Loading...
08-10-1994 � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING � WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1994 2 The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan �k Planning Organizations' Policy Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, August 10, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces uK City Council Chambers, 200 North Church Street, Las Cruces, ~ New Mexico. 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tommy Tomlin, Chairman (City of Las Cruces) Edward Southworth (Town of Mesilla) 6 Ray B. Luchini (Dona Ana County) Herculano Ferralez (City of Las Cruces John Haltom (City of Las Cruces) � ^ Thad Box (Town of Mesilla) Michael Cadena (Town of Mesilla) MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Miyagashima (Dona Ana County) - STAFF PRESENT: Brian Denmark, MPO Officer Michael Parks, City Planning �� ~~ David Carpenter, City Planning Minerva Sanchez, Recording Secretary 11 OTHERS PRESENT: Ben Woods, TAC Vice-Chairman 1� ~~ CALL TO ORDER is Mr. Tomlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. There was a quorum. l�- REVIEW OF MINUTES �� ~~ Mr. Tomlin said, the first order of business is Review of Minutes. Do we have a motion? Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, is I move for approval of the Minutes. Mr. Southworth seconded the motion. Mr. Tomlin said, is there any discussion? If �� not, all those in favor of accepting the Minutes as presented, ~` say, aye. Any opposed? The motion for approval carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS ' 19 Mr. Tomlin said, under Old Business we have Resolution 94-008 20 to Approve and Adopt the Transportation Plan for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization. I' ll entertain at ' motion. 21 Mr. Haltom said, I move for approval, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 22 Southworth seconded. �� Mr. Tomlin said, alright, we have a motion. The floor is open ~- for discussion. Mr. Denmark do you want to bring the Committee up to date on what transpired at the last meeting of sm the TAC when they reviewed this document before it was finally presented to us. 25 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, due to the fact that I was on annual for most of the month of July, I would like to defer to 26 Mr. Parks and let him respond on what has happened. There were a couple of meetings while I was gone, so I would like 27 for him to respond on this matter. �� Mr. Parks said, basically, what we have done was to take it �~ before the TAC. At their suggestion, we have reduced the number of pages. We took out the headers and footers, and 29 compacted it down. The Policy Committee pointed out at the last meeting that their comments were being treated like �� comments from the general public, so we noted that in there. -- There really wasn't a whole lot of changes. There were a few 21 with regard to the City's development of Bicycle Master Plan � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AUGUST 10, 1994 � 2 and how that was going to be related to the MPO's Committee on Bicycles, and so that was brought out. We had to go back and � revise some of the graphics. Again, because of the cost we � will not make copies until we're ready to go to print. We have a set here tonight which you can look at if you would uk like to. At the TAC's Special Meeting, they asked that we maintain Engler Road as a study corridor area. That's one � that we got a lot of public interest on as far as leaving it - the way it was. We left it as a corridor study area with no further emphasis toward making it a major arterial Other � . ~ comments were simply housekeeping comments which Mr. Denmark will touch on later. Because we are now at the end of this 7 adoption process, we were able to go back and document how we got to this point. There's a chapter now on that. Other than 8 that, I' ll be glad to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Southworth said, I'm a little confused about the Engler 9 Road item. I thought that it was pretty much in here as we had discussed it before. 10 Mr. Parks said, right now the way Engler Road is unchanged 11 from the way we left it a year ago. We've mentioned that the County is involved in the Comprehensive Plan process and when they are finished with that, they will then be able to respond 12 back to this Committee as to what their future land uses are in that area. We've documented that. Some of the comments �� were such that why did we mention it so many times in the - document. We said, well, this issue has such a rich history 14 that we had to include all of the discussion on that topic Mr. Denmark said, the intent on the County's part is to have 15 their Comprehensive Plan done in September, at least the portion that would affect the area we're concerned with. So, �� hopefully, this fall we can come back with their land use �~ policy as adopted and report back on that particular issue and resolve the specific alignment or not provide it at all. 1� Mr. Ferralez said, along the same line, since this is a 20 18 year plan, if you remember I brought this up again a couple of meeting ago, to what extent are we including the north and �� south bypass. We're in the process, as I understand it, of ~~ acquiring right-of-way for the south route. Is there anything being done on the north, because remember, that was included 20 to see which one was the first one to prioritize. �1 Mr. Parks said, Councilor Ferralez, if you recall, under the -- US 70 Study, the north bypass was called out simply as an �� arterial to connect the east and the valley. Engler Road is, ~— in essence, that arterial. So it is in the plan. Staff has received direction from the Policy Committee many times on 12 this issue and we are still on track with that. As far as the south alignment goes, it is in the Major Thoroughfare Plan. 24 As the area develops, we will acquire right-of-way. It's all part of the plan. I might also mention that we have been in close coordination with NMSU for the land immediately east of 25 Telshor and where Missouri dead ends. They are in the process of master planning some of their developments up in that area, 26 and we have coordinated with them in filling in those secondary arterials such as Las Alamedas and beyond Missouri out All of that too has been coordinated �� . , , . 28 Mr. Tomlin said, any other comments. Mr. Haltom said, it's a very thorough job, Mr. Chairman. 30 -2- 31 32 U � ^ ' i � � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AUGUST 1O, 1994 � 2 5 Mr. Tomlin said, I think the progsss has been a long one, but it has been very thoroughly done. The last meeting I attended � of the TAC, some very good comments were made. I think that ~ most of the people that have made comments at that level, just wanted the same kind of clarification about how we're handling � ^ Engler because they don't quite understand the process. I think staff has done a good job of going back and trying to 8 cover those areas to give as much information as we reasonably can, to inform everybody of that. One of the things that I � think we've done, is we've qot a flexible document and I think - that's evident as you read it. One of the concerns that I thought was interesting at the TAC was, well you're talking 10 about this in the future, but yet, no plans have been forthcoming. There's no master plans. Yet, they felt 11 comfortable when staff informed them that once those plans became finalized, and that they had an impact, then we could 1� make adjustments in this plan in order to accommodate those �~ types of things. One of them is that channel from Caballo to El Paso, if they decide to do that. It's impact on the 13 Transportation Plan in the Valley will be tremendous, and when and if that plan is finalized and adopted, then we need to go 14 back and make some modifications. Mr. Ferralez said, I think the same is true of the proposed 1� ~~ future highway on the mesa from south to the Industrial Park. It's going to be very important but it is in the future. 16 Mr. Tomlin said, they tried to cover all of those areas. I �� think you did as good a job as could be done without making it ~` several volumes long. All those in favor of Resolution 94- 008, say aye. Any opposed? Mr. Box abstained since he was 18 recently appointed to the Policy Committee. The motion passed 6-0-1 in favor. 19 OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST 20 Mr. Tomlin said, alright, do we have any Items of Interest? 21 Mr. Denmark said, Mr. Chairman, there is a letter before the Policy Committee from Ben Woods, who is the Vice-Chairman of 22 the TAC, expressing concern over absenteeism at the TAC level. Part of the memo, there are four members who, according to the By-Laws are basically to the point where they �� �~ should be removed from their position on the TAC and replaced with new members. What Mr. Woods is asking is that this be 19 processed through and action taken. Staff has reviewed this memo and has had a discussion with the Chairman at the 25 previous TAC meeting. One of our concerns that we would want to pass on to you for consideration is maybe reevaluating the membership on the Technical Advisory Committee and consider 26 some of the concerns and problems that we're having. Obviously through the years, there have been requests from 27 various committees or entities to be a representative on the TAC and it has become a problem now where we're having extreme difficulty in achieving a quorum. In fact, we missed about �� �~ two or three meetings in a row without a quorum, and we've been the last three or four without a chairperson. This is 29 obviously causing a lot of problems. There are various options. One option is to streamline the voting membership on �� the committee. Basically, we'd say that there could be as -~ many nonvoting members as you want, but we're not going to be too concerned with them showing up or not. If they want to, 31 that's great for the participation but if not, then at least it won't affect our quorum. Or, taking another approach and 32 -3- � � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AUGUST 10, 1994 � that is to change the quorum requirements under the By-Laws, � and come in with a lesser membership and still be able to - conduct the meetings. Staff's point-of-view is that we have no problem with removing these members from the TAC because � ~ they have not participated, but we hope that the Policy Committee would hold off in filling those positions until you 4 provide direction to staff as to how you would like us to handle the TAC. A second issue that we're having concerns � with and we'd like a little direction on is that the whole ~ purpose of the TAC is to provide technical assistance to the Policy Committee. We feel, that due to the increase in size 6 of the membership to the TAC, it is becoming a non-technical body and we're losing that expertise that really should be 7 provided to the Policy Committee. That's a concern we have. In fact, as staff, we're so-called technicians in the field � but we're only staff and not members of this particular ~ committee and it's really our job to provide our recommendations to the TAC and it's their job then to review 9 and analyze the data and provide recommendations to you. What we're seeing through time is that is changing because it's 10 becoming a little more non-technical in the decision-making process. 11 Mr. Box said, excuse me, but is there any attempt to balance the expertise between engineers and landscape architects, 12 environmental experts and economists, and so on? �� Mr. Denmark said, originially, the TAC was pretty solid in �~ technical expertise that relates to transportation. Meaning, you didn't have to be a transportation planner or 14 transportation engineer but you might have been a State Highway Transportation Department retired employee that has a �� lot of construction experience in roadways, for example. So -' it would be expertise from that point-of-view. Or, a �� landscape architect that deals primarily with transportation �~ issues, and that was fine. But where we've gone over the past couple of years, we now have people who aren't related to 17 that. They are on other boards that maybe share an interest in it and provide excellent information but they really aren't �� a technical person and shouldn't be listed as part of the ~- Technical Advisory Committee. Maybe that's something that the Policy Committee should review and consider and provide 1� �~ direction to us. 20 Mr. Tomlin said Mr. Woods is here Do you have any other � . . comments that you'd like to add. 21 Mr. Woods said, I couldn't agree more with Mr. Denmark. The word technical means that they've been specifically trained to 22 address the specific issues that may be involved in these projects. The TAC seems to have become a forum for different 22 groups to express an opinion rather than really looking at the technical aspects. It has been really difficult to operate. Staff has tried in the past six months to try to bring us 24 together for discussion, but it's been really difficult with only a third of the membership present. I think the first 25 step would be to enforce the By-Laws which states that you must have basic technical expertise in a related field and 26 also that your attendance is a requirement for your place on the table. 27 Mr. Ferralez said, has there been an attempt to diplomatically find out if there's any problem that can be taken care of, 28 such as a different meeting day or hours in order to accommodate the members? �� ~- Mr. Woods said, most of the organizations that are on there, we looked at their attendance record at the last meeting and 30 -4- 31 32 || ( ^ � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AUGUST 10, 1994 � they simply stopped coming. At the last meeting, which was a specially called meeting, staff had made an attempt to 2 personally phone and contact every one as well as send written correspondence again informing each member of the board. They made such an earnest effort that we saw our attendance � _ increase but there was still some groups that failed to be represented. There really wasn't any decision to be made in 4 the letter, only to enforce the By-Laws as such and that placed a certain requirement upon myself as Vice-Chairman to � initiate this correspondence. It certainly wasn't anything - personal other than what I interpreted by responsibility to be 6 to you and to the By-Laws. Mr. Ferralez said, the only reason I asked was I wondered if 7 an attempt had been made to accommodate these members as to the day or time. � ~ Mr. Woods said, staff can probably answer that better than I can. Mr. Denmark said, I agree with what Mr. Woods said. The 10 people that are not showing up are too busy with other activities. We need to recognize that we probably should be 11 looking for someone else that does have the time and expertise to participate. We have no problem moving the meetings, but we don't really feel that's the problem. It's something 12 that's come up rapidly within the last few months. It was especially disappointing because we felt this project that �� we'd been working on was extremely important to the whole MPO -- and to have people not show up is pretty disappointing. A year or two ago, they were all showing up so obviously �� , ~~ they've gotten busy and now it's a problem. 15 Mr. Haltom said, Mr. Chairman, I think the name of the committee and the original function of the committee is what �� ought to guide our actions now because I think where we've �~ gotten off the mark is we've come to look upon it as a representative body that's something broader than this body. 17 I think that was not the original intent of the TAC. It was to provide the kind of expertise that we didn't have. So. I 18 think the answer is, as suggested or alluded to here, is to go back to the original concept. As you look at these members �� that are missing, one of them in particular, I think we can ~~ correct administratively because if a staff member is supposed to be at a committee meeting and does not attend that meeting, 20 it is a matter for the Chairman of this Committee to visit the City Manager. We cannot tell the man what to do, but I can 21 assure you that the Manager can tell him what to do. You do need the kind of expertise that our staff member who is not attending, has and I think we can take care of that But �M ' ^ ' �� that is not the problem. When we started putting Extra- Territorial Zoning Commission members, Planning and Zoning 23 Commission members, and these were people with no more expertise and in most cases, not as much expertise as we have �� because of our length of service on this particular �~ Committee. I would like to suggest that we ask our staff to bring us a more detailed examination of what has happened and 25 to make some suggestions aimed toward getting back to the original intent and then let us, as a group, decide what we 26 want to do about it. The other alternative would be, and you might prefer that, is that the Chairman could appoint a three- man subcommittee who could do the same thing and then come 27 back with proposals to this Committee. But, I think that in terms of expertise, which we have as this Committee's 28 function, many of the people who are now on it, have none. No technical expertise or specialty. I think we should get back 29 to that and reduce the size of the Technical Committee. 30 -5- 31 32 � ^ � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AUGUST 10, 1994 � 2 Mr. Box said, it would be very helpful to me, as a new member, if we had a list of the expertise of those members currently � on the TAC so we can fill in the areas where we need some ~ expertise. We wouldn't want them all to be engineers or all 4 environmental experts, but we need some of all of them. Mr. Denmark said, I talked to the Chairman about this but we � just didn't have time to get that on for this meeting because - we needed to finalize this plan, so we thought that at the � September meeting we could come back with a report if that's ~ what the Policy Committee wanted us to do. We can give you a list of who's on there now, who are the voting members, and 7 who are the nonvoting members, what do the By-Laws say, and what are your options. We can compile that information. 8 Mr. Southworth said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a couple of suggestions. One, I think that it would be a good idea to � ~ go ahead and send out a letter like this to the bodies represented here like the City of Las Cruces, the Town of 10 Mesilla and so forth, just so we can start taking action right now on our members. And the second thing that I' d like to see 11 done and this would be a recommendation we get from staff, would be to recommend to us who should be the voting members and what kinds of basic skills they should have. There's room 12 on the TAC for people who would not be needed at every meeting but who do bring in a certain type of expertise that is, �� depending on what topics are coming up at the following -' meeting, may or may not be required. That's the kind of thing �� we could ask for on a specific topic basis and they would be ~~ nonvoting members because they wouldn't be at every meeting. They would be requested to be at meetings where their 15 expertise is really required. 16 Mr. Haltom said, I think that's good suggestion. Mr. Luchini said, who appoints these people? We do? 1� Mr. Tomlin said, some organizations make those selections and 18 then forward them to us. �� Mr. Luchini said, does the County or City make ~~ recommendations? The reason I ask this is because sometimes we get out of contact as to what we're doing. Sometimes we 20 may appoint buddies just to have them on the board regardless of what experience they may have, and this happens in the � 1 County quite often. We have a big problem. I think we might — have the same problem here, that we appointed people who were 22 recommended only because they were a friend. . . Mr. Tomlin said, for example, the Las Cruces Planning and 23 Zoning Commission, they make a slot open for them, and then they appointed one of their members to sit in that slot. Of �� course, since then Dr. Daw has resigned and they haven't �~ gotten around to appointing someone from that group to take his place. I think the question of technical advisory is 25 important and maybe we want to go back, and one of the things we need to be careful doing is that we have accepted some of 26 these members, some of them are voting, and not to just summarily dismiss them. I think they some contributions to Take and what we may want to do is divide this into the truly 27 Technical Advisory Committee and then the nonvoting advisors to the TAC. From that group, maybe we want to have them 28 select from among themselves one person that would sit on a rotating basis, maybe yearly, as a voting member of the TAC. 29 So that they have "someone" that's interested in the process, -6- 30 31 82 � LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AUGUST 10, 1994 1 but yet maybe not a technical person, but to be there and be that,s group representative. They could be given all of the 2 information~ and if they had comments they want to make, they could make them in person at a TAC meeting with a quorum and � the voting body of the Technical Committee Advisory members � and if they want to be there, then certainly the chair could recognize them. I don't think that's a problem, but that way 4 they're still part of the process and they have a way to contribute and to take part. It might work out and be able to 5 reduce the voting block to a manageable group of people. � Mr. Haltom said, I think you're really building on the ~ suggestion that was made and I think that's good. So, why don't we suggest, Mr. Chairman, or ask that staff bring back 7 say three options of ways we can handle this. A couple have already been suggested. I think the advantage of some of these people is that they give us some political sense of what - the community out there is thinking and some input that is important, too. But the basic purpose is for technical � - advice, so if we can combine these in a way that won't offend people that we have arbitrarily placed on this TAC, I think 10 we're moving in the right direction. 11 Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Woods, didn't you have a couple of people who approached you that wanted to be on the Committee. I think it was somebody from the Dona Ana County Safety Council 12 or someone else? �� Mr. Woods said, yes, I believe there are several other -' organizations where they have had members attending the 14 meetings but they are not actual TAC members Mr. Tomlin said, they asked for some type of official 15 recognition, as a nonvoting member? �� Mr. Woods said, yes, they have, but we've asked them to ~~ contact staff. 1� ~` Mr. Tomlin said, that's something else that I think staff needs to be made aware of and try to accommodate but somewhere 18 along the line you're going to have to make a judgement on where they should be on there even in an advisory capacity, �� whether anybody and everybody should be there. Or should they ~~ be making their comments as part of our process here at the Policy Committee because many of the comments that I heard 20 from public people involved at the TAC meeting were talking about general policy and we're talking about particular �� technical aspects of this plan but wanted to know about -- Walnut. They can go ahead and have Sam's located there and do �� these other things--very good points, but yet, wrong forum. �� So, again, maybe the thing we want to do as a Policy Committee and trying to meet the need for those folks to have a place to 23 state their views, a forum for that, that we might want to set aside some time periodically to allow them to do that at these 24 meetings. Of course they're always welcome to be here and participate, they may just not know that. 25 Mr. Haltom said, maybe part of the answer might be, and you might consider this as an option, is having some of these 26 people who want to be associated with this process to have them in some way as ex-officio, non-voting members of this Committee where more broader aspects of transportation 27 problems are discussed. That way, maybe we'd have somebody here sometime. 28 Mr. Tomlin said, I think that's a real valid point because so 29 many of the people that wanted to be there, I think, wanted to 30 -7- 31 82 U / U ( ' LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AUGUST 10, 1994 � address issues that we deal with and not with the things that the TAC should be dealing with, and they're taking up a lot of 2 time. Maybe part of the reason that attendance has fallen off is that we've lost the direction that many of these people that were originally there were part of and now they figure — they won't be talking about these things we should be. So, they don't show up. Mr. Denmark said, so, it's my understanding that we' ll go � ahead and process this memo and notify the proper entities to - look for another member, and also come back to you with a �� study report on the various information that you need to see ~ plus options on what can be considered for possibly amending the By-Laws to reflect the changes in the Technical Advisory 7 Committee. � Mr. Tomlin said, do an analysis of the people that are ~ associated with the TAC and maybe make that group where they 9 would become an advisory group. Mr. Ferralez said, I think we should thank Mr. Woods for 10 bringing this to our attention. The other members agreed. Mr. Denmark said if it wasn't for Mr. Woods showing up we �� . , . , wouldn't have had a quorum and we would have had to bypass the 12 TAC with this plan. Mr. Tomlin said, Mr. Denmark, anything else? Any of the 13 members have anything else? Mr. Luchini said, I'd like to just make a couple of comments 1� ~~ about a meeting I attended. These were things that came up over the Enhancement moneys for the Bicycle Paths. Several 15 people from different states mentioned that they gave money for bicycle paths but not any money to pave the road. They �� were really upset about that. We had a roundtable discussion ~~ and the Undersecretary of Transportation was there and a couple of other people from Washington. A lot of information 1� ~` was passed around, and maybe something will come out of it. But those comments about the bicycle paths and no paved roads 18 was really a big issue. They're right to a certain extent. �� Mr. Cadena said, Mr. Chairman� I just wanted to be sure that ~~ staff followed up on Mr. Box's suggestion to make a list of each member of the TAC and their expertise, because I think 20 that would really be helpful. 21 Mr. Tomlin said, I think staff got that. Also be sure to send a copy to everyone on the Policy Committee, please. Any other comments? There were none, and the meeting adjourned at 7:35 22 p.m. 23 24 Minerva Sanchez Recording Secretary 26 27 Tommy .~~^^. MPO Policy Chairman 28 -8- 30 81 32 U ` ° M PO LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TOWN OF MESILLA — CITY OF LAS CRUCES — DONA ANA COUNTY LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PUBLIC NOTICE The following is the Agenda for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization' s Policy Committee Meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 10, 1994, at 7 : 00 p.m. , in the Las Cruces City Council Chambers, 200 North Church St . , Las Cruces, New Mexico . The City of Las Cruces will make every effort to provide reasonable accommodation (s) for people with disabilities who wish to attend a public meeting. Please notify the City at least 24 hours before the meeting. Telephone 526-0000 or TDD number, 526-1222 . I . CALL TO ORDER II . REVIEW OF MINUTES III OLD BUSINESS A. Approve and Adopt of the Transportation Plan for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization - Resolution 94-008 . IV. DISCUSSION/OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST V. ADJOURNMENT publish: Sunday, July 31, 1994 . LI nn/ ' l P.O. DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 PHONE (505)/526-0620 LAS CRUC S METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORIZATION OLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: August 10 , 1994 AGENDA ITEM: REVIEW OF MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: Review and Consideration of Minutes - Policy Committee Meeting on July 13 , 1994 . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Policy Committee Meeting Minutes for July 13 , 1994 . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: None . LAS CRUC METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: August 10 , 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Approve and Adopt the Transportation Plan for the Las Cruces Metropolitan Planning Organization - Resolution 94-008 . ACTION REQUESTED: Review and Approval . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Final draft of the Transportation Plan. 2 . Resolution 94-008 - included behind the title page of the Transportation Plan. DISCUSSION: ISTEA mandates that all MPO' s adopt a 20 year Transportation Plan by December of 1994 . Staff has been working on the draft of the Transportation Plan since January 1994 . The public review period began in May 1994 , with the public, staff, TAC, and Policy Committee reviewing the plan at the same time . Staff is asking for final approval and adoption of the plan. The TAC approved the Transportation Plan at a Special Meeting on July 28th. TAC members approved the plan unanimously, with a few recommended revisions . Those revisions have been made to the plan and staff will be prepared to discuss these revisions at the meeting. All public comments have been placed within Appendix A with a formal written response to each comment immediately following. Staff has also cited specific elements and/or page numbers that relate to each comment within the Plan. An overview of the public involvement process and a summary of public comments have been added to the introduction to the plan. OPTIONS: 1) Approve Resolution 94-008 , adopting the MPO Transportation Plan and direct Staff to produce final copies of the Plan and forward them to the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department . 2) Modify Resolution 94-008, and direct Staff to modify the MPO Transportation Plan as per Policy Committee direction. . 3) Deny Resolution 94-008 , and direct Staff to modify the MPO Transportation Plan as per Policy Committee direction. LAS CRU METROPOLITAN PLANNING OVIZATION POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION FORM FOR MEETING OF: August 10 , 1994 AGENDA ITEM: Discussion/Other Items of Interest - TAC Attendance and Appointments . ACTION REQUESTED: Direction for staff . SUPPORT INFORMATION: 1 . Copy of letter from Ben Woods, TAC Vice Chairman, concerning attendance by TAC members and needed new appointments . DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: None . TNI P LAS CRUCES METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION -- ' TOWN OF MESILLA - CITY OF LAS CRUCES - DONA ANA COUNTY July 29, 1994 MPO-94-034 Las Cruces MPO Policy Committee Attention: Chairman Tomlin Las Cruces, NM 88004 Re : TAC member attendance Dear Mr. Chairman: At the July 28th Special Meeting of the Las Cruces MPO Technical Advisory Committee, I directed MPO staff to investigate the attendance for all TAC members within the last 12 months in accordance with TAC bylaws . Each of the TAC members listed below have not attended at least 7511 of all TAC meetings within the last 12 month period. This letter is being sent to you to request that MPO staff be directed to send a letter to these member' s appointing bodies to have a new representative appointed to the TAC. Members : Appointing body: David Church Flood Control Commission Harold Daw Las Cruces Planning & Zoning Commission Richard Golden Las Cruces Public Schools Robert Hollinger Town of Mesilla As you are well aware, attendance is vital to the function of the TAC and the service we provide to the Las Cruces MPO and MPO Policy Committee . I would like to thank you in advance in helping to remedy this situation. Thank you, 1 Ben oods, NMSU TAC ice-Chairman smj C : Brian Denmark, MPO Officer P.O. DRAWER CLC LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO 88004 PHONE (505)/526-0620 Policy Committee Mailing List AGENDA (30 Agendas) Revised: August 5, 1994 HAND DELIVER COUNTY MANAGER'S COMPLEX MPOAG, Mr. Brent Westmoreland MPOAG, Dona Ana County Manager BRANIGAN LIBRARY MPOAG, CITY HALL MPOAG, Mayor Smith MPOAG, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. Jerry Trojan MPOAG, Assistant City Manager, LAS CRUCES CITY HALL Mr. John Keith (10 copies)MPOAG, Public Information Officer Mr. Mike Medley MPOAG, Airport Manager TOWN OF MESILLA MPOAG, ---------------------------------- MAIL Mr. John Baxter MPOAG, FHWA, 604 San Mateo, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. John Fenner MPOAG, Dir. - NMSHTD Trans. Prog. Div, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. George Herrera MPOAG, NMSHTD, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. Pleas Glenn MPOAG, State Land Office, P. 0. Box 1148, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1148 Mr. Ron Forte MPOAG, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504-1149 Mr. George Anaya MPOAG, DAC Road Dept. Director, 2025 E. Griggs St., Las Cruces, NM, 88001 Mr. Ben Woods MPOAG, NMSU-Physical Plant Dir., Dept.3545; Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM, 88003 Mrs. Martha A. Durrenberger MPOAG, P.O. Box 1655, Las Cruces, NM, 88004 Dr. C. Quentin Ford MPOAG, NMSHTD Commissioner, 1985 Crescent Dr., Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Ms. Elaine Cundiff MPOAG, Engler Road Issue, 125 San Ysidro, Las Cruces, NM, 88005 Mr. Tony Sayre MPOAG, NMSHTD Dist. Engineer, P.O. Box 231, Deming, NM, 88031 PACKET: (19 Packets, 11 w/ Minutes) HAND DELIVER MPQPI#af,.. P1amnu=F..Director COunez lea H xCu]ar,v Perxal�lC F 4 .Nxk'Q Volac v atte :Ma.. : CRUCES C*I`FX t ...... _.............. a�zi3 Iox...Salxtr::>£Ea dam:::>:>s»»»:>:»MP4to :» t rpt i:C ee:P4e sts x:_:>: '.,... i ;, t3 S 4 ZTy 4i, .. ... ::...... .. ..... _ _:: t5unllczY iV3ltdh?<l`Odt1']$i` NE1jC] b�1Cj CsStRttL5C4' �flik7Ei zJ��# I�i$ C.xk L C©..... 93 AIiFSZ :KA'i i.14** 13}27:2[fd','�:;>}'�; MPL3PICId::>::>:14tpfi)>:i?aie:>: oii�iEtt®e`:>:22.::>:E:>:>:..;; a: .... ........:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.Y::::...:..............<....... .:..:.:::IdrZf�o.: ui.tc?:: .,.:,Las;;GxueeBDQ3 CpfRIR13& 0 ;&djl $ b )lFi� Mi £+IM H321yO£t�1t�4>: 173gster $?Oa# r ids CruCa& NM 8A$UT ...... ........ ....... .. .... ...... ..........................::: ,:: ::::::::: ::::::: .:'::: ::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::':. .............. ...,.,.:.... t >: Y�tI.. OFtiG iSQxC ilii;:::::: M 33?ISb�'`?': ??: 0310: ::: Alp?11 C:&6:;M& ::.:::.......::::::::::::.:::::::::.:::::................................ ........................tc?bez.<.:: .3 :::: apx.l::Axl,.,.:£as::;:Cr+s Tr;tstee shad f3cs5c ML54£I 1YkPDtt3rCy CAmittic �:M�iuYaef X92 MS11_Ix1 , NM $8005 TYS23 9@%�M C :::>::... .°'......::::'::`:: :::::::::::: "::::^:":: ::....i::,:.; :::: «;: ;:':'�':::: ;::;r::::.; ;:::':::;>:::: ::i::::..:.:::::::, ... .. .. ...a Caz4ana MPr�F'KbI [tea Pxxlicy Gommifte�.:Metsber F � Hox 968 Meazl:la NM 88D4.f ::: ....... ......... ........:.....:. FRE3NT:DESK....? ... .....C?: ...::.. 7 f.3a,id:;...on.er.::::::::::::::::::.::::::::�li�......;; 3f3 satti3ex:::::: c MiCha�� A � 5 M�33,?M:: lila m3er CSs Nims®sara>Sasksz>:::::: :<:':: ::: ><;: „M 3PRQS'r,: rtP X. 12sc�e Mr 8.st#�o A Za..dstt3�.M 24s fir, trRS C#ZtJG . fiv CZT #iAT+f :»»::»»»::>::>::>:<z::<::;;::;::>:.;>;>;:.;:.;:.:P4I?IC:::>:_:::i::L::p:::>Ld ..>:::�lY# Et£43.;>: �StkFSG >:::i? 4XFfik33:::::�?£ :2XTtf tt ...... f z .::: �' .... .::::: ..::::::...::: ��C ��2�GiPtl3bT�i�kT»taF?� >>«<_><:% Gig:'.»i�f��1 MAIL Mr. Jack Lord MPOPK, City of E1 Paso MPO, #2 Civic Center Plaza-8th Floor, E1 Paso, TX 79901-1196 Mr. Dan Stover MPOPK, NMSHTD (fax agenda 827-0431), P.O. box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504 Mr. Richard Montoya MPOPK, NMSHTD Planning Division, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, NM, 87504