yes they would be required to come before the 41 MPO. The FTA would ask the State Highway if they endorsed that project that's been requested 42 and the State's going to look at us to see if the MPO has endorsed it so if anybody was applying 43 within our MPO area they'd have to come before us for a recommendation of endorsement. 9 I Trowbridge: So that would be, fulfill the forum, sort of requirement? That would be, how it 2 would be working? 3 4 Noonchester: In actuality the way it did work here and maybe we're not in total compliance with 5 the direction from the Federal Government, it was put in the Unified Work Plan both last year 6 and this year and the (inaudible)was primarily given to the Transit Department to develop the, I 7 can't help but call it, massive interface required. So we have been dealing with the Human 8 Services agencies in the region,they've held numerous meetings in which public comment has 9 come including other potential service providers have been involved. They haven't seem really 10 anxious to get involved in this though Tresco has indicated a willing to take this over which 11 might be a nice opportunity. I know Brian's proposed that the MPO be the lead agency next year 12 and they could operate the service for the MPO if it was desired. So that is certainly an option 13 available but a number of agencies including Chambers of Commerce, PICS, all the Human 14 Services Agencies are required to be interfaced and we have been in all those meetings 15 (inaudible) in all those meetings discussing their needs on how to fulfill those. 16 17 Trowbridge: Mr. Chairman, if I may just ask last questions for clarification. Mr. Noonchester, in 18 our packet it says the application is for$260,000 to the Federal Government DOT and that would 19 be matched my New Mexico State Human Services Division and New Mexico Department of 20 Labor funds and that's guaranteed,that's not pending any other,that's ... 21 22 Noonchester: They haven't given us a check yet but we did get a letter from them. Last year they 23 gave us the check in advanced and that was nice to put it in the bank and collect the interest so 24 that is in the bank right now. So it would be nice if they'd do that again. 25 26 Trowbridge: Thank you very much. 27 28 Tomlin: Alright,would you like to .... and maybe while your getting up there,that one of the 29 concerns that I have is that we start a program that has no end and make a commitment that you 30 can't ever get out of and that it has detrimental effect on and I'm concerned about the City's 31 Transit Department and what commitment is required there and then how that affects our bus 32 system because my primary objective as a Councilor is to not to provide service to God and 33 everybody but to take care of our routes and our system within the City as we envision that. So 34 where does this go,what does this obligate us to, is this an interim step that once all these people 35 are jobbed and their working, that they're going to buy an automobile and drive themselves or a 36 bike. Mr. Garza. 37 38 Garza: Yes,you know, in light of your conversation there I think that an important concern here 39 is that we recognize as other entities of the County and the Town of Mesilla that your bus 40 services are a conflict. However, I think that knowing that information and recognizing that you 41 certainly don't want that,you're typically you're basically you're (inaudible) to agree. I think 42 that there are work full agreements such as the ones the Dona Ana County has, it's privately 43 proposed with the City and if anything at all we've been criticized,you know not necessarily for 10 I not paying our share but potentially for paying more (inaudible) than the service was provided. 2 But from what I believed, that type of grant that Ms. Oliver-Wright and the State can provide 3 (inaudible) can be used in certain areas whether it be operations or various (inaudible) in which 4 case most of the dollars or all of the dollars that the County were to receive for these services 5 would be fully given to the City of Las Cruces. 6 7 Tomlin: But there is a cost associated with anything free from any other governmental agency... 8 9 Garza: We're not saying free,we're saying we would be,we are not allowed to utilized any 10 portion of those funds that we're discussing and basically the extent of those routes and the 11 extent of the services would be based on those funds that are available and you know the extent 12 of the funding. 13 14 Tomlin: But still, my point is those things have a tendency to still have an impact but required to 15 do certain things and they're not getting it to you without for some consideration. So if you 16 could go ahead and address that. 17 18 Oliver-Wright: Thank you Mr. Chair, Councilors, and Commissioners. I think we're talking a 19 little about two different things when the Commissioner mentioned routes. This is mainly a 20 demand response service that will provide transportation to work site and to child care and to 21 training and it is specifically for the urban area, that's why the City has taken this on. The State 22 has taken on the areas under 50,000 and we've put together our plan, statewide, for the program 23 trying to coordinate services with, Mike mentioned, Tresco and using some of the private not for 24 profit services and we're trying to incorporate that as much as we can also. Mr. Chair,you had 25 expressed a concern that we've heard over and over that we're getting ourselves committed to 26 something that does not continue and we have seen that throughout the State. There is some 27 reluctance. What we have, as an intermeasure, like you say, to get people from the welfare into 28 the job market and then get them financially on their feet and then the aim is to get them 29 independent and not need the service anymore. There is no guarantee like your other grant 30 programs that you're operating under that this funding will continue even the applications are 31 from year to year and so it is a chance that you do take that you are setting something up and you 32 won't have funding for the next year. But as I said, it is an interim service that we're looking at 33 to try to get people from welfare to the work force. 34 35 Tomlin: I think the goal, I mean, it's very important I think from the whole program is that the 36 people understand that they cannot become dependent on this transportation because it's not 37 going to be there forever. And my concern is from, in being their advocate, is that they will 38 become dependent on the services and then you have a real political issue of how can you stop 39 this service and you say well the State has no money, the Federal Government has no money, so 40 the local government are pressured by their constituents to provide the service. 41 42 Garza: Mr. Chairman, a bulk of these individuals that are being discussed right now is,the issue 43 is these services are in lieu of paying somebody to be on welfare and I think that this trend that 11 I we're looking at is one that,you know, is a monumental trend, there are many people that have 2 generationally relied on welfare that are forced to go to work and I think that's obviously a value 3 to all of us and I don't think that it's a hindrance to try to help these individuals make an effort to 4 be able to draw a paycheck before they can purchase an automobile and insurance because it's 5 not going to happen any other way that I can foresee. I was involved in the Welfare Work 6 Organization, I know that their interest is very legitimate and I know also that,you know,those 7 individuals that have been affected by them,you know,those changes are very substantial 8 changes that would allow somebody to go to work as opposed to not being able to go to work. I 9 don't think that they are afforded many chooses at this point. 10 11 Tomlin: I mean,we went through the system of establishing a bus system in Las Cruces and we 12 surely didn't establish the bus system for the majority of the citizens of Las Cruces even though 13 it would be nice if they used it but the fact of the matter is that they don't. And so it's a very 14 costly thing and if you were to try to back out of that now,you have created a mount of 15 dependence on that service and so no matter how much we have to dig into our pockets to 16 subsidize that we will have to continue to do so because we have built that dependency and I 17 don't want the same thing to happen here and it's all wonderful to have public transit and to cut 18 down pollution and ride bicycles and do all these other things but you know, I'm becoming a 19 realist and skeptical in my old age that and I want to be real careful that we're not biting off 20 something here that's going to come back and bite us back. 21 22 Noonchester: Councilor Tomlin, I,being aware,you brought this up last year when we went 23 through this and the fact that you're probably not aware that we're operating service is a 24 reflection of the fact that we try to orchestrate the kind of service we're providing so it's not 25 creating general public expectations. We are only hauling clients provided by Welfare to Work 26 recipients. An interesting element that took place is, the transit industry lobby congress when 27 this came up, the funding came because and this takes us in the whole welfare program,this 28 pushing people into sanctions if you don't get jobs that don't have cars and over 90% of them 29 didn't,they needed to move into the gap and help them while they're providing these extra 30 efforts to get these people off the roles. So the monies were put together,we said it's hard to 31 start this and just do it one year and not know your fundings continuing since it's authorized and 32 TEA-21 throughout the history of welfare reform,why don't you make it multi year. The 33 Federal Government refused to do that and so there is a question,will it continue next year or not 34 but the fact that we're putting most of the people on our regular buses and this funding is being 35 uses to buy passes so that they can ride and that we're filling it with demand responsive service, 36 those areas where there is no service and they don't have anything that they can use or they work 37 until ten o'clock at night at Farley's and can't get home that is taking of that. I think the clients 38 fully understand when welfares over,this ends. I trust that the welfare operators that we're 39 working with are making that point very clear to them. I think Alfred Rucks could probably 40 explain how they're communicating that to clients. 41 42 Tomlin: I hope somebody is. Councilor Haltom. 43 12 I Haltom: Cause I,when you're explaining that it's no cost to us are we talking about buses being 2 bought to provide the service or does it mean that the people who are responsible for 3 administering this program and the drivers are paid out of this fund? I don't know what it means 4 in terms of cost to the City and that is some concern to me because if you're talking about paying 5 the fares and you know what joke that is because the fares constitute maybe 10% of our total 6 income so I would like to know ... 7 8 Tomlin: Yeah, but somethings better than nothing. 9 10 Haltom: But what I'm interested in, in knowing is there a cost to the City and if so how would 11 the cost that we are incurring if there are some,how are they being compensated for? 12 13 Tomlin: Mr. Noonchester. 14 15 Noonchester: The way we priced this in our proposal was that it's based on fully allocated cost. 16 We provide to the Federal Government each year all of our cost. And including administrative, 17 maintenance, and direct operating costs and that gives us a cost per hour to provide service. So 18 in the proposal we said we are proposing to do this at our hourly cost. That includes my time, 19 Dale's time,my secretary's time, our utility budget, everything is priced into that so the fact that 20 we don't have a higher electric bill because of doing that we are still charging their program,we 21 are actually making money off of this but we can't operate it for any other cost other than what 22 our fully allocated costs are. 23 24 Tomlin: My concern there would be to follow up,you've taken some of Dale's and you're taking 25 some of Mike's time and your applying to that and hopefully your time full of making sure that 26 the RoadRunner bus system ... 27 28 Noonchester: I ride it every day. 29 30 Tomlin: ... works you know,the way it's suppose to and I'm concerned that we're asking you as 31 a result of approving these things to do more than you're humanly capable of doing. 32 33 Noonchester: Actually you've hit on a very good point and that's why we're anxious to turn this 34 over to somebody else, found generally within the City's bureaucracy it's been very difficult to 35 do a program like this that requires a lot of flexibility and ability to react quickly to needs and so 36 forth so I really would like to turn it over to somebody else who, a private organization probably 37 has a lot more flexibility than we do. 38 39 Garza: Mr. Chairman. 40 41 Tomlin: Yeah. 42 43 Garza: Is that the intention to turn the operations over to a private company? 13 I Tomlin: Well I think that what you're doing if you're looking at approving this concept is that if 2 no one else steps forwards,you know, I would think that you have to look at making a 3 commitment that we will continue to operate but that would be a decision that the Council would 4 make. 5 6 Garza: Councilor Tomlin, I think that if the offer and the value was not sufficient for the City to 7 participate then the option would be to pursue an outside organization and I know that generally 8 speaking the City is in much better not necessarily in financial but more capable of providing a 9 service because you are not a profit organization. 10 11 Tomlin: But somebody like Tresco could do it ... 12 13 Garza: And that's also a non profit that would be you know, potentially viable. 14 15 Tomlin: Everybody can start a non profit,you want to go into the transportation business 16 Commissioner? 17 18 Garza: No thank you. 19 20 Tomlin: Okay, son of a gun. 21 22 Garza: Anyway, if there's not a lot of other questions I would like to call the question here. 23 24 Tomlin: I have one other hand raised here. Councilor Trowbridge has a comment. 25 26 Trowbridge: I'll be brief Mr. Garza. I want to ask Ms. Wright, did we interrupt your 27 presentation, do you have something, I had a sense that you were in the middle,mid sentence. 28 29 Oliver-Wright: Councilor and Mr. Chair, the only thing I was going to add was that the State will 30 take the MPO's lead endorsing this plan that the MPO,we've looked to the MPO since you are 31 the planning forum, organization, (inaudible) but the you're set up to take public comment,to 32 organize the planning efforts in this program to be the local input. The State will take your lead 33 and endorse this once you've endorsed it. 34 35 Trowbridge: Can I ask you your impression also. We've spoken and we've used the phrase 36 handing it over to another company in a forum. Is that how you view it also that this would be a 37 forum,we would entertain proposals, non profits or profits would come forward? 38 39 Oliver-Wright: That's,yes, Commissioner, Councilor, that's the way I've seen it in other parts of 40 the Country just going to conferences where there's competition and more than one agency 41 wishes to provide the service. They bring it before the MPO and the MPO really elevates which 42 they would like to see and which is the better and endorses one and goes forward with that. 43 14 1 Tomlin: I think that whether you agree with concept of whether, I as a City Councilor want the 2 City to be involved in providing the service or not, I think it's important that we pass the 3 proposal so that then we can go out as an MPO and say let's see if Tresco wants to apply for this 4 and be the provider or some one else wants to do it because without taking this step then we 5 don't have the option to be responsive to this program and that kind of thing. I do have my 6 reservations as a City Councilor about it being the City but I have no reservation about the 7 program and what is intended to do and it's goals and objectives I think are very worth wild. I 8 just have to ... 9 10 Haltom: Mr. Chairman it's the assumption then we would send out RFP's, Requests for 11 Proposals or announce that there is a competition for this? 12 13 Tomlin: I think that's a decision the MPO would, could make. 14 15 Haltom: I think we need to make that decision. 16 17 Garza: Mr. Chairman. 18 19 Tomlin: Commissioner Garza. 20 21 Garza: Do you have a motion on the floor or not? 22 23 Tomlin: Yeah we do. 24 25 Garza: Okay. 26 27 Tomlin: Okay, did you have another follow up comment on that Steve? 28 29 Trowbridge: Only that my reason for question, I just wanted to make Mr. Noonchester, Ms. 30 Wright, MPO understood, I had the same,we're using the same language and to,just to amplify 31 some of the reservations here. In the last budget proposed sessions it was discussed having Mr. 32 Noonchester or staff come back and weigh some of our options, October,November, that was 33 my request because fares are counted for something like $120,000 last year in our transit system, 34 public funds were over$3 million. That was something like 20 or 30 to 1 and it just seemed to 35 me that we can do more with less and so I'm looking forward to fresh ideas. Thank you for 36 coming. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 37 38 Noonchester: The one thing I probably want to warn the MPO because if we don't do it to inherit 39 this, let me read what the requirement is on coordination so that you fully understand, if we're 40 not doing it you're doing it. "The planning process may be initiated by interested(inaudible) 41 groups in the area. The planning process must include local transit agencies,the agencies 42 administering NF and WTW, Welfare to Work formula and competitive grants,welfare 43 recipients and low income people, the planning process also should include other state holders 15 I such as regional planning officials, human services,private,non profit, other appropriate 2 transportation support service providers, community residents, organizations, faith payed 3 organizations, disabled groups and representative, local (inaudible) and WTW grants, public and 4 assistance and housing providers, community development agencies, economic development 5 agencies, economic and employer groups such as transportation management agencies, 6 employers and employer groups such as transportation management organizations, and chambers 7 of commerce,private industry council, political officials, including Mayors, County 8 Supervisors, State Legislature, Governors, and other State and local officials." 9 10 (Talking at once) 11 12 Haltom: Mr. Garza I agree with you,we have a motion on the floor. 13 14 Tomlin: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying"Aye." 15 16 Haltom: Aye. 17 Barraza: Aye. 18 Trowbridge: Aye. 19 Garza: Aye. 20 21 Tomlin: Oppose "No." 22 23 Tomlin: No. Motion carries you know how every many (inaudible) one, two,three, four to one. 24 25 Garza: Right. 26 27 Tomlin: Okay. 28 29 IV. STAFF REPORTS/OTHER DISCUSSION 30 31 Tomlin: The next item, staff reports. None? 32 33 Denmark: None. 34 35 V. PUBLIC COMAIENTS 36 37 Tomlin: Public comments? Seeing none. 38 39 Haltom: I have one. 40 41 VI. ADJOURNMENT 42 43 Haltom: I move we adjourn. 16 I Tomlin: Would you like to second that Garza? 2 3 Garza: I'll second that. 4 5 Tomlin: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor signify by saying"Aye." 6 7 All: Aye. 8 9 Tomlin: All oppose "Nay." Motion carries. 10 11 Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 17 MP LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TOWN OF MESILI A — CITY OF LAS CRUCES — DONA ANA COUNTY 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, June 14, 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. PY). se notify the City at least 48 hours before the meeting by calling 528-3222 (Voice) or 528-3157 This document can be made available in alternative formats by calling the same numbers listed above. I. CALL TO ORDER 11. REVIEW OF MINUTES A. March 8, 2000 Policy Committee B. May 10, 2000 Policy Committee III. NEW BUSINESS / ACTION A. Resolution No. 00-005: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2000 Transportation Plan. B. Resolution No. 00-006: A resolution adopting the Year 2020 Traffic Forecasts performed for the U.S. 70 corridor in Las Cruces, from 1-25 to NASA Road. C. Resolution No. 00-007: A resolution adopting the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization's Fiscal Year 2000 through 2005 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). D. Resolution No. 00-008: A resolution endorsing a grant application submitted by RoadRunner Transit for federal funding of the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (Welfare to Work). IV. STAFF REPORTS / OTHER DISCUSSION V. PUBLIC COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT P.O. Box 20000 Las Cruces,New Mexico 88004 Phone (505)528-3222 Fax (505)528-3155